Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees Adu topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gonzales house addition and ADU continued after staff reports plate‑height and tree‑setback conflicts
Summary
The Planning Commission continued a concept design study for the Gonzales property after staff found the proposed addition and ADU could not meet zoning plate‑height limits and would encroach on the six‑foot setback required around significant trees.
The Planning Commission continued consideration of the Gonzales project (Design Study DS24298) after staff concluded the concept design could not currently meet multiple required findings related to zoning plate heights, massing and required six‑foot setbacks from significant trees.
Staff explained the site is heavily treed and the project proposes a 134‑square‑foot addition plus a 457‑square‑foot ADU. The project as drawn generates two compliance issues identified by staff: (1) portions of proposed floor plate heights exceed zoning plate‑height limits because of existing site grade and nonconforming existing plate heights, and (2) portions of the proposed addition would encroach within the six‑foot minimum setback from significant trees as defined in municipal code section 17.48.110(a)(3). Staff told the commission these conflicts prevented affirmative findings for at least four of the seven required concept findings.
The Forest and Beach Commission had separately approved removal of one significant tree (tree No. 12) after concluding the site would retain adequate tree coverage and that removal might preempt future conflicts. Staff noted that Forest and Beach’s findings consider tree issues but do not substitute for the Planning Commission’s design and zoning findings. Staff recommended the hearing be continued so the applicant can revise plans to resolve the plate‑height and tree protection issues.
The applicant, architect Adam Jeselnik, said the project removes more than 600 square feet of nonconforming site coverage, intends to preserve most trees on site, and proposes a bridge‑type footing in one location to reduce root impact. Jeselnik also described alternatives to address plate heights, including counting underfloor area in a way the city has allowed on a past project, and modest plate‑height adjustments where minimum interior ceiling heights would still be met.
Neighbor correspondence raised concerns about square‑footage accounting and ADU allowances behind a 1999 variance (which had reserved 200 square feet to allow future parking but did not expressly prohibit an ADU). Commissioners focused questions on resolving the plate‑height discrepancy (staff estimated an overage on the order of 18 inches in a constrained location) and on whether the project could be redesigned to avoid loss of the significant oak calling for removal. Several commissioners said the site’s many other mature trees influenced their view but agreed the submission should be revised before the Planning Commission makes concept findings.
Action: commissioners voted to continue the application to allow the applicant to revise plans addressing the plate‑height and tree setback issues (tally: yes 5, no 0). Staff advised the applicant to coordinate ongoing consultation with the city forester and planning staff and to return with revised drawings that demonstrate compliance or acceptable alternatives.
