AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 55 She noted there were not a lot of ..R..2 Zone projects to make comparisons to at the current time. In doing the study, a few sites were prime for the R-2 Zoning in that they were larger properties or had contiguous properties under the same ownership. These were mapped out in the Initial Study prepared by the Consultants. She stated they were looking at a Code Amendment for lot area in the R..2 Zoning Code, but if the lot areas are converted into what the density would be for a one-acre site, the ranges would be as follows: . 5,000 SF increment = 8.7 units/acre . 3,333 SF increment = 13.1 units/acre . 2,500 SF increment = 16.4 units/acre To keep this in context she noted the same incremental breakdowns for several other zones in the City: . R-1 Zones at the 6,000 square foot standard = 7.3 units/acre . R-3 Zones formula = 19.8 units/acre, the maximum the General Plan allows in this category. Commissioner Bandanna noted he had previously asked Staff for some examples of current sites within the R-2 Zone that have already been allowed more than three (3) units at greater than 10,000 square feet. Mr. Mehra had previously provided him with a grid revealing they were roughly on par with the one-acre lot sizes. The ranges fell at a minimum of about 7.1 units/acre with the maximum at 17.2 acres. Different configurations existed within that range including clustering in some areas. Vice-Chair Borgens asked for clarification on the R-2 Zoning Totals on the chart, specifically for Friendly Acres. She asked why, after the calculations, the end result of units per acre was in the plus zone if the growth was in the minus. Commissioner Bondonno stated it looked as if this actually decreases. Using Friendly Acres as an example, he noted it started out at 5,000 square feet per unit. In looking at the existing units per acre at 8.18, the end result then became 8.14, which is less than the 1.8 which was quoted as the growth decline on the chart. Ms. Ekas clarified this was actually built out over the incremental rating. She noted the list of projects which was provided had been provided previously through some work that was done in the R-2 representing a range of time. The Code had changed over time as well. She noted the Commission was being asked to reflect on what was happening currently. However, the Amendment was being brought forth because the City does amend codes over time. Staff believed there was the need to clarify these codes in keeping with projects that were currently on the books. A lot of questions then arose over how to determine the appropriate number of units on these larger lots on a more recent project. Codification is appropriate, then, not just as an interpretation on a past practice but because certainty and clarity were necessary for the community and developers. Page 4 of 24