 So, if I could ask my panelists to go ahead and respond to those prompts and we can get some sound checks going. Good morning Kimberly, can you hear me. Yes, I can many thank you. Good morning Kimberly this is Andy. Good morning Andy. I can really this is Adam. Good morning Adam. Good morning Chris tonight. I think we're all here Andy. Thank you. Good morning everyone and I'd like to call to order the. August 19th meeting of the zoning administrator. My name is Andy Gustafson, and today I'll take you through this agenda. This is a remote meeting. And we are going to hold it as we would any other face to face meeting. We have our agenda and we'll go through the items in order. Today we have a new element to our agenda that we'll go through. I'll explain shortly concerning zoning code interpretations. But before we do that, I'd like to just review with you the way in which public participation occurs in this setting. As we go through the agenda items, I'll call upon staff planner, the project applicant team, and the public in that order to offer comments. And when I do, please either use the hand icon symbol to be acknowledged and be able to speak you'll have to unmute yourself, or if you're on the telephone I don't see that we have any callers. That should someone call in press star nine and you'll be recognized and be able to speak. So, the first thing we do is offer opportunity for the public to comment on a matter that's not on the agenda but within the purview or authority of the zoning administrator if you wish to make a public comment these raise your hand you'll be recognized. Seeing none, I'll now move to the next item which is our new feature on our agenda from time to time we'll be having zoning code interpretations. And today we have to the intent of this is to provide opportunity and notice to people interested in a variety of interpretations that might come up of our zoning code. So we have to as I mentioned one is a zoning code interpretation of our outdoor lighting ordinance. And the second is a zoning code interpretation regarding our allowed land uses and permit requirements for industrial districts and the definitions of terms regarding cannabis processing facilities. What I'd like to do is to ask those of you who are in attendance if any of you wish to speak to that matter, please raise your hand and we'll be recognized. Seeing none, I'll close this part of the agenda and let you know that anyone in attendance on that on these two items and also these public meeting items that are coming forward. I have a Monday appeal period and I need to look at my calendar to find out when that concludes is typically a Monday of following the week after the hearing which would be August 30. So by the end of the day on August 30, if you wish to appeal a matter that's heard or decided on at this meeting, please contact the project planner and find out how to do so. So now, we move on to our first scheduled item for this meeting and 4.1 it's a public hearing on a minor hillside development permit at 3957 Rankin Ridge Drive and the project planner is Manette Chicago. Good morning, Mr. Gustafson and thank you. I'm going to share my screen right now. So, okay. Good morning, everyone. The project before you today is a public hearing. As Mr. Gustafson mentioned, this is a minor hillside permit for the property located at 3957 Rankin Ridge Drive. The proposed minor hillside development permit is to make minor changes to revise the plans that previously were approved to incorporate the open porch into the primary residence on the north each side of this residence. And that enclosed look at the porch that is enclosed in that area will encroach into the area would slope more than 10%. And also, this permit will include an addition of 140 square 40 square feet cantilever porch, and also some modification to the pre fire driver layout, but going to explain each of those changes with detail in my slides. So, here where the project is located, the general plan then use these very low density residential and the zone for this project is PDV stands for plan development, and the site is located in RC Resilience City Ordinance. Here is the pre fire lot. As you can see the location of the house and the driveway access from their Rankin Ridge. So, the driveway access from the Rankin Ridge will stay at the same location. There are some modification made to the house location. I will also show the detail and the original house was also a two story house and the new proposed one is going to be a two story also. So these are the views from the street for the previous house from the street around the house Rankin Ridge and Chandler circle. As you can see the house was screened by some trees and landscaping. And here are the street views from the new house. Most of the trees were destroyed and burned because of the fire so you can see the two story house more visible. Here I'm trying to explain what's happening so on the left side we have the pre fire house, which was 44,322 square feet. And on the right side we have the new proposed house which is 4565 square feet. And here you can see the driveway still at the same location but there is a circular driveway proposed for the lot. That area is still going to be flat, pretty flat and it was already disturbed. The new garage will be also extended but still going to be on the flat area. So, there are some additions to the house. I'm going to also show what are the changes. So, when the building permit was submitted for the construction of the house and it was approved, it was 4206 square feet is being shown on the right side in the slide. So, this is what it was approved. Then the applicant asked for a modification to the approved building permit. I'm trying to show both of those changes in the red rectangular. So, as you can see there was an open porch on the northeast side. So, the applicant has decided to enclose that area and incorporate it into the house. Also proposing to add a cantilevered porch. This enclosure expands the size of the house from 4206 square feet to 4565 square feet. The only area that's going to be on the slope more than 10% is the green triangle. I'm trying to show it here on the left side. That area is the only one that will disturb the slope more than 10%. The porch cantilever will not disturb the slope. So, here again as you can see the area that will be disturbing the slope more than 10% is a small triangle at the corner. The rest of the house will remain on the area that was already disturbed and doesn't have a slope more than 10%. Okay, here I'm trying to, I will try to show what's happening in the elevations. So, as I mentioned, let me see. Okay, the green areas are the areas that will be on the slope more than 10%. As you can see on the elevation, the porch is cantilevered. On the lower right side, I'm trying to show where the house is proposed and where that addition will be. The proposed enclosure will not increase the height of the existing house. However, the foundation for the enclosed addition will increase the apparent height of the building from the street. And also the majority of the driveway area is on an area with slope less than 10% and it was already disturbed. So, here is another elevation. It shows the location of the cantilevered porch and where the foundation will be disturbing the slope more than 10%. I have a notice of a sense to neighbors between 600 feet and an onsite site was also posted. I have received one email from a neighbor opposing the proposed project. The comments are that the provided materials submitted for the review are insufficient. And they need to provide complete assessment of the adverse visual impacts of the proposed project at Jason properties and homes and the hillside permit should be comprehensively assessed by the city of Santa Rosa in full compliance with Sequa, including a complete visual analysis. Also, there was a request from the same person that the zoning administrator should hold the hillside permit application until completion of the comprehensive visual assessment of the proposed project and reevaluation of the Sequa compliance for the project based on the additional information provided by the visual study, including all reasonable mitigation measures to minimize the adverse impact visual impacts of the proposed project on the public and the adjacent homeowners. So, this project has been reviewed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and it qualifies for class three exemption under section 15303, in that the project consists of minor modification to an existing single family. Also, a condition has been added to add more landscaping along the property on the cantilever drive to screen the new foundation. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor hillside development permit for the property located at 3957 Rincon Ridge Drive. And that was staff presentation, my email address and information also are on this page for anyone who wants to contact me, I'm available. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't have any questions about your presentation. I now have a opportunity for the applicant and they're keen to respond or add more information. If so, if you wish to do so please raise your hand if you recognize. And Monet, do you see the applicant. Yes, the architect Jeff Farrell there you go he's available. Mr Farrell please. Please unmute yourself and you're ready to comment. Thank you. Thanks Monet, no further comments we agree with the presentation and think it was very well stated. Okay, and I assume you've read the resolution and and you understand the conditions of approval. You're not muted Jeff you can just go ahead. He said we have read those. Okay. It's hard to hear for some reason Jeff I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. Thank you for the public to comment if you wish to do so please raise your hand you'll be recognized. I see one way at all I believe. So you'll receive a prompt Mr ankle and when you answer it you'll be able to unmute. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Yes, I submitted extensive written comments for the record which were just summarized that also want to bring the attention to the zoning of this project actually was approved by the fountain growth to East architecture review committee which which which enforces the CC ours for this neighborhood way back in in November of 2019. I would note that those were the original plans. To the best of my ability I found no evidence that the the property owner nor the applicants has submitted any revised applications for review and approval from the architecture review committee for any any changes including including these related changes. And in arguably the the project as it is which is essentially been appears to be abandoned there's been no active construction on site for a number of months is is arguably it currently not compliant with the CC ours for this neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Any other member of the public in attendance that wishes to comment. If so, please raise your hand right seeing none and I'll close the public hearing on this item. And so at this point, I do have a couple of questions for the the project planner. The application before us is really for the minor change proposed on the footprint of the building extended into that green area which was not previously considered in a in the former house. And it is, you show us that exhibit when it again. Okay, so that area in the green is where the lots disturbing slope more than 10%. Let me see. Okay. So yes, so this area is the new, as you can see, the house was staying out of that slope area. So triangle is the only change addition and the porch is cantilevered so it will not disturb the slow more than 10%. The house or this project come before the zoning administrator requesting a hillside development permit, if that additional area into the slope had not been part of the project. Because it's, yeah, it would not come to the city if it was not expanding into area that was not disturbed. Yeah. Okay. And can you, regarding the, the appellants statement regarding CC, the fountain growth to homeowner association review the project what's the city's practice regarding development of homes in areas under a homeowner association CC and does the city accept applications prior to approval by HOA's or CC and ours review. I'm not 100% sure in the past, I believe we had like approval letters from CC and ours, but recently I don't see me get any approval letters from CC and are based on what I have heard the city does not get involved with those CC and ours or homeowners association. Okay. Okay. And in terms of sequel review. Can you explain the sequel and and how this is falls within environmental review under sequel. So the sequel exams projects that are containing a single families at the property that is like a zones or already developed with the single family. The property is already developed for single family. And the new addition is to previously approved single family and is a very minor and negligible. Also the house, the area for the house was already disturbed, and the new period has been added. It can be screened with the trees cluster of trees around the house. There will be go back to how they. So the previous house was already screened the trees, we have added a condition to add more landscaping around the house so the new foundation addition can also be screened from the house similar to what it was there before. So the sequel 15303 minor additions to the house are exempt from security view. Thank you. Thank you. And also thank you for pointing out the condition of approval for landscaping and now that would be a part of the building permit when it gets issued it would be a requirement of the building permit prior to occupancy that landscaping would be planted is that correct. I believe they have to show on the building plans that they are planting landscaping in that area providing landscaping entries in that area. All right, and then finally, and thank you for your comments responses finally is it not one of the primary objectives of the hillside development permit to help avoid or minimize any visual impacts from other places such as the streets. And I see that you can you just care speak a little bit about that. So current one of the finding is okay let me I need to read my, if you give me a second I have to find my resolution. I believe I explained that in my result. Yes, finding a and I'll read it out actually site planning minimizes the visual prominence of the hillside development by taking advantage of existing features for screen including tree clusters depressions and topography. Back hillside, I tell careers and other natural features in that the proposed addition is screened by existing vegetation additionally proposed addition and modification to the driver will not result in any building height or visual change. So it is a, you do address it, I think the condition. Also condition see. So I think the hillside development permit in this place was triggered by that additional area added with the enclosure. And it is minor in terms of the overall footprint of the building that was or floor area of the building that was approved. So I think this hillside development permit has a series of findings that address visual, as well as visual impacts as well as slope impacts of development in hillside areas such as this. I think you provided. Mr. Gustafson, I'm sorry, can I ask one more thing while I was doing a site was it there I noticed that there are houses on the hill that some of them are destroyed but some of them are being rebuilt they have similar conditions like because they are on the hills. They have to add a large foundation to be able to put the house in the hill so there are some similar developments in that area. Right. Yeah, I would I would agree with you it's landscape screening for foundations and building massing on hillside it's a very common remedy to that public view impact, and I think appropriately applied in this instance. So, I will approve as proposed your recommended hillside development permit, noting the screening condition number six, as well as the other typical conditions regarding construction activities and development according to and grading I should add according to the approved plans. Thank you very much for your presentation this matter may be appealed. And it would be the end of the appeal period is August 30 at 5pm. All right let's go on to the next matter, which is item 4.2 it's a conditional use permit and condition and design review for 2558 Dakota Avenue this was continued from our previous meeting. And the project planner is Christiane Timmins. If you can give us an update where we are with this project. Thank you, Mr. Gustafson. This is Courtney estates. The proposed revisions to lock 21 and 22 of a plan development project. It was continued from August 5. Just to remind you and the audience. The plan development included to sub area sub area a and sub area B sub area is primarily a preserved wetland area. It allowed for a small number of residential units and sub area B is a mostly suburban style development. Sub area A allowed for a total of six units while sub area B allows for 54 units. The applicant is requesting to move to units from sub area a to sub area B. For the purpose of consolidating the duplex units onto two lots instead of four lots. This is what the original plan that included the eight affordable units on four lots. The applicant is proposing to consolidate consolidate the units onto two lots. It would allow for better management of the units that are required to be rental units by the half agreement. This is the proposed site plan showing those two lots and the proposed floor plans and the elevations. The applicant at your request submitted a memo. And it's titled City of Ventures Courtney States memo was submitted on August 10. And it provided reasons for the need to consolidate those affordable housing units. And I'll let the applicant comment in more detail but I as far as my reading of it, the most compelling evidence was on page two of the memo the first paragraph where it said that you know while the project was approved in 2006. Since then a change to requirements in stormwater treatment have required us to reduce the size of all lots to accommodate 13,207 square feet of stormwater treatment area. This forced us to reduce interior lot sizes and making lots 28 and 38 which originally had inclusionary duplexes too small to fit that housing type. Lots 20 and 21, which can be larger due to their location away from storm treatment areas are the only two lots large enough to accommodate the inclusionary housing. The smaller lot sizes dispersing parental units would force us to reduce the number of for sale homes on the site by two to three homes, which would reduce revenue by approximately $2 million, eliminating any any investment returns and creating a negative net margin. So to me that was the most compelling evidence in the memo that the stormwater treatment is compelling the need to consolidate those units and in addition this matter was brought up to the city housing department and they had no issues with consolidating those rental units onto two lots. So with that Samantha Houser is the applicant Samantha Houser is available to delve in further into the memo that was provided. And I can also answer any questions. Thank you Kristen and I don't have any additional questions. Appreciate your summarizing and highlighting the critical finding regarding financial feasibility and need for the question of the affordable units. I now offer the opportunity for the applicant or the applicant's agent to comment on this. So if you wish to do so please raise your hand. Hi, Mr. Gustafson thank you so much for for hearing our item again and thank you very much to staff for all the time that they've spent reviewing the materials that we've provided and that you requested. So we're mostly just here to answer any questions that you have. We have Amanda Monchamp and Ron Jones from Hunt Hill Jones here as well Amanda Monchamp is our attorney from Monchamp in Belgium who also provided that the land use memo as part of the materials. And then you know just to reiterate what Kristen A said, you know this project was approved in 2006 for for 60 homes. And what has changed since then is the requirements to stormwater treatment and the project was approved prior to stormwater LID requirements that were initiated by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the city in 2013. So it's, you know, it kind of just creates this ripple effect throughout the project. And again happy to answer any more questions about that. We really mostly just appreciate your time and your thought. And I'll also say, I think the matter of the issues or sorry memo you provided addresses the issues that I expressed last time about the modification to the affordable housing component of this. The financial statement you provided, I think provides a good background of what's at discussion here. Is there, is there any member in the audience who wishes to comment at this time on this matter so please raise your hand, and you'll be recognized. I see canal rouser I believe sorry if I mispronounced your name. Please be recognized. Hi there, my name is Chanel Rosa. I'm the Fox hollow development that's just going to be adjacent to this new community. I just like to readdress something that hasn't been brought up this meeting but was brought up the last meeting. There is a concern about vintage group taking over as the HOA, and I would like that to be addressed. I was someone representing city thinkers that said that they would follow up with us about those concerns. No one has, but as a homeowner here in Fox hollow, I can tell you that vintage group can't even handle the development here. I don't have faith that they're going to be able to take care of a new development. And that's my concern. Thank you. Another member of the public and attendance that wishes to comment it so please raise your hand. Seeing none I close the public hearing on this. So that at the core of this meeting or this item was a question of the financial reasons for the need to consolidate the previously dispersed affordable units in the building that was previously approved, the modification would cluster those. That issue or matter was fully addressed by the applicants, I'm explaining the financial circumstance that necessitates the concentration or clustering of those in the two lots. There are findings related to the changes, including the similarity of the buildings that fit in finish of those affordable units. And, and the modification does, in fact, fully comply with the original intent of the approved map. This project. I, I know we'll go forward and and the applicants will be able to develop it and I hope we'll manage it in a way that'll become a attribute and elevate the community. So I know they have a vested interest and ongoing maintenance of the facility so with regard to the neighbors comment regarding ongoing management I'm, I'm very confident that it'll be maintained very well. With that additional information and the resolution before us with the findings presented and the conditions of approval that were recommended. I am pleased to approve this project and again, note that if anyone should wish to appeal to this determination, you have until the end of the day, August 30th to do so. So, again, thank you much. The project came for working to bring this one forward, and moving it towards construction. Thank you. All right, let's go on to the next item item 4.3, the conditional use permit for 112 excuse me, 122 Talbot Avenue. This is a fence in a side yard corner setback, and the project planner is Adam Ross, Adam. Thank you, Mr zoning administrator. Switch up my background here really quick. Yeah, I'm going to open up a presentation that I entered into the public record now it just incorporates the project files that were uploaded online. So it's just images of those for better representation. Okay, do you see that. Sorry, we can. Yes, we can. Okay, so the project. That's okay. It's a it's the project is located at 122 Talbot Avenue project name is roughly Talbot fence it's it is a project for a six foot fence in a side corner setback. Three feet of includes three feet of solid wood fencing on the base and three feet of wire fencing above that so three feet of the solid three feet of the wire mesh fencing within the vision triangle section. And then it extends to the northern part of the, I'm sorry, the western part of the property. So where the garage is and then there's a just a solid six foot for the remainder. And it is set back three feet behind the sidewalk with landscaping to be provided between the sidewalk and the fence. So here's a here's a site plan this is a new garage under review with building permit and an ADU above it. So here's the existing driveway with the gate that is rolled that would go in here. This is a three foot setback between this sidewalk here. And, and in this section, the next slide I'll show you is where that wire mesh fencing is. So, here's the vision triangle as shown here. And in this section and exceeding to the end of the property will be the three foot with wire mesh fencing, as well as this location here for the three feet wire mesh fencing. I'm sorry so here it is. I'm going back just to show you, this is the three feet and wire mesh fencing, and then the rest here is the solid six foot fencing. Most of that's to accommodate a separate yard for the new ADU to be provided, as well as to to just update the property and deter any, any sort of nuisance thefts that that potentially go on this area. Some images of what that wood fencing would look like. And then here's that three feet of solid with three feet of wire mesh fencing above it. So then you can see in this image to it shows how that kind of connects to an existing solid wood fencing for. And again that's for compliance with the vision triangle for driveways entering into the public right away. So that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator approved the six foot fence and a side corner setback for the property located at 122 Talbot Avenue. And I just want to reiterate what was on the notice is that this project complies with sequel guidelines section with a class for exemption in that the proposed project is an accessory structure. Such as a fence. So that is, I'm sorry 15303. So that's a class three exemption in that it's an accessory appartenant structure, which includes garages carports patio swimming pools and fences. And that concludes my presentation. I know that the the applicant and owner is in attendance as well. Thank you. I don't know if the applicant or agent wish to comment this point please raise your hand. Mr. Gustafson. Can you, excuse me, can you hear me. Yeah, very well thank you. Oh, thank you. My name is Steven Hass I'm available for questions only appreciate the staff work and Mr Ross work with him closely to address the concerns related to the vision triangle. And that means pretty much explain and justify the request. Thank you. Sorry, Andy you're on mute. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to comment on this matter so please raise your hand. Seeing none I'll close the public hearing. Right. Adam I think a couple questions one there's a what I think is a two story structure garage first floor second unit on the top is that an application or building permit submitted with the city at this time. Yes, it is. And I guess the only other concern I have and I apologize. Was there any consideration with regard to how when that gate is closed and a vehicle wishes to enter the garage. How will that take place with the vehicle not sitting projecting into and across the sidewalk into the street ordinarily these side yard fences are intended to enclose a rear yard area, typically not providing also garage driveway access with rare exception I can think of. So that that that that's just one question, and maybe I can ask the applicant owner. If they've anticipated that, because it appears that a fence is three feet from the back of sidewalk. The car typically if we think about a parking space is like 18 feet minimum 16 feet minimum. So, is that going how how will that work when somebody comes to the property and wishes to park in the garage. And just to answer before Steven adds in the the setback for the garage is still meets the 19 foot standard. So that's kind of why there's no there's no enforcement on any further setback or anything like that they provided the three foot landscape setback. And upon closure, it does provide I believe 17 feet from garage face to that closed gate portion. Right and that's and thank you for for addressing the minimum 19 foot setback between the garage door and the back of sidewalk. And also I think you call attention to the fact that the closed gate, the area that remains between the closed gate in the garage door is is tight but it will accommodate a car. My concern is when that gate is closed, somebody comes to the property. Is it going to then leave a car hanging out across the property and I think I have the answer to that but I just want to have the applicant speak to that point. Yes, can you hear me okay. Yes. I don't know that Adam mentioned in this there is an existing garage on the property that's substandard right now. And there's a gate there on this is a very unique corner lot in that the garage takes access from Talbot, even though the front door the property is from Pharaohs. So in the existing condition today, you would, and the current gate for good or not for good or not opens out, you would have to pull, you'd have to stop your car. And the gate today when it opens up opens up outward to the edge of the back of sidewalk. The actual condition will be improved by this because you'll be able to pull in a little bit farther now to open the gate. So today, you would have to stage your car across the sidewalk, while you open the gate, and based upon the existing condition and this would actually enable the, the car to be pulled in. And from the edge of curb to the edge of the gate in the new fence, and the new gate would be 11 feet, because that gate now instead of opening out or in rolls to the site, which allows also the car to be pulled in and parked behind the gate on the private property. So I think from looking at it from the existing condition today, the existing garage, which really is substandard and could not really be. I looked at it for the possibility of putting the ADU there, because it only has a one and a half foot side setback to the property to the east. And that would give me kind of a benefit to that pre existing condition and pre existing setback, but that structure is really not read, could not be re rehabilitated given the structural requirements, and the geology there a few on the building plan there's substantial foundation, it has to be built to do a two story structure well beyond what's there today. But I can do I can see that on the plan you the the existing fence that's depicted. And that existing potential call it encroachment upon the street. And it sounds like you worked out a practical solution to the gate rather than having it swinging outward you have a rolling gate which won't diminish the usable area. And on the site as someone strives to enter it. So, thank you for that that's very helpful to me. Based on on the resolution presented and the evidence and the record. I do agree that this side yard setback reduction for the proposed fence will not be detrimental and injurious to people living and working in the area. And I'm pleased to provide a sensitive to the area there are circumstances here that justify the continuing closure of the rear yard area, and I'm pleased to approve this conditional use permit or plan or use permit for the setback reduction for the rear yard at one to do the tablet. Thank you very much, Adam, and we go on to item number 4.4. And you are the project planner again, and this is a design review for 1511 range Avenue. Yes, and I have just a quick. Another quick presentation for you. And does that look normal to you. Yeah. Okay, great. So this is the minor design review for a new fence at the property located at 1511 range Avenue, it actually spans across the frontage which includes 1511 to 1539 range Avenue. The installation of a new metal six foot rod iron fence or tube steel or two tube steel fence, two new metal pedestrian gates and one double vehicular gate at the entrance on rage Avenue. And I'll show what that looks like in the next couple slides. So again, this is just an aerial image of where this new fencing is located there's already an existing fence around the property, which is pretty typical to the multifamily. uses properties in the area. Here's a blow up of that range Avenue and the frontage. So it goes across here and it's depicted and it's 20 feet behind the back of curb for fire truck standards, and it opens inward, and then it goes along here. One caveat here is in that. Earlier, it was noticed that the setback for the new fence is eight and a half feet and the zoning code requires 10 feet and in order to come back with a minor use permit for a fence greater than three feet in a residential front setback is that staff will be recommending condition of approval, stating that the fence shall be setback 10 feet behind the back of sidewalk that was already discussed with the project applicant. And they accepted those terms. And here is the fence examples so rod iron or tube steel fencing very typical. You can see through it so it's not a big block wall. Cutting it off the two pedestrian access gates, you know, or as shown here, and this is the type of electric fence opening for vehicular access here. Similar to the previous project it does comply with secret guideline section 15303 in that it's a fence which is accept accessory and an opportunity to the main use which is the, the multi family residential project. The zoning planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator approved the minor designer view for the new fence for the property located at 1511 range avenue. Thank you, Adam. The applicants in attendance. If you wish to come up, please raise your hand, Eric or saw I use a you recognized need to unmute yourself I believe there you go just just popped up. Hello, how are you doing today. I hope everyone's well. So this is a, we've been working on this property for several years now doing improvements. We're really excited about this improvement, adding the fencing along the sidewalk. I mean and I did talk a little while ago about increasing the setback from the back of the fence, which does give us the five feet around the perimeter of the buildings which is what we do want to keep that maintain that. Otherwise, Adam touched on everything that we want on that front. I do have one question that came up recently I'd like to add it and if you can go back to your presentation to where you showed the aerial image of the property. One second I'm going to pull it up right now. I just got a question for you so I'd have mentioned on this map at the southern end on Jennings, you're able to zoom in on that. You'll. Yeah, down there on the southern end on Jennings Avenue. We have an existing fence right there to keep going down down down Jennings. Where you see 152 and 523. Keep going down south on Jennings to the left. Right there that little blue line we have an existing fence right there on the blue line on Jennings Avenue, we have an existing fence right there. And what we're curious since that's an existing fence. There's certain we have to go through the encouragement permit process for this. But we would like to see if we can include the approval of the gate and the fence that we're using here on range avenue to also include the future improvements that we would do right there on that existing fence off of Jennings. If that's too much trouble, then we'll just exclude it. But we were kind of curious if we could slip that in right now. As well we would like to do the same six foot rock iron to steal fencing there with a gate. We'd have to go through an encroachment permit process through that I'm not sure how that would work. But I was just seeing if we could avoid going through design review on that one. Jennings Avenue that's not possible then we'll forego it. But every otherwise everything else is fine. All right, well thank you all address your, your comment or question there in a moment, but before I do, I want to give opportunity for the public to comment if there are any in attendance so which to do so please raise your hand. Seeing none I'll close the public hearing on this matter. All right. So, first I'll say I think the proposed fences continues to be. And the fence exhibits excellent quality and design consideration that continues to demonstrate the property owners commitment to improving the property so that I commend you for that and the city encourages what you're doing so thank you for that. The question regarding can we expand today's action to include the fencing along. I think he said Jennings or, you know, beyond what was noticed. Unfortunately, we cannot. The project description is, is really all we can act on today and the project description was limited to that the fence on on range Avenue only. Unfortunately, if you do want to seek a similar fence setback on the other side that you will have to come back. I apologize, but that that's really a to process principle core principle. And with that, based on the application materials and the resolution prepared for this project and the recommended conditions of approval, I'm pleased to approve this project. And with that that was the last item on our agenda today. So I can adjourn this meeting at 1128 August 19. Thank you all for attending and have a great day.