Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning officer approves nonconforming-use permit for 305 Belmont Avenue; staff corrects report data
Summary
The planning officer approved a nonconforming-use permit for a proposed two-story home with a junior accessory dwelling unit at 305 Belmont Avenue in Redwood City after staff corrected errors in the report. The project seeks exceptions for a single-car covered garage where two spaces are required and for floor-area limits on an under‑sized lot.
A planning officer approved a nonconforming-use permit for 305 Belmont Avenue in Redwood City, allowing construction of a two-story, three-bedroom home with a junior accessory dwelling unit on a substandard lot.
Michael Nasito, a planning staff presenter, described the project as the demolition of an existing 1,425-square-foot residence built in 1938 and a 275-square-foot detached garage that was converted to an accessory dwelling unit in 2002. The proposed replacement is a two-story, three-bedroom house of about 2,501 square feet that would include a 242-square-foot junior accessory dwelling unit and a 209-square-foot single-car garage; two additional off‑street parking spaces would be provided on the parcel, staff said.
Staff told the hearing that the parcel is substandard in size for the S-17 zoning district: standard lots are 50 feet wide and 5,000 square feet, while the subject lot is about 37.5 feet wide and 3,825 square feet. Because of the parcel size and configuration, the application requests two exceptions: one to allow one covered garage space where a two-car covered garage is normally required, and one to exceed the maximum allowable building floor area in the S-17 zoning district. Staff said the maximum allowable floor area in the S-17 district is 2,600 square feet and that the project’s floor area totals approximately 2,744 square feet — “slightly over” the limit by roughly 144 square feet, as stated in staff remarks.
Staff said they submitted a revised memo to correct several errors in the staff report and that the revised data points are reflected in the record. Staff also stated that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the class exemption assigned in the staff presentation (staff used the verbal designation provided in the record).
No members of the public asked to speak either in the room or on Zoom. The planning officer said the applicant had reviewed the corrected report but was not present for the hearing, and the officer approved the nonconforming-use permit PLN2025-00045 pursuant to the findings and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment A. The officer advised that anyone aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the planning commission by submitting a written application and a $1,962 appeal fee to the Planning and Building Department by Oct. 2, 2025, at 5 p.m.
