 Good morning, Kristen A. Would you check your sound? Good morning, Kimberly. Sounds good. Still waiting on our other couple of others. So I want to give our attendees an opportunity. If anyone of our attendees is a member of an applicant team and you'd like to do a sound check, please use the raise hand feature on the Zoom. And sorry about that, everybody. I had to close the window. All right, we've got Leah Mayer. We should be seeing a prompt. And if you answer that prompt, we can go ahead and check your sound. Good morning, it's Leah. Sounds good. Thank you. If you want to go ahead and mute yourself, we won't have to go through that every time. All right, it is now 10 30. And I'm going to convene the basic meeting of the zoning administrator. My name's Andy Gustafson. I act as zoning administrator for the city of Santa Rosa. We are hosting this online because it's a COVID pandemic reduction measure, or it will help us reduce contact and the transmission of the disease, which is hopefully soon to be at a level where we can resume face-to-face meetings in the future, or at least include face-to-face meetings in the future. This meeting is a public meeting. We do follow an agenda, which has been published. We have four items today, and we will go through those in order. Those of you who are attending by Zoom at points during the meeting when I invite public or applicant comment, please raise your hand by selecting the hand symbol. Those of you who may call in during the meeting, you'll be recognized at the time you have opportunity to comment by pressing star nine. And in both cases, prior to commenting, it will be necessary for you to unmute yourself so that we can hear you. As with every meeting, we do have opportunity available for the public to comment on a matter that is thought on the agenda. And if anyone in attendance wishes to do so, please raise your hand, and you have three minutes to make a public comment. I only see one member of the public beyond other than staff in attendance. I see no request for public comments. So let's move on to our regular agenda. So I do want to say before we get going that any matter that is acted on today, either approved, denied, or approved with conditions, may be appealed on 10 calendar days from this hearing for the next business day, which will be Monday the, I need to get my calendar for me to get the right date, Monday the 17th of May. So if for some reason you wish to appeal a matter on today's agenda, please contact the project planner. All right, with those preliminaries, I wish now to move forward on the agenda. The first item we have before us is a minor conditional use permit for a property located at 1124 Piner Creek. And the project planner is Kristin Aitimans. Please prepare your, present your report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gustafson. This is Kristin Aitimans, senior planner. And this is a minor use permit for a home occupation, for a massage, in-home massage business. The applicant would like to operate a massage therapy business in the living room of her home. She proposes no more than five clients a day, no more than one client would be at the home at any given time. Her driveway has sufficient parking both, her garage and driveway have sufficient parking both for her household as well as for any guests. She also acknowledges that their clients could potentially park in front of her home and walk into, you know, to access the home business. The reason for the minor use permit is usually home occupations don't. Don't usually include customers arriving to the house, but in this case they will, they would. And for that reason, it's requiring a minor use permit and a little bit more analysis and control with conditions. Planning staff is recommending approval of the massage business. And in addition, we have not received any comments against the project. One email was sent this morning saying that they had no concerns. Excellent, thank you. If the applicant or the applicant's agent wishes to make a comment, how is the time to do so? Please either raise your hand or press star. And I only see one non-staff member in attendance. Andy, you might want to check your participants because we have a number of attendees. Thank you. I do see that. Thank you. I do not see anyone who wishes to comment on this matter. If you do, please raise your hand and you'll be recognized. But seeing none, I will now invite the public who might be in attendance concerning this matter to comment. If they wish to do so, please raise your hand or press star. All right, seeing none, I'll close the meeting. Public hearing portion of this item. So, a quick question, Kristine. I think the resolution makes all the necessary findings. And I think the applicant demonstrated that traffic or parking issues will be less than substantial or significant here. And it seems to be of appropriate use. I just want to have a clarification about the conditions of approval. In your presentation, you said there would be no more than five visitors and only one employee. Condition number three mentions two students. Will there be students attending or working on the property? Is a question regarding other employees. Correct. The applicant's statement, project description statement, states that she's the only one operating the business. OK, so there may be other occupants at the home, but they would not be involved in the business. OK, so let's just clarify that condition. Let's eliminate that reference to students in the parentheses there. I think that would, because that's the first time that that was introduced. Also, the use you described will be fully contained within the house. Does the use depend in any way on the garage to function in this case? There's a reference in condition number four. I believe you're reviewing a previous draft. And the final draft doesn't have that condition. Revised. Yeah, there's a revised resolution. Yeah. That was posted online. Yeah, I probably don't have the benefit of that right now. I'll have to. And then that may be the same thing. There was a couple conditions in here regarding signage. I was just going to suggest they'd be consolidated. Was that also in the revised condition that was posted? Yes. OK. Let me just briefly. So the condition currently states, condition number seven, currently states that there shall be no signs except for street address and our name identification as provided for an article 20-38 and a three inch by five inch placard located on the front door or adjacent to the doorbell that identifies the home application. And that's the one that'll remain. Yes. If that's OK. If you agree. Yeah, no, that makes sense. OK. So conditions numbered in the former resolution, condition 10 and condition five will be removed. I think you probably don't have the previous version in front of you about advertising. Yeah. Yes, that will be removed. OK, perfect. OK, so with that, I will approve the conditional youth permit or the minor youth permit for this home occupation subject to the as found in the revised resolution with the updated conditions of approval. All right, so let's move on to the next item. Which is, I need to get the agenda in front of me. Shoot, one moment here. I pulled it up, Andy. I pulled it up on the screen. Can you see it? Perfect. Thank you. That's probably faster. We have another conditional youth permit for 1665 Gernville Road. And Kristen A is our project planner. Thank you. Let me share my screen. So this is a minor conditional youth permit for changes to an approved project. This was a previously approved small lot subdivision located at 1665 Gernville Road. The project is currently in the process of being constructed. Permits were issued. And as you can see, lots one and 12 at the top of that page. It turns out that instead of a four foot step back, the buildings are actually at approximately three and a half feet from the property line. And so they had to come back and formally request a reduction in setback for those two lots. So it's a lot 12 and one that require the change. And there is no objections from the building division. It doesn't cause any building code violations of any kind to have it at three and a half feet versus four feet. There have been no objections from the neighbors regarding this project. And staff feels this is a minor enough change that it should be acceptable. And we're recommending approval. Thank you. Does the applicant or the applicant's agent wish to comment on this requested conditional use permit? I see two hands raised. Can Mr. Dalby be recognized, please? Good morning, Andy. Hello, Chris today. Good morning. So Andy, both myself and Barry Freeland are available to answer any questions that it might be. There's really nothing much to say except that we had some miscommunication early on that didn't get caught till later on. And we're really over that four foot setback by about two inches. So just to give a little push, I'm asking for a three and a half rather than a four foot setback. Thank you. Yeah, I'm certain you'll probably land the foundation perfectly to make that 3.8 whatever feet setback. But I think that sounds reasonable. And I really have no other questions. Mr. Freeland, if you wish to comment or add to that, we're welcome to do so now. My apologies. No additional comments. And I really appreciate your consideration. Thank you. All right. Is there any member of the public present who wished to comment on this particular item on our agenda? Please raise your hand or press star nine. Seeing none, I'll close the public meeting. Well, I'm glad we could do this conditionally used permit to have this project move forward. And I agree with staff's findings provided here that essentially this reduction will not create a health safety welfare matter or concern for people living or working in the area. So with that, we have the findings and the necessary conditions to approve this. And I will do so. Thank you very much. All right. Item number three, and I think I may have be able to get it on screen, the agenda on my screen. Item number three is a minor design review for 1850 Santa Rosa Avenue. And we have Adam Ross as a project planner. Adam, can you give your presentation, please? Yes, Mr. Jody Administrator. Let me just pull it up on my end. OK, do you see that? Yeah, cool. So the item before you today is a facade improvement and upgrade for an existing drive-thru restaurant. Currently, it's a Wendy's restaurant. The drive-thru remains the same. It just has to do with outdoor dining, facade improvements, and then internal stuff that really is not within the purview of the designer view application. But it is included on the plans, and I'll show it for reference. The project is a CG, which is general commercial and is allowed by the drive-thru facility, is allowed by a use permit. In this case, the project was approved previously. So it's pretty straightforward. I apologize if it's not very thorough of a presentation, just because the project itself complies with design guidelines for use of materials and items and features that allow support of the approval of this project. As you can see on the screen here, it has tower elements, multiple materials, and is a welcomed upgrade to the existing use. With that, I'm here to answer any questions you may have. And the applicant team is also here for any questions. I think it sounds pretty straightforward. It looks pretty straightforward. I thank you for your presentation. The applicant team or their agent or the owner, if you wish to comment, please raise your hand and you'll be recognized. I see none. I think Joe might be. Joe, select the hand icon if you wish to. All right, I'm going to now offer opportunity for the public who may be in attendance to comment on this particular matter. If so, please raise your hand. Again, I'm seeing none. If you're on a call, I don't think any are on the phone. Restar nine. With that, I'll close the public hearing portion of this item. Yeah, I think this is a great sign. We'd like to see business establishments, continue investment, and care in their property. This upgrade, this refresh of the exterior demonstrates that and the community will appreciate it. I do agree with the findings made with this planner made in the resolution. They are consistent with their design review guidelines and the conditions are appropriate for this upgrade. And with that, I approve this design review permit. Thank you again, Project King. All right, so let's move on now to the last item on our agenda and I'll see if I can beat the... Thank you. The last item on our agenda is a landmark alteration at 629 and a half Pine Street. And Adam Ross is the project planner. Adam, please give your presentation. Sure. So again, I'm Adam Ross. This is the... I apologize. Do you see that still, the PDF? I do, but we don't see the entirety of the plan. Can you zoom out maybe a level or two? Does that work? No. Did it work? What about now? No change to the screen. Okay, let me... One second. Let's share the screen one more time. Does that work? Yep, perfect. So this is a minor landmark alteration permit for a tough shed. It's 8 by 8 square... 8 by 8 feet for a total of 64 square feet in new coverage of the site. It's an existing... It's an existing two-unit residence. So you have the main in the front and a secondary unit in the back, which is kind of where my cursor is. The shed, typically, if it wasn't in a historic district, or I should say preservation district, we wouldn't need any sort of entitlement, but in this case, there is because it is viewable from the streets. It's also within the code that states that items such as this are required for a minor landmark alteration permit. It's very straightforward. Again, the overall lot coverage of the site is allowed as 40... 40%. Actually, I should say it's 50% because it is in the R2 PD within the Burbank Gardens neighborhood. And so with that, the total score of footage is of the existing home and the main and secondary units are I think around 30%. So the addition of 64 square feet is not going to come near 40% or 50%. This is a rough exhibit. It'll... The plans, the color and plan will match the existing units in color and likeness. There are others in the neighborhood and it won't be detrimental to any sort of... Any sort of historic significance of the house. It is a contributor to the preservation district, not a historic, not a landmark designated site, but as part of being in the district, it is part of that. So it's not uncommon for this type of project in the backyard, very small to use this storage for whatever that may be. The only time it would need a building permit after this is if they propose to put a light or a lighting fixture in it or something like that. With that, the planning department recommends that the ZA approve the project and have them available for any questions. And I believe the property owner, Leah, Mara is here to answer any questions you may have as well. All right, well, thank you for that. She was rather straightforward. I did have one question. I just, the exhibit that you showed with the photo and it was annotated, indicated something about fencing and that it wouldn't be visible. Maybe I should ask the applicant, please, if I may, raise your hand so you can be recognized. And also, you'd have an opportunity to comment. Thank you. Well, maybe it's partially visible, I guess, which is why we're going through this process. This is Leah Maher, by the way. And thank you for all your time and review. So there's an existing gate that goes across the driveway that so you don't see the, you know, when it's open, then you see the full driveway and that gate has previously been permitted as well. Okay. I did not understand that and thank you for that clarification. I do apologize. That was a miscommunication on my part. It is not visible from the street. I mean, it might be if it's taller than the fence, but, you know, it's not readily visible, but that still requires a minor landmark alteration permit. Okay. That's all right. Cool. Thank you for that. Yeah, I have no further questions and I think the application and presentation together provides a clear picture of what's proposed. Is there any member of the public who is in attendance that wishes to comment? I do see, on the other hand, Donna Wells. And are you a member of the public or representative of the applicant? Representative of the applicant. Okay. Go ahead. Hello, everyone. Donna Wells, property manager for this property. Hello, Adam. You were wonderful helping me with this process. The other important thing to note is that there is no existing garage for this property. So this is specifically for storage for the people that live on the property. That's all I had, Dan. Okay. Thank you. Yes. All right. All right. Is there any member of the public who wishes to comment on this matter? So please raise your hand. Seeing none, I'll give a moment in case somebody, all right. So I'll close the public hearing on this matter. So the presentation, the exhibits and the clarifications clarified for me that the proposed addition of this accessory structure in the rear yard of the property would not detract from the historic or visual character of that property or the neighborhood. So I think the findings provided in the resolution and the conditions are appropriate for this. And with that, I approve the resolution as proposed and or reiterate that should any member of the public or applicant wish to appeal the matter the 10 day appeal period concludes the first business day after that 10 day appeal period is May 17th, 5 p.m. That concludes our zoning administrator meeting of May 6th, 2021. And I thank all of you for attending and have a great day. Bye-bye.