Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission continues Gonzales house addition after concerns about plate height and tree impacts
Summary
The Planning Commission continued consideration of Design Study DS24298 for a proposed addition and ADU at 262 (address not specified) after staff said the project currently fails four concept findings, including zoning plate-height limits and a required 6-foot setback from significant trees.
The Planning Commission on June 11 continued review of Design Study DS24298 (Gonzales project) after staff reported the proposal did not meet multiple concept-acceptance findings required by the zoning code and the City's local coastal program. The project would add about 134 square feet to the primary residence and create a 457-square-foot second-floor accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Staff said it could affirm three of seven required findings but could not make four findings in the affirmative. Staff cited plate-height and mass/bulk issues (the proposal exceeds allowed plate heights on portions of the first floor and the ADU), and encroachment of additions into the city's required 6-foot setback from significant trees as identified in a City Forester site assessment (municipal code section 17.48.110a.3 was cited in the staff report). The record notes that the Forest and Beach Commission approved the removal of one significant tree (Tree No. 12) and found the site would retain substantial tree coverage; staff distinguished that finding from the planning findings, noting the latter require demonstration of immediate or reasonably foreseeable public-safety hazards, not only potential future conflicts.
Architect Adam Jeselnik, representing owners Elizabeth Gonzales and Keith Dwayne, told the commission the design keeps as much permeable area as possible and avoids impacts to 20 of 22 significant trees; he proposed using bridge footings to avoid tree-root impacts and described the ADU as a modest insertion in the existing cottage form. Jeselnik said tree No. 12 has close structural conflict with the house and cited the Forest and Beach Commission's approval.
Commission discussion focused on plate-height noncompliance and whether the project could be revised to meet the zoning findings, for example by adjusting plate heights or using underfloor area-counting approaches staff has used previously. Several commissioners said they could not make the required findings as submitted and expressed concern about removing a healthy, significant oak simply to enable an addition. Commissioner comments and staff's assessment led the commission to continue the item for redesign and additional information.
Action: The commission voted to continue the item to allow the applicant to revise the plans to meet the required concept findings. The roll-call vote to continue carried unanimously.
Why it matters: The continued hearing preserves the city's tree-protection and zoning standards while giving the applicant an opportunity to redesign elements that implicate tree protection and plate-height rules. If the applicant returns with revisions that meet the code's findings, the project may proceed; otherwise the commission may deny concept acceptance.
Next steps: Staff recommended and the commission approved a continuance with direction to the applicant to modify the project to support concept findings 1, 4, 6 and 7 (zoning compliance, mass/bulk plate heights, general-plan policies regarding site limitations and tree protection). The applicant agreed to consult with staff and the City Forester on revised plans.
