 Good morning, Donnie. Can you hear me? I can. Good morning. Thank you. Zoning Administrator Nicholson, can you test your audio and video for me please? Good morning. Good morning. Good, how are you? Good. Thank you. Okay, good morning. It is 1031, so I'll go ahead and call this June 2, Zoning Administrator Meeting to Order. My name is Amy Nicholson and I'm the Zoning Administrator for the City of Santa Rosa and pursuant to Government Code Section 54953E and the recommendation of the Health Officer of the County of Sonoma. We will be conducting this meeting by way of Zoom webinar. Members of the public can participate virtually at www.zoom.us slash join or by toll-free telephone and the phone number is 877-853-5257 and the meeting ID for this meeting today is 825-6671-7900. The public accessing today's meeting through Zoom can provide comments during specified public comment periods and additional information related to meeting participation is available at srcity.org slash zoning admin and this meeting is also being live streamed at the city's YouTube channel which is youtube.com slash city of Santa Rosa. So moving on to item number two, this is for public comment. This is a time when any person may address matters not listed on today's agenda but are within the subject matter of the jurisdiction. The public may comment on agenda items when that particular item is called. So opening up general public comment, if you would like to make a general public comment please hit the raise hand button on Zoom or press star nine if you're calling in by phone. Zoning administrator Nicholson there are no hands raised at this time. Thank you so much. We'll close general public comment and move on to item number three which is zoning administrator business. So I will read the statement of purpose. The zoning administrator is appointed by the planning and economic development director and has the responsibility and authority to conduct meetings and take action on administrative applications. Any decision made by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the appropriate review authority which includes either the design review board cultural heritage board planning commission or city council depending on the application before the zoning administrator and the appeal must be filed within 10 calendar days after the date of the decision. Item 3.2 is zoning administrator reports and I have no reports for today. So we'll move on to item four which is consent items. Doesn't look like we have any consent items on today's agenda so we can move into item five which is scheduled items and let me just a second here. Okay so our first item item 5.1 is for green pen dispensary site improvements. This is a minor landmark alteration permit and the site is located at 349 college avenue and Ms. Shekali is the project planner. Thank you and good morning Ms. Nicholson. So let me share my screen to give a presentation. So as you mentioned this is a minor landmark alteration permit for the property at 349 college avenue and project description. This minor landmark alteration permit is for site improvements including removal of a planter next to the dwelling unit which is located here I'm showing with my arrow and installing a new fence for both of the properties at 349 and 343 college avenue and adding a trash enclosure in the back of the building for 353 college avenue and parking lot improvements which includes also the widening of this driveway. And here are the sites where the project's been proposed on both of these parcels. I just want to mention here one thing about the building on the back of this property here was damaged and destroyed by the fire so the building in the back is gone and it's not here anymore. The zone for both of the properties is CG general commercial and it's consistent with the general plan land use which is retail and business services. I just I'm going to give a brief background about this project. So a green pen dispensary was approved by the planning commission last year on July and there were some comments conditions on this on the approved resolution that talks about today's LMA which included the improvement to the parking and removal of the planter box and also one condition was to change the color on the building to a neutral color and the applicant has proposed also to change the color on the building green dispensary green pen dispensary. So the applicant is not proposing to remove any trees there are no trees on the side the trees shown here on the adjacent properties and the red line here shows the location of the proposed fence. The fence will be six foot in high and four foot lattice four foot solid two foot lattice. It will be made out of wood similar to other fences in that neighborhood and here show the parking places proposed on both sides and the trash enclosure will be back here. As you can see here the driver has dislocated and widened to provide a better vehicle or circulation on the both sides and here is the location of the planter. Will it be removed to provide access for the parking? The applicant is proposing to replace it in the back here and there are no changes being proposed to the existing building and below here is where the it's like I just said elevation of the proposed fence which as I mentioned it's going to be six foot tall and the proposed project has been really in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for two exemption class one and class 11 and class one is that the project involves minor alteration to existing facilities and class 11 is that the project consists of construction of a minor accessory structure and a small parking lot. I have not received any comments or concerns or questions about this proposed project and with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor landmark alteration permit for the properties located at 349 and 353 College Avenue. I know the applicant and the architect both of them are available so if you have any questions they are also available to answer and that was my presentation. Thank you. Thank you so much Misha Collie. I do have a few questions. If you wouldn't mind pulling up the site plan again I know you had a few different versions in your PowerPoint I just want to make sure that I let me bring the PDF file it might be a better quality let me find the PDF file attachment there you go project plans it might be a higher and better quality there you go okay so one question is the the requirements for or the the minor landmark alteration permit so that that covers the fence at an increased height because is it correct that because the fence is over three feet and oh no this is a commercial the three feet fence is for residential and this is commercial so there's no hard limit for the commercial fences in historic district however they require a minor landmark alteration permit because it's an accessory structure okay the three feet it's only for residential okay I and I might be remembering the code incorrectly I thought maybe there was a requirement for a landmark alteration for any fence over three feet in a preservation district I don't know that it it may or may not be tied to the zoning district or not but okay so the fence is one of the items yes and that's really the requirement for the landmark alteration permit because the the striping is really it's just impacting the existing paved area there aren't any modifications to the building except for painting which you discussed which isn't regulated in our preservation districts correct and also the removal of this planter the cement planter and the widening of the driver in our zoning court under landmark alteration permit it says that for driveways you also need the minor landmark alteration permit so okay also the LMA is for driving and paving and adding all this parking spaces okay so and then as you mentioned the structure it was like an accessory structure that was damaged in a fire no it was a whole like a whole different house and I believe it was being used as a commercial the applicant can answer that question about the fire and when it happens okay but so it was previously that part of the parking lot was previously had that structure so on the northern part of that yes not other property it's since been damaged and demolished and that area will be paved and it will allow for circulation okay and then the curb cut will be widened along college avenue okay okay I think that that that concludes my questions for now so let's let's take a pause and I'll move into public comment and then we'll circle back and I will look at that LMA section for defense to just make sure okay thank you great thank you okay um I will now open up public comment on this item does any member of the public wish to make a comment if so please use the raise hand feature on zoom or press star nine on the phone zoning administrator Nicholson there are no hands raised at this time thank you so much okay I'm just going to look at the resolution miss Nicholson uh can I just interrupt and so I look under the llama cultivation permit it says a fence higher than otherwise allowed by section 20-30.060 which section is about the fences shall require major llama cultivation permit approval so the three foot fence is for the residential and this zone is commercial so I think they don't need a major LMA for the fence because the project site is zoned commercial okay great thank you for that clarification I do have one additional question so the cement planner will be relocated so it doesn't obstruct vehicle access on a college avenue and there's some type of plants proposed in that the applicant is placing in the back but I don't see any trees being proposed there oh applicant Cohen Lisa can answer that question okay thank you good morning miss Nicholson pleasure to meet you I'm Lisa Cohen I'm the senior executive vice president and we are running the business at 353 and we own our company owns 349 we also hired a historian to go through and look at the two properties and it was determined that the planter is not of historic it's modern materials and we have the full history report this building goes back to 1893 for the 349 so we're looking to see if we can remove the planter if we're not we were proposed to put it in the back corner and we'll be submitting our our building permit with the trees that will be going in the property no no trees just succulents for the property for water making sure that we're conservative of water okay let's okay so the planters I understand that the need to remove it and and that it's not of historic value I appreciate that clarification so is the request to actually not relocate it in the north it's possible yes we want to move forward so if that's our only option to move to back we're willing to do that but it is not a historic item and they felt it was the historian painter preservation historic preservation urban design Diana did the full evaluation and felt that it was fine to remove that okay are there is there any other landscaping you know I realize it's limited and there's quite a bit of paved area and more area that needs to be paved so if if that weren't to be relocated would there be any landscaping at all yes there would be landscaping in that in that area be succulents but that's only if you relocated the planter even if we didn't relocate the planter we would have that area set for oh would be landscape regardless okay great thank you and Michelle Colley do did you review the the report so let me tell you about the report so the report was prepared for the adjacent property in the future they have to submit a minor LMA for the repair of the damaged building can in that report the historian talks about that planter so at the time where this LMA was submitted there was no report specifically for the slot so applicant is preparing another LMA for the future for the property at 343 college avenue and that report talks about the planter that is not the historic it has no historical value okay thank you so um we'll make one correction low water maintenance planting I apologize for saying succulents I just want to make sure we're just very um concerned about the water um droughts that are going on and things like that so we just want to make sure we're having low water maintenance planting at the site thank you thank you um okay so I believe that concludes my questions well I one more sort of process related question Michelle Colley if if they don't uh if there is not a desire to relocate the planter um are we able to add a condition in the resolution that gives some flexibility that because the planner is not of historic significance that it isn't required to be relocated but that planting's low water native plantings would be located in that the north northwest corner of the project site we can add the conditions say like a pro-wide landscaping on the northwest corner of the lot 343 349 college avenue sorry SS 343 349 college avenue maybe we can add the condition I'm just thinking it might be good to add enough flexibility um because the plans themselves show that the planter's being relocated but if if it's not the desire to relocate it and it's not of historic value then I think it would be helpful to add a condition that if the if the planner is not relocated um that that area will be relocated yeah with with low water plants in that way it gives the applicant an opportunity to to choose what works best and whichever planner reviews the the building permit plans can can review that condition if that makes sense yes Lisa do you have any question about you know that's already in our plan so we would like that and and thank you Ms. Nicholson and um we just really appreciate your your understanding sure um thank you so much and and I've reviewed the the findings in the resolution and I I can make each of the findings I think that these will be some important improvements for the site and allow for better circulation um and it looks like there's a special condition regarding a joint access agreement which allows the use of 349 for the purposes of 353 um so I appreciate that and also the engineering conditions I did I want to make sure that those okay those were also uploaded and okay so I think that we are good so I will go ahead and sign the resolution um approving the minor landmark alteration permit once Ms. Shekali is able to add in that condition just to provide that flexibility for the planter and thank you so much for your time thank you and just a reminder that um this action is subject to appeal so if it were to be appealed 10 days starting well 10 calendar days beginning tomorrow it would be appealable to the cultural heritage board Ms. Nicholson do you want to open open the public comment period for this project I think you can ask for public comment I thought did you ask I thought that I did okay she's yes she did okay okay thanks sorry I appreciate it it's a team effort okay thanks all right um so let's go ahead and move on to item 5.2 um this is for the Chanstrob residence which is located at 3935 Sky Farm Drive and it's a minor hillside development permit and Ms. Shekali is the planner again thank you again so I will share my screen this time again for the presentation so the project before you today is minor hillside development permit and minor condition on this permit we have two permits here I'm going to explain the reason why we have two permits so just a brief description the minor hillside development permit is for a new pool cabana training walls and an adu that has a storage the adu itself is exempt from the hillside permit but because there's a storage on the first floor and more than 50 percent of the total area of the adu it requires a hillside permit and the reason for the minor use permit is because the accessory structures the cabana and retaining walls and the pool the swimming pool are proposed in front of the house and they are closer to street than the primary residence our zoning code says if those accessory structures are being proposed closer to street than the primary residence it will require they will require a minor use permit and the project is located at 3935 Sky Farm Drive the house was destroyed by the fire and the new one has been rebuilt recently as you can see here this is the new house it's already constructed and the applicant is proposing to add the pool cabana and the new adu there the zone is PD plan development consists of the general plan land use a very low density residential land use here is the existing site plan as you can see the project that the applicant has provided the site plan that shows the majority of the area where the project is going to be proposed which is in the front no portion of the backyard will be proposed for any structures and they will tell you why i have a picture also here is the area where the project is being proposed it shows there are some existing uh like a rock walls and this is the proposed site plan so on the left side here we have the new adu with the accessory structure on the below on the the lower level and the cabana is here the applicant also has existing garage in the back which is detached and the cabana will be shorter and almost in front of the garage there are retaining walls that provide in access and the pool with the uh trellis around of not trellis like guardrails around around the pool and there is a small area for the fire pit at this location so the reason the applicant cannot propose the structures in the back because uh majority of the backyard has slopes created than 25 percent and it won't be easy to take any like grading or truck in the back to do the work and again because slope in the back is 25 percent so the applicant requested to propose those accessory structures and the pool and the swimming pool to be proposed or placed in front of the primary residence here is a section for the pool and cabana i want to show how i want you to see at the center section here how the proposed uh retaining walls and the pool is following the contours and they are stepping back stepping down and here is the existing elevation for the house and here is the proposed structures here is the cabana the pool new retaining walls and the new adu with the storage on the lower level as you can see none of those structures are going to be taller than the existing structures on the house and they won't disturb any like a ridge line or view from the street here is the adu with the storage and here is the slope map as it is today and here is the proposed slope for the the new structures and here is the rendering on illustration of what being proposed there the cabana is here is going to be similar in materials to the existing house and the applicant has chosen to put the retaining walls around the pool to be similar to the existing rock walls that are on the side so they will blend perfectly and won't like a how should i say a dominant view from the street so the whole project will be blending very well with the existing single family on the site and this project also has been reviewed in compliance with the california environmental quality act and it qualifies for a class 3 exemption under section 15 303 the project consists of construction of accessory structures i also we send the notice for this project to neighbors within 600 feet and i have not received any emails or questions about the proposed project and with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator bar resolution approve the proposed project for the property located at 3935 sky farm drive the applicant representative said is available and if you have any question he probably can answer your questions also and that's what's my presentation thank you thank you so much for that very thorough presentation does the applicant wish to make any comments at this time no mr. Nicholson not at this time mr. collie didn't find job great thank you so much i don't have any questions so let me go ahead and open public comment on this item if any member wishes to make a comment please use the raise hand feature on zoom zoning administrator Nicholson there are no hands raised at this time okay thank you okay so i have reviewed the resolution and see that there are the findings for both the minor conditional use permit and also minor health side development permit thank you misha collie sorry zoning administrator do you want thank you go ahead and close public comment for this item thank you for the reminder um so misha collie thank you for explaining why a minor conditional use permit is required for this project um and i appreciate the findings that were made for that entitlement as well as the hillside development um entitlement i certainly understand why it makes sense to locate these accessory structures in the area where they're being proposed it's land that's easier to develop and is less disturbing to steeper slope so i i feel that all the findings can be made for the minor use permit the hillside development permit i i agree with misha collie's findings about stepping with with the topography and not interrupting ridgeline views the rendering was really helpful just to show that perspective of how the cabana and adu and storage area are you know lower in height and and i think blend really well with the the house that was recently rebuilt and also i appreciate the use of natural materials on the retaining wall i think that's a um very complementary to the rock walls that are existing and and just helps to keep the area looking more natural so um just to clarify has the applicant reviewed the the resolution of approval and and each of the conditions yes i have and i no questions there okay great all right well with that i will go ahead and approve the hillside development permit and minor use permit and members of the public know that this action is um appealable within 10 calendar days of the decision thank you for attending and let's see we can move on to our last item which is adjournment so thank you all for attending today and enjoy the rest of your day