Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-2003 ARC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 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 ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. Chairperson Stevenson noted that Item 3 is continued to a date uncertain. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of March 3, 2003 was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1772 Calle Joaquin. ARC 92-03; Modification to a prior ARC approval to allow an illuminated flag pole with a total height of 50 feet. C/OS-10 zone; American Legion Post 66, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending denial of a 50-foot high, illuminated flagpole placed within the portion of the site zoned Conservation Open Space with a 10-acre minimum (C/OS-10), based on findings, which cite the proposal’s inconsistency with the General Plan. She read several letters into the record that she had received; one from Joel Weiss asking for denial of the proposed flagpole because it would violate City regulations and set an undesirable precedent, it is out of character with its surroundings, and would detract from the existing natural beauty of the area. The second letter was from Michael Sullivan who stated he is an army veteran of the Vietnam era and who considers himself a patriotic person, but believes that the proposed flagpole should not be approved because it violates City standards. Commr. Wilhelm asked if these findings for denial are specifically directed at flagpoles or are they generic in nature for development. Planner Ricci explained that the findings are crafted based on the subject request, which is installation of the flagpole, but the policies relate to structures and development in open space areas. ARC Minutes October 20, 2003 Page 2 Commr. Wilhelm questioned if it were the intent of the authors of these findings to not permit flagpoles in general Open Space. Planner Ricci replied that she did not feel flagpoles were anticipated when these policies were created. She noted that she worked with the City Attorney on appropriate findings both for approval and denial, which cited specific applicable General Plan policies. Bob Bryn, 783 Clearview Lane, representative of American Legion Post 66 of SLO and Marine Corps League, expressed appreciation for being allowed the extended time allotted to investigate KSBY’s position, as well as determining a more suitable location for the flagpole. He noted that KSBY corporate management will not allow the installation on their property for a variety of reasons, none of which oppose their project. He mentioned that in view of this, they have decided to move the location as close to the Office zone line as feasibly possible, which would be approximately 18-feet from the edge of the parking area and approximately 6 to 8 feet from the Office zone. He stated there is no definitive line that separates the Office zone from the Conservation/Open Space zone; therefore this location should be acceptable without further complications or hesitations. He said that he would assure the Commission that the lighting of the flag would be very subdued so as not to light up the skyline. He explained that contrary to some press reports, this is not an oversized flag of billboard proportions, but a tasteful symbol of democracy. Tim Haley, American Legion Post 66, commented that this is a challenge ethically, emotionally, and personally. He read a letter describing what the flag stands for and commented on a few points: (1) It has to be sized appropriately. He noted their flag is a 10’ x 15’ flag which, per flag rules and regulations, requires a 50-foot flagpole. (2) If it is flown at night, as proposed, it must be lighted per regulations. (3) This is a no cost proposition to the City; no maintenance by the City required. He read an excerpt from the California Assembly Code Resolution that states, “through the State of California, others shall not apply rules to prevent the display of the flag.” and Section 434.5 of the Government Code that states, “No person, private entity, or government agencies shall adopt rules, regulations, or ordinances to enter into an agreement or covenant, which prevents any person or private entity which would otherwise have the legal right to display a flag of the U.S. on private property from exercising that right, unless it is used as or in conjunction with an advertising display.” Therefore, he felt the flag or flagpole cannot be denied. Stan Gustafson, Los Osos, Commandant Marine Corps League, felt there should be possibilities of exceptions for the flagpole and referred the Commission to Title 4 of the United States Code and recited the code to the commission. He presented a picture of five Marines and one Corpsman that raised the flag at Iwo Jima, and mentioned these are the men who fought for this flag and noted the commission should tell them that it is inconsistent with the General Plan and disrupting the beauty of our country. Tom Torgerson, 6200 Yano Road, Atascadero, recited a letter from Bud Neilson, who is a retired Lieutenant Coronal from the Army, which pointed out the sacrifices that were made for the freedom in this country, and the symbol of this flag. ARC Minutes October 20, 2003 Page 3 Frank Banner, 221 Weymouth, Cambria, mentioned his experience of raising the American flag occurred at a different place and time than this meeting, and the place was Iwo Jima, the time was Second World War. He talked about his experience in WW2 and how proud the soldiers were to fight for the freedom that this flag represented. Wayne Folsom, Arroyo Grande, Marine Corps, felt the people that originally opposed this flagpole did not envision the American flag, but envisioned billboards that would disrupt the scenery. He mentioned the proposed flag is not the largest flag available and noted the largest flag available is 20’ x38’. He mentioned the ARC looks at architecture and noted the American flag is not a building, billboard, or architecture and therefore felt the Commission should not be reviewing this request. Bob Lee, 1665 Higuera Street, suggested the commission go back to September 2nd, when Commissioner Wilhelm made a motion in favor of their position with a 50-foot flag lighted on their Conservation/Open Space area, and re-make that motion. Gary Fowler, Mill Street, Chairman of San Luis Obispo County Commission on Aging, expressed that his group totally and whole-heartedly endorses and supports the erection of the flag and the pole as indicated their correspondence to the ARC. Sam Blakeslee, 1163 Pismo Street, mentioned that he served as Co-chair for the Housing Task Force and has worked on Housing Elements, and parking and access issues. He noted that often times these elements contain imprecision, ambiguity, and opportunity for interpretation, because whichever body seeks to constitute the correct language often times can’t foresee and anticipate every eventuality. He explained when having to use some judgment on how to interpret language that isn’t explicit, it is important to use common sense and the values that he believes are common to all of us. He stated that because this is the body that is constituted to make the recommendations when there is ambiguity, and because the reasons to argue in favor for allowing this to go forward are so compelling, he asked the Commission to allow this exception. Paul Brown, 1214 Mariner’s Cove, noted that his own military experience pales by comparison to the men present at this meeting. He mentioned when he was a child, the school day started off with The Pledge of Allegiance. At that time he did not understand all the words, but knew there were people in the world that were bigger and stronger and mightier than him that would make those words true. He felt this is an opportunity to pay back some of these people with a small request and noted this flag is a symbol of the living truth. Evelyn Delmartini, 2210 San Ynez, noted that she is normally a member of the silent majority and expressed disappointment that the Commission has even had to reconsider this and to make the public come out again and stand up for their country. She stated that if there is any individual here who is representing the public and who has a bias against this issue, they should step down and not participate in the discussion or voting. ARC Minutes October 20, 2003 Page 4 Dan Cutter, 1245 Philips Lane, noted that it bothers him to speak in opposition to this flag, but noted that he appreciates the deaths that have been made by Americans in the past and is proud to see the flag flying over Arlington, in front of out schools, and in front of the other educational institutions, but felt it does not belong as high as is requested, illuminated 24-hours a day so that it can be seen from all over. John Muller, 1567 Cucaracha Court, noted that he is wearing his uniform, which was issued to him in 1967 and was worn by him overseas. He stated that they went in with their flags and fought under our flags from the orders of our government. He noted the flag is no signboard; it is a symbol. Keith Jones, Templeton, mentioned that he is not a veteran, but he is a patriot. He mentioned there are always black and white rulings for most people, but noted there are gray areas that fall outside the realm of the black and white when making determinations for the review on these subjects. He felt that nature is always being protected but very little is protected for human rights and patriotism. Don Reagan, Grover Beach, noted that he graduated from Kent State with his PhD and noted that one of his best friends was killed on that bluff that very day. He stated that she died because of the flag and for the flag, which he stated was not an anti-American revolution. He said that if she were alive today, she would support the flag. Margaret Cooper, SLO, asked if the ARC has the authority to supersede the City planners. Chairperson Stevenson replied that they would respond to the question during commission comment. Don Henley, Avila Beach, asked why it is so difficult to get an answer on what they have to do to erect the flagpole in that location. Chairperson Stevenson replied that they would address that in commission comments. Allen Docker, 120 Andover Lane, Cambria, noted that he served in Korea and they were the first war to fight under the U.N. flag. He stated that his Commander refused to put that flag in front of his tent because his men and he fight under the flag of the United States of America. Bill Braumby, 134 Quail Way, Avila Beach, commented that he and his wife had to move because of architectural planning of an apartment building behind their home, which would block their views. He posed the questioned to the people: Would you rather see a three-story apartment or the American flag? MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that people should stand up tall and respect the flag. Jim Gentilucci, 1404 14-th Street, Los Osos, expressed his support for the flag display and felt it says a great deal of who we are as citizens of the City and County. ARC Minutes October 20, 2003 Page 5 Norman Harry, Los Osos, reminded everyone what is said in the Pledge of Allegiance, and when the flag is seen up on the hill, it will stand for the republic. Annie Langement, 1245 Philips Lane, commented that she is an American by choice and has been for the last 10 years. While she does not question the patriotism, the commitment, or the service of the men and women in this room and the loss they may have experienced, she noted that the flag is synonymous with their service, it is not synonymous with their patriotism, or their commitment for their service to our Country and wondered if the time, energy, effort and the money that is going to be spent on this flag might better be spent honoring the individuals that they are collectively trying to honor. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau mentioned that he spoke with a gentleman that has a 12’ x 16’ flag 2- 1/2 miles off of Highway 1, on a 55-foot pole. He indicated he was replacing the flag about every 10 days because of the location on the ridge, and wondered if the Legion has anticipated that. Mr. Lee replied no, and stated they have not anticipated going through a flag every 10 days, but noted the Marine Corps League and the American Legion have vowed to maintain that flag and pole. Planner Ricci noted that she spoke to the City Attorney and that State Law doesn’t preclude the City from enforcing its General Plan Standards in this case. Commr. Wilhelm commented he has gone over this for the last month and on a technical level he is split because one part of him wants to be honorable to the policies and regulations, and the other part is an issue of honor, recognition and symbolism. He felt he must go on the side of the symbol and honor. He commented that he would personally support this flagpole being erected in the Conservation/Open Space zone. Commr. Root expressed an appreciation to the Legion on the dedication that it takes to bring them back to three meetings. He agreed that it is not a billboard or structure, but a special circumstance. He commented that he fully endorses being able to fly that flag, but he cannot endorse it in that location. He noted that he would endorse a 50-foot pole, the illumination without any conditions or restrictions if it were somewhere other than on that hillside. Commr. Boudreau commented if the ordinance is to be followed to the letter, and go by the letter of the law, then deny the project. But if you want to respond to the sentiment of the public, and he felt there is a majority of the people that support the project, then he would have to respond to it that way and grant approval. Commr. Howard concurred with Commissioner Root’s comments and felt this is very emotional. She noted when they were appointed to this position, they swore that they ARC Minutes October 20, 2003 Page 6 would uphold the laws of the State and the City, and she felt this is their way of showing patriotism by supporting and upholding these laws, which reflect the opinion of the whole community. Commr. Lopes also concurred with Commissioner Howard’s comments. Commr. Smith commented that he has felt the same way since the first meeting. He also felt the Commission should make whatever exceptions are needed to permit this flag to be erected. Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern about this particular location on a hillside in the Open Space zone, as well as the height of the pole, which he felt should be at 35- feet. He also was concerned with the illumination and felt these are issues that the commission must deal with before on other flagpole requests in the city are received. He felt this would be appropriate in a less prominent location off the hillside in the Open Space/Conservation category and felt that Commissioner Root’s suggestion of locating it near the City’s entry feature is an appropriate area, and a 50-foot pole in that location is appropriate. Commr. Lopes moved to deny the proposed flagpole and move staff recommendations with the findings in the staff report. Seconded by Commr. Howard. Commr. Wilhelm spoke to the motion and wondered if they had considered placing the flagpole in the parking lot. Commr. Lopes explained the reason for the motion is that the Open Space zoning doesn’t allow structures, and he sees the flagpole as a structure. Commr. Smith commented that he does not share Commissioner Lopes’ black and white views and felt if it were black and white, then it would be easy. Commr. Howard commented that she felt comfortable that every stone has been turned and every possibility has been looked at in finding an exception that is justifiable. Commr. Root concurred with Commissioner Smith that this is not a black and white issue, but more of a gray area, and felt the flagpole is not a structure. He stated he could not support the flagpole in this location. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Howard, Root, and Chairperson Stevenson NOES: Commr. Wilhelm, Smith, and Vice-Chair Boudreau ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-3. Chairperson Stevenson noted this action could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. ARC Minutes October 20, 2003 Page 7 2. 2700 McMillan Avenue. ARC 90-03; Review of a proposed office/warehouse with 22,211 square feet of floor area; C-S zone; Jerry Williams, applicant. Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending final approval of the project based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. Mike Peachy, project architect, provided a three-dimensional massing presentation and described the project phases. He noted that instead of pursuing a street abandonment, an easement would be reserved through the parking lot to enable vehicles to turn around. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dan Rutledge, 268 Westmont Drive, had concerns with the dead-end situation and truck turn-around limitations. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Wilhelm moved approval of the project. Seconded by Commr. Root. The Commission added three conditions to the motion; (1) The eucalyptus tree at the far north boundary of the property shall be retained if the City Arborists determines it to be healthy, prunable, and safe. (2) A painted cap at the parapet shall be added;, and (3) The rear building entry shall be further articulated. AYES: Commr. Wilhelm, Root, Boudreau, Howard, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. 3. 1423 Calle Joaquin. ARC 118-03; Review of new signage, including exceptions to the sign regulations; C-S zone; Kimball Motor Company, applicant. This item was continued without discussion to a date uncertain. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Planner Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items. ARC Minutes October 20, 2003 Page 8 5. Commission: There was some discussion regarding the Schmitt appeal to the City Council of a decision made by the ARC on a garage conversion. The Commission noted the importance of keeping a good public record. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 3, 2003, in Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary