Commission tables design-exception request after debate over removing 36 floodplain trees at McKinney Airport Crossroads

The Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 24 voted to table a design-exception request that would allow a warehouse project at McKinney Airport Crossroads to remove 36 quality trees from a city-designated floodplain. Chair and commissioners said they wanted additional work between staff and the applicant on mitigation options and site alternatives before taking a final vote.

City planner Araceli (staff) told the commission that the applicant’s request represents a 100% removal of quality trees inside the floodplain, exceeding the city’s 30% limit. "Staff recommends denial of the design exception due to the significant deviations from the ordinance standards and the potential adverse impacts to the floodplain," she said, citing concerns about flow velocity, erosion control and the floodplain’s ability to function for downstream mitigation.

The applicant’s representatives emphasized site constraints and offered mitigation measures. Rocco Kersey, speaking for Committed Industrial, said the team "aimed to prioritize the aesthetic of the project by delivering above-code amount of trees to the project rather than just paying the mitigation credits." Civil engineer Jose Gonzalez (Kimley‑Horn) described a detention strategy and a relocated city-design floodplain based on a study the applicant provided, saying the detention facility "will help slow down water and reduce the rate of which we release it" and that the fully developed limits are shown in the exhibit.

Ian Erickson, the city’s urban forester, explained what mitigation funds cover and why in-place trees are valuable. "Trees filter our air and ... filter the water running through the floodplain," Erickson said, and noted the city’s mitigation calculation uses diameter inches to determine replacement requirements. Commissioners pressed for clarity on how many caliper inches are being removed versus replaced; staff noted the mitigation calculation shown in the staff report totals 237 replacement inches (equivalent to roughly 59 replacement trees) for trees that qualify for mitigation outside exempt areas.

A central disagreement concerned which trees count as exempt (trees beneath proposed grading, parking or building pads) and which would remain subject to mitigation if the exception were granted. Staff said the commission’s approval of an exception could effectively make those trees exempt from separate mitigation requirements; others said the developer proposed planting 20 on-site trees and paying mitigation for the remainder. Commissioners asked whether less disruptive site designs or targeted mitigation inside the floodplain could be explored.

After extended questioning and applicant responses, the commission voted to reopen and then table the public hearing to the March 10 Planning & Zoning meeting to allow the applicant and staff to reconcile mitigation calculations, explore alternatives, and present more explicit commitments. The motion to table passed unanimously.