Staff proposes redesign of design‑review rules; commission discusses limiting historic design review to resource properties

SONOMA CITY — At a study session on April 17, city planning staff proposed a rewrite of Sonoma City’s design‑review procedures intended to clarify when projects require major review, when they can be handled administratively and which projects are fully exempt.

Community Development Director Jennifer Gates and staff outlined the rationale: fewer stand‑alone design‑review cases are triggered under current code and much of today’s design review overlaps with historic‑resource review. The proposal would route most design‑review decisions to the Planning Commission for projects that meet defined thresholds (examples: new commercial/public structures; residential additions that create a new upper story or exceed 15 feet above adjacent grade; new multifamily over a size threshold). Staff proposed a separate administrative minor review for smaller exterior changes with mailed and posted notice and an appeal path to the Planning Commission.

Staff also proposed narrowing the Historic Preservation Commission’s duties to focus on citywide surveys, nominations and public education rather than routine project design review; staff said that would preserve a recommending body that focuses on historic resources while moving decision‑making to the Planning Commission for clarity and consistency.

Key elements discussed

- Major vs. minor review: Major review would apply to large commercial/public projects, additions above a percentage/size threshold, and projects that add visible new upper stories. Minor review would be an administrative process for smaller additions, exterior changes not visible from the public right of way and limited parking improvements; minor approvals would be noticed and appealable to the Planning Commission.

- Exemptions: Staff proposed exempting many ordinary maintenance items — routine window replacements that match predominant materials, reroofing with Class A materials that do not change pitch or dimensions, repainting unless the paint was specified as a condition of approval, and reconstruction of conforming structures after damage when rebuilt to the original footprint.

- Historic resources: Windows, roof materials and other character‑defining elements on properties listed or eligible for listing in the local register would be treated more conservatively ("like‑for‑like" replacement recommended). Gates said staff will propose separate language clarifying which historic properties remain subject to review and which routine maintenance items could be administratively handled.

- Fees and process: Staff said projects would pay for historic resource evaluations (HRE) if a building’s eligibility is unknown; staff is seeking to establish standard fees where consultants are used. The department plans a citywide historic‑resource survey subject to funding.

Commissioner questions focused on notice, appeals, the boundaries of what triggers design review, and practical examples (for instance, when an HOA paint change or a roof replacement requires review). Commissioners asked staff to clarify window language (percent of windows replaced vs. predominant material) and to make the exemptions/tests more explicit in the draft code.

What happens next

Staff said they will return with a formal ordinance draft that incorporates the study‑session feedback and with edits clarifying appeals, notice periods, eligibility processes and how the Historic Preservation Commission would be reconstituted for an advisory/survey role. The department intends to request funding for a citywide historic‑resource survey and an evacuation/safety study tied to the general plan process.