These are the specific, code-cited questions a resident can raise so the Council approves only a compliant plan. A city must approve a plan that complies — and may reject one that does not. Click either to jump to the full detail and sources.
1 · The 15,000-sq-ft-per-building floor-area cap The PD limits any single building to 15,000 sq ft of floor area — a cap the height exception does not waive. The plan’s two-story buildings sit on 15,000- and 10,236-sq-ft footprints, so each appears to hold roughly double the cap, and the plan never states gross floor area to prove otherwise. Jump to the finding & sources → 2 · The 25-ft landscape buffer The height exception requires a 25-ft landscape buffer on every property line. The site plan labels both street frontages a 20-ft buffer — 5 ft short — while the landscape sheet says 25 ft. The two approved sheets cannot both be right. Jump to the finding & sources →Location & zoning
The tract at Virginia Parkway and Crutcher Crossing, and its zoning — from the City's own public "Project Maps" exhibit. Click either image to enlarge.
The case at a glance
How it got here
Is the 1997 zoning still in force? The City’s own live map says yes.
A fair question: how do we know the 1997 ordinance wasn’t quietly repealed or replaced? Because the City’s live zoning system still attaches it to this exact parcel today — and you can check it yourself in one click. A repealed ordinance would not appear.
Why doesn’t the 2022 Unified Development Code undo it? The UDC’s own transition clause (§106) continues prior districts, and Texas Local Government Code Ch. 245 protects them. And the only amendment — 2017-04-041 — merely added a single-family option; it never touched the space limits.
The central question: does the height comply?
This is where most of the public conversation sits — and where the record is more nuanced than either "obvious violation" or "nothing to see."
Findings — filter by status
Every item is tagged and every source links out. Click a status to filter.
The plans themselves
The two approved public sheets. The key finding above turns on what these two documents each say. Click to enlarge, or open the full PDF.
Bottom line
The plan substantially complies — but on two points it does not, on its face, demonstrate compliance.
Most testable requirements are met: the religious-assembly use is permitted by right (no special permit needed), and parking, lot coverage, landscaping, buffer trees, screening, ADA, fire lanes, and sidewalks all meet the code as shown. No clean, standalone violation is certain. But on two points the plan does not demonstrate compliance, and under the law the burden is the applicant’s: (1) the 25-ft landscape buffer the height exception requires — the controlling site plan shows 20 ft on both street frontages while the landscape sheet shows 25 ft, so the set is internally inconsistent; and (2) the PD’s 15,000-sq-ft-per-building floor-area cap, which the plan’s own two-story footprints appear to exceed and which its stated figures do not resolve. A city council must approve a plan that complies and may reject one that does not — so the Council would have a lawful, code-anchored basis to require both reconciled (a consistent 25-ft buffer on every line, and floor plans proving no single building exceeds 15,000 sf) before the plan can be found compliant. The architectural floor plans and elevations are the records that would settle it.
What would require a records request (PIA)
Almost everything above is public. Only these internal documents would need a Texas Public Information Act request.
Documents cited
Every source is a public record, linked directly. Nothing in this brief required a records request.