Title
Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Design Exceptions to a Site Plan for a Traditional Multi-Family Development, Located at 4401 West University Drive
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: May 13, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Development Services - Planning Department
CONTACT: Jake Bennett, Planner II
Caitlyn Strickland, AICP, Planning Manager
Hayley Angel, AICP, Interim Director of Planning
APPROVAL PROCESS: The action of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the proposed site plan may be appealed to the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed site plan due to lack of conformance with Section 206C.3.a. of the Unified Development Code (UDC).
However, should the applicant’s request be approved, the following conditions shall apply:
1. The applicant receive the following Design Exceptions:
a. A Design Exception to Section 206C.3.a. of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to provide a 6’ tall metal fence with masonry columns every 20’ on-center and evergreen screening shrubs along the proposed western property line as an alternative screening device.
b. A Design Exception to Section 206C.3.a. of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to provide a 6’ tall metal fence with masonry columns every 20’ on-center along the northern property line as an alternative screening device.
c. A Design Exception to Section 206C.3.a. of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to not provide a screening device along the southern property line.
d. A Design Exception to Section 206C.3.a. of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to utilize the existing 6’ tall metal fence with masonry columns every 20’ on-center with evergreen shrubs along the eastern property line adjacent to the existing multi-family residential development as an alternative screening device.
e. A Design Exception to Section 206C.3.a. of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to provide a 6’ tall wooden fence along a portion of the eastern property line adjacent to the existing single family home as an alternative screening device.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The applicant satisfy the conditions as shown on the Standard Conditions for Site Plan Approval Checklist, attached.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: December 9, 2024 (Original Application)
February 3, 2025 (Revised Submittal)
February 26, 2025 (Revised Submittal)
April 7, 2025 (Revised Submittal)
ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a 393-unit traditional multi-family residential development (JPI Mixon Multi-Family) on 15.708 acres at 4401 West University Drive.
Typically, site plans can be approved at the staff level; however, the applicant has requested a Design Exception, which requires consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.
Specifically, the applicant requests multiple Design Exceptions to provide alternative screening devices along the property lines of the multi-family development.
All multi-family developments are required to provide a minimum 6’ tall masonry screening wall along all side and rear property lines. The applicant proposes to utilize a mix of existing fences along the southern and eastern property lines and proposes to provide alternative screening devices along a portion of the eastern property line and along the northern and western property lines.
PLATTING STATUS: The subject property is currently unplatted. A final plat of the subject property must be approved prior to the commencement of any development activity on the subject property.
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES:
Location |
Zoning District (Permitted Land Uses) |
Existing Land Use |
Subject Property |
“MF30” - Multi-Family Residential District (Multi-Family Residential Uses) |
Undeveloped Land |
North |
“C3” - Regional Commercial District (Commercial Uses) |
Undeveloped Land |
South |
“PD” - Planned Development District (Detached Single Family Residential Uses) |
Hardin Village Subdivision |
East |
“PD” - Planned Development District and “AG” - Agriculture District (Multi-Family Residential and Agricultural Uses) |
Jefferson Bois D’Arc Apartments and Single Family Residence |
West |
“AG” - Agriculture District (Agricultural Uses) |
Undeveloped Land |
ACCESS/CIRCULATION:
Adjacent Streets: |
West University Drive, 130’ (6-lane) Right-of-Way, Principal Arterial |
PARKING: The applicant has satisfied the minimum parking requirements as specified within Section 206E (Vehicle Parking and Loading) of the Unified Development Code.
LOADING SPACES: The applicant has satisfied the minimum loading space requirements as specified within Section 206E (Vehicle Parking and Loading) of the Unified Development Code.
SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS: The sanitation container screening walls will be brick, stone masonry or other architectural masonry finish, including a metal gate, primed and painted, and the sanitation container screening walls, gate, and pad site will be constructed in accordance with the City of McKinney Design Specifications. The applicant has provided the required notation on the proposed site plan.
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: The applicant has satisfied all landscaping requirements as specified in Section 206A (Landscaping) of the Unified Development Code.
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS: The Unified Development Code (UDC) requires that all multi-family residential developments be screened with a minimum 6’ tall masonry screening wall along all side and rear property lines.
However, the applicant requests Design Exceptions to Section 206C.3.a. of the UDC to provide alternative screening devices along the perimeter of the subject property.
Section 203G.1.e. Approval Criteria: The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a request for a Design Exception if they find that:
I. There is a compelling reason why the existing standard cannot be satisfied;
II. The Design Exception will not have an adverse impact on adjacent existing or future developments;
III. The Design Exception will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare;
IV. The Design Exception is not proposed to reduce financial costs or serve as a convenience to the applicant; and
V. The Design Exception complies with all additional standards outlined in the specific section from which the Design Exception originates.
Based on the criteria above, Staff has no objection to the following two Design Exceptions:
- Allow for a 6’ tall metal fence with masonry columns every 20’ on-center along the northern property line instead of the typical 6’ masonry wall;
- Allow for a 6’ tall metal fence with masonry columns every 20’ on-center and evergreen screening shrubs along the proposed western property line instead of the typical 6’ masonry wall.
The property located immediately to the north of the subject property is zoned “C3” - Regional Commercial District, and Staff believes that the proposed fence with columns will not have any adverse impacts on the commercially-zoned property. The property to the west of the proposed multi-family development is intended to be used for a second phase of multi-family uses and the entire property is zoned “MF30” - Multi-Family Residential District.
Staff has no objections to the above-mentioned Design Exceptions, as there should not be any adverse impacts on adjacent non-residential and multi-family properties.
Staff is not supportive of the Design Exceptions to not provide a screening device along the southern boundary adjacent to the existing single family residential uses. Staff is also not supportive of the request to provide a 6’ tall wooden fence along a portion of the eastern property line adjacent to the existing single family home.
Along a portion of the southern property line, there is an existing 6’ tall wooden fence on the rear property line of the single family homes. For the remainder of the southern property line, there is not an existing fence due to flood plain. There are single family homes with an existing 6’ tall metal fence along their rear property line that are separated from the subject property by a common area. The applicant requests to not provide a screening device along the entirety of the southern property line, as they are wanting to utilize the existing 6’ tall wooden fence the on adjacent properties and the existing 6’ tall metal fence on the properties across from the flood plain and common area.
Wooden fences are not considered an approved screening device in any zoning district as they lack durability and are not considered a long-term solution to the requirement of providing continuous screening to adjacent uses. The properties adjacent to where the applicant is proposing to utilize the existing or proposed wooden fences are all established single-family residential dwellings. Screening devices act as a buffer for separation of uses and to help protect the quality of life and privacy of single-family residential properties when they are located next to more intense land uses. Staff believes that allowing the use of wooden fences would likely result in long-term negative impacts on the adjacent single-family residences due to their inherent impermanence and do not align with the intent of the screening ordinance.
Staff feels that a screening device meeting the requirements and intent of the UDC should to be provided on the subject property and should be constructed of a masonry material adjacent to the single family residential uses.
As such, Staff recommends denial of the proposed Site Plan.
The applicant has provided the required notation stating that all mechanical, heating, and air conditioning equipment shall be screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent residential properties, and the applicant has properly screened the sanitation container per Section 206C (Screening) of the Unified Development Code (UDC).
LIGHTING AND GLARE REGULATIONS: The applicant will be responsible for complying with Chapter 58 (Lighting and Glare Regulations) of the City of McKinney Code of Ordinances. The applicant has provided the required notation stating that the lighting will be in conformance to the requirements of the City of McKinney Code of Ordinances on the site plan.
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS: The applicant will be responsible for meeting all applicable requirements of Section 206F (Architectural Standards) of the Unified Development Code. Architectural building elevations are subject to review and approval by the Chief Building Official, prior to issuance of a building permit.
TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE: The applicant will be responsible for complying with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The applicant submitted a tree survey, subject to review and approval of the City’s Landscape Architect.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:
Sidewalks: |
Not Applicable |
Hike and Bike Trails: |
Not Applicable |
Road Improvements: |
All road improvements necessary for this development, and as determined by the City Engineer |
Utilities: |
All utilities necessary for this development, and as determined by the City Engineer |
Discussion: Under the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant will be required to construct all necessary public improvements prior to filing the accompanying plat, unless otherwise specified in an approved facilities agreement.
DRAINAGE: The applicant will be responsible for all drainage associated with the subject property, and for compliance with the Storm Water Ordinance, which may require on-site detention. Grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit.
FEES:
Roadway Impact Fees: |
Applicable (Ordinance No. 2020-12-091) |
Utility Impact Fees: |
Applicable (Ordinance No. 2020-12-092) |
Median Landscape Fees: |
Not Applicable |
Park Land Dedication Fees: |
Applicable |
Pro-Rata: |
As determined by the City Engineer |
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. As part of the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, Staff has not received any citizen comments through the online citizen portal.