Staff presents proposed changes to design review ordinance, commission weighs narrower review triggers and role shift

Planning staff brought a draft of proposed changes to Sonoma’s design review ordinance to the Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission on April 8, seeking feedback before advancing the draft to the Planning Commission for a May study session and to City Council for a June hearing.

Staff summarized recommended changes intended to streamline review while preserving oversight for visible and higher-impact projects. Major-review triggers proposed include: any new commercial or public structure; commercial additions greater than 25% or 800 square feet of gross floor area; exterior modifications visible from public rights-of-way; new residential development of five or more units; and multifamily projects that do not meet the city’s objective multifamily design standards. For residential properties within the city’s historic overlay or those listed or determined eligible for the local register, staff proposed lower thresholds for major review (additions greater than 25% or 500 square feet, added upper stories, or exterior changes visible from the public right-of-way).

Under the draft, a separate minor-design-review track would allow staff to approve smaller, less-visible modifications (for example, commercial exterior changes not visible to the public or residential additions under the stated thresholds) with mailed notice to owners within 500 feet, signage on the site, and a short appeal window; staff said a minor review decision could be elevated to a hearing if objections arise. Staff noted signs are handled in a separate code section and that a forthcoming sign ordinance rewrite is underway.

Commissioners pressed staff for clarity about treatment of modifications to previously approved projects, the applicability of thresholds to historic versus non-historic structures, and how the rules would operate during post-disaster rebuilds or when an applicant alters plans during construction. Commissioners asked whether minor reviews would be processed administratively and how applicants would be informed; staff said minor reviews would be handled at staff level and that an education/outreach effort would accompany code changes. Staff said it intends to request funds to conduct a citywide historic-resources survey this year to reduce the burden on individual applicants seeking resource-status determinations.

Staff also raised recurring operational issues: the design review commission has struggled to maintain a full roster and regular quorums, leading staff to propose a shift in the commission’s role. One option staff described would make the commission a primarily policy- and education-focused body meeting quarterly, while day-to-day discretionary design review responsibilities would transfer to planning staff and, when necessary, to the Planning Commission. Staff said this approach would preserve the city’s Certified Local Government (CLG) obligations while concentrating the commission’s time on historic-preservation policy, education, and high-level code recommendations.

No ordinance amendment was adopted at the April 8 meeting. Staff will incorporate commission feedback and bring the draft to the Planning Commission for a study session in May and then to City Council thereafter; staff asked commissioners to identify any major concerns before those hearings.