Fortuna planning commission approves 26‑foot accessory structure/ADU with condition to add screening

The Fortuna Planning Commission on Oct. 14 approved Resolution PD-2025-3139, allowing a 1,728-square-foot detached accessory structure with a 26-foot height and a 1,162-square-foot, two‑bedroom ADU at a 1.22‑acre parcel on Elizabeth Barkus Way, subject to a condition that screening (Italian) junipers be installed “as soon as” an occupancy permit is issued.

The approval matters to neighbors because the requested accessory-building height exceeds the 15‑foot accessory limit in the city zoning code; opponents said the structure as proposed will reduce privacy and change the character of the residential‑estates neighborhood.

Senior Planner Katie told the commission the subject parcel is in the RE‑20 (Residential Estates) zoning district with a B‑4 overlay and is developed with a 2,172‑square‑foot single‑family residence and a 747‑square‑foot attached garage. The proposal is for a detached accessory structure of 1,728 square feet total, including hobby space on the first floor and a 1,162‑square‑foot, two‑bedroom, two‑bath ADU on the second story. The accessory structure would be sited in the northwest corner of the lot near Sunrise Court; the applicant proposes an approximately 8‑foot side setback though the ADU provisions allow a reduced 4‑foot setback.

Planner Katie summarized the applicable rules cited in the staff report: accessory buildings are limited to 15 feet in height under the zoning code for accessory structures, but exceptions up to 30 feet may be granted by a use permit; the ADU size complies with the 1,200‑square‑foot maximum in the zoning code and will require an administrative ADU permit because it exceeds 800 square feet. Katie said staff found the project consistent with the Fortuna General Plan land‑use designation (Residential Very Low) and that the project qualifies for Class 3 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15303) and Class 32 (§15332) CEQA exemptions for small new construction and infill.

Designer Donald Cleek, who identified himself as the person who drew the plans, said the team first tried a one‑story design but could not achieve the desired square footage; “we did try to be as sensitive as we could in terms of making sure that we match the existing style and character of the existing house,” he told the commission, and said the second floor is not a full second story but is carved from the roofline with dormers to reduce apparent massing.

Several neighbors spoke in opposition during public comment, citing privacy, removed vegetation, parking and HOA concerns. Kyle Bigham, a neighbor at 91 Elizabeth Barkus Way, said the Google aerials in the staff packet are outdated and that “there is nothing to address any sort of privacy on that point,” noting trees along the shared property line were removed in November 2023. A second resident, Sharon, said she found recent, on‑the‑ground tree removal on the owner’s property and urged the commission to “come out and take a look” rather than rely on aerial images.

Other residents raised traffic and parking concerns given the neighborhood’s narrow street, questioned whether the downstairs “craft room” might later be converted to living space, and asked whether groundwater or a natural spring on the property has been studied. Brad Carroll and Henry Corwin expressed that allowing taller and closer accessory residences would change the neighborhood’s character.

An adjacent landowner, Woody Murphy, spoke in support, saying he had no objection to the structure “if it's permitted and he built it as it is permitted.”

Applicant Joseph Wartola (who identified himself at the hearing) responded to neighbors: the ADU “is gonna be less than 1,200 square feet, 1,162,” he said; he said the existing secondary structure on the lot is a shed on pods rather than a concrete slab; he said the side setback to the neighboring parcel is approximately 8 feet (not 4 feet), and he proposed planting tall Italian junipers along the property line as a privacy screen. Wartola said the ADU will have a separate entrance and separate meter and that his “cousin wants to actually live there with us,” indicating an owner/family use rather than a short‑term rental.

Commission discussion included a commission request to make the screening requirement timely. The motion to adopt Resolution PD‑2025‑3139 added a condition requiring the planting of screening junipers “as soon as” an occupancy permit is issued (commissioners discussed adding a reasonable timing requirement tied to occupancy to promote growth without damaging new plantings during construction).

The commission approved the resolution on a 4‑1 roll call vote: Commissioner Eamon — yes; Commissioner Doris — no; Commissioner Hawley — yes; Vice Chair Nichols — yes; Chair Kine — yes. The staff report and resolution (PD‑2025‑3139) list the specific findings and conditions; staff noted the ADU will still require an administrative ADU permit and building permits before construction begins.

Next steps: with the planning commission approval the applicant may proceed to obtain the ADU administrative permit and building permits; the applicant said he planned to present the project to his HOA at its upcoming meeting. The commission also noted that planting and screening conditions can be enforced through the permit conditions and building/occupancy inspection process.

Votes at a glance: Resolution PD‑2025‑3139 — Approve conditional use permit for 1,728 sq ft accessory structure with 26‑foot height and 1,162 sq ft ADU; condition: plant screening junipers as soon as occupancy permit issued. Vote: 4 yes, 1 no.