 Okay, Monet, hopefully you can hear this now. Okay, you want to test your sound. Hey, I can hear you now. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. Good morning everyone. If you are part of an applicant team and you'd like a sound check please raise your hand within the zoom greetings everyone can you hear me. Yep, sounds pretty good. Good morning. Good morning. I have to work on my lighting so I look my best here. Yeah. I see we have Susie Monet, Adam on and Mr. Coker and Miss Monaco. Susie's going to jump in the pool today with your screen sharing. All right, it is going to be warm. Okay, I'm going to turn off my video and pull some things quickly together for our start in about four minutes. Can you guys hear me okay. Yes. Yay. Good morning everyone. If you are part of an applicant team and you would like a sound check please raise your hand. Yeah, this is Ken Coker. Sounds good Ken. Sandy Dorn you should receive a prompt if you go ahead and answer that prompt. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you. So once we have tested the sound, if you can mute and unmute, if you can remember to mute and unmute, then we won't have to have that back and forth every time. Thank you. Anyone else before a minute or two here anyone else part of an applicant team that would like to do a sound check. Please raise your hand, Randy Pennington. Hi Randy Pennington here. Sounds good. Thank you Randy. Thank you. It is now 1030 and this is Andy Gustafson serving as zoning administrator for this meeting and I'll turn my video on here. So welcome and thank those of you attending the meeting today for being with us. This is a regular zoning administrator meeting and because of the COVID public assembly prohibition, we are hosting these meetings online via zoom. And for those of you who are joining us by telephone. We. We will run this meeting as any other zoning administrator meeting we have an agenda we will take public. We'll take a report from the staff and then opportunity for the applicant to speak and then take public testimony or comments after which I will deliberate today's meeting has a number of agenda items on them. So as we move through those, each of each of you will will have opportunity to speak when when you wish to comment. Please raise your hand if you're joining us by zoom or press star nine, if by telephone, and we'll be able to recognize you. So this meeting. Any item or action taken on an item may be appealed attend the first business day full business day after after 10 days of this date, which would be looking at my calendar. The 26th of October. So any matter today. If you wish to appeal the outcome, please contact the project planner, and they will walk you through that process. So before we begin, I do want to say I'm going to change the order of the items on the agenda items two and three that are being presented by planner Susie Murray. I want to move those to the top of the agenda and all the other items so item 3.1 and then 3.4 will follow. So with that, the first thing I want to do is to allow for public comment. And this is an opportunity at this meeting to speak on a matter that's not on the agenda. And if any member of the public wishes to speak, you have three minutes to do so now. Please raise your hand or press star nine to be recognized. Okay. So with that being none, I will move on to our public hearing scheduled meeting items on our agenda. So the first item up is item 3.2, which is a minor design review permit for number five Snoopy place and the project planner is Susie Murray Susie if you could give us your presentation. Thank you. I'm working on uploading my. Are you guys seeing my presentation. Yes. You cannot see if you there you go perfect. Yeah. Okay. All right. Susie comes into the 21st century. Hi everybody. This is Susie Murray on the project planner and the first item before you today. I have a question for you. And the question is if you have a name. And the name of this project planner is Mr. Is owning administrator is the Schultz archive building. Subject property is located on a five Snoopy place, which is just off heart ease lane. And here in this exhibit, you can see that the general plan land use designation is public institutional. North station area specific plan area as well as the priority development area. Excuse me. Here's a kind of a neighborhood context area so you can see it's just south of pollen creek and it's really what's kind of important to see here is that it is surrounded on to the north and to the south by other activities related to the Schultz family and Schultz museum to off to the right or the east is multifamily residential and then to the to the west you have the children's museum. Something else that I want to point out while we're well actually I'll wait until the next there's a better area. So there's here are some elevations of the said approximately 95 9505 square foot actually storage building. And these are the east west and north elevation so that the east elevation is what we'll be facing hardy's lane. Here's a site plan so that the way that the structure is is situated on the parcel. It's about 100 feet or greater than 100 feet away from hardy's lane with a significant amount of landscaping to buffer that view so this this building will barely be able to be seen from the public right away and it will be you know from its neighbors to the north south and west it will be visible. So there are several required findings for for granting design review. All of those findings were able to be met. The project was identified in the resolution. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Qualified for a categorical exemption. All noticing was done pursuant to the zoning code. Staff's review didn't really result in any unresolved issues. And there have been no public comments received. And on that it's recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the zoning administrator grant design review to allow the construction of the Schultz without a T archive building at five Snoopy place. And that concludes my presentation and if there is anybody from the public attending this meeting and if you have questions about it. Here is my contact information. My phone is 543-4348. I will say that if you call me today I understand I'm having problems with my voicemail. Please be patient you may want to email me if you do have questions at SMURRAY at SRCITY.org. And that concludes my presentation. And I'll add here that anybody in attendance from the public who wishes to comment you certainly have opportunity to do so now or in a moment. So don't hold your questions for Susie after this meeting please please feel free to ask them here. Certainly as Susie invited you you can contact her after the hearing if you have follow up concerns. I want to give the applicant or the applicant's team opportunity to comment further. And if so please raise your hand I do see Mr. Ken Coker's hand is raised. Recording secretary can you please recognize Mr. Coker. Oh his hand is down now. So he doesn't need me to unmute him because we already did a sound check he just needs to unmute within Zoom. Thank you my name is Ken Coker on the architect for the project. I just want to point out a few design issues that we have when in developing the design for this project. One is the primary one is we wanted to downplay the visual impact of the structure. This is really a storage facility for the artwork and memorabilia of Charles Schultz. There will be no employees dedicated to this building. The primary they come from the studio from creative associates and from the museum. There will be some workstations in the facility for documenting artwork for photographing and also for creating any materials that are going to be loaned to other museums. There will be some truck traffic probably about one a month to to bring back or to pick up museum material that's going to be on loan. The building is is a metal building. We want to design that way because we want to maximize the amount of fire resistance and also we are using insulated roof and wall panels to to hopefully create a net zero building with the use of solar panels that will be all electric with no gas service to the facility. This is designed to made National Park Service Museum storage requirements and that is why you see no landscaping immediately adjacent to the building and to reduce past infestation. So with that I, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the building and open up for any questions. Thank you very much Mr cocker. So, and I appreciate your clarifying the use of the building and and the design intent. That's very helpful. And I have no further questions for you regarding this proposed new building addition to that Schultz Center facility. The point is the public's opportunity to comment. And if you wish to do so please raise your hand, whether you're, you know, participating my zoom or star nine, my telephone, and you'll be recognized when you do comment please give your name, and please. I see no one in attendance, raising their hand or so I will close the public comment portion of this item, and now take action on it. So this is a very, I say an organic addition to that facility. Susie if you were to go back to the list of findings I think it that you had there. Exactly. I think Susie's presentation and her resolution does establish the basis for approving the project as proposed. And I will say that the design work, including the work on the site for landscaping will really make this addition appear as though it's been on the property all along it's functionally related to the to the facility. And in that way is very logical and will become a seamless part of the landscape setting and use so very much and pleased to approve this design review and applaud the project team for bringing forward such a good project. Thank you. Now, we can move on to the next item, which is item 3.3 also presented by Susie Murray and it's for another minor design review at 1031 Carol Lane, great duplex residential project. Susie, can you give your presentation please. I am trying so bear with me a sec. Can you see it now. Okay, and you can hear me okay as well. The next project is the Sandalwood duplex unit. The property is located at 1031 Carol Lane which is over near the fairgrounds. So the proposal here is to build a duplex within the Sandalwood subdivision. And the Sandalwood subdivision was approved. Gosh, I think it was in, I want to say 2011, either 2006 or 2011, how's that. But part of that Sandalwood subdivision included one property that would be developed with a duplex unit and a condition of approval for that duplex unit was to, it was required to get design review as is all attached housing in Santa Rosa. So the back, back in those days and currently the thought of having single family and attached housing provides a diverse type of housing within neighborhoods. So the aerial, the larger of the two aerials here is what the property looked like actually several years ago before it had been developed and you can see where the map has been recorded the star marks the spot there of the development site. And all those those little lines on those lawns are where the subdivision map was recorded on the larger blow up in the lower left right hand section of the screen shows the project well under construction I believe it's much further along at this point. And the arrow points to the one parcel remaining that will be developed with this duplex. The general plan land use designation in the area is low density residential, which allows development from two to eight units per acre. And the standard implementing zoning district for that that general plan land use designation is the R16 single family residential zoning district for which this is zoned here as a sample or a sample I'm looking at my header and I apologize I didn't update that I this is what the architecture will look like. This is facing this is the, if you're looking at it from east of the building or from Carol Lane. And, and the, the duplex that faces linden will have those the kind of the aqua brown or tan material beige materials, and then the kind of greenish gray and gold will be facing east. Both homes, we have two car garages, they both have three bedrooms two and a half bathrooms, they both have front porches, it's very welcoming, and it's done in similar exterior materials as the rest of the subdivision. So again, there are the required findings. This project was actually considered in a, or as was the scope of this project was included in in a mitigated negative declaration that was also adopted by the Planning Commission back when the map was approved. So no further environmental review was necessary. So, staff's review did not result in any unresolved issues. In fact, I don't think we uncovered any issues at all. All noticing was done in compliance with the zoning code and no comments have been received from any neighbors. In fact, it's recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the zoning administrator grant design review to allow the construction of the sandalwood duplex unit located at 1031 Carol Lane. And again, my name is Susie Murray I'm the planner assigned to the project. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call at 543-4348 that's my direct line, or you can email me at SMURRAY at srcity.org. And that concludes my presentation I know that we have a representative from the applicant team on the phone I don't know if they plan to make a presentation. Susie again a great overview of the project. Appreciate your putting those elevations there on the screen for everyone to look at. At this point, I invite the applicant or the applicant's team to comment or add additional information. Please raise your hands if you wish to do so. And Rick Rosenbaum has raised the hand can we recognize him. Hi can you all hear me Rick Rosenbaum here representing Lennox Homes. Yes. Thanks for the opportunity. I think Susie did an excellent job presenting she covered all my key points, including that the project is well under construction and actually we have some folks who have either moved in or just moving into the neighborhood recently. And that the dupe, the duet unit, duplex unit will be built with the same high quality exterior materials that the single family homes are being built with. I think that's a key point. There's no changing of materials here. High quality siding and trim materials and windows and distinctive color scheme to kind of differentiate the two units. I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. Okay. I really don't I mean I think the presentation of the building is quite excellent I really think while it is a duet structure. And it is attached at the ground floor the the offsets at the ground floor between the two buildings and the separation on the second floor really does help to distinguish the two individual units from one another, as well as the color paint and also roof material so I think the team should be commended and and for that as well as a company or proposing a design here that does a good job of of tying in with the other homes that are being built in the subdivision today. So I think the presentation showed that very clearly. So, before I go further I do want to give opportunity for the public might be in attendance that wish to comment. And if you wish to do so now please raise your hand or press star nine right I am looking at the list of attendees and I see no one wishing to comment at this point so I'll close the public comment period of this item. And, and, and at this point, I really have no questions of the applicant regarding the design of the project I again, I think it's well done, and we'll blend in but probably most importantly provide an opportunity for market rate affordable. Housing in a otherwise single family detached subdivision project. So, appreciate this project moving forward it's a great sign in these times that developers and property owners are seeing the opportunity to build and create the housing that we need. So, with that, I'm very pleased to approve this design review as proposed, and to allow this subdivision to move forward. Thank you so much. Okay, so now, Mr Ross item 3.1. This is a great opportunity to present is now before you if we can take up that item at this time. Yes, sir, I'm going to get it open and presented to you now. I don't see. Oh, there we go. And this is for a sign variance at 333 Cleveland Avenue. Thank you. Correct. Can you see this screen, the PDF. Okay, great. So this project is a sign variance for the splash express car wash at 3333 Cleveland Avenue. I am interim senior planner Adam Ross. The requested sign variances to exceed the 30 square feet of signage allowed on the site and install three signs consisting of two wall mounted signs. 17 square feet and 38 square feet and one 17 square foot free standing sign for a combines 72 square feet of total signage. So I want to make a correction on this when when reviewing the sign square footage of the monument sign. The numbers, the 17 square feet reflect the oval shape. However, there's kind of like a gray area on how you would in the zoning code I believe on how you would measure it overall. In this case we are applying a rectangular shape in equivalence of the length and the rise and run of the, the length and width of the sign monument sign so it's not 17 square feet for the monument sign it's 24 square feet for the monument sign. So that number is 79 total square feet rather than 72. It's probably confusing so if you have a question about it I can, I can reiterate that. But within zoning code section 20-38.060 table three dash 10 it limits the total square footage for the signage allowed to one foot per each primary building linear square feet, plus half a foot for secondary. So this results in a total of 30 square feet of the signage for the site, which is why this variance request is being made. So this is the project. As you can see there is the frontage the main frontage that use building elevation. Here's the the rear of it but I think I'd like to get a better image here of the actual building but on this site that you can kind of see up here. This is the freestanding sign. This is the this is the freestanding sign that is 24 square feet measured length. Sorry, I'm struggling here to give you the exact words but the height and the width is 24 square feet for that area here's the smaller splash express sign, which faces the So it would face the north side of the property and then we have the larger sign facing Cleveland Avenue on the building. And here's the breakdown of the proposed sign. Square footages. Again, this should be reflected as 24 square feet. And staffs in supportive of this, essentially because the square footage that would be allowed by code is pretty restrictive, you know 30 square feet to fit one sign even is is a bit off or a bit restrictive. So a variance requested for that additional square feet is supported by staff to allow them to have three standard allowable signs which most other businesses can also have without a variance, depending on their square footage and this kind of structure is unique to this to the drive through car wash use. So, again with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a sign variance for the splash express car wash located at 3333 Cleveland Avenue. Thank you for that Adam. And can you, can I ask you to put the site plan back on to the screen to look at for a moment I set a brief question about it. Yes. Is it this one. No, the site plan. Do you have the site plan available. Yes, hold on one second. I'm going to stop share and pull it up. So as Adam's doing that I do acknowledge the sign area correction. And that there would be changes to the resolution to reflect the 24 square feet, the measurement of that sign area, and also the total area being requested in this case. Adam are you. Yeah, project file or whatever to. Yes, I'm going right now. All right, so this. I just wanted to provide this visual. What I want to comment on or ask you to comment on as well is the relative length to width ratio of that line so our sign standards are tied to the frontage length, correct. In terms of total sign area allowed. Yes. Sign areas tied to the width of the building. I see. And in this case, we can see here that this use and the structure that supports it is the structure is relatively narrow compared to what otherwise might be expected to be developed on a site under this zoning. With a much larger footprint much of that circulation area and parking for vehicle vacuuming I guess they're on the south side of the building would normally be expected to be occupied by by a structure of a much greater width and thus would be allowed much more signage probably in the range which is being requested today above and beyond what is would be strictly allowed based on this current building with. Okay, so I stated what I think I wanted comments on. So I don't know you wanted to concur with that Adam or do you want to add anything else? Well, I think I think that you did a better clear cut presentation than I just did. So I appreciate that. I just wanted to point out as well. Within the sign code. You go by the building front edges. And then there's also a limitation of 100 total square feet of sign area for a site. In this case they're right under 80 square feet so there's still within, you know, say you had a much larger building and you had 120 square feet of 120 linear square feet, which would translate to 120 square feet of sign area. The zoning code would then limit them to just 100. And in this they're still under that. Excellent. Thank you for that. That's valuable. Okay. With that, let's give the applicant opportunity if they wish to speak on this matter. I'm not sure if he was able to make it on. There was a scheduling conflict with. On his end. Jonathan is attending and has raised his hand. Great. If we can be recognized. Can you, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Jonathan Ramos with Ramos and associates. We did have a very challenging site. To deal with for this car wash. That's why the building is so narrow for all the circulation. From both traffic requirements, fire department requirements, so on and so forth. And I would greatly appreciate if we could get this variance approved. For this additional signage. Above and beyond the 30 square feet. I did strategically place the monument sign. It's far back from Cleveland Avenue as possible. With, you know, staying within the zoning or the signage guidelines, but also keeping in mind site visibility. Vision triangles and making sure there was no additional hazards added by putting in a monument sign. On site. And that's pretty much it. Thank you. Okay. I appreciate that. You underscored the challenges of the site development for this use and how it would constrain the. Lineal width of the building. So I appreciate that. Now's opportunity. I give opportunity to the public. Who wish to comment on this project. Please raise your hand or press star nine. If you have called in. And you'll be recognized. All right. Seeing none. I will close the. Public presentation portion of this meeting. And again, this. This project is coming forward with a very strong basis for. Supporting the recommended or requested variance. Clearly as we. We outlined here in the presentation. The building is. Abnormally narrow because of site constraints and its use type. And we could expect that any other business would have. A lot more allowed signs. And particularly in this case as well. Proposed. 80 square feet of sign area does not exceed the maximum. Otherwise allowed up to a hundred. So. This is the. I'm, I'm happy to grant this variance as a, a remedy to a practical strength. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mr. I just wanted to maybe enter in the, to the record some. Some cleanup of the resolution. Just for a specificity of, of the project. Before you and I could, I could read that out loud. Absolutely. So. Yeah. And I was going to say the. I just wanted to. Approve the project with a modified. Description to list the correct. Sign size and total area. 24 feet. And I think Adam, you said 80. Square feet total. Yes. Okay. So. We'll read it out loud now. So in the. My apologies. I just want to be specific. For the first paragraph of the resolution. I want to read into record that. The language be adjusted for more specific. Representation of the project. And it reads as the zoning, the Santa Rosa zoning administrator has completed the review of your sign variance application to install three signs. Two wall signs and one monument sign totaling 80 square feet. When 30 square feet. Total sign areas allowed. In zoning per zoning code section 20 dash 38. 060. Please be advised that your variance has been granted based on your project description and an official approved exhibit dated September 8, 2020. The Santa Rosa zoning administrator has based this action on the following required findings. In zoning code section 20 dash 52. 060 G2. Excellent. And does the resolution final paragraph. Change to reflect the new total sign area number. So it's not referenced there right now. But we can reiterate that as well. That same language. Is there a sign specific. Yes. And I think. If you could. Read the first sentence of the last paragraph. With the insertion of the total sign area. Correct. This sign variance for the spot. Express car wash is hereby approved on this 15th day of October, 2020. Provided conditions are complied with and work has commenced within two years from approval date. So let's see. Let me read that. Is hereby approved. The sign variance for. 80 square feet. For 80 square feet. Of sign. Area. Is approved on this. 15th day of October, 2020. Perfect. Okay. All right. With those modifications to the resolution. This requested variance is approved. Thank you. All right. Let's now move on to item. 3.4. And this is a minor conditional use permit for 125 Patterson lane. Concerning a. The construction of a side yard setback facing the street. On the corner lot. Mr. Ross is the project planner. Do you please. Give your presentation. Yes. I'm going to pull it up and then share the screen. One second, please. So this project before you is a minor conditional use permit for. A fence in height greater than. Three feet within a corner side setback. For the property located at 1925 Peterson lane. A. Which the project includes a. A six foot fence with a two foot lattice on top of that. A building permit is required for that. This is a. Residential PD zoning district. Which implements a R16. This is a. As you can see, A. Zoning zoning district equivalent. And so as you see here, it's a, let me zoom in a little bit. This is a neighboring property, this top one. So here is the. The location of the fence. See is a proposed 12 foot gate. This whole area is six feet. within the vision triangle. So here's what the rendering is. So you have a drawn version of what the fence would look like. It's a solid wood fence right up to the property line and it looks like there's a two-foot cutback as it turns in and then you have the three-foot fence here in this location. And here's another image of what it would look like on the property site. There is, I wanted to bring up with this property, there is a code enforcement case for a driveway paved on the side of the house located here. It's not shown in this picture. And so in order for this project to be approved, it has to have resolution for the code enforcement case in which staff has prepared four conditions of approval for that and also, and I believe the code enforcement officer is in attendance in case any questions should be needed to be raised there. The applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and found them acceptable. With that planning, staff has Planning and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the minor conditional use permit for the six-foot fence within a 15-foot side corner setback. Thank you, Adam. Can you share again that image or that screen? I'll ask you the question and maybe I need to ask the applicant in a moment. But it appears, and you said the fence is at the property line, but then there are these squiggles at the bottom of the fence drawn in that are labeled shrubs. Are those intended to be in front of the fence or behind the fence? You know, I can ask the applicant. Yeah, I think the applicant, it might be this two-foot cutback. Maybe that's supposed to be a two-foot setback for the fence line, but yes, we should ask the applicant. Okay, thank you. All right. Can you, well, I'll return to the findings later. Okay, now's the opportunity for the applicant to comment. If you wish to do so, please raise your hand and you'll be recognized. Shen Monaco, please. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Hi. So we were advised that the fence needed to have that two-foot cutback for the shrubs to be in that space. So that's what we complied with when we were doing the initial processing of the application. I see. Thank you for that. Can you describe the need or purpose for the fencing as you're proposing it in this case? Sure. So as you can see from the picture, we have two bedrooms that are on the side of our home, both of which have children that are within them. So that was our main concern is that we'd like to create a space that is a safe distance away where we can enclose that space for those bedrooms. The need for the fence would be to gain access from the side to do, we're planning on doing garden beds within that space as well. And so it would just give us access from the side to be able to enter to do the gardening from that place. Okay. All right. And you have created a driveway, which is a part of a code enforcement and action. You have a driveway access to the garage. What's the intent of providing additional vehicle access to the property? So it wasn't for vehicle access. We intended for that to be a slab to then put player boxes on. It was just an extra foundation that we could use as a flat service or, you know, a almost flat service that we could put something on that would be stable. It's not going to be for cars or vehicle access or boat storage or RV storage or any storage of any type of automobile or boat. But you did put in a curb cut. Is that correct? No, we did not. That was the code violation. Okay. Yes. If I could clarify it. So it appears as though it could be a driveway and that's a curb cut would be required if it were to be a driveway to be, but as the applicant stated, they're not intending it to be a driveway. Okay. Part of the public record, Google Maps does show a vehicle parked in the side yard there. I don't know if it continues to be there. So no, it's not. All right. And describe the type of material that you would construct this fence out of. Sure. So we're going to continue with the fencing that is consistent with the fencing in the neighborhood. It would be a redwood fence with the redwood lattice and then the front portion, the three foot fence, that's going to be constructed out of the hog pin, the see-through panels with also just the redwood edging around that. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, thank you for those clarifying points or answers. Is there anything else you want to add regarding the need for the fence and its design? Well, the need for the fence would maximize the space of our lot to be able to use that space, provide protection for the bedrooms that are there. We also have, you know, animals. We have dogs, so it would be nice to be able to have that extra space as well. Overall, aesthetic of it would match other fences that are in the neighborhood. I submitted pictures that are consistent with the neighborhood aesthetics. It's a kitty corner across the street from us. It'll basically be matching their fence. And so for us, it would utilize our space and create protection for our property. All right. Thank you. And Adam, do you have those pictures showing the neighbor's fence? I do not, but I could pull some up quickly. You don't have the applicant's pictures. You have access to others? I'm sorry. So can you clarify the applicant's? The applicant said they submitted a picture showing similar fences in the area. Do you have those? I realize this project got changed from one planner to the next, but the information should have come to you. I can find those quickly. If you could go to Google maps to take a look at take a look at the streetscape there. But okay, well, let me first, before we do that, let's give opportunity for anyone in the public or in attendance that wishes to comment to do so now, please raise your hand. And again, if you're calling in, press star nine. Okay, we have Megan Lackey has raised her hand. Could she be recognized? Hi there. Yes, this is Megan Lackey over in code enforcement. I'm the code enforcement officer of record for the property. This is a question for the property owner. I do have a picture taken on 10 nine with an a stored inoperable vehicle behind that fencing. Has that vehicle since been removed? We are removing that actually and I'll be done this week. Okay. It's an old for it's an old Ford truck that my husband purchased and needs to have moved. Sure. And part of the code enforcement is that we can't you can't have a stored inoperable vehicle and setbacks on or on outside of the garage in rear yards. Thank you so much for clarifying that. All right. Thank you. Is there any other is there any member of the public that wishes to comment at this point? Seeing none, I will close public meeting and now deliberate. I, you know, these, thank you Adam for the picture. So corner lots in subdivisions such as this often have a challenge because of the setback areas. The buildings are placed further from both streets and the result is a reduced rear yard. And this provision that allows for that 15 foot side yard setback to be reduced with a use permit is there as a remedy in instances where a property owner of a corner lot may be deprived of the rear yard area that other homeowners or other residential properties in the area are benefiting from. And and and the conditional use permit will allow that reduction when there's not a health safety issue. And that's why there's a vision triangle requirement that in this case is being being met and is not an issue. But then there's the requirement that the resulting fence reduction is compatible with the neighborhood setting. And that's really the big issue here with the proposed fence. And on the screen we see, I believe, is the fence that's located on the opposite corner of the applicant's property. And it is a kind of lot that really illustrates what I stated was the remedy or the reason for the reduced setback area. This lot and there's some other corner lots that really have limited rear yard area. And I think we can probably, can you take that to a two-dimensional, yeah, you can see there, point out the project site first, position that right. And then the rear yard area there with what is essentially an L-shaped house is about, if we were to measure that, I think it's a little more than 2,000 square feet. If you go across the street to the example, you can see that right off the bat, the rear yard area is substantially below that area. It's very constrained. That's a classic example where there is justification for the reduction of that side yard setback to allow a fence to create the rear yard enclosure and privacy that other property owners in the area can expect. In this case, we don't have that circumstance. So I'm very, very much hesitant. If we can look again at the site, Adam, if you can zoom into the property a little bit further to give us a detail. That's the extent of the zoom. Okay, that's perfect. And so I think if we were to look in the area, we really don't see any fences that are built right to the back of the property line. And doing so creates a couple problems in terms of neighborhood character. It begins to impinge upon the sidewalk in terms of the pedestrian experience. It reduces the public streetscape and also creates a pretty much a no man's land. Now I recognize the applicant intends to have a two foot planting strip in front of the fence. It's not very, it's not indicated that way, but it's noted that way on the plan. So I think what I will do in this case, I can support the side yard setback reduction, but no less than five feet from the back of the sidewalk. That fence location would provide the privacy enclosure for the children's rooms as well as for the pets that are on the property and would not reduce the public street visual character nor would it encroach upon the use of the sidewalk. The resulting five foot planting strip that would remain is actually probably more suited to allow plants to thrive and will help to encourage, I think, this property owner or future property owners of this home to maintain that area. So with that modification does, and I asked the applicant this question, is that acceptable to you subject to the conditions that have been presented by the part of Claire? Well, if I may, Adam, if you could provide the aerial view for 1941 Peterson Lane, which is just north of our property. So if you pull the map down, you'll go up one block, and you'll see basically the property is identical to our property in size and shape and landscaping. See their fence has a two foot cutback from the street. There's this being used in a particularly same way as ours. The only exception would be is that their yard has a pool in it. So instead of grass, like ours does, theirs has a pool. So my question to you is that there's no shrubbery or any type of items that are being done on this. One, it doesn't look like it's five feet cutback from that sidewalk. And so my question to you would be if their plans were acceptable for building, could we duplicate what they have as theirs instead of five cut so we can maximize the spaces within our yard? First, I don't know if that fence was placed there with a conditional use permit or not, you know, illegal. Can I, can you, is that fence a solid board fence or is it a fence that's, yeah, oh yeah, it is. Okay, got it. So I think here this fence illustrates the point I make about the need for a wider landscape area. They've clearly abandoned it and is just basically kind of a very harsh transition between the back of sidewalk and the fence. There's no landscaping there. Five feet will provide an opportunity to make that really viable landscaping and reduce the visual impact of that fencing along the streetscape. So I do note that in the immediate vicinity that there are some corner lots with side yard fencing that are no less than five feet and that in this case would be conforming with that type of fencing in the area. So I will approve today a modified resolution with a condition that the fence be located five feet from the back of sidewalk using the materials and the landscaping proposed. So with that modification, this action is, is appealable within 10 calendar days. I think I said the 25th of October. Is that right? Yeah. All right, Mr. Gossison. I also have four conditions of approval that I'd like to read into record that would be applied. These are the ones that I discussed that the applicant had reviewed and accepted. Okay. So the first of the four is a building permit is required for construction of a fence exceeding seven feet in height, obtain a building permit for the approved project. Number two is the existing concrete pad referenced in code enforcement case CE 20-0222 shall not be used as a driveway or long term storage, mobile home, trailer, airplane, boat, or other motor vehicle or parts of any of those vehicles in compliance with zoning code section 20-31.110D2. The third one is code enforcement case number CE 20-0222 must be closed prior to issuance of a building permit or commencing construction of approved project. And the fourth one is the gate mechanism shown on the approved design shall be constructed in compliance with the 2019 California building code section 3202.2 doors, which reads that doors or windows shall not project or open into the public right of way. Those two of those conditions of approval are basically just notifying in the record that compliance with the existing code is required. Thank you. And then the third, the fifth condition would be to relocate the fence five feet from the back of sidewalk and maintain landscaping within that five foot setback area. Would you like me to read that one as well into the record or? Please. So the project shall relocate the fence to five feet behind the back of sidewalk and install planting within the setback area. All right. Thank you very much. And now we'll move on to I think the last item on our agenda. No, actually we have two more items. The next item is item 3.5 minor design review 6 of 5 Wear Road. And Monet is a project, Neci Cali is a project planner. Monet, are you ready to make your presentation? I am ready and thank you, Mr. Gustavson. So let me share my PowerPoint so you can see that. Yes, thank you. Okay. As you mentioned, the project is a minor design review for a property located at 625 Wear Avenue. The design, the fence will be up to six feet and it will be placed three feet behind the sidewalk. The picture below shows the site as it is today. It is a parking lot for use, the views on the site. And the reason that the applicant wants to add the fence there is to prevent any unwelcome person and also to provide more security for the site. Next page. Okay. This is the site. It's located at the corner of Rottledge and Wear Avenue. It is zone CG, general commercial. And here is the general plan land use, which is retail and business services. On the left side, the red line shows location of the proposed fence and gates. And the picture on the right side shows a type of the fence that the applicant is proposing. It will be six feet and it will not require any building permit. The notice was sent to the neighbors within 600 feet and staff did not receive any comments from neighbor. The project has been reviewed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and it qualifies for exemption, class three, in that the proposed fence is an accessory structure and staff recommendation is approval. With that, the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance as I mentioned and staff recommendation is approval. And that was my presentation. Here is my email address and my phone number. If anyone has a question, they can contact me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is the applicant in attendance and do you wish to comment? If so, please raise your hand. I'm not sure if they're attending the meeting today. Okay. Thank you, Manay. All right. And then now, is there any member of the public that wishes to comment on this matter? If so, please raise your hand or press star nine. Seeing none, I'll close the public meeting. All right. Well, this, I understand this, the need for this fence. My question, Manay, is the intent or my main concern is that the fence enclosure would allow for the creation or the use of the parking lot area as a contractor storage yard. Did the applicants project statement state clearly the intent of the enclosed area that will be created? They didn't mention that, but I remember when I talked to them over the phone, they said the main reason they want to have a fence there is to prevent from people throwing trashes there. And they had some, I can't remember, but there were people like unwelcome on a lot of people going to the site, but they didn't mention anything about the storage. And if I'm not wrong, I need to see the zoning code. If they want to use any outdoor storage in the property that is on CG, they might need to get the use permit. I have to look in our zoning code and I can look right now and confirm it if you want. I think maybe we can say this in the record or on the resolution, the purpose of the fence enclosure area. Let me get the resolution in front of me. This is 3.5. What I would like to do is to say, no, this is, I'm sorry, I don't have the resolution in front of me. This is item 3.5, correct? Can you, can you share that on the screen? Okay, can you see, Mr. Gustavsson? So the fence, will it surround the entire property or will it surround the parking lot area? It's almost around the entire property. I would like the resolution and it may be in one of the findings, the intention that was stated by the applicant that it enclosed the parking lot and prevent trespass, be made part of the record so that should ever there be a discussion in the future about a contractor's storage yard or that type of activity, this resolution would be very clear that the fencing was for the purpose of trespass prevention within the parking lot area primarily. I do see by the photos that there are materials that are stored in a portion of the site and it is visible from the street which is, I don't know, not really great practice and I don't want that to expand. Okay. I think the fifth bullet point for finding will enclose the outdoor parking area and is that here? The site plan separately here and it is an open fence, right? It's not solid board. Correct. It's a wired open fence. Yeah, I think if we were to do that, outdoor parking area and side yard and could you please underline the addition there for the record? Like this. I would add after the word yard to provide more security. There you go. So I think that with that change I'm comfortable that this resolution, the intent of the resolution in fencing, I think you can, you only needed to underline the addition of parking area and side yard too. There you go. Sorry. There we go. Could you save that and then that's part of the record and then the final resolution will have that language in it without it being underlined? That's the record I'll sign. So I'll approve the requested and it's an open fence. It's not a solid board fence, correct? It's a metal, I wouldn't call it, it's not chain link. It's No, correct. I can. It's a vertical wrought iron fence with the panels, right? Correct. Here I'm sharing it again. This is the type of fence they are proposing. Perfect. Okay. Great. So with that minor clarification to finding number five in the resolution, I'll approve this. What is it? Design review or use permit? I forget. I never designed it. They are 18. Thank you. Okay. Now we are on to the last item of the agenda, which is a minor conditional use permit for 1289 Sebastopol Road for mobile food vending. Thank you. And Monet is a project planner. Thank you again. So as you mentioned, this is a minor use permit for property along Sebastopol Road Avenue. The project name is Mexifornia. The site is located, oh, okay. The average of operation will be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. And there are two other mobile food vendors on the site that they are rotating and they are located in the front of the property. The proposed one will be located in the back, as it shows in the red color here. And this is a type of mobile food vendor machine. I mean, mobile food truck. And the site is on CG, general commercial, and the general plan land use is retail and medium density residential. Mobile food vendors are only allowed along Sebastopol Road through a minor use permit. And the applicant has submitted a minor use permit for the proposed project. Mobile food vendors has to be placed more than 200 feet from another mobile food on the another site. And on this plan here, as you can see, it shows the distance from two other trucks that are parked on the other parcel and on the same parcel. And the distance between them is more than 200 feet. And also the applicant has provided an agreement to use the sanitary bathroom on the site within the existing building located at 1289 Sebastopol Road. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. And it qualifies for a class IV exemption under section 15304, in that the mobile food vendor is a minor temporary use of land, having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. And notice was sent out to neighbors within 600 feet. And I did not receive any calls or comments or concerns regarding the proposed project. And staff recommendation is approval. And again, here is my information. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant or a member of the applicant's team present and wish to comment on this matter? I am not sure. They did not tell me that they liked it. Okay. And seeing none, I will now open it up to public comment. Is there any member of the public that wishes to comment on this matter? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will close the public comment period of this item. And let's see. I think the only question I had or concern really here is this is the third mobile food vendor on the property. And we do allow for multiple vendors on the same property. And our ordinance, however, does provide for or require 200 foot separation from a vendor on a separate property. And in this case, that standard is clearly met. And also in terms of the functioning operation of the facility the proposed mobile food vendor will comply with the hours of operation. If I remember correctly, it's nine a.m. to 10 p.m. Can you confirm that? The proposal is from six to 10 and we allow longer adversary use permit. Six a.m. to 10 p.m. That's the hours that the applicant has proposed. And for additional hours, they can request that to the use permit. I see. Okay. All right. And then also importantly, they have an agreement that employees and their customers may use the bathroom or is it only for the employees? The agreement says that the employee of the food truck, they can use the bathroom on the site. Okay. Thank you. All right. So with that, I will approve the requested design review for minor conditional use permits, excuse me, as proposed. And anyone who wishes to appeal this or any other matter that an action has been taken at this meeting have until the end of the business day, October 25th to file an appeal. Mr. Gustafson, can I ask a question? Is it possible to add the name of the proposed mobile food on our resolution because there are two others and it's a good idea to have the names on each use permit? I think that's an excellent idea. Yeah. I would be open to suggestions where that would work best, maybe in the first paragraph, the introduction paragraph. Yes, I think the same place. Thank you. And do you have a description of its location on the property? It says on the back side. So I would further add a dimension from the back of Sebastopol Road so that we help to ensure that it remains in compliance with the setback requirement from the facility on the adjoining property. So I will, well, wait a second. In your findings, do you specifically state, and I don't have the resolution in front of me, do you specifically state that this location exceeds the 200-foot setback on the adjoining facility? I'm looking at it right now and I don't see, I mentioned that in the resolution. So let's take a moment now to add that to the findings there. That way in the future should, for some reason, this facility creep closer to Sebastopol Road, we have a very clear standard to enforce based on this use permit approval. So I will try to add that language and the name of the proposed use, proposed mobile food vendor on the resolution. Yeah, let me see here. Okay, I have the resolution in front of me. Okay. So I think the third finding where it says the design location size and operating characteristics in there, I think the location in the third line, the location is on a private parking lot. I think if we could say here a number of feet back from Sebastopol Road and I would accept a measurement off of Google Maps or scaled off of their site plan. Sure. And should we also mention here 200 feet from other mobile food vendors? Well, so we have conditions of approval and we do say that in condition number four. So I'm completely satisfied with that language, that word. Okay. I will say there's no reason to change the wording in finding number four. That's fine. We catch it in condition number four. So I think we're good. So our action, you're going to add the name to the mobile food vendor in the first paragraph. And then the resolution otherwise stands as written. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you for that. And this matter is approved. So that then brings us through our agenda for today and brings us to adjournment at 11.53 a.m. Thank you very much for participating in this zoning administrator meeting of October 15th. Is it 15? Yes, 15th. Thank you. Have a great day.