| |||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence | |||
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | |||
DATE: |
October 24, 2005 | ||
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
November 8, 2005 | ||
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
10 days within 500 feet | ||
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | ||
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | ||
FROM: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services | ||
SUBJECT: |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of (1) a Zoning Text and Map Amendment to rezone the subject parcel from R-3/S-3 (Multi-Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); (2) a Major Subdivision; (3) an Exception to the Subdivision Regulations; and (4) certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, to subdivide a 15,009 sq. ft. parcel to create a 9-unit townhome development, at 317 Sixth Avenue in the unincorporated North Fair Oaks area of San Mateo County. | ||
RECOMMENDATION | |||
1. |
Approve the proposed Zoning Text and Map Amendment, Tentative Map, Exception to the Subdivision Regulations and certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, County File Number PLN 2004-00579, by adopting the required findings and conditions of approval as contained in Attachment A. | ||
2. |
Adopt the ordinance to change the subject parcel’s Zoning Map designation from R-3/S-3 (Multi-Family Residential /5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size) to “PUD-131” (Planned Unit Development-131). | ||
3. |
Adopt the ordinance to enact, applicable only to the subject parcels, the “PUD-131” (Planned Unit Development-131) Regulations. | ||
VISION ALIGNMENT | |||
Commitment No. 5: Redesign our urban environment to increase vitality, expand variety and reduce congestion. | |||
Goal No. 11: New housing is clustered with jobs and commercial services along transportation corridors. | |||
The proposed project is a desirable guide for future growth of this area of the County and utilizes the subject parcel in a manner that will increase the vitality of the neighborhood and increases the number of individually owned housing units in the County without negatively impacting adjacent properties. By approving the proposed Zoning Text and Map Amendments, the Board would be reinforcing this goal. | |||
BACKGROUND | |||
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the project parcel from R-3/S-3 (Multi-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) in order to subdivide the parcel into lots that are smaller than 5,000 sq. ft with reduced interior setbacks for a nine unit townhouse project. The proposed project complies with density limits in the R-3/S-3 zoning district. Setbacks to external property lines will conform to the S-3 standards. Development will consist of two buildings with one, two and three bedroom units, each with a two-car garage. The existing apartment buildings and accessory structures will be demolished to accommodate this proposed development. | |||
Planning Commission Action: On September 14, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend that the BOS deny this project based on insufficient evidence to support the first required finding for an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance design requirements. This finding requires that “there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, or the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owner/subdivider.” The Commission focused on the first half of this finding, i.e., a physical condition of the property. However, the Subdivision Ordinance specifically allows exceptions when the proposed development consists of clustered housing, townhouses or condominiums. Although the Commission concluded that there was no physical condition of the property that would preclude compliance with the subdivision design standards it did not discuss the other half of the finding regarding the enjoyment of substantial property rights. The townhomes proposed do not require 5,000 square foot lots and the purpose of the exception process is to acknowledge that fact and allow this type of project to be approved. The Commission agreed generally with the other required findings to approve the project including the PUD findings, the subdivision findings and the other two exception findings. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the subdivision exception. | |||
DISCUSSION | |||
If approved, the PUD will allow the applicant to subdivide the parcel and build nine residential units. The PUD designation and subdivision exception are necessary to allow the zero side yard setbacks between units and the sub-5,000 sq. ft. parcel size. Also, because this project is creating more than five residential units, it is subject to the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This ordinance requires all such developments to set aside 20% of the units for sale for extremely low, very low, low or moderate-income households, in any combination, which for this project would be one of the nine proposed units. The applicant understands this requirement and agrees to it. | |||
FISCAL IMPACT | |||
