Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 61 <br /> <br />the highest density residential district. The increment for the units beyond three (3) <br />units, beyond the first 10,000 square feet, was 1,000 square feet per additional unit. The <br />R-4 increment then is 1,500 and the R-3 was 2,000 which logically meant that the R-2 <br />increment should be 2,500 square feet by comparison. <br /> <br />Ms. Ekas added that the 2,500 square foot increment was also approached from the <br />other side. She explained that the first unit needs 2,500 square feet, the second unit <br />needs 7,500 square feet and the third unit in the R-2 would require another 2,500 square <br />feet. The increment fell into place at this point in the R-2 Zoning. The City's other <br />Zoning Districts were considered along with the actual increment that was implied by the <br />Code. This was then compared to the General Plan Density which appeared in the Land <br />Use Element of the 1990 General Plan mapping. A second increment was also studied <br />and presented to City Council for the Kentfield Project. This was the 3,330 square foot <br />increment which fell out by looking at having three (3) units on 10,000 square feet, with a <br />simple division of this 10,000 x 3 and then applying this across the full acre. Here, they <br />arrived at an overall density of 13. 1 units/acre. This also conformed to the General Plan <br />Density range. No recommendations have been made, however. Staff was open about <br />this incremental information in order that Commission may make a good and appropriate <br />judgment on what is appropriate for the R-2 Zoning area. The 5,000 square feet <br />increment arose out of comments received from the public which included concerns <br />about how the R-2 Zoning was being utilized on the Kentfield Project. Staff found cases <br />in which properties were absolutely over-developed at a higher increment such as <br />Friendly Acres. She stated this did not invalidate the opportunity to consider a 5,000 <br />square foot increment. The Zoning Ordinance allowed for Staff, the Planning <br />Commission or the City Council to initiate a Zoning Amendment. In the current case it <br />was initiated by Staff. She noted all three amendments remain before the Commission <br />for their consideration. Staff hoped the side-by-side comparisons in the Initial Study <br />proved beneficial in this decision-making process. <br /> <br />Commissioner Tabing asked for clarification on some questions and comments raised by <br />Mr. Bautista regarding the number of dwelling units at three (3). <br /> <br />Chair Radcliffe stated one thing to keep in mind was that the size of the lots was <br />increased. This put the three (3) units on 10,000 square feet. Once the lot was <br />enlarged, that is when they need to start looking at the three incremental figure <br />scenarios. <br /> <br />Commissioner Tabing asked if this was how it was to be interpreted because he could <br />also read this as being totally restrictive. <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra stated the practice had been to allow more than three (3) units on lots that <br />were greater than 10,000 square feet through the Planned Development process. The <br />Code is silent, however, because of the past practice of allowing multiple units, greater <br />than three (3) on lots which fit specific criteria. <br /> <br />Commissioner Smith added that what they were doing was trying to establish a <br />framework and guidelines in order to establish continuity in how the City actually <br />interprets the Zoning specifics. He noted when they actually start looking at applications <br />there needed to be something in place that is memorialized as a set of standards which <br />they must adhere to. He stated there had been practices during which they applied their <br />interpretation of the zoning in terms of application approval. Right now, however, it is <br /> <br />Page 10 of 24 <br />