Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2003 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci and Associate Planner Jeff Hook ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of January 21, and February 18, 2003, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, complimented the Architectural Review Commission and thanked them for their hard work. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval, based on findings, and subject to one condition. She mentioned that she has received some e- mails and phone calls regarding this request and recited those received from Bruno Giberti, Cynthia Boche, Mary Wood, Debra Pillsbury and Jodi Ramsland expressing their opinions that the flag pole location as proposed is inappropriate, each noting their individual reasons. Commr. Lopes asked what the height of the KSBY building is. Planner Ricci replied 35-feet from the ground to the highest point of the roof. Commr. Howard noted that the 50-foot height would not be compatible with the height of the building. Planner Ricci noted that it would be taller than the building. ARC Minutes September 15, 2003 Page 2 Robert E. Lee, 1665 Higuera Street, addressed the fact that the ARC has asked for additional information about the Office zone and placing the flagpole in that zone. He explained they spoke with the General Manager of KSBY who did not want the flagpole located in the area next to the building because of the noise issue, and they also have plans for an addition to the building on that side. He mentioned they could move the flagpole back to the very edge of the rock, which would be 18-feet back from the edge of the blacktop. He explained they did not want to get too close to the boulder because of the necessity of having a substantial concrete base to support the 50-foot pole and noted somewhere within that area would be acceptable. Rob Rossi, property owner, explained that the courts separated the property in the late 1980’s. He mentioned there is 23 acres that is currently zoned Conservation/Open Space, but it was zoned differently at the time. He noted that they did not participate in the rezoning of their portion of the property and probably should have, but they do plan to do some things on parts of the property in the future and they do not see the 23 acres as unusable. He explained they felt this was a very appropriate location for the flagpole because of its visibility and it does not encroach into the KSBY property. He noted they would like to see it placed in the location that they initially offered. Commr. Howard asked why a 35-foot pole is not sufficient. Mr. Lee explained that they have a committed flag that is 10 feet by 15 feet and noted that according to the protocol for flying flags the depth of a flag could only be one quarter of the height of the pole, which in this case dictates 40 feet. Commr. Howard questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance of this flag. Mr. Lee replied that the flag belongs to the American Legion and they would certainly be responsible for maintaining this flag. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed support for the proposed 50-foot flagpole, which would be illuminated. She expressed thanks to the American Legion Post 66 for proposing to display the flag in this location. Stan Gustafson, Commandant of the Marine Corp League, commented that the location would be good for the visibility and felt that it would not clutter the landscape, but would show a patriotic nature to the area. Frank Rowland, Past Commander of the American Legion Post 66, rebutted an e-mail comment about flying the flag and pointed out some of the things their Post does: every year they have $7,000 in college scholarships that they give to local students, they donate $500.00 every year to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, and they donate $3,000 every year to various charities such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. He mentioned they believe in making the Country great by doing things for the community; they are not displaying an artificial patriotism by flying the flag, but felt this flag is a symbol of our Country and all of the veterans. ARC Minutes September 15, 2003 Page 3 Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, presented a letter to the Commission and noted this is not a hearing of whether it is good to fly the flag or whether the American Legion and other groups are doing good things. He felt that this proposal is not consistent with some very significant policies of the city, which he listed in the letter. He noted that a finding should be made that the exception is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Sign Regulations. He noted that because of the City’s findings for approval do not have a factually accurate basis, and because the proposal is inconsistent with the zoning and General Plan Policies at either of the proposed locations, the City should deny the request. John Brotzman, 582 Newman, noted this is an emotional issue and felt there is an ample number of flags around San Luis Obispo. He mentioned that he is an ex-marine and was happy to hear that the flag was only 10 feet by 15 feet because he felt when there is so much red, white, and blue, it diminishes the power of the flag and desensitizes people to the flag. Mr. Rossi mentioned that the courts, without going through any subdivision process, put the line there and did a jurisdictional subdivision, which was never through any subdivision process. There were no further comments made by the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Howard requested a clarification that the project would require Sign Regulations exceptions and the location would require exceptions to land use policies. Planner Ricci explained that it is staff’s position that it would be inconsistent with the General Plan to approve the flagpole in an Open Space portion of the site. Commr. Howard asked if there is an exception to the height and an exception to the lighting. Planner Ricci explained that there are exceptions available through the Sign Regulations regarding flagpoles, but there could not be an exception to General Plan Policies. Commr. Howard noted the issues that they have to deal with go beyond the visual impact, which is the ARC’s charge. Planner Ricci explained it is a crossing over in terms of the height of the pole, which is regulated by the Sign Regulations. Commr. Wilhelm felt this is becoming a sign ordinance issue and he is having a hard time seeing the flag as a conventional sign; it is something more than a sign. He recounted that his recollection is that the Commission as whole was pretty comfortable with approving the proposal at its last meeting with the exception of the fact that it is located in the CO/S zone. ARC Minutes September 15, 2003 Page 4 Chairperson Stevenson commented that he was hoping that KSBY would allow this to be moved onto their property because he cannot support this in the Conservation/Open Space zone. He mentioned that he was prepared to support this flag being 40-feet and illuminated if it were on the KSBY property. Planner Ricci noted it has not been fully explored whether or not KSBY would allow this flagpole on their property. Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern that this is a very elevated site and is very prominent from the freeway, therefore, he did not feel that 50-feet is necessary. He felt 40-feet was appropriate. He mentioned that he shares the public’s concerns that this is going to be lit 24 hours and felt it is a representation of special patriotism. Planner Ricci reiterated the General Plan Policy 6.1.2 on Open Space uses and on the Hillside Policy 6.2.2 Development Standards. She explained this is what is used to determine whether or not a flagpole is considered development that is subject to this policy, and noted it did not meet any of the criteria for exceptions that are listed there. Commr. Wilhelm asked if they would have to classify this as a development to apply that standard. Planner Ricci replied yes. Commr. Wilhelm asked if it were possible to approve this with the condition that it be located within the Office zone. Planner Ricci replied that is what the recommendation is. Commr. Smith felt that a flagpole is not a structure, billboard, sign, development or a major eyesore and that it is the obligation of this Commission to decide if it fits within the regulations. He noted he is not prepared to reject this on any grounds that he has heard. Commr. Root commented that the open space around San Luis Obispo is an important treasure, which is what makes this community desirable. He mentioned that he was prepared to support this flagpole at the lower height with the shielded illumination in the O-S zone as recommended by staff, but noted he could not support it in the Open Space area. Commr. Lopes commented that he supports the staff recommendation that would place the flag on the Office-zoned property with a 35-foot height limit and no illumination. He mentioned the direction he would prefer is the denial of this application with the encouragement that the Legion look for a location within the urban area that is closer to town and not at the edge of the City that is an Open Space area. He suggested working with the owners that have development and property that is more essential to the community. He did not feel that findings could be made for approving this at a height taller than 35-feet. ARC Minutes September 15, 2003 Page 5 Commr. Lopes moved to deny the request based on the location within Conservation/ Open Space finding that the project is inconsistent with Land Use Policies on Open Space Uses, specifically Section 6.1.2. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. Chairperson Stevenson questioned if there is a possibility that this could be continued so they could explore the possibilities with the KSBY property. Planner Ricci replied yes, and commented she believes there might be some opportunities to explore this. Commr. Howard expressed concerns about setting a precedent in not being consistent with the General Plan. She mentioned that she could support an illuminated flagpole at 40-feet. Commr. Boudreau concurred with Commissioner Smith’s comments that the American flag is not a development or a sign and stated that he supports the applicant’s request. Commr. Lopes commented that he could support the flag and the lighting if the flag were more appropriate to the size of the building that would fit into the context of that development and would conform to the City’s height limit. Commr. Smith felt that when the General Plan was adopted, the City Council was not thinking that they would be stopping the American Legion from putting up a 50-foot flagpole, and suggested they let the Legion proceed with this on the grounds that it either complies or almost complies. Commr. Root commented that he could support a 50-foot lighted pole next to the San Luis Obispo welcome sign, which is on City property. He also mentioned he could support a larger installation at another location. Chairperson Stevenson concurred with Commissioner Root. Mr. Lee stated he did not know what the benefit would be of continuing this and mentioned that he felt KSBY was not willing to allow it along the side that the Commission is suggesting. He mentioned they could continue on the benefit of what Commissioner Root suggested, but noted this is not what they had in mind. Commr. Wilhelm asked if anyone considered talking to the owner of the station about occupying one of the parking spaces. Mr. Lee replied the only space they are willing to offer, is down at the end of the parking lot and noted a 35-foot pole would not be suitable because it would not be visible. Mr. Rossi asked if it was possible that under some of these interpretations that a flagpole could be allowed to be placed on the Office zoning, but right on the line, which is the 10-feet in between the two possible locations. ARC Minutes September 15, 2003 Page 6 Planner Ricci replied that if it could be 5-feet from the edge of the pavement that would be consistent with any question about setbacks and zoning boundaries. Commr. Lopes questioned if an exception is needed if it is in the setback. Planer Ricci replied yes, but noted there is 10-feet and the Office zoning requires 5-feet. Mr. Lee asked if there is a possibility to get an exception to that 5-foot setback and get it adjacent to the property line. Commr. Lopes modified the motion and moved to continue the item to a date certain (October 20, 2003) to allow the applicant and staff to investigate the possibility of a site on KSBY property either inside or outside the setback that would provide a physical location, and also add that an effort to focus design locations that would provide a visible flag at the 40-foot height limit. Seconded by Commr. Root. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Root, Wilhelm, Boudreau, Howard, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. 2. 1716 Osos Street. ARC 18-03; Review of a remodel to a historic structure for use as a bed and breakfast inn; R-3-H zone; Suzie Kyle/Neta Gladney, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report requesting the Commission review the plans for modifications to the front house and continue action on the entire project, including the proposed rear building, to the meeting of October 6, 2003. Suzie Kyle, applicant, expressed her desire to get approval on the front house so she can apply for a building permit, noting the floor plan has been slightly modified to accommodate guests. Tim Becher, project architect, addressed questions on the driveway, and clarified that there would be adequate turn-around area in the back. He noted that the porch has been enlarged to accommodate complying ingress and egress. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed opposition to the project because she felt it would lose its historical heritage. Paul Brown, 1213 Mariner’s Cove, voiced support for the project, and expressed his opinion that that the site is appropriate for this facility because of its proximity to restaurants and the railroad station. There were no further comments made from the public. ARC Minutes September 15, 2003 Page 7 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Boudreau moved to continue this item to October 6, 2003, with the following direction: modify #5 to read: The ARC supported a 4-foot wrought iron fence above the existing concrete wall (6.5-foot maximum total height of wall/fence). Add the following direction items: 6. Clarify the grade of the Jacuzzi and the surrounding deck and the height of the adjacent fence. 7. Clarify the proposed public art proposal. 8. Consider variation in the proposed color palette for the building. Seconded by Commr. Howard. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Howard, Wilhelm, Root, Lopes, Smith and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. 3. Citywide. GPA and ER 33-02; Housing Element Update. Review goals, polices and programs for Draft General Plan Housing Element Update; City of SLO, applicant. Associate Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report recommending the Commission receive public comment, review the Draft Housing Element policies, particularly with regard to design and architectural review, and provide comments to staff. Planner Hook presented an overhead graphic of the new Housing Element programs and explained how the Housing Element is consistent with the policies in the Land Use Element. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her opinion that mixed use developments are not appropriate in this community. Steve Delmartini, 962 Mill Street, noted a number of good points in the Housing Element update, but felt it does not go far enough to address many of his ideas. He offered some comments on the programs. Paul Brown, 1213 Mariner’s Cove, expressed concern with the way the City is going about creating affordable housing and housing in general within the city. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENT: The ARC discussed the Draft Housing Element policies and programs, particularly those related to design review. A majority of Commissioners supported a proposed program to exempt residential projects of 4 units or less from ARC review, but supported “minor or incidental architectural review” for these projects and the preparation of architectural guidelines that addressed infill and higher density housing. ARC Minutes September 15, 2003 Page 8 Commissioners then provided individual comments on various policies and programs in the Draft Element. No formal action was taken. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Planner Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for October 6, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary