Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2003 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commissioner Zeljka Howard Staff: Associate Planner Jeff Hook ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. 1772 Calle Joaquin. ARC MOD 92-03; Review of a new 50-foot high illuminated flag pole; C/OS-10 zone; American Legion Post No. 66, applicant. Associate Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report recommending approval of a 35- foot high, non-illuminated flagpole, to be placed within the developable part of the site zoned O-S (Office with a Special Considerations overlay zoning), based on findings which he outlined. He noted staff is recommending there be no nighttime lighting because of General Plan policies and ARC Guidelines that discourage lighting that might cast a glare off-site. He explained that if the Commission supported exceptions, they could grant exceptions to pole height and lighting, but not location because the ARC does not have the authority to grant exceptions to General Plan Policies. Commr. Lopes asked if pole could be moved to the KSBY-owned property that is zoned Office. Planner Hook replied yes, there appeared to be room on the developable portion of the KSBY site to accommodate the flagpole. Commr. Lopes noted that the KSBY property is under a different ownership than the applicant’s proposed location, and commented that KSBY has been very diligent about minimizing the development of antennas and microwave dishes. He questioned if a flagpole is considered a project under the City’s ordinance. Planner Hook explained that a flagpole does not require ARC review as long as it meets height limits and lighting requirements. He explained that the ARC does not have the authority to allow a structure in the Conservation/Open Space zone, in conflict with the General Plan. ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 2 Commr. Boudreau asked if the flagpole were on the KSBY parcel, could it be within the setback area. Planner Hook explained if it is on the portion of the property that is zoned Office, and if the flagpole were 35-feet tall, then it must be located outside the setback areas. Commr. Wilhelm questioned how the Land Use Element is being applied to flagpoles in the staff report Planner Hook replied that the Land Use Element states that development including buildings, driveways, fences, and graded areas shall be within development limit line. There was much discussion on Open Space Element policies and the setback required for the flagpole. Robert P. “Bob” Bryn, representing the American Legion Post and all veterans, explained they were asking for a waiver of the 35-foot height limit to allow a 50-foot pole, so they could display the American symbol of liberty, and that all who enter or leave the City of San Luis Obispo could see their American flag. He presented a letter explaining how they came to the decision of the location and a site map showing the proposed location. He respectfully requested that the Commission approve the request in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Robert E. Lee, 1665 Higuera Street, offered some information on the dimensions of the proposed site and photographs of the area on where the flagpole is proposed to be located. He mentioned they did not know the exact size of KSBY’s property, but noted that KSBY has agreed to allow them to use electricity from their light standards to light the pole and would also pay for the electricity. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have considered another location if this Commission finds that the pole cannot be located in the open space area. Mr. Lee replied they would have to consider another option if this location is not allowed. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have considered not lighting the flag 24-hours a day. Mr. Bryn replied no, and explained that no one is going to raise it and take it down each day. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have considered lowering the pole height to 35- feet. Mr. Bryn replied no. Mr. Lee explained that flag display protocol is that the depth of a flag will be one-quarter of the height of the pole. ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Tim Haley, 9511 Los Palos Road, Atascadero, did not feel this flagpole is a sign, but a symbol of freedom of what people have fought for. He commented on the plaque that dedicates the City Hall building and three words jumped out, which was truth, liberty and toleration, and pleaded with the Commission to be tolerant of the request. He mentioned there would be no cost to the City and would be providing the City with an asset. Frank Roland, 248 Manetta Drive, commented that he supports flying the flag 24-hours a day so it could be an inspiration to people, making San Luis Obispo an all-American town. He mentioned that a 35-foot pole would not work out because the flag would not be visible. John Robert Griffin, 1436 Johnson Avenue, requested the Commission not consider the flagpole a development because this characterization locks the ARC into a path that gives them no flexibility. He noted this location represents a view corridor for the American flag, and that if it comes down to where the best location for the flag is, he encouraged the ARC to go on record as supporting a change to the Land Use Element. John Wilcox, 663 Pismo Street, pointed out that there is a lot of land set aside as open space on Los Osos Valley Road by Councilwoman Mulholland, which has a post that states “don’t walk on this.” He mentioned in lieu of raising and lowering a flag daily, they did not intend to leave a flag up at night unlit. William Nolton, 1625 Jason Drive, felt the Commission and citizens would feel better if they saw a flag up on that hill. Margaret Cooper, SLO, expressed how sad it is for her to be at this meeting and listen to the Commission discuss this flag as if it were a building. She noted this not about a building, but the American Flag that represents our freedom. Rob Bryn, SLO, mentioned for the record that he is on Administrative leave. He pointed out that Section 15.40.170 talks about flagpoles displaying other than, National, State, or local flags shall be subject to height, area, lighting, and location standards established by this chapter. He suggested there be proper interpretation of this particular section because it is very important. He expressed as an individual that the Commission stand in support of the Marine Corps League, American Legion, and other veteran organizations in seeing that this tribute to the greatest nation is erected appropriately on the hillside. He mentioned that relative to the lighting issue of the national emblem they might be exempt and suggested that the City Attorney look into. Rob Garcia, 245 Aspen, expressed support for being able to see a symbol of Peace and Freedom while driving in and out of the city each day. Mr. Lee asked if the Commission could appeal to their patriotism and find a way to get this flagpole up, to be especially appreciated by the 28,000 local veterans. There were no further comments made from the public. ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 4 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson mentioned the flagpole is probably not something the ARC would normally review, but noted there are two areas they are being asked to consider, which is the issue of proper zoning category and the height limit. Commr. Smith commented that a suggestion was made that the Commission could make a recommendation, and if the recommendation were conflicting with the City law the City Council would have to validate it. Commr. Lopes commented that he supports the staff recommendation. He felt there is room on the KSBY property that could be available as another option, and felt the 35- foot height limit is appropriate. Commr. Wilhelm said he supported this project for a variety of reasons. He noted there is a respect associated with the American flag, and felt there is a message that is a symbol, which he thoroughly supports. He noted that in a forum like this, they cannot argue that issue. He commented that there isn’t development around the proposed property; it is an isolated site. If the height were lowered, from a distance the flag would look understated. He felt it was important that this flag be 50-feet high because of the nature of the distant view of this property and in order to see it, it would need to be taller. He suggested rather than lighting from the ground they should consider lighting it downward from above. Commr. Root commented that while the American flag is inarguably a wonderful symbol in which he has a tremendous amount of pride, he felt this is not an inappropriate gesture and noted there are some aesthetic considerations. He mentioned that he would like to see a photo simulation to show what size of flag is proposed. He expressed a concern that if this were granted in the Open Space zone, it would it set a precedent. He felt if there were an appropriate site to place the pole in the Office zoned property, then it should be explored. He also felt there could be a compromise on the size of the pole. He suggested focusing three lights on the flag and shield the source of the light, which would make it more appropriate. He supported lighting the flag 24-hours a day. Commr. Boudreau expressed support for the project. He noted as long as the lighting is done correctly and is optimized so it lights the flag, then he supports the nightlight. He felt if they could work out the Open Space issue with the City Council, then he doesn’t have a problem with it. Commr. Smith commented that every effort should be made to accommodate this project and felt an exception to the pole height could be made to go to 50-feet and to have it lit. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he concurs with portions of what the other Commissioners have stated. He expressed a concern with locating it in the open space area and felt if there were an exception provided for changing it to an allowable use in the Conservation/Open Space zone, or extending the zoning out that far, he would have no problem with it. He felt the easiest solution would be to move the pole back closer to ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 5 the parking lot within the Office zone. He expressed support for a 40-foot pole if it were placed further up the slope. He expressed concerns with the lighting being projected upwards and felt they should explore an up-lit focused shielded lighting so it is not visible from around the surrounding area. Commr. Wilhelm moved approval for the project with the exception to allow a flagpole height of 50-feet, and the ability to light the flag with shielded up-light fixtures that would focus the light on the flag, and to recommend that the location of the flag be allowed in the Conservation/Open Space zone. Seconded by Commr. Smith. Chairperson Stevenson referred to the findings in the staff report and suggested adjusting the findings so a use could be approved. Commr. Wilhelm modified the motion to permit the flagpole height exception to 50-feet and permit the lighting on the condition that it is shrouded and directed at the flag with an appropriate limit on footcandles and to permit the location as proposed. Commr. Smith accepted the modification. Planner Hook noted the two motions were very similar except for the recommended versus the permitted location of the flagpole. Commr. Wilhelm explained that the first motion is based on what the report stated, and the second motion is based on what he sees as the location being discretionary. Planner Hook noted that the Commission’s actions need to be consistent with the General Plan. He recommended that if the Commission support locating the flagpole in the C/OS zone, a specific finding be made indicating that the installation of a flagpole for an official State, Local, or Federal flag was deemed not to be a development project for the purposes of finding consistency with the General Plan. Commr. Wilhelm recommended modifying the second motion with the verbiage that was proposed by Planner Hook . Planner Hook stated the motion should be clear that they are differentiating between a flagpole to support commercial advertising and a flagpole for an Official, National State, or Local flag. Chairperson Stevenson requested the motion maker and Seconder refer to the first finding, which states the proposed flagpole installation is consistent with the Land Use Element and suggested changing the reference number to 6.1.2, and maybe change the language a bit that states it is not within the definition of development and is not associated with a commercial project, and finding 2 that the proposed flagpole is consistent with the Land Use Element 6.2.2.H and change the language of lighting. Commr. Wilhelm commented that shielding and directing the lighting towards the flag would meet these conditions. Chairperson Stevenson noted there are no conditions in the staff report and suggested offering some conditions. ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 6 Commr. Wilhelm added: Conditions 1. The flagpole shall be located in the C/OS zone outside of the required setback, subject to staff approval and specific location and that the flagpole and an American Flag shall be located within the Conservation/Open Space setback area 20-feet from the property line with specific location to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition 2. The flagpole height shall not exceed 50-feet. Condition 3. The exterior lighting shall be allowed with focused, shielded up- lights with footcandles and design to be approved by staff to minimize glare and nighttime light pollution. Commr. Smith agreed with the added conditions. Chairperson Stevenson suggested another finding that is specific to 6.1.2. that states the National flag and pole does not alter the land form and is minimal and not disruptive to the rural character. Commr. Lopes spoke to the motion feeling they are going in the wrong direction. He mentioned he would support a motion that would place the flag on the Office zoning of the KSBY parking lot close to the boundaries of the property within 5-feet of the property line. Chairperson Stevenson felt their concerns could be solved if they could move the flagpole closer on the KSBY property. Mr. Lee responded they could move it closer on the property, but they do not know the limit line of their leased land. Planner Hook mentioned there is a key bit of information they do not have, specifically where KSBY’s property line and C/OS zone boundary are relative to where the applicant would like to install the flagpole. Chairperson Stevenson suggested they continue this item to a date certain so the question of where KSBY’s property line is could be identified, and to determine if the pole could be moved there satisfactorily. AYES: None NOES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Smith, Root, Boudreau, Lopes, and Stevenson ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion failed 6:0. Commr. Wilhelm moved that this item be continued to next the scheduled ARC meeting (September 15, 2003). Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. Commr. Wilhelm modified the motion to ask staff to come back with additional information on the KSBY property line and C/OS zone boundary, with a draft motion for approval and map showing proposed flagpole location on KSY property. Commr. Boudreau as the seconder concurred with the modified motion. ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 7 AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Smith, Root, Boudreau, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 2. Downtown Core Area. ARC & ER 162-01; Review of modifications to Mission Plaza to improve pedestrian circulation and provide more usable space for public functions, and environmental review; Downtown Core Area; City of SLO Public Works, applicant. Associate Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report recommending final approval with retaining wall, site lighting, replacement trees location and species, directional signage, and landscape and irrigation details to return for staff approval, and to also consider the Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommend that Council approve the Director’s environmental determination. Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville explained that the project is now just an improvement to the existing Mission Plaza, as well as improvement of pedestrian circulation. She requested some modifications to the proposed mitigation measures. Debbie Rudd, consultant with RRM Design Group, gave a detailed description of the project. Donna Gibson, Old Mission Parish, asked the City to consider the Mission’s signage needs in the proposed improvements. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Donna Gibson, 5240 Magdalena Avenue, Atascadero, expressed a concern with the amount of pedestrian traffic they get from the Palm Street Parking Structure and hotels from Monterey Street. She explained that the pedestrians come into the back parking lot and expressed the need for them to be redirected back towards Chorro Street. She noted that most of the pedestrians that come into the gift shop ask for the location of the restrooms and suggested better direction for people on where the restrooms are located and other information. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Staff and Commissioners generally supported the project and discussed the proposed site plan, design details, and initial environmental study and took the following “straw votes” on specific features: ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 8 1. Site Lighting - Commissioner’s supported the “Hacienda” site lighting fixture presented at the meeting, or other historically appropriate light fixture to be approved by staff. 2. Site Furniture – Commissioners supported use of heavy plank wood for tables and benches, and recommended that these not be fixed permanently in lawn areas. 3. Flagpole – Commissioners supported relocating the flagpole to the County Historic Museum (Carnegie Library) site, to be installed with a low base of compatible stone or brick. Commissioners also supported relocating the “Bicentennial Flag” public art to another, more appropriate location in the City. 4. Trees - Commissioners supported the use of California Sycamore, California Pepper or Mission Fig Trees as replacement tree species for the diseased Monterey Pine to be removed, and in place of Eucalyptus Trees shown in the proposed landscape plan. 5. Signs – Commissioners supported using subtle paving signs, hand-routed signs, and old style cross-board pole signs, and the placement of kiosks at three locations in the Plaza (Chorro and Broad Street frontages, and at the Queenie Warden Bridge). 6. Amphitheater – Commissioners preferred “bookending” the stair access to the Amphitheater, and “pulling back” the concrete paving shown in plans extending into the Mission-style grid paving pattern so that it did not intrude beyond the edge of the flagstone paving. 7. Creekside Benches – Commissioners recommended that additional benches be installed along the lower creek walkway. 8. Environmental Determination – Commissioners recommended clarification of mitigation measure #4 to read: “During all significant ground disturbing construction activities….” Commr. Lopes moved final approval to the project based the direction given, and recommended approval of the negative declaration of environmental impact (ER 162- 01). Seconded by Commr. Root. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Root, Wilhelm, Boudreau, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:0 vote. ARC Minutes September 2, 2003 Page 9 3. Citywide. GPA and ER 33-02; Housing Element Update. Review goals, policies and programs for Draft General Housing Element Update; City of SLO, applicant. Due to the lateness of the hour, and on a unanimous voice vote, the Commission continued this item to the September 15, 2003 ARC meeting. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for September 15, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary