McKinney council approves 288‑unit affordable housing project despite resident concerns about roads and rural character

The McKinney City Council voted on Feb. 3 to approve a voluntary annexation and MF‑36 zoning request from the NRP Group that paves the way for a 288‑unit multifamily development on about 15.7 acres at the southwest corner of FM 1461 and Baxter Well Road.

The applicant, represented by attorney Bob Rotor, described the project as a public‑private partnership with the McKinney Housing Finance Corporation and said the development will include a mix of affordable units at 30%, 60% and 70% area‑median income (AMI). Rotor told the council the proposal includes on‑site amenities and services — including an after‑school program — and cited a one‑bedroom example rent of $660 for a 30% AMI unit. He said the development is modeled on the developer’s prior McKinney project, The Independence. (Bob Rotor)

“Because this is a public‑private partnership, we have leaned into lowering the AMI requirements,” Rotor said during his presentation. He also explained that the developer has agreed to build road frontage improvements, intersection accommodations and other on‑site infrastructure as part of the annexation agreement. (Bob Rotor)

Supporters said McKinney needs more attainable housing. Jacob Harsh, a lifelong McKinney resident, urged the council to consider the barriers facing young workers and service employees who cannot afford local housing, saying a lack of attainable options pushes people out of the community. (Jacob Harsh)

Opponents — many of them neighbors who live on or near Baxter Well Road — urged the council to delay or reject the annexation until off‑site infrastructure is improved. Residents raised multiple specific concerns: Baxter Well Road and nearby stretches of FM 1461 are narrow and, they said, unsafe for the traffic volumes a large multifamily complex would generate; Prosper Independent School District capacity and bus routing were questioned; and speakers described loss of rural character, light pollution and potential impacts to wildlife. (Multiple residents including John King, Sandra Ortega King, Morgan Rizzo, Stephanie Weinberg, Tasha Baliki Blanton and Raul Salas)

“Baxter Well Road is not capable of supporting a multifamily development,” resident Stephanie Weinberg said, describing narrow lanes and thin pavement. (Stephanie Weinberg)

Council members debated those concerns against broader housing goals. Several members said the project aligns with the city’s comprehensive plan and noted that annexation gives the city authority to impose construction and maintenance standards that do not apply in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). One council member referenced regional employer needs — including staffing challenges at nearby Baylor Scott & White facilities — as justification for adding deeply affordable housing near employment centers. (Council discussion)

Planning & Zoning had recommended denial of this item on a 3–2 vote; staff recommended approval. After discussion and a motion recorded in the council minutes (the mover and seconder are identified in the transcript), the council approved the annexation and zoning. The transcript records the motion as carrying; the verbal tally in the recording is garbled, but the council chair announced approval. (Council vote)

Next steps: the approval authorizes staff to process the annexation and entitlement steps; specific site‑development plans, traffic analyses and any required construction of intersections or frontage improvements will be negotiated through the annexation agreement and subsequent permit reviews. The applicant and staff indicated that traffic impact analysis and required roadwork will be determined as part of engineering review and the annexation agreement. (Staff: Raley)

Why it matters: The vote advances one of the city’s largest near‑term affordable housing proposals and highlights a recurring local tension — balancing rapid growth and workforce housing needs with neighborhood concerns about infrastructure, safety and preserving rural character. The council’s decision assigns the risk of off‑site deficiencies in some cases to county or state agencies, while using voluntary annexation to secure on‑site standards and developer‑funded frontage improvements.

Provenance: This article is based on staff presentation and applicant remarks (topic introduced SEG 833; last related remarks SEG 1838), public comments (first supportive comment SEG 1196; last opponent comment SEG 1766), and the council’s motion and vote (discussion and vote recorded SEG 1766–SEG 1838).