20080408_es

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

March 21, 2008

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 8, 2008

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days; within 300 feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of Design Review to allow construction of a 3,310 sq. ft. single-family residence, placement of a fire hydrant, and removal of nine trees on a 6,250 sq. ft. parcel located on Birch Street in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County (appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission for disapproval). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDATION

Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to disapprove the Design Review application and plans, by denying the appeal, based on the Planning Commission’s findings, pursuant to Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations, that the project does not meet design review standards applicable to the area in question.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment/Goal: The vision includes a commitment to be a responsive, effective and collaborative government, wherein, as part of the goals of this vision, decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. The decision to deny the project, by denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, will ensure that proposed development does not negatively impact the community in the future by ensuring that the current proposal complies with all relevant design review regulations established for the Midcoast.

BACKGROUND

The applicant submitted Design Review applications and plans for two new houses to be built side-by-side, on December 27, 2001. Once the applications were deemed complete, the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC) reviewed the projects at two public hearings on June 14 and August 10, 2006, and subsequently disapproved the projects at a third hearing on September 14, 2006. The applicant appealed these disapprovals to the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 6565.11 of the Zoning Regulations.

The Planning Commission reviewed the appeals on January 10, 2007. The Planning Commission remanded the projects to the CDRC for re-consideration, instructing the applicant to complete 4 items related to: (1) story pole installation, (2) landscape plan, submittal, (3) consideration of second story plate height reduction, and (4) drainage plan submittal.

On April 12, 2007, the CDRC considered the projects again in light of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. The CDRC disapproved the application and plans of the projects, based on disagreement with the applicant regarding the manner in which the Planning Commission recommendations had been addressed. The applicant then appealed the decisions for disapproval to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission considered the renewed appeal on July 25, 2007. Based on information provided by staff and evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the CDRC’s decision to disapprove the application and plans for the project. The Planning Commission determined that the applicant still had not adequately addressed all of the outstanding issues, and that it was unable to make the findings required to support the project. The applicant has appealed the Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors.

DISCUSSION

The applicant/appellant’s points of appeal are addressed in the attached staff report. To summarize, the appellant reiterates his claims that the four items that the Planning Commission requested have been completed. The story poles were installed, but the Planning Commission found that the landscape plan and plate height revisions were inadequate, and the drainage plan was not submitted in time for its review.

The applicant/appellant also asserts that data submitted regarding home sizes in the general vicinity demonstrates that the proposed homes are in scale with the neighborhood. In response, staff’s analysis of home sizes within 300 feet of the subject properties shows that the proposed homes are significantly (250 to 450 sq. ft.) larger than average, supporting the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed designs are not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT


DATE:		March 21, 2008
BOARD MEETING DATE:		April 8, 2008
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:		10 days; within 300 feet
VOTE REQUIRED:		Majority


TO:	Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:	Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of Design Review to allow construction of a 3,310 sq. ft. single-family residence, placement of a fire hydrant, and removal of nine trees on a 6,250 sq. ft. parcel located on Birch Street in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County (appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission for disapproval). This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to disapprove the Design Review application and plans, by denying the appeal, based on the Planning Commission’s findings, pursuant to Section 6565.7 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations, that the project does not meet design review standards applicable to the area in question.

VISION ALIGNMENT
Commitment/Goal: The vision includes a commitment to be a responsive, effective and collaborative government, wherein, as part of the goals of this vision, decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. The decision to deny the project, by denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, will ensure that proposed development does not negatively impact the community in the future by ensuring that the current proposal complies with all relevant design review regulations established for the Midcoast.

BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted Design Review applications and plans for two new houses to be built side-by-side, on December 27, 2001. Once the applications were deemed complete, the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC) reviewed the projects at two public hearings on June 14 and August 10, 2006, and subsequently disapproved the projects at a third hearing on September 14, 2006. The applicant appealed these disapprovals to the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 6565.11 of the Zoning Regulations.

The Planning Commission reviewed the appeals on January 10, 2007. The Planning Commission remanded the projects to the CDRC for re-consideration, instructing the applicant to complete 4 items related to: (1) story pole installation, (2) landscape plan, submittal, (3) consideration of second story plate height reduction, and (4) drainage plan submittal.

On April 12, 2007, the CDRC considered the projects again in light of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. The CDRC disapproved the application and plans of the projects, based on disagreement with the applicant regarding the manner in which the Planning Commission recommendations had been addressed. The applicant then appealed the decisions for disapproval to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission considered the renewed appeal on July 25, 2007. Based on information provided by staff and evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the CDRC’s decision to disapprove the application and plans for the project. The Planning Commission determined that the applicant still had not adequately addressed all of the outstanding issues, and that it was unable to make the findings required to support the project. The applicant has appealed the Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors.

DISCUSSION
The applicant/appellant’s points of appeal are addressed in the attached staff report. To summarize, the appellant reiterates his claims that the four items that the Planning Commission requested have been completed. The story poles were installed, but the Planning Commission found that the landscape plan and plate height revisions were inadequate, and the drainage plan was not submitted in time for its review.

The applicant/appellant also asserts that data submitted regarding home sizes in the general vicinity demonstrates that the proposed homes are in scale with the neighborhood. In response, staff’s analysis of home sizes within 300 feet of the subject properties shows that the proposed homes are significantly (250 to 450 sq. ft.) larger than average, supporting the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed designs are not in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.