 Don't call me ma'am. No, I won't. I'm counting. I watch, like, People's Court and they hate that. No, because. So she gets started. Are we live? Okay. Thank you. All right. Good morning, everyone. My name is Christine. This is the zoning administrator meeting. And since it's 1030, I'm calling the meeting to order. Were these draft minutes? Item number two is approval of draft minutes. I think we approved those last time. I'm not sure. I don't know if that. Oh, it's the same as this. Your agenda today. Those are just our. Got it. Okay. So item number two is approval of minutes for the November 2nd. 2023 meeting. I hereby approve those minutes as drafted. No changes. And this is a time when a person may address matters, not listed on the agenda, but which are within the subject matter of the jurisdiction. The public may comment on agenda items when the item is called. Each speaker is allowed three minutes. Is there anybody wishing to make a comment? On an item, not on the agenda. Seeing none. We'll move on to item four, which is zoning and major administrator business. And I'll just state the statement of purpose. The zoning administrator is appointed by the director of the planning and economic development department and has a responsibility and authority to conduct public meetings and hearings. And to act on applications for minor or reduced review authority projects. Or entitlements a determination or decision by the zoning administrator, maybe appeal to the appeal body, including the designer view board, cultural heritage board, planning commission or city council as applicable to the decision. Since there are no zoning administrator reports and no consent items, we'll move to item six scheduled items. The first item is item 6.1. Tipsy taco. And Ms. Planner Biesla will be present. Oh, no. That item has been, the ZA was informed that that item has been continued to a date uncertain. Is that correct? Yes. So that meeting, that item will be re-noticed to a future ZA meeting date. And will not be heard today. So moving item, moving on to item 6.2. Planner Biesla. The first item is item 6.1. Tipsy taco. And Ms. Planner Biesla will be present. Oh, no. Ms. Planner Biesla. Yes. Oh, you shared. I think zoning administrator two means. My name is Planner Biesla. And the project before you today is an application for dish antennas located at. Two eight nine nine Dow drive. It's an application for both a minor use permit, as well as minor design review. The project proposes three antenna cabinets. Which will allow you to use them. The project proposes three antenna cabinets. Which will each include one antenna and two radio. Remote remote radio heads in each cabinet, as well as a ground floor equipment cabinet. Each of the antennas will be screened by. Red domes that will be painted too much to the existing building. And the ground floor equipment cabinet will be screened by a fence. The project is located in the industrial light industrial zoning district as well as the light industrial. A general plan. It is it has a light industrial general plan land use designation. The project meets all of the findings. The staff is able to make all the required findings for a conditional use permit. And that the proposed equipment will be screened and none of the antennas or equipment will be visible to the public. And the project has been conditioned to implement the proper measures that have been listed in the electromagnetic energy reports. Staff is also able to make all of the required findings for design review. The antennas will be screened from public view. With these. Red domes. So I'm trying to find the. Actually. Here you can see the photo simulations. That the. The antennas on the rooftop will be screened to match the existing building. And currently the project proposes a chain link fence for the ground level equipment cabinet. But the. The project has now been conditioned to include a more attractive fence design that will match the building. And since then the applicant and the owner have both proposed a corrugated steel design. That will match the industrial look of the warehouse building. And will these be the only antennas on the roof? There. Yeah, there's three different ones. Different operators. No. Okay. Okay. Got it. Just just the dish of tennis three, three different locations on the on the roof and then the ground floor equipment will be located here. And will the fence be painted to match. The design looks like there's four colors. The owner did propose paint to match the building. However, it. Paint over corrugated steel is sometimes not the most durable. So. It's. Staff has left that. That option open. Okay. Yeah. But it is subject to over the counter design review. So okay. The fence design will be reviewed by planning staff. Again. in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, both with guideline section 15301 and 15303, as it involves the construction of a small structure at an existing location, or sorry, at existing structure, and will not expand the use. Therefore, staff recommends that the zoning administrator approve the minor design review and minor conditional use permit to allow the additional antennas at 2899 Dow Drive. Thank you. And I believe the applicant is present to answer any questions. Okay. The applicant like to say anything or make a presentation or... Paul Boddix has raised his hand on me a lot in the talk. Okay. Mr. Boddix, can you unmute yourself? Yes, good morning. Did that work? Yes, yes. Now I think Nor did a great job of explaining the project. It's pretty straightforward. And in fact, there was a similar cell wireless facility on this building for many, many years. It was a sprint site that was recently decommissioned and Dish is essentially following a very similar pattern to that site that had been there for many, many years. So unless anybody has questions for me, I'll let what the presentation that Nor gave a stand because I think it pretty much laid it out. Okay. Thank you. We're now taking public comments for item 6.2. This is a time when any person may address matters and may address this item. Are there any public comments? Seeing none. I find that the antennas are fairly innocuous, especially from the ground level. I like that they're painted to blend in. I like that the fence was upgraded from chain link to something more substantial and hopefully more attractive. And because of that, I will approve item 6.2. Dishantan is planning project at 2899 Dow Drive PRJ 23-015. Thank you for your presentation. Moving on to item 6.3. Oh, yes. And it is subject to attend, all these items today are subject to attendee appeal period. And moving on to item 6. Any comments? So I was just saying thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Moving on to item 6.3. It's a minor variance at 2113 Terrace Way, file number ZB 23-001. We're waiting for the presentation to load. How you got it? Okay, great. Thank you, just I hate. Okay. Okay. We're here. Good morning. I'm administrative two-means. I'm city planner, Sheila Wolski, bringing forward a minor variance request for an as built addition that was constructed in the side setback at 2113 Terrace Way in Santa Rosa. Again, this project is a request for a variance to allow uncommitted construction to remain in the setback, the side setback. The area of uncommitted construction is highlighted on this slide in this plan set in yellow. This is an aerial view of the property at 2113 Terrace Way. And I've placed an orange star on the area of the uncommitted construction. This slide provides you with neighborhood context. So you're able to see where this property is located in the Codding Terrace subdivision. Again, there's an orange star on this property. And this slide shows you the zoning, which is R1-6 and the general plan land use designation, which is low density residential. As mentioned at the beginning of this presentation, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow uncommitted construction to remain in the side setback, which current zoning development standards require to be at a distance of five feet from the side property line. The applicant purchased this property in 2020 and subsequently, and upon submittal of a building permit application, it was noted by city staff that there was a difference in the permitted square footage of the home and that a 146 square foot addition, again, this area in yellow, have been added to the property without permits. Based on historical aerial photos, it was determined that this addition was constructed sometime in the mid 1970s, consistent with the existing side setback at the time. The addition is flush with the side setback at four feet, one inch where it began and a maximum of four feet and a half where it meets the rear elevation back here. My cursor's only showing up occasionally. The applicant is interested in keeping this addition, obtaining the necessary building permits for it and bringing this part of the structure up to current building code requirements. These are photos of the unpermitted addition, which is at the side and rear of the property. As you can see, the area of the 50 year old addition was constructed with the same materials as the primary home and the side yard setback is consistent with the existing permitted structure. This slide shows other properties on this block, many of which were constructed at side setbacks of less than five feet. And it's a little hard to see this far away, but there are several properties on that block and in the area that were constructed at setbacks of less than five feet. There are several findings that have to be made in order to approve a variance. I'll go through the findings and explain how this project complies with the findings. Number one, there are special circumstances applicable to the property. So that the strict application of the zoning code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non-self-created hardship or unreasonable regulation, which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the applicable development standards. First, this was a non-self-created condition. The addition was constructed approximately 50 years ago prior to the applicant's ownership of the property and requiring demolition of one foot or in some cases, one half foot of the structure to comply with the current side yard setback would be impractical. Number two, a non-self-created hardship peculiar to the subject property does exist by reason of the conditions and that these conditions are not common to all or most of the properties in the immediate area, which are also within the identical zoning district. Again, this addition is a non-self-created hardship. It was constructed approximately 50 years ago and the current owner is interested in getting this addition permitted and compliant with the California building code standards as well as having the entirety of the structure ensured. While the current zoning code standards require a five foot setback, how the previous owner in the 1970s applied for a building permit for an addition at four foot, it could have been approved and the setback is consistent with the existing side setback of the permitted primary home. The condition is not common to all or most properties in the immediate area because most properties were constructed with reduced side setbacks with building permit approval. Granting the variance, number three, granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property rate possessed by other properties in the vicinity, which are within the identical zoning district as the subject property. And that variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege to the subject property, which is not held or enjoyed by neighboring properties within the identical zoning district. And the response to that is that many of the homes in this area were constructed with side setbacks of less than five feet. Number four, the variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties and would not be in conflict with the purposes and intent of the zoning code, the general plan, any applicable specific plan or the public interest or welfare. This property has not had any code enforcement violation complaints against it. This was only brought to the city's attention when the applicant came in to submit building permits and this discrepancy was noted. The property owners requested the variance to legalize and permit approximately 50 year old addition in order to comply with building code requirements and to allow for futures submittal of building permit publications. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically exempt from further evaluation under CEQA, pursuant to section 15301 existing facilities in that the addition will not result in an additional 50% of the floor area of the existing home. Notice was sent to occupants within 600 feet of this property and as of today, there have been no public comments received on this project and there are no unresolved issues as a result of staff review. And it is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor variance that would allow a primary home addition at a four foot setback at 2113 Terrace Way. That completes my report. If you have any questions, I am available. Thank you. Thank you, Planner Wilson. We're now taking public comments on item 6.3. Is there anyone wishing to make a comment? Please raise your hand. There could be no hands raised. And is the applicant here or here virtually that would look and would like to make any remarks? Wish to know we have a question, Mr. Jones. Okay, so I hear my close public comment. What is the lot size? Ooh, good question. Is it standard for the neighborhood? Let me see if I can pull that up. Is it similar to a small lot? No, if we look here, you can see this is, I would hazard a guess it's probably seven or 8,000 square feet. Got it. Okay. I have that in my project file. Okay. But if we wanna go to GIS, we can do that too. Okay, I was just curious if the subdivision was constructed like a small lot? It was not. Okay. And these are, this, when I was looking through this to compare it to the other homes in the neighborhood, it's one of the smallest homes. It should have been about, as per minute about 1200 square feet. So it's one of the smaller homes in this neighborhood, but a similar size lot to the other homes in the neighborhood. Okay. So given that other properties enjoy a similar setback and the neighbors haven't, seem to have an issue for over 50 years with the addition, it makes sense. I agree with your findings for the variance and it, would it make sense to have them demolish six inches of the side of the house? Given that it's compatible, the addition looks like it blends in with the original house. And as long as they get a building permit, it should be safe. And so with that, I will be approving item 6.3, minor variance, zoning code variance 2113 Tara Sway, file number is ZV23-001. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. And we'll be moving on to 6.4, item 6.4. Planner McKay is going to load his presentation. Thank you, zoning administrator Cummings. Let's see, bring up the elevations and the site plan. My presentation isn't as formal. I'll share my screen. Okay. So this is a request for modifications to approved designer view for Cherry Ranch, which is located at 930 Fresno Avenue. So this project was approved for a tentative map which allowed for a small-off subdivision by the Planning Commission on June 9th, 2022. Subsequently, the zoning administrator approved designer view on September 1st, 2022 because the project includes single family attached, which requires a minor designer view. And then there's a zoning code section that allows for modifications to approve residential projects. Some changes can be approved at the staff level, but the director can elect to elevate that review to the original review authority if they can't make the findings that the requested changes weren't specifically addressed by the zoning administrator in their review of the original approval. So given that the site plan has been modified to change 22 lots from single family attached to single family detached, the director elected to elevate it to the original review authority. So as you can see on this site plan, there's quite a few new single family detached, which I think ultimately the applicant can speak on this after my presentation, but it creates for a nicer neighborhood where people can feel prideful in their units and they don't necessarily share a wall with another family. So here we have some elevations and I appreciate the applicant's flexibility specifically on elevation F, color scheme 16F. The original proposal featured a lot more white and there wasn't the trim around the windows or the trim on the roofline. And at my humble request, they agreed to incorporate the gray from the front door into that trim. And I think ultimately that provides for an architectural detail that is similar to the other elevations throughout the neighborhood. And then here is the, there are some, like I said, some remaining single family attached, but that's what the elevation looks like for those, which is generally consistent in architectural style and material and color with a single family detached. So overall, the architecture is consistent with the community that is the Cherry Ranch subdivision and also consistent with the community across the street, which is existing single family and medium density, small subdivision residential. The project would be subject to all the conditions of approval with the original approval by the planning commission and the zoning administrator with, that includes modified construction hours to minimize the potential impact to surrounding residential uses related to the construction phase of the project. And then the project is exempt from CEQA because the Cherry Ranch original approval was associated with an addendum to the Sebastopol road area projects, environmental impact report. And this wouldn't change the intensity because it's not increasing the unit count and it's just separating some single family attached to create more single family detached and holds. That said, also the, all the required setbacks are also being maintained, except that where it was a zero lot line before, now there will be a three lot, three foot setback which is consistent with what was approved in other lots in the original tentative map approval. Let's see, I think that's mainly everything that I wanted to get through. And I know the applicant is in attendance, I was just making the trip. I think they want to talk about forgiving me if I'm wrong, but like kind of the vision behind the changes, I think that would be helpful. Yeah, we can move into it. Thank you, Planner McKay applicants, if you'd like to make any comments on the Connor's presentation. My name is Jacqueline Chen, I'm from DR Horton, we're the builder that's going to be on this project, project manager for the Cherry Ranch project. So we're just really happy to be here for one of our key approvals for this project. And thank you Connor for working with us for the past couple of months to get us to this hearing date, just emails back and forth and scheduling our meeting. We just really appreciate it. So as I mentioned, the main key approval that we are asking for is to add the single family detached, the 22 of them onto the current lots that are approved for a attach to one unit. So on this rendering, it's the plan four, and if you'd like to look at the single family unit, that yes, so this will be of the single family. The other ones are because there are some lots under a return of approval that is also detached and we will be substituting it with our own architecture. Okay. Yes, so by having approval to put these single family detached units that will make our project more financially feasible, based on our market research, we've determined that the buyer preference for this area is for single family detached. And so this approval will allow the project to be built and absorbed by the market quickly. So that's the kind of main focus of our application. And as mentioned, we'll comply with all the conditional of approvals as originally for this project. We're not changing any changes also to the originally approved landscape plans. So we retain those. What else is covered? Yeah, and then we'll still be building duets out there. And the square footages will be relatively the same. For the duets. Or for going from duet to single or a family detached. So the single family detached we have, it's 1800 square foot. So I know that there's a lot of coverage that's under under some approval that will meet it. I don't recall exactly what the original one is. I wanna check that and it would comply with the law coverage. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We're now taking public comments on item 6.4. Is there anyone wishing to make a comment? Please raise your hand. Seeing no other public comments. Oh, sorry, go ahead now. With that, I'll close a public comment. Planner McKay, is there anything from the zoning that requires these units to be attached? No. Okay. With that, the design looks to be of superior quality. It looks like it would be a great addition to the city. The way it's designed, as Connor mentioned, I do like the color contrast on that one elevation. And with that, I will be approving item 6.4. It's a Public Meeting Cherry Ranch Subdivision Design Review 930 Fresno Avenue, file number DR23-027. And just to let everyone know, all of these items are appealable within 10 days. You just have to submit appeal within 10 calendar days. If that calendar day falls on a weekend, it would be the next business day that you could submit an appeal. And with that, there are no other items, so I'll be adjourning the meeting. I just wanted to clarify. Oh, yes. So with the 10-day appeal period, does that mean we wouldn't receive final design review written up here, approval until after that's exhausted? Yes, technically you don't have a full approval until that 10-day appeal period. You could at risk apply for your building permit in the meantime. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. And we are adjourned. Thank you.