PC 100902 - Laserfiche WebLink

concern about the potential distraction and safety problems caused by an excessively tall flagpole. r- Jack Chestnut, 4128 Stanley Blvd., believed that while everyone has the right to have a flagpole, he expressed concern about the impact that the height and illumination would have on his home. He noted that he had to get up early and would not like the light in his bedroom window while he tried to sleep. He noted that he had made several costly accommodations on his property at the request of the applicant, and hoped that the applicant would return the courtesy. He noted that a fifteen to twenty foot flagpole would be acceptable to him, and noted that he would be satisfied if the flagpole were placed in the front yard. Juanita Bianchi, 41 05 Walnut Drive, spoke in opposition to a 31 foot flagpole. She noted that the flag would be able to touch her property if it were not for the arroyo near the property line. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas, Ms. Bianchi replied that the back of her home consisted of sliding glass doors, and that the pole would be visible from every vantage point. She opposed any illumination on the flagpole. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that he had discussed the trees on the applicant's property with the Code Enforcement Officer. One eucalyptus was removed by the City because it was dying, several walnut trees were pruned, and some brush was cleared out. The trees were close to the bank, but were located on his property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,-... In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the applicants owned the property where the arroyo was located and that they were supposed to maintain it properly. The Tree Ordinance outlined the proper procedures to remove trees. Fish & Game may have to be consulted if property owners did things which might affect any habitats in that area. A discussion of the arroyo maintenance and erosion ensued. Commissioner Sedlak noted that with the exception ofthe eucalyptus, the trees in the applicant's yard appeared to be deciduous. He noted that they would have bare branches for five months of the year, and there would be no foliage that would block the illumination and the flagpole. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sedlak, Chairperson Maas replied that the applicant preferred to locate the flagpole in the back yard rather than the front yard. Commissioner Arkin agreed that the City could not stop residents from owning a flagpole, and noted that the flagpoles in the exhibit did not go above the roofline of the homes. He would like to see a maximum height of fifteen feet. r- Chairperson Maas noted that she visited the site, but the applicant was not home. She advised that she went next door to the Ridoni's residence and they allowed her to go into their backyard and look over the fence at the project site. Chairperson Maas noted that the applicant's roof height was twenty-five feet, and added that the flags sold with flagpoles were in proportion to the height of the flagpole. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2002 Page 6