Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning MF36 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends MF-36 rezoning on 14-acre site east of Custer Road; one commissioner recused
Summary
Chief planner Caitlin Sheffield and the applicant said straight MF-36 zoning would simplify multifamily development on a roughly 14-acre site; one commissioner recused and the commission voted to forward the item to City Council (vote recorded 6–0). Staff noted the property could be developed as multifamily under recent state law (SB 40) but the applicant requested MF-36 for clarity.
Caitlin Sheffield, chief planner with the City of McKinney, presented a rezoning request to change a planned-development (PD) district to MF-36 (multifamily) for an approximately 14-acre site near El Dorado Parkway and Custer Road. Sheffield said the site is located in an established community district and staff recommended approval.
"The subject property is approximately 14 acres in size," Sheffield said, and she explained staff viewed MF-36 as supportive of a horizontal mixed-use development pattern with commercial services along El Dorado and Stonebridge. The applicant's representative identified himself as Bob Rotor and told commissioners the project team prefers MF-36 because "we think it's better to go under your straight MF 36 ordinance" rather than rely on changes from state law. During the discussion one commissioner said they would recuse themselves from the item and abstain from any discussion or vote; that recusal was noted on the record.
Commissioners and the applicant discussed access points and off-site improvements; the applicant said a site plan and traffic-impact analysis would clarify required improvements and possible signalization at Stonebridge and Custer. Commissioner Buettner moved to close the public hearing and approve the rezoning recommendation; the vote on the motion passed 6–0 and the item will be forwarded to City Council for final action on June 2, 2026.
The record: the transcript refers to the applicant representative as "Bob Rotor," and later in the hearing the same person is addressed as "Mr. Ritter"; the article notes the inconsistency rather than assuming a corrected spelling.
