AgdaPkt 2009-06-15 clsd and spc - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Anita Piercey, with time ceded from Claudia Thomas, said her family home is on Union Avenue bordering Kentfield Avenue and she expressed her pride in the City. She talked about her concerns including the proposed housing density, minimal setbacks, traffic congestion, open space versus parking issues, and pollution. She asked for consideration for all the information and for community input for positive changes. Vera Bennett identified herself, her husband, W.L. Butler, and Kentfield Pacific as the property owners. She said they have all wanted to enhance the neighborhood and provide reasonable and affordable housing and that throughout the process 26 units were discussed. She said neighbors had agreed to this number in past meetings. She said they chose a developer to bring back quality and pride of ownership to this area and that they have diligently complied with all requests in working with City staff, the Architectural Review Committee, and the Planning Commission. She questioned the interpretation of the Code in the appeal by Mr. Bautista versus staff's interpretation and application of the Code. She asked Council to proceed with the project. Mayor Foust clarified that she allowed the property owner to speak to balance out the extra time the appellant used earlier in his presentation. Lisa Ladd said she has lived in the Kentfield area for eight years and expressed her concerns about the lack of guest parking, the code as it pertains to three story units, the loss of views, the minimal setbacks, and the high number of units in the project. Pamela McCarthy said she moved to the area three years ago into a single family, one- story home and she expressed concerns with: the density of the proposed development not being in character with the neighborhood; R-2 zoning versus the proposed three stories; possible lack of privacy; limited setbacks from the street; and, what she called inadequate parking provisions. Dave Rollins provided a handout to Council and said he lives on Union. He expressed his concerns with preserving the community's way of life, problems with parking, impacts on water and sewer, increased density, loss of sunlight (from shading), privacy, quiet, affordable housing, the General Plan, R-2 zoning. He opposes development that is not within the Code and the adopted housing element. MIS IralBain to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. At 9:10 p.m. the Council took a break and resumed at 9:22 p.m. Ms. Ekas spoke about the zoning interpretations. She said that in retrospect she wished the interpretation had been validated by the Planning Commission. She provided a bird's eye view of a number of projects (presentation on file). Ms. Ekas addressed parking as well as height. Council asked about the retaining wall and drainage. Mr. Vorametsanti, Supervising Engineer, explained that no project will be approved without being legally compliant and he assured Council of such. Council asked questions about staff's interpretation. Council inquired about current and past practices and Ms. Ekas provided details. She explained the goal is to work with the environment of the site adding some variety, consider common areas, pleasing REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 1, 2009 PAGE 6