PC 100902 - Laserfiche WebLink

common sight throughout the City. Staff noted that trees planted on the site and on the neighbors' property would screen the view ofthe flagpole. ,,- Mr. Iserson noted that the flagpole was set back approximately 150 feet from the rear property line, 50 feet from the side property lines, and 200 feet from the front of the lot. He noted that the flagpole's placement was well in excess of the setbacks required by Code. Mr. Iserson advised that the illumination could be an issue if it impacted the neighbors. The Flag Code states that flags should either be taken down at dusk, or illuminated throughout the night. The applicant stated that he was not always able to take the flag down at dusk, he would like the ability to illuminate it. Staff believed that lighting in residential neighborhoods was common, especially in terms of decorative and security lighting, although they usually shined down from the source. Mr. Iserson noted that limiting the light to 75 watts would mitigate the lighting impact, and staff wrote a suggested condition to use a 75-watt light, and to allow it to increase to 100 watts if necessary. He believed that in order to prevent the light shining throughout the night, that an automatic timer shut it off at 10:00 p.m. He believed that would be more realistic, and that it would enable the applicant to take the flag down in the evening. He suggested that the applicant may also consider not raising the flag on days that he was unsure of being able to take it down in time. Staff believed that was a reasonable compromise, and that it enabled the applicant some flexibility. Mr. Iserson noted that the surrounding property owners 1,000 feet away from the site were sent notices of this application. Staff had received some petitions, letters and phone calls, some in r- support, but mainly in opposition. Staff distributed a letter from Deborah Redondi supporting the proposal. Other neighbors indicated that they might support the application if the flagpole were lower and not illuminated. Mr. Iserson advised that staff supports and sympathizes with the applicant's desire to fly a flag, and believed that the height was in keeping with flagpoles within the City. He noted that flagpoles are narrow structures and flags on poles are a common sight throughout the City. He did not believe it would have a major impact in and of itself, but suggested keeping the height to twenty-eight feet and turning the light off at 10:00 p.m. The Commission may want to consider an earlier time, such as 9:00p.m. Staff believed that the location and screening by trees would minimize any impact to the neighbors. Staff believed that the application should be supported with those conditions, and recommended approval subject to the conditions of the staff report Exhibit B and the additional condition presented this evening for an automatic timer to shut off the light. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Iserson replied that staff was surprised that the applicant changed his mind regarding turning off the light at 10:00 p.m. and the height of the pole. It was staff s firm understanding that the applicant had agreed to those conditions until yesterday. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Kameny noted that there were several lit flagpoles in the City. -- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2002 Page 4