 Morning Kimberly. Can you hear my voice? You sound perfect. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Mike. Want to test your sound? Sure. Good morning Kimberly. Good morning. Sound good. I'm practicing how to open up my presentation from this computer and it's not playing nice. So I'll get there. Should I have a backup in place here? Um no I figured out. Okay. Thank you. Good morning John. Want to test your sound? Good morning Aria. Perfect. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. We hear you just fine. Perfect. How do you set up a background for Zoom? So John next to your start video there's a little arrow pointing up. Yeah. You choose virtual backgrounds and if you're logged in under your city account they should be automatic like you can pick one. There's a gray one and marimba and you don't need to have a background if you don't want to. I don't have anything there. That's the case. I'll email you one real quick. No I don't have anything that said like the up arrow doesn't have it only has web camera and same system. Yeah like I should say select camera where you have integrated web cam and the next one I choose virtual background choose video filter video settings. Yeah I'm just are you guys using the actual app or the web app? Uh actual app. Yeah I don't know if I'm allowed to download it on our machines here. Sorry Kimberly I'm impeding. Go ahead. No I know John downloaded them he has them. He just needs to figure out how to put it up without the convenience of the of the login being able to do it fine and I don't use backgrounds so I'm not much help. Hey Kimberly. Yes. Do you mind if I test throwing up a presentation right now because my computer's being kind of funky because it's a remoteed in thing? That's fine. I just test it real quick. Is that Shona? Yeah looks perfect. Did I change the slides yet? Yep. So do it on this. I'm sure how to go to stop share though. Hover over the top of your screen or the bottom of your screen. Yeah well let me go up that's what's kind of weird because it's opening my presentation it's bringing it up to my third screen and not letting me move my mouse over there it's real funky. Let's do it that way. Did you do it or did I do? No I didn't do it. Okay I just shut out of my power point and it automatically did it. Well um I can't overwrite it if that if it comes to that somebody forgot to take their screen down. Sounds good. Yeah the setup I have here is kind of interesting compared to what I'm in the office. Let me make it work. Thank you. Hello everyone. Good morning Andy. I am going to um put on my Z8 costume. I'll return shortly. Okay now I can hear you. Okay cool. We have just a couple more minutes before we're going to get started. If there's any attendee who is a member of an applicant team and would like to do a sound check you can please raise your hand in the zoom. So we have Nicky Vetsmadean. Perfectly. Good I think it's working fine thanks. Great. If you want to go ahead and control the muting then we won't have to go through the prompt every time. Yeah oh there is the okay we'll do thank you. You bet and then Marl Avala you want to check your sound? Hello how are you? Doing great thanks so much. Awesome so we'll lower our hand here. And if you want to go ahead and hit that mute until the appropriate time that'd be good too. Perfect thanks so much. All right this is Andy Gustafson. I am a zoning administrator and I would like to call to order the May 20th zoning administrator meeting. So I before we launch into that meeting I want to run through some preliminaries. First this is a virtual meeting in order to help reduce the spread of COVID consistent with the public health orders. This meeting will be run as we would run any normal face-to-face public meeting. We would have an agenda and we'll move through the items all of you as we go through each item we'll have opportunities to comment. For those of you who might be new to zoom we do rely on the hand symbol to give you opportunity to speak when during the agenda or during our meeting I open up the opportunity for the applicant team or the public please raise your hand and you'll be recognized. For those of you who might be calling in and I don't see any press star nine on your phone and you'll be recognized by the hearing secretary. This meeting will be or is being recorded so should if you want to review it you'll be able to go to the city's www.youtube.com city of Santa Rosa site and and be able to watch the highlights of this this meeting. So before we get into the agenda items we do also offer opportunity for the public to comment on any matter not on the agenda. If you wish to do so please raise your hand and you'll be recognized. I see we have four attendees and no one is raising their hand and we have one attendee who's calling in and they have not pressed star nine so let's move on to the regularly scheduled items. I want to note before we begin that any action taken today whether a matter is approved denied may be appealed by an aggrieved party which can be the applicant or any public person in attendance. The appeal period runs 10 days or the next business day should that 10 day period fall on a weekend or holiday as it does in this case so the appeal period for this hearing will end on June 1st that's a Tuesday and if you wish to appeal a matter please contact the project planner and they'll guide you through the process. Right with that preliminary stuff out of the way let's start with item 3.1 it's a hillside development permit for 7, 9, 2, less all of us and the project planner is Ms. C. Colley. Thank you Mr. Gustafson. I'm going to share my screen right now so we can see my presentation. Here we go. Okay the proposed project before you this morning is called Bernal Residence. This is a minor hillside development permit located at 792 Los Olivos Road and this is a minor hillside development permit to construct an EU 3331 square foot single family house with an attached 754 square foot garage. This is the elevation of the garage entrance and here is where the site is located. Property is on R1-6 scenic road and the general planned land use is very low density residential. This parcel is part of the subdivision that was approved in 2018 or 17. As you can see there are one, two, three, four parcels that were approved for the subdivision and this parcel is the one having a hillside development permit for a new single family. Here is a closer look there is a private driveway that has access to also three other parcels in the back. Here is a site plan that shows where the house and the driveway access to the garage will be located along Los Olivos Road and here is a slope analysis map. Most of the house will be placed on an area with slopes less than 10 percent. A driveway and some portion will be placed on the slopes between 10 to 25 percent. The slopes higher than 25 percent are along Los Olivos Road and some at the existing private driveway but no portion of the building will be placed on the slopes that are greater than 25 percent. These are the elevations from the left side and right elevation. This is the entrance from the private driveway and the lower one shows the real elevation. Notices were sent out to neighbors within 600 feet. I have received just two emails that they were asking about why do we have a hillside permit and the neighbor who was offering to use the sign existing son and the parcel if there is any public hearing request for the proposed project but they have not received any concerns about the proposed project. And this project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a Class 3 exemption which is a construction of a single family dwelling unit in a residential zone. 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 792 Los Olivos Road. And that was my presentation. I know the architect Marley is also available to answer questions. Thank you. You are muted Tandy. Thank you. What I said was the presentation you provided was very complete and I have no questions at this time. I'd like to offer opportunity for the applicant or the applicant's team to add more or to comment if they wish. If so please raise your hand. Mr. Avila. Yes, sir. Do you have anything to add or to the presentation or comments? No, we're very pleased with the response and we're happy to answer any questions that you have and we agree to the conditions that you've given us. Excellent. All right. So I will now open it up for the public. Should anyone wish to comment please raise your hand at this time and you'll be recognized. Seeing no request for public comment I'll close the meeting. And so and just say this I think this is a very complete application package that was submitted the resolution prepared by project planner here makes all the appropriate findings. I will comment that the design of this house on that new subdivision lot does a great job of fitting the landscape setting where it's located which is a core intent of the hillside development permit particularly I believe the way the building had or I should say roofline steps down slope and such it does a good job of following the hillside form. I have no questions uh of the that from from the resolution itself and the conditions do seem appropriate. I did have just one clarification if I can ask miss C. Colley regarding the tree condition condition number seven. The the condition as it reads now indicates that 13 dead or damaged trees that were planted on the property that were removed as a result of the approved subdivision well those those were previously required during the subdivision and now need to be replaced with this project with this house being built. So basically what I learned from the architect team that when they were stopped dividing that lot they had to put that private driveway there and as a result of that driveway so many trees needed to be removed um merely come correct me if I'm saying it wrong so they have planted lots of other trees around the properties some of them are already dead or damaged so the applicant will replace those that were already replaced and additional trees are going to be remote but they will be mitigated at new trees will be also planted on the site. Okay and and that that was my second question so is the um the fee for a removed tree a mitigation fee is that a hundred dollars in lieu of actually planting the tree? So they have option they either can plant those trees or pay hundred dollars for the trees so it's the option each correct yeah okay okay all right well thank you for clarifying that um I um I would suggest um let's see here now I think the conditions fine as as it's written so with that I approve the hillside development permit as recommended by staff uh subject to the conditions of approval that are listed there in and um as I mentioned at the onset should any person wish to appeal this determination uh June 1st no yeah June 1st is the uh appeal date or did I say the second that I confuse things at the very onset of this meeting let me double check that but let's go ahead and I'll update everybody on the actual appeal date yeah it'll be Tuesday June 1st um so the next item on our agenda is uh a minor conditional use permit for 2008 Eagle Court and it's for a backyard fence and Ms. C. Collie is the project planner great so I'm going to share my screen again so as you mentioned this is a minor conditional use permit for a fence located on the rear of the property and the height of the fence at some portions are exceeding 8 feet but nothing more than 10 foot for the fence in some areas I'm going to explain what's happening in the backyard so here is where the project is located it is um zoned PD 72001 it is in a rebuilt area the house has already been built and the fence is constructed also the general plan land use is low density so uh on the left side we have a side plan that shows the proposed house or constructed house with the fence I have I try to show the corners two corners where the fence is higher than 8 feet with the red line so on this corner the fence is higher than 8 and also in this corner I'm going to explain the reason why fence at some areas is higher than 8 feet so the land the great is not even on the lots some areas are flat some areas of this have a slope here you can see on this area the great is pretty flat and even but here the great lowers down and that's why they have a fence higher in this area and is being shown also here the rest of the fence might not even be more than six or eight feet but because of we have a great that is not even it results in fence to be higher in some areas there are more pictures here is another corner as you can see on this area the fence is eight but this is the area where the great drops down and the fence is higher than 8 feet this is another picture in the back here as you can see there's like a slope and the fence has to be measured from the natural grade that's where the fence is being measured more than 8 feet 9 to 10 and this is an example of the elevation for the proposed fence or a constructed fence actually the red line here shows how the great slope stand and why the fence has to be measured higher in some areas but the fence entirely is 8 feet 6 feet solid and 2 feet almost lattice but when we measure the below fence that's why we have fence that the height is changing between one inch to 20 inch maximum and notice what's sent out and I have not received any calls or comments from the neighbors regarding the proposed project and the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and it qualifies for class three exemption the fence is a construction of an accessory structure and staff and the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor conditional use permit for the proposed fence located at 2008 Eagle Court and that was my presentation for today I'm available to answer any questions thank you thank you Monet I will I'll kind of hold those off until we've given the applicant or applicant's team chance to comment is anyone in the audience is the applicant here wish to comment on this matter Stefan Irish is the property owner okay okay if Mr. Irish if you do wish to comment you don't have to but please raise your hand and you have opportunity to do so okay okay is there any member of the public that is in present that wishes to comment on this item all right seeing none close a public meeting so great change so this Monet the the fence over height fence is measured from natural grade and is that natural grade on the applicant's side of the property in other words I think I saw in the detail that there was a retaining wall on the neighboring property so the elevation on the neighboring property was a little higher did I understand the plans correctly in that regard about the natural grade so because of the fire there was a grading so I don't know if it's natural anymore but part I believe I believe some of the like a grading and retaining walls are on the applicant's side not on the neighbors but the neighbors property and the applicants is not on the same grade the neighbors probably is lower if Steven could answer this detail would be helpful please mr. Irish if you're if you can address the what my question is who will see on which side of the property line is the 10-foot fence height observed from so that makes sense is it is it only visible to you the property owner or is it visible to the only to the next door neighbor because of that grade difference between the two properties I think it's visible for both of them because is that between two neighbors oh let me share my screen one more time just so on these two corners mr. Gustafson right you are asking here yeah okay so if you go back okay go ahead yeah so here is the applicant's property and this is one of the areas that is higher than eight feet and is being measured from natural grade here it seems that this side is the neighbor's property not mr. irish property and also here is that view taken number c is that taken from the applicant's property or off the applicant's property it looks like to be off the because the applicants property is already constructed and this is off property this is probably this neighbor's here it looks like we were able to get sound from mr irish okay all right excellent um so I with mr irish I don't know if you can help explain or me understand the relationship of the fence height and the grade is it that the the top of the fence is running horizontal along the property line and the bottom of the fence will drop down and follow the grade and thus becomes taller on both property lines or is there a retaining wall on one property or another I don't know if that makes sense at all I can't tell from these exhibits how what the configuration is in terms of grade underneath the fence on both property properties you're not muted mr irish you could maybe it looks like it looks like he might have called in for sound so let's try this let's try this caller over here okay so caller number ending with 4064 please press star nine and you'll be recognized you'll be able to speak you should be able to at this point I did enable the sound for that column oh we don't have the caller anymore mr irish if you can hear me can you acknowledge in chat that you you can hear me can we have on the screen let's see the presentation again lene can you go back to the site plan indicating the areas of fencing that are over height there you are right so I understand that the over height fence is only for certain you know limited portions of let's call it the rear yard property line and I can see in the lower right corner a developed lot on the neighboring property a house and so money do you know if that elevation of that property on that lower left corner is higher or lower than the subject property oh the mr irish property is the higher than the one in the below so this one is on a higher level than the one below here and what about the the property with the with the house on that one the the exactly that one of the lower right corner I'm not sure because they are already constructed I didn't have access like I could not go behind and see them because this is the old area photo and they're already constructed okay and they that property these properties around two zero zero eight equal court have been notified and you receive no comments no yes no comments okay the reason I'm asking is this over height fence will have an impact on both neighbors in terms of solar access well this is on the north side so it's not going to have that much of an issue so I just want to make sure we're not looking at depriving solar access there's not a rear yard privacy issue and that the neighbor isn't suffering the the visual impact of a 10 foot high fence on their property when the applicant has only a six foot high fence so I think the facts or the evidence presented is sufficient to say and conclude that the overhead fence will not have an adverse effect on the adjoining properties which is one of the key findings of a use permit in this case um have some evidence to the contrary I will support staff's recommendation approve the over height fence request and you belong to the next item thank you so the next item on the agenda is item 3.3 it's a minor conditional use permit for 3513 coffee meadow drive and the project planner is mr. mike melody mr. melody are you ready to give your presentation I am thank you mr. zoning administrator are you able to see my screen now it's coming on yes perfect perfect the project before the zoning administrator today is for a minor conditional use permit for a residential fence within a corner side setback at 3513 coffee meadow drive this minor c up would allow for a six foot solid meandering fence which I'll further explain in the presentation the fence would be located zero to two feet from the back of the sidewalk where a 15 foot corner side setback is required this single family dwelling is located in the coffee park area at the corner of pine meadow and coffee meadow as indicated on this location map the site is in the coffee meadow subdivision which is in a plan development pd 0184 within the resilient city combining district with a general plan land use of low residential as you can see the least restrictive setbacks for a corner side yard in this zoning district is 15 feet and here's a few photos from a site visit showing the existing fence leave this up for a moment so you can get oriented with it thank you next is a dated bird's eye view prior to landscaping that does show the current fence and this red line my space real quick shows the approximate proposed fence location as I mentioned at the start the fence is meandering which is a term I'm using to describe these recessions of the fence to break up the potential dominating features of a completely straight fence along the eastern sidewalk as indicated by my area pointer here thank you here the plans provided by the applicant I'd like to know that the applicant has been willing to compromise significantly from their original submission for the betterment of the neighborhood including lowering the fence height and working with this meandering fence line again this drawing is not scale but helps identify how the meandering fence is proposed as you can see the trees currently planted would be saved and encapsulated into their yard however as indicated in the resolution the exterior indentations facing the public right of way shall be maintained for trash removal by the applicant and include a planting or decorative architectural component to further break up the massing of the proposed fence speaking of the proposed this slide indicates the design of the fence as well as those of the adjacent properties sharing that intersection as you can see several are at or near the sidewalk as is and again the proposed meandering fence will avoid additional dominating features or a potential tunneling effect of this section of coffee meadow here the proposed elevations the fence will not exceed the height of six feet and will be of sound construction using primarily redwood with a Douglas fir pressure treated kicker board and the picture on the left shows what it will look like pool not included here are the fence which as you can see is almost perfectly presented by the zoning code diagram will not obstruct the vision triangle here's another view that shows how easily traffic will be able to safety navigate safely navigate the intersection as indicated this permit is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the property will not create a safety hazard is compatible with the adjacent fences in fact the meandering nature and lower height the normal than the other neighborhoods avoids that dominating the site the location and physical characteristics are also in proper relation the fence will be of sound construction and the property is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as it is categorically exempt due to the construction of a small structure please note public noticing was sent within 600 feet of the site and I did not receive any public comments with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve the minor conditional use permit as proposed to allow the construction of a six foot meandering fence for the single family dwelling located at 3513 coffee meadow drive here is my contact information and for anyone listening that can't see the slides my name is Mike Maloney and my email is mmaloney m-a-l-o-n-y-s-r-c-d.org and I'm available available for any questions you might have thank you excellent presentation have one question or just to confirm the height of the fence that's how is that measured that six feet on that fence from ground level on the outside of the street side of the fence correct okay um so now's opportunity for the applicant property owner to comment add more information if you wish please raise your hand and the property owner is not with us today but he's in full support of the project I see okay is there any member of the public who wishes to comment if so please raise your hand all right seeing none I'll close a public meeting so um can we look at the the aerial photo of this site and and you can share that on screen okay for that one yeah do you have one of the vicinity kind of showing the lot in the look relation to the others in the area thank you that's about the closest I have so yeah this yeah um the other indicated ones where like this fence for example is at sidewalk line this one's about it and this one will be a little indenting just to stop the tunneling effect in this section right so I'm a little perplexed well trying to figure out what I'm looking at the footprint of the structure maybe go back to the lot aerial with sufficient more detail that one there you go huh that's interesting was that aerial prior to the fire I wonder if that doesn't make sense so what what I'm getting at here is reductions in the side yard set back for a fence towards the street are typically they're granted because there's a circumstance of the property that deprives the property owner of a benefit that everyone else has in the area and for corner lots many times what the property owner doesn't have that everyone else has is a a rear yard area that you know is it's diminished by the that 15 foot set back and they their yard is smaller so often that's the finding that that supports um a reduction in that side yard fence to expand the rear yard area or that and it's in containment um it doesn't look like we have that here uh so I'm I'm a little challenged um to make that finding um I mean certainly the fence location doesn't cause a problem with regard to the um vision triangle so that's that's a critical issue um yeah and previously the owner or the applicant um wanted to emulate what the other fences had at 3515 and 3512 because they both have eight foot fences approved um and that's why they were willing to compromise on the height just to be able to get a little bit more of the encapsulate more in their yard yeah similar to 3512 so Mike are you do you know that those properties had received a side yard fence reduction from the city I mean I mean a lot of times it's um I know that 3515 from the research I looked at this fence was there prior to the fire and they were able to make the findings to rebuild it as is this fence previously this home was a single family or single floor dwelling and the fence was significantly closer I was not the planner on these projects but resilient city approved them to be able to go out with the height and that's why with 3513 um the applicant in question we were they were hoping to be able to get a very similar um approval um which is why they but they chose to go with the being able to get a little bit larger yard and not have the eight foot fence that would be their preference yeah but that was the compromise that we were trying to make so that they could be have the same uh options at the nearby fences were uh allotted at the time okay well you know the other finding and is you know what's going on in the neighborhood is this compatible with harmonious with consistent with um other fences in similar circumstances and and I think we can make that determination here um so I I just bring forward this point regarding the reduction of fence side yard setback as a way to remedy a yard that might be smaller because of the corner lot configuration in the building footprint um the uh the compromise staff and the applicant worked out I think is is helpful because um it will with the articulation of the fence line along that yard will help to minimize the um the corridor effect the tunnel effect so that's that's I think a good solution um I do want to underscore that in this case that fence height shall not exceed six feet as it is measured from the lowest grade on either side so in other words um if the kicker boards on the outside measuring from the grade up it should not exceed six feet and I think that is your recommendation for your finding uh that's great the staff report okay so um let me um if I may put I'm going to on my own screen here put the resolution not staff report but the resolution in front of me and uh just confirm what I know or what I read regarding those requirements one moment please and um yeah I think that that'll work fine um so I will approve this uh reduced side yard setback for a six foot high fence subject to the conditions listed in the resolution and uh thank you very much thank you great presentation talk to you right and then uh so let's go on to the um last item on our agenda it is a sign permit for 2777 4th street and Mr. John Jay is the project planner John are you ready to give your presentation uh yes I am can you hear me yes thank you I'm going to go ahead and share my screen okay I got it all right so this is a sign variance for the Flamingo resort and spa on 2777 4th street are you um excuse me John you're in you're just playing your notes mode you do presentation mode by clicking on that little uh the screen yeah down there I think that works let's do that no I think it was better before oh that's perfect okay there you're yeah all right so the proposal is to install um additional 632 square feet of signage at the Flamingo resort and spa where 100 square feet is allowed per zoning code chapter 20-38 here is a site plan of the project site I have a second site plan here of the sign locations there are a few that will be relocated as a result of um some new construction and different signs that are going to be implemented at the project site so here's the first sign a it's an entry wall sign measuring 30 square feet and I'll just go through these just to give you a better idea of the signs that are being proposed directional signs these are existing signs that are going to be relocated as noted on the blown up image from the site plan earlier and the existing historic tower sign is going to remain they are going to re um furnish it with some new paint and it will match the current color scheme that is currently there right now so in total there is nine total signs that are being added the zoning code chapter 20-38 only allows for three per um business sign along with 100 square feet in total so this is a sign variance request for the additional signage and square footage so with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by a resolution approve the sign variance for the flamingo resort and spa located at 27 77 4th street um mostly because the strict compliance with the sign ordinance um would not allow the best ease of transportation for both patrons and um um delivery staff to navigate the hotel in a safe manner that would prohibit or help for the the patrons of the hotel it's it's caused confusion there was a noticing that was sent out I did get one comment back saying that there is a neighbor within the 600 foot radius that a lot of people uh delivery drivers um with the wayfinding signs end up coming down her street rather than um getting to the hotel correctly so with the extra confusion there the additional uh wayfinding signage would help remedy that confusion and my name is John Jay my email is here jjay at srcd.org if you have any additional questions and I do believe we have a couple members of the project team here in the call if they have any additional questions great thank you so much for your presentation and I don't have any questions now um would the project team like to comment or add to this presentation if so please raise your hand you'll be recognized Kelly Peterson or Kelly Patterson excuse me hi um I'm just I just wanted to chime in I'm the owner's rep for the client on the project and um we just you know we're really only adding you know the wayfinding signs as John mentioned in his proposal to to just coordinate delivery and client arrival the other monument sign is and most of these signs are a replacement or refurbishment of what pre-existed on the site um obviously that tower has been there and is historic and that's a majority of this overage um so I just wanted to point that out and note that we're really conscientious about how it will relate to the property as well as the neighborhood thank you for that I appreciate that um is there any other members of your team that want to comment no no um any member of the public that wishes to comment at this point please raise your hand you'll be recognized seen no no close the public meeting um yeah I I looked at the sign program and and the reason for it and and it totally makes sense it's a complicated site with the frontage it has and and and the activities that come to the property or that occur on the property so wayfinding uh does provide a public service a benefit to the hotel and the patrons visitors as well as the surrounding neighbors and I think the concern raised by just one neighbor that they had delivery trucks coming down their street is emblematic of a problem that hopefully will be solved here and I uh so I I appreciate uh the need for it and that's completely consistent with um the to make the determination for this sign variance I'm going to um I review the um resolution and and agree with the findings prepared by the uh project planner and I am um support of or uh agree with the conditions of approval um it's I'll just add further note um it's it's always great to see commercial establishments uh such as a flamingo hotel continuing to make investments to improve operations and how they fit in the community so with that I am pleased to be able to prove the variance and and and uh and also can uh call the meeting of the zoning administrator May 20th 2021 to a close thank you all for attending today's meeting