Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Single Family Estate Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission hears request to rezone 1516 McCabe Lane to preserve large-lot residential, applicant plans accessory dwelling

5489763 · July 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A request to rezone 1516 McCabe Lane from PUDR to single-family estate residential (RE) was discussed; the lot meets most RE standards but falls short of the 200-foot frontage; applicant plans an accessory dwelling unit and tree preservation will be required at permitting.

The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a request to rezone 1516 McCabe Lane from Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUDR) to single-family estate residential (RE).

Staff presented aerial and zoning maps, noting the subject lot is approximately 84,000 square feet (about 1.9 acres). The current PUDR district allows a minimum lot size of 13,000 square feet; the RE district the applicant requests has a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet. Staff said the lot meets RE lot-area criteria but does not meet the RE frontage requirement of 200 feet along McCabe; the existing frontage measures about 120 feet. Staff noted the lot has an irregular shape and previously completed platting may affect how frontage rules apply.

The applicant indicated an intent to preserve trees and the property’s curb appeal and to construct an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the future for a family member if rezoning is approved. Staff explained that a tree preservation plan will be required at the time of building permit review and that ADU use must meet the city’s standards (family or full-time employee occupancy, not for rent). Staff also noted that the broader PUDR tract and its open-space requirements would remain in place and would not be altered by this rezoning request.

Commissioners had no further questions on the staff presentation at the work session; staff reported no opposition to the proposal as of the meeting.