Title
Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Zone the Subject Property to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally to Allow Single Family and Modify the Development Standards, Located on the West Side of County Road 161 and Approximately 1,350 feet North of County Road 124
Summary
COUNCIL GOAL: Direction for Strategic and Economic Growth
(1C: Provide a strong city economy by facilitating a balance between industrial, commercial, residential and open space)
MEETING DATE: June 23, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Development Services - Planning Department
CONTACT: Araceli Botello, CNU-A, Planner II
Caitlyn Strickland, AICP, Planning Manager
Lucas Raley, AICP, CNU-A, CFM, Director of Planning
APPROVAL PROCESS: The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for final action at the July 21, 2026 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed zoning request.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: March 3, 2026 (Original Application)
April 29, 2026 (Revised Submittal)
June 4, 2026 (Revised Submittal)
ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant requests to zone approximately 25 acres of land, generally for single-family uses.
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES:
|
Location |
Zoning District (Permitted Land Uses) |
Existing Land Use |
|
Subject Property |
City of McKinney Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) |
Undeveloped Land and Agricultural uses |
|
North |
“MF36” Multi-family Residential (Multi-family use) |
Single-Family Residential |
|
South |
City of McKinney Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) |
Single-Family Residential and Multi-family use |
|
East |
“PD” Planned Development (Office, Commercial, and Single-Family uses) and City of McKinney Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) |
Institutional, Undeveloped Land, and Single-Family Residential use |
|
West |
“PD” Planned Development (Commercial and Open Space/Flood Plain uses) |
Undeveloped Land and Agricultural uses |
PROPOSED ZONING: The applicant requests to rezone approximately 25 acres for generally single-family residential uses and modified development standards, as further described below:
Zoning:
o The applicant proposes to rezone the property to a Planned Development “PD” zoning district to allow single-family residential development based on the R-5 and R-3 Residential zoning districts. A complete list of the proposed uses is provided in the proposed development standards.
o Planned Development (PD) districts are intended to accommodate innovative concepts in urban design and land development that may not be permitted under conventional zoning standards. As such, PD districts are expected to provide substantial public benefits to the City, such as enhanced open space, preservation of natural or scenic site features, or other community amenities.
o As proposed, the PD request does not clearly identify any additional benefits to the City or demonstrate how the development would preserve natural features, protect environmental resources, or provide enhanced amenities for the community. Based on the proposed land uses and development standards, the request could be accommodated through a conventional zoning district rather than a Planned Development district with minimal modifications to the proposed product types. While the request includes modifications to standard zoning requirements, the application does not clearly demonstrate the additional public benefits or unique site considerations that would typically support the use of a Planned Development district. As such, staff is not supportive of the “PD” zoning request.
• Setbacks
o The proposed zoning includes modifications to the development standards of the underlying R-3 Residential zoning district. Specifically, the request seeks adjustments to lot of standards applicable to single-family residential development, as summarized below:
|
Lot Dimensions |
R5 District |
Proposed Change |
R3 District |
Proposed Change |
|
Lot Area |
5,000sf |
|
3,000sf |
|
|
Lot Width |
40ft |
|
30ft |
|
|
Lot Depth |
80ft |
|
75ft |
|
|
Front Setback |
20ft |
|
15ft |
5ft |
|
Rear Setback |
10ft |
|
10ft |
|
|
Side Interior |
5ft |
|
5ft |
0ft “lot line”/6ft between buildings |
|
Side Corner |
15ft |
|
15ft |
|
o As proposed, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the required front setback within the R-3 Residential District from 15 feet to 5 feet. This reduction would significantly decrease the area available between the home and the street for landscaping, required tree plantings, and other streetscape elements that contribute to the residential character of a neighborhood.
o It is worth noting that, under the Unified Development Code, the smallest front setback required within conventional residential zoning districts is 15 feet in the TR-1.8 Townhome Residential District and R3 Residential District. Brownstone-style homes are typically considered a townhome product, and townhomes can be successfully developed within zoning districts that maintain this setback standard. The front setback is intended to provide an appropriate transition between the public realm and private residential development while accommodating landscaping, required tree plantings, and architectural features. Maintaining the existing 15-foot setback helps preserve these elements and contributes to the overall appearance, functionality, and livability of the development. As such, staff are not supportive of this request.
• Screening
o Typically, single-family residential developments are subject to screening requirements along thoroughfares and where adjacent to nonresidential uses or zoning districts. These requirements are intended to provide visual buffering and compatibility between differing land uses, as outlined below:
|
Thoroughfare |
Non-Residential |
|
Minium 6’ masonry wall, canopy trees, and shrubs &ground cover |
Minium 6’ masonry wall |
|
Minium 6’ wrought iron or tubular steel with masonry columns, canopy trees, and bed of ground covers |
Minium 6’ wrought iron or tubular steel with masonry columns and shrubs |
|
Minium 6’ evergreen shrubs, canopy trees and ornamental trees, and bed of ground covers |
Minium 6’ living screening in circumstance for preservation of existing trees in wooded areas. |
o The proposed regulations require masonry wall screening; however, the regulations don’t specify the height of the wall or clarify whether required landscape plantings will be provided along the project's frontage adjacent to the future North Ridge Road (County Road 161). Without these details, staff is unable to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed screening treatment along the thoroughfare.
o Additionally, the request would eliminate the screening requirements that are typically applied when residential development is adjacent to a nonresidential use or zoning district. While the request appears to be based on the presence of wooded areas and floodplain on neighboring properties, the development code already provides flexibility to reduce or waive screening requirements when natural features offer adequate buffering. Eliminating the screening requirement entirely raises concerns because the property to the west is zoned for commercial development along the future US 380 bypass corridor, while the property to the north and a portion of the property to the south are planned for multifamily development. Retaining the screening standard will help ensure that appropriate buffering is provided as surrounding properties develop and land use patterns evolve over time.
o Screening requirements are intended to minimize potential land-use conflicts, protect the privacy of residents, and promote compatibility between residential and nonresidential uses. Given the uncertainty surrounding future development patterns in the area, staff has concerns with the proposed screening regulations as proposed.
• Landscaping
o Typically, single-family residential lots ranging from 4,001 square feet to 11,999 square feet are required to provide two canopy trees per lot, while lots less than 4,000 square feet are required to provide one canopy tree. Additionally, a minimum of one tree, or one-half of the required trees, must be located within the front yard.
o The applicant proposes substitute ornamental trees in place of required canopy trees for lots less than 50 feet in width and to provide one canopy tree per lot in alternative locations, including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, detention facilities, open spaces, or other common landscape areas.
o The UDC provides relief for the required canopy tree in the R3 zoning district by allowing street trees to satisfy the requirement. Instead of working towards this requirement, the PD regulations instead move those trees to other common areas. While the required number of trees still being planted is helpful to the overall development, the intension of canopy trees in front yards is to specifically enhance the quality of life by increasing walkability through the shading of sidewalks. The planting of ornamental trees will not meet this intent and as such, staff is not supportive.
Given the number of concerns regarding the proposed request and deviations to the development standards as outlined above, Staff recommends denial of the request.
CONFORMANCE TO THE ONE MCKINNEY 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A key aspect of the ONE McKinney 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to provide direction related to desired development patterns in the city and to inform decisions related to the timing and phasing of future infrastructure investments. To assist in guiding these decisions, the plan includes a set of Guiding Principles that provide overall guidance and a Preferred Scenario and Land Use Diagram that illustrates the desired development patterns in the city. The Preferred Scenario and Land Use Diagram are built upon a series of distinctive districts, each with a specific purpose, focus and market. Each district consists of a mix of placetypes that identify the predominate land uses and desired pattern of development for the district.
• Guiding Principles:
The proposed rezoning request is generally in conformance with the Guiding Principle of “Diversity (Supporting our Economy and People)” established by the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the proposed request has the potential to provide “diverse economic engines… broaden the tax base and make the City’s economy more adaptable and resilient”. Additionally, the request provides “expanded housing options and neighborhood choices that are accessible, attainable and appealing to people at all stages of their lives.”
• Preferred Scenario and Land Use Diagram Characteristics:
Per the Preferred Scenario and Land Use Diagram, the subject property is located in the Northridge District and is designated as the Suburban Living placetype.
Business and Aviation District envision neighborhoods that provide population to support nearby commercial and professional office uses. They generally feature subdivision layouts, buffers from non-residential development, and lot sizes consistently less than 1/2 acre.
• Land Use Diagram Compatibility:
When considering land use decisions, the City should determine that a project aligns with the Land Use Diagram and/or meets a majority of the plan’s established criteria to be considered compatible with the Land Use Diagram. The proposed rezoning request aligns with the Suburban Living placetype so could be seen as being in conformance with the Land Use Diagram.
OPPOSITION TO OR SUPPORT OF REQUEST: Staff has received no letters of support to this request and no letters of opposition. This does not include emails or letters that may have been sent directly to members of the Council or Commission.