What the Public Record Shows: McKinney Site-Plan Case 25-0081SP
A primary-source brief on the McKinney Islamic Association site plan — what is documented,
what the record answers, and the short list it does not.
Case 25-0081SP (SITE2025-0081)Body McKinney Planning & ZoningSite 5301/5311/5321 Virginia Pkwy (~5.57 ac)Compiled 2026-07-27
Read this first. This brief separates three very different things and labels every item accordingly:
documented public-record facts, questions the record raises, and unverified claims
now circulating that are not established. LION examines whether the City applied its own
rules; it does not characterize any religious community, and nothing here is an accusation against the
applicant. This is not legal advice. Items marked Unverified should not be
repeated as fact. Every citation below links to its public source.
Watch: the record in eight minutes
A narrated walkthrough of this brief — the 1997 PD ordinance, the
15,000-sq-ft-per-building floor-area cap, and the questions the plan has not yet answered. Every claim on
screen is a public document cited below.
⚑ Two points the plan does not yet show it meets
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.
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.
Applicant / useMcKinney Islamic Association — religious assembly
ZoningPD-O (Office), Ord. 97-05-34 as amended 2017-04-041
Masjid~15,000 sf · 46 ft · 2 stories
Classroom bldg~10,000 sf · 38 ft · 2 stories
Gymnasium~7,000 sf · 35 ft · 1 story
P&Z (recommendation)2026-07-14 · 7–0–0 · consent
City Council (final action)2026-08-04 · consent agenda
How it got here
1997
Property placed in Planned Development Ord. 97-05-34, sub-district PD-O (Office). Base height limit: 35 feet.
2024
A rezoning request (case 24-0048Z / 24-0048Z2, PD → C1) draws 60+ speakers, is recommended for denial by P&Z, and is withdrawn.
2017 → 2026
PD amendment 2017-04-041 re-affirms the 1997 standards (adds a single-family option only). In 2026 the applicant returns with a site plan under the existing PD zoning — no rezoning. This PD is not a staff-only approval: Ord. 97-05-34 §4 requires the site plan to be reviewed and approved by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council.
2026-07-14
Planning & Zoning heard site plan 25-0081SP on the consent agenda and voted 7–0–0 to recommend it. Per the draft minutes, the recommendation is "forwarded to the City Council for final action at the August 4, 2026 meeting." (Citizens who spoke at P&Z spoke in support.)
2026-08-04
Documented fact The City Council item — file 25-0081SP2 — is posted on the August 4, 2026 Regular Meeting consent agenda for final action. Council, not P&Z, is the final approval body 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.
The City’s live zoning layer, queried at this parcel. It returns Zoning = PD (Planned
Development), governed by Ordinances 2017-04-041, 1997-05-34, and 1997-05-33. (Aerial:
Esri World Imagery. Zoning & parcel outline: City of McKinney Planning_Zoning map service. Click to enlarge.)
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."
The PD sets a 35-foot maximum building height; the plan labels the masjid at 46 ft and the
classroom at 38 ft. But McKinney's base code (the UDC) supplies two documented ways a taller
building can still comply, so "46 > 35 = violation" is incomplete:
UDC §204 (Measuring Building Height) — for roofs sloped 5:12 or steeper, height is measured
"to the midpoint of the roof" — not the ridge; and church steeples, domes, and spires are treated as
exceptions, not counted as building height.
UDC §204 (Height Measurements & Exceptions) — in any district where churches are allowed, the primary church
structure "may exceed the standard maximum height … 75 feet," conditioned on added setback
(3 ft per 1 ft over), a minimum 50-ft setback, and a 25-ft landscape buffer on all lines.
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.
Site plan (C-2.0). Labels a "20′ STREET BUFFER" on the Virginia Parkway frontage.
Full site plan PDF.Landscape plan (L1.01). States a "25 ft landscape buffer … all property lines" and notes
evergreens set "to obstruct views of building which exceeds building-height code."
Full landscape plan 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.
The approval path — what happens next
The August 4 Council vote is one gate, not the last. A site plan under existing PD zoning fixes the
ground-level layout; it authorizes no construction. Because the tract is unplatted — Collin CAD carries it as
an abstract tract ("ABS A0578 J M McReynolds Survey, Tract 47, 5.5746 acres"), not a platted lot — several
code-required steps remain, and that is where the traffic study becomes mandatory.
1 · Site plan in progress
P&Z recommendation (7–0–0, 2026-07-14) → City Council final action, 2026-08-04 (file 25-0081SP2).
After Council acts, the decision is final: under UDC §203F.2 only the applicant or the Director of Planning
may appeal (within 7 calendar days); third parties have no administrative appeal, and recourse is to the courts.
2 · Plat (initial) not yet filed
The unplatted tract must be platted before the City may issue any improvement permit
(UDC §301(e)) or connect utilities (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §212.012). The plat is where the proposed
Virginia Parkway right-of-way dedication and the fire-lane / mutual-access / drainage easements are actually
dedicated (UDC §305.B.3.c). As of this writing no plat case appears in the City's development-case records.
3 · Traffic Impact Analysis triggered at the plat
A TIA is required "at the time of platting" once a development exceeds 100 peak-hour trips
(Engineering Design Manual §2.13.C), and the City's Engineering Department must review and approve it
(§2.13.C.7). By rule the traffic study must be "submitted and approved prior to the submittal of a final plat"
(UDC §305.B.3.c.XVIII). Design objective: Level of Service D or better.
4 · Construction plans → building permits
Engineering approves civil/construction plans; public improvements are installed and accepted before the
plat records (UDC §302.B). Building permits — issued only after platting — trigger fire-code / occupant-load
review and roadway, water, and wastewater impact fees.
Bottom line for the road ahead: the questions this brief raises about height and
floor area are for Council on August 4; the questions about traffic and access are decided later, at the plat,
under a rule that requires the traffic study to be approved before the plat is even submitted.
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.
Highlighted from the primary source. LION highlight added to the City's own record.
