File #: 19-3255    Version: Name: Ordinance - Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Change of Zoning from SF-7.5/12, Single-Family Residential District to PD, Planned Development District for Single-Family Residential Uses on Approximately 0.62 Acres Being a Portion
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
File created: 8/29/2019 In control: City Council
On agenda: 10/14/2019 Final action: 10/14/2019
Title: Ordinance - Third and Final Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Change of Zoning from SF-7.5/12, Single-Family Residential District to PD, Planned Development District for Single-Family Residential Uses on Approximately 0.62 Acres Being a Portion of Blocks 36 and 36A of the Original Town of Mansfield, Generally Located at 506-508 Kimball Street; Ben Hartman (ZC#19-011)
Sponsors: Joe Smolinski, Lisa Sudbury
Attachments: 1. Ordinance, 2. Maps and Supporting Information, 3. Exhibit A, 4. Exhibit B
Title
Ordinance - Third and Final Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Change of Zoning from SF-7.5/12, Single-Family Residential District to PD, Planned Development District for Single-Family Residential Uses on Approximately 0.62 Acres Being a Portion of Blocks 36 and 36A of the Original Town of Mansfield, Generally Located at 506-508 Kimball Street; Ben Hartman (ZC#19-011)

Requested Action
To consider the subject zoning change request.

Recommendation
The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 19, 2019, and voted 3-3 (Bounds, Papp, and Weydeck voting no; Knight absent) to recommend approval with the condition that no residential living quarters be allowed in the accessory structures, resulting in a denial. Some of the commissioners had questions and concerns regarding the size, height, and planned uses of the accessory structures. The applicant stated that there were other two-story accessory structures in downtown and the two-story option would provide an option for someone who wanted to have a full “Craftsman experience” with a detached garage as well as an upstairs studio, game room, media room, etc. The applicant also stated that the accessory structures could be used as garages or other uses and that the boxes shown on the plans merely represented maximum building pad sizes, and that if the accessory structures were used as garages, the houses would be narrower to accommodate driveways to the accessory structures. There were questions and concerns about the distances to structures on adjacent properties and while the distances were only 2.1’ and 4’, the applicant stated that they are still providing 5’ on their side and that the adjacent properties are ripe for redevelopment. One of the commissioners had questions about tree preservation and the applicant stated they would try to save trees wherever practical. There were also questions about masonry requirements in downtown, and staff responded that downtown is exempt since ...

Click here for full text