McKinney council backs airport terminal site plan, approves landscaping exceptions 5-2

McKinney — The McKinney City Council voted 5-2 on Jan. 7 to adopt a resolution expressing support for the site plan for a new airport services terminal at 1915 FM 546 and to send the plan, which includes two design exceptions for landscaping, to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Assistant City Manager Barry Shelton told the council the two exceptions would reduce required landscape islands in the parking lot and reduce trees near the drive approach to FM 546. "The reason for that primarily is for trying not to have a big tree canopy, too close to the runways because of the attraction to birds," Shelton said during the presentation.

The resolution does not itself approve final construction; it signals the council—s support so the Planning and Zoning Commission can consider the site plan at its upcoming hearing. Shelton and other staff described the exceptions as safety-driven: avoiding large canopy trees near airside operations to reduce bird strikes. The UDC (Unified Development Code) already allows removal of certain trees inside airside areas; the exceptions extend similar considerations to the proposed terminal area just outside that zone.

Public comment at the meeting included multiple speakers who urged the council to move the airport project forward. Business owner James Bresnahan, who said his business sits about two miles from the airport site, said the terminal would bring visitors and spending to McKinney. Former councilman Pete Hough urged long-range thinking, including planning for a second, parallel runway in future phases, calling a second runway a "dream" the city should keep in planning documents.

Council discussion focused on two themes: near-term site design and longer-term financing and expansion. Council members and staff clarified that approving the site plan as presented would not by itself prevent a future second runway, but that additional land purchases north of the current property would be required to build one. Staff said the alignment of a potential second runway would likely be east of the existing primary runway and that a future runway would probably be shorter and aimed at general aviation users.

Several council members emphasized financing constraints. One council member noted voters rejected a prior ballot measure that would have used general obligation debt for a terminal, and said the council should avoid using property-tax-backed debt. Council members discussed alternatives — including bonding airport revenues and public-private partnerships (P3s) — but did not approve any financing approach at the meeting.

The council vote on the resolution was 5 in favor and 2 opposed. The resolution moves the site plan, including the two landscaping exceptions, to the Planning and Zoning Commission for formal consideration and any required approvals.

Looking ahead, city staff said design exceptions will remain part of the P&Z submittal and that funding and final design decisions will return to council in later proceedings. Staff and council members also discussed that any runway expansion would require purchase of adjacent land and further environmental and FAA coordination.