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

Browse Search

7A Page 59 D. Accessory dwellings; subject also to the definition set forth in 2.5.2 and the provision of Article 37. [R2: Article 6.2] . There shall be limit of one (1) single-family dwelling, one (1) two (2)-family (duplex) dwelling, or one (1) three (3)-family (triplex) dwelling building per lot except for permitted dwelling groups. [R2: Article 6.10.8] . Notwithstanding the provision of Section 46.6, all Planned Development proposals shall conform to the applicable lot or unit density regulations of the Zoning District in which the property is located. [Planned Development: Article 46.7.8] . The minimum lot sizes are: 5000 sq. ft. for a single-family house; 7,5000 sq. ft. for a duplex; and 10,000 sq. ft. for a triplex. The minimum lot sizes translate into the following maximum densities: single family - 8.7 unit per acre; duplex - 11.6 units per acre; and triplex 12.9 units per acre. [2004 Housing Element,S Housing Opportunities, page 1] Mr. Gerald Nagel questioned how many families would be in these developments and whether or not school district modifications were planned to accommodate this. Brad Smith noted that together with Mr. Bill Butler and Mr. and Mrs. Jim and Vera Bennett he owned property on Kentfield Avenue. He spoke to a previous request made to develop on some acreage on Kentfield. In going through the City process, they were informed of their maximum of 26 units in order to develop. This was in 2007, and in 2008 they collectively presented a plan for 24 units. A neighborhood meeting was held and the City had an Open House on this issue. This also included a meeting with the Architectural Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the ensuing modifications to the plan. Ultimately, the City Council approved their project unanimously. He noted this was a thoughtful process in all regards. However, litigation followed. He noted his frustration over the process and their inability to proceed. He felt Staff's current work on clarifying the code would help provide more clarity to the community. He noted they had done nothing illegal and they wished to proceed with their development proposal. Ms. Mary S. Brown noted she was qualified to speak on contracting issues since she and her ex-husband had been in the contracting business for many years. In this vein, she stated that putting 16 families on one acre of land was a great injustice to all involved. She felt the Ordinances were fine as they were and required no amendments. She further spoke to the growing population in the area and the effects of overcrowding on the City. Mr. Joel Butler spoke on behalf of his family who owns R-2 Zoning property located in Westwood. It was his expectation that the development of thisR-2 property would be done in the way the City currently interprets its Zoning Codes and the General Plan. This included the use of the 2,500 square foot increment with an additional unit for each additional 2,500 square feet on lots of more than 10,000 square feet in the R-2 Zone. This resulted in 17 units/acre, consistent with the General Plan which allows 8 to 20 units per acre. He stressed the importance of providing affordable housing in the community. He noted codifying the City's current interpretation of the highest density was a good way for the City to provide this affordable housing in the R-2 Zone by allowing single family, duplex and multi-family housing. He spoke to green development Page 8 of 24