Loading...
PC Min 05/12/1987PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES MAY 12, 1987 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, walker, Perrine= Planning Director A. A. Kee, Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Selfgmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Kasolas, Dickson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES N1/S: Christ, Stanton - That the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1987 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. ORAL REQUESTS Chairman Perrine asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the Commission on an issue that was not on the agenda. There being no one, the Chairman proceeded with the aet agenda. : • : PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 87-09 Continued public hearing to consider the Giancola, M. application of Mr. Mike Giancola for approval of a Use Permit to allow the construction of an additional living unit and detached garage on property known as 1287 Munro Ave. in an A-1-9 (Single Family Residential - 9,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, based on the changes made by the applicant which address previously expressed concerns. -2- Planning Director Kee stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution, incorporating findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report, approving this application. Chairman Perrine opened the public heating and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Bob Schneider, property owner, appeared to answer questions. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the public hearing on OP 87-09 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). M/S: Christ, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2457, incorporating. findings and conditions of approval as indicated in the Staff Report dated May ` 12, 1987, approving OP 87-09. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewaki, Christ, Walker, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson. • • • M!9 87-OS Public hearing to consider the Voshall, F. application of Frank i Patricia Voshall for a modification to a planned development to allow a zero lot line second-story addition to a single family home on property known as 609 Lisa Way in a PD (Planned. Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval. Planning Director Kee noted communications from Mr. Ken C. Moore and Mr. John Frenzel (attached hereto). The design was reviewed by the Architectural Advisor, who was of the opinion that the design of this proposal was acceptable. As a result of this design review, Staff is also recommending approval. Commissioner Olszewski asked if Staff was still of the opinion, as indicated in Para. 4 of Staff Report, that the proposed addition has the potential to be detrimental. Mt. Kee responded that Staff is still of that opinionf however, it was pointed out at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting that there are other structures in the area with roof pitches similar to the one proposed. The Architectural Advisor was of the opinion that it could be designed to not be detrimental to the area. -3- Commissioner Walker noted that photos were presented that provide. evidence that the addition would fit into the neighborhood. The applicant also stated that he did have the support of three neighbors, .but had not gotten _ written statements from them. Chairman Perrino opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak. for or against this item. Mr. Voshall presented letters from adjacent property owners (attached hereto) in support of his proposal. Mr. Voshall disagreed with a statement made in Mr. Moore's letter, and noted that property values are holding in the area. Mr. Ford, 619 Lisa way, expressed concern about second story additions in the development limiting sunlight for other units. Mr. Gene Steiger, owner of 613 Lisa Way, spoke against the proposal, citing possible loss of sunlight= loss of privacyr increase in square footage resulting in increased population= lack of parking space within the development= and destroying the existing beauty of the development. hr. Voshall felt that each application should be considered on a case-by-case basis= his addition will not cause any loss of sunlight or privacy to the adjacent unit= most of problems with parking are caused by renters in the development, and people not using their garages. Commissioner Stanton noted that the applicant may wish to continue this matter, in that there is not a full Commission. Commissioner Christ noted that the Site Committee looked at the blank wall and how the addition might affect the adjacent property owner, as well as possible changes to the roof line. The architectural Advisor was of the opinion that it could not be modified because it would no longer be architectural compatible. The way to preserve the architectural compatibility is with the presented design. Because there are no windows on the side that will be shadowed, light will. not be impacted for the adjacent property.. Eowever, a continuance may help answer the neighbors concerns, and give them the .opportunity to review the plans. Commissioner Christ continued that he could not support a continuance on the basis that we may receive further information or that the proposal will adversely impact the. development. Commissioner Walker indicated that the Site Committee also discussed the setting of a precedent= however, compatibility would be addressed under the PD zoning. Mr. Xee noted that if the Commission chooses to approve this application, it .does not automatically approve any future proposals. Commissioner Christ expressed a concern with fairness, since this would be setting a precedent. Second story additions would impact owners on the other side of the street, if and when they are proposed. -4- Mr. Voshall requested that a decision be made this evening. He noted that the two complaints, out of 43 units, were from owners of rental units= and, the four immediate neighbors-have expressed their support. M/S: Olszewski, Walker - That the public hearing on MM 87-05 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - Discussion That the Planning Commission adopt the following findings, and deny MM 87-05. (1) Zero lot line-homes represent an intense land use and require a particular balance of population and harmony. (2) More intensive development would send a negative signal to the neighborhood and upset the architectural balance. Commissioner Olszewski stated that a great deal of attention is given to the design of these types of developments, and that he was of the opinion that such an addition would detract from that intended design, as well as impact the intensity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Stanton spoke in favor of the motion, noting that the intentional design of the project should not be altered. Commissioner walker spoke against the motion, noting that the homes are (deal starter homes and the owners should have the privilege of upgrading them= the roof lines are already broken up throughout the development= and, the homeowner is showing pride in the development by making the choice to upgrade rather than move. • r. Commissioner Christ supported the motion, even though he was in agreement with the architectural design factors. Commissioner Christ noted that he would like to see the matter continued because `he felt the concerns of the neighbors could be resolved and he would like to attempt to work the, problems out= and that he could not vote in favor of the project at this time even though the applicant is requesting a decision. Chairman Perrine noted that although he is in agreement with all the points made during this discussion, he considers the Architectural Advisors opinion that the design is workable to be a deciding factor, therefore, he will be voting against the motion. Chairman Perrine noted that he is still troubled by what could happen on the other side of the street. Vote on motion for denial AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewaki, Christ NOES: Commissioners: Walker, Perrine ASSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson. Mr. 1Cee reviewed the appeal procedure for the applicant. : s • -5- S 87-02 Public hearing to consider the Shepardsen, 8. application of Mr. Bob Shepardsen for a site and architectural approval~to allow the construction of an addition to an office building on property known as 137 E. Hamilton Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to redlining of the presented plans. The redlining indicates the retention of three existing redwood trees. It is the opinion of the Site Committee that it is more important to retain the landscaping, than it is to have the additional parking spaces; however, the Committee is recommending an additional condition to cover potential problems with parking. Planning Director Ree reviewed the Staff Report, and noted that Staff is also recommending approval. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. David Smith, architect, requested the opportunity to look at retaining the wooden fence on the rear property lines however, he indicated his client's willingness to work with Staff to address the redlining on the plans. Mr. Kee noted that the plans stipulate a masonry fence. The applicant may wish to obtain approvals for a building permits, and then submit revised plans requesting the change in fencing materials if he so desires. Wis.'°Joyce Cunningham, 1491 De Tracey Ct., questioned the height of the proposed addition. Mr. Smith explained that the existing building is two story, and the addition will just extend that second story towards the rear property line. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 87-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the findings presented in the. Staff Report, dated May 12 ,1987, and approve S 87-02 subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report (an8 attached hereto), with the addition of Condition t15 which reads •If, in the future, the Planning Commission finds that a parking problem -6- exists at this site, the applicant or subsequent property owner shall submit a revised parking plan providing additional parking by either the reduction in on-site landscape or the provision of additional compact parking stalls. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Walker, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: lcasolas, Dickson. • : ZC 87-02 Continued public hearing to consider the Anderson, R. application of Mr. Rurt Anderson for a zone change from R-M-S (Multiple Pamily Residential) to PD (Planned Development/ Low-Medium Density Residential)t and, the approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 3 townhomes on property. known as 235 N. Third St. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval as redlined. Redlining indicates a change in the fence height approaching the street and fence around Onit C, providing for construction characteristics compatible with a street frontage. Planning. Director Eee reviewed the Staff Report dated May 12, 1987, noting that Staff is recommending approval. .. Commissioner Olszewski asked Engineering Manager Helms about the traffic circulation from this particular development. Mr. Helms indicated that Public Works Staff would have preferred to see an on-site turnaround at this location, and this issue has been discussed at length. The driveway has been moved to the southerly portion of the property, satisfying one of the concerns expressed by Staff. Regarding the other concerns, it is simply a matter of advising the developer what types of things may occur with this type of street and traffic patterns. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Kurt Anderson, applicant, reviewed the presented plans. Mr. Anderson noted that his design team was~of the opinion that to provide on-site circulation, as requested by Public works, would result in a great loss of landscaping and be a real detriment to the project. -. I -7- M/S: Stanton, Olszewski - That the public hearing on ZC 87-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). M/S; Walker, Olszewski - ..That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this projects and, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 2456 & 2459, incorporating findings and indicated in the Staff Report of May 12, 1987, recommending that the City Council approve the requested zone change from R-M-S to PD and approving the plans, elevations, and development schedule subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report of May 12, 1987. !lotion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Walker, Prrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Rasolas, Dickson. :: t The Commissioner recessed at 9:00 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. :: • MISCELLANEOUS SA 87-15 Continued Signing request - 250 Hacienda Southbay Dev. Ave. - Hacienda Business Center - CM (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee felt that all the proposed signing, except one monument sign (A3), was appropriate for a development of this size; therefore, the Committee is coming to the Commission with a recommendation for approval of all signing, except the monument sign referred to as A3. Planning Director Ree reported that Staff is recommending approval of the presented signing plan, as redlined. Commissioner Christ noted that the redlining indicates the provision of the center's name incorporated on the base of all the monument signs; and, - a change in the size of one of the monument signs to make it more consistent with the other signs in the development. -8- Mr. Dick Merwin, Southbay Construction Co., requested that the name of the center be left open, since it has not be decided if 8acienda Business - Center will be the final name; Southbay is in agreement to put the center's name on the base of the monument signs; and, the suggestion to put the address at the base of the signs is also a good suggestion. Mr. Merwin noted that the goal of the signing program is to show the visiting public .the tenants ..and .locations., with continuity throughout the site. Mr. Merwin reviewed the signing program for the Commission. There was discussion regarding the. proposed sign locations; the number of signs= the size of the signs; the number of tenants to be listed per monument signs the potential number of tenants for listing on proposed monument sign A3; and the possibility of allowing the applicant to revise the signing program should. the need arise. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and approve SA 87-15 subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report of May 12, 1987, as well as the following conditions: (1) The center name to be incorporated into the base of each monument sign= and, (2) The size of monument signs changed to 6'x 8'; and (3) Monument sign #A3 to be allowed up _ to and including 4 tenant names. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). • • • $A 8.7-20 Appeal of the decision of the Planning Jaquez, J. Director denying signing request - DJ's A Cut Above - 880 E. Campbell Ave. - PD tPlanned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision denying this sign. It is the opinion of the Site Committee that the triangular •DJ's• represents a logo, and is appropriate for wall-mountings however, the 'A Cut Above' should be individual letters on the building, rather than a canister sign, to match the other signage on the building. Planning Director Kee reviewed this application, noting that Staff is recommending denial. Mr. Xee indicated the submittal of a petition regarding this matter (attached hereto). -9- Mr. Jesse Jaquez, applicant, requested that he be allowed to put up his sign to promote his business, noting that to deny his sign is taking away his right to individuality. Mr. Jaquez stated that the entire sign 'DJ's A Cut Above' is his logo -- not •DJ's•. Mr. Jaquez pointed out that the Commission has the authority to allow the necessary leeway to approve his sign. Mrs. Jaquez, owner of DJ•s A Cut Above, stressed that the entire name is the store's logo. Commissioner Olszewski noted that it seems apparent that the proposed signage is not consistent with other signage on the building. Commissioner Walker stated that it is regretable that the sign has already be made and does not coincide with the other signage= however, it is not consistent, and therefore, he felt the Planning Director's decision should be upheld. Chairman Perrine concurred with comments made thus far, and thanked the applicant for providing his statement in writing (attached hereto. M/S: Christ, Walker - That the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Planning Director and deny SA 87-20, based on the finding that the proposed cabinet sign is a different style and design from other approved signs at this location, in that the other signs consist of individual letters mounted on the building wall. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Walker, Perrine :~iOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson. City Attorney Seligmann explained the appeal procedure to the applicant. Commissioner Olszewski commented that sign companies are aware of the City's sign ordinance, and perhaps the applicant may want to look into this matter. Commissioner Olszewski asked~if the City has a..program to notify sign companies segarding the ordinance. Mr. Kee noted that sign company representatives were involved in writing the ordinancef a public hearing for the ordinance was held= and most of the businesses who deal with Staff are aware of the ordinance. Normally, out-of-town companies call the office before designing a sign. _ Chairman Perrine asked if there was a way to reduce or waive the fees if i the applicant comes back with s different sign request. hr. Ree indicated that another fee would be required. . • • -10- Request Request of Messrs. Kanwaljit i Surinder Mann that a veterinarian clinic be a permitted use in an M-1-S Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reported that a request has been received from !!~e applicant's representative to withdraw this request. M/S: Christ, Stanton - That the request for a determination that a veterinarian clinic is a permitted use in an M-1-S Zoning District be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. Motion carried unanimously t5-0-2). : • • Staff Report ~ informational report regarding Phase II of the consultant's report - Downtown Study Revialization Feasibility l~nalysis. Planning Director Kee reported that the City Manager will make a presentation on this report at the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 1987. ~,ny comments may be directed to him. at that time. It was the consensus of the Commission that this matter be agendized for the meeting of May 26, 1987. The issues of signing and 'gateway', or identification, for downtown were suggested as possible discussion topics under this subject. ~ : r Staff Report Informational Report regarding condition of property - 900 E. Hamilton 1-ve. Commissioner Christ requested that the Commission be kept up to date on any further developments on this site. Commissioner Stanton thanked Staff for their most efficient response to the Commission's concerns regarding this property. It was the consensus of the Commission that this report be noted and. filed. :: : -11- _. Staff Report Study Sessions. It was the consensus of the Commission that Staff telephone the Commissioners to determine a date for a study session. Suggested dates are the first, third, and fifth Tuesday of June. . . • : ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.:a. APPROVED: Jay Perrino Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. !(ee Secretary RECORDED:. Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary ~r~- /Zn a KEA'NETH G. MOORE •.TTORNET -T l~.W 20395 PACIFIGA DRIVE SUITE 103 CUPEBTINO, CALIFORNIA Bb014 1401 256-996 May 8, 1987 City of Campbell Planning Commission George C. Kasolas, Chairperson Jeanne Fairbanks J. DuWayne Dixon Ronald W. Crist Jay Perrine ' Bruce J. Olszewski Robert T. Stanton Arthur A. Kee, Secretary 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Re: Subject: Opposition to Application of Frank and Patricia Yoshell to Allow Second-Story Addition to Single-Family Residence Planning Department No.: rut 87-OS Our Clients: Don and Youvha Kathary - Hearing Date: May 12, 1987, 7:30 p.m. Dear Members of the Commission: Please be advised that this office represents Don and Youvha Kathary who are the owners of a single-family residence located at 605 Lisa Way, Campbell. My clients are in opposition to the application of Frank and Patricia Yoshell for modification to a planned development to allow a zero lot line second-story addition to their home located at 509 Lisa Way, Campbell. My client's concerns and objections to the Yoshell's application to construct a second-story addition are essentially as follows: 1. The subdivision on Lisa Way, of which both the Yoshell and my client's dwellings are a part, was originally designed as part of a single-story planned unit development within a medium density residential zoning district. All of the residences within the subdivision presently only consist of a single story. 2. The .subdivision is already classified as a medium density project, and dwelling units located within the subdivision are presently crowded close together with minimal or no lot line set back. City of Campbell Planning Commission May 8, 1987. Page -2- 3. The construction of a second story addition to anyone of the subdivision units would be aestheticaly undesirable in relation to the rest of the subdivision and neighbor- hood. 4. Most importantly the erection of a second story would effectively constitute a nuisance to surrounding neigh- bors by depriving those neighbors of access to a sub- stantial amount of light and air considering the close proximity of-the subdivision dwellings to each other. 5. My clients are further justifiably concerned that the potential disruption and nuisance brought about by the proposed construction in a planned unit development will operate to depreciate property values within the subdivision. Thank you for your consideration of my client's position in this matter. Very truly yours, KENNETH C. MOORS KCM/bas cc: Don & Youvha Kathary Sue Harlan, Esq. ,..~~k.. Y~ . ~ . MAY 11, 1987 629 LISA WAY CAMPBELL, CA 95008 CITY OF CAMPBELL 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL, CA 95008 DEAR MR. KEE: THIS IS IN REGARD TO FILE# MM 87-05, 609 LISA WAY. I WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MEETING TOMORROW,~BUT WOULD LIKE TO VOICE•MY OPINION ON THE BUILDING OF A SECOND STORY TO 609 LISA WAY. AS THE OWNER OF 629 LISA WAY, I FEEL THAT A VARIANCE TO THE HOUSING OF THE TRACT WILL DECREASE PROPERTY VALUES. THE STANDARDIZATION OF THE UNITS LEAD TO THE HARMONY AND EYE APPEAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MANY OF THE UNITS OF THIS TRACT ARE RENTALS AND EVEN THOUGH MANY ARE WELL KEPT, THERE ARE. SOME PROBLEMS FROM TIME TO TIME.. OWNERS AS MYSELF ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE OUR j ENVIRONMENT PLEASING FOR. ALL. I FEEL THAT THE ADDITION OF A SECOND FLOOR TO ONE OF THESE UNITS WILL BE AN EYE-SORE AND DETRACT FROM. -- THE APPEARANCE AS WELL AS VALUES OF THESE HOMES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER. SINC~EREL~ ~~ // HN D. FRENZEL 29 LISA WAY CAMPBELL, CA 95008. 984-6321 u MAY 1219E7 CITY Ur (.:r1i•~rvtLL P_L'ANNINO. OEPJ-RTMENZ RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: S 87-02 SITE ADDRESS: 137 E. HAMILTON AVE APPLICANT:. SHEPARDSEN, B. P. C. MTG.: 5-12-67 1. The proposed project is an appropriate scale in relationship to the adjacent developed uses. 2. The project is well designed and architecturally blends into. the. neighborhood. 3. The building design is considered acceptable .and interesting by the architectural Advisor. 4. The project is designed to minimize infringement on neighboring properties. 5. The project is of a high quality design and will be aesthetically pleasing. 6. Substantial landscaping has been provided which adds to the aesthetics of the project. ~y. z ~• RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: SA 87-20 ITEM N0. 6 SITE ADDRESS: 880 E. C1\MPBELL AVE REVISED APPLICANT: JAQUEZ, J. P. C. MTG: 5-12-87 ' 1. The proposed cabinet sign is a different style and design from other approved signs at this location in that the other signs consist of individual letters mounted on the building wall. ~ ~P - ~ PG hT~ s/ iy~~, - Ladies and gentlemen of the Campbell Planning Commission and fellow citizens and businessmen, my name is Jesse Jaquez owner and operator of DJ'S A CUT ABOVE a new family hair care salon in Campbell and I am here to appeal the Planning Directors decision to prohibit a wall-mounted sign to be put up on 880 Campbell ave. 4102. Along with a copy of my appeal I am suppling each of you with copies of the declaration of independence, a copy of the first amendment to the constitution, a copy of the .case of McCulloch vs. Piaryland, and copies of the sign and specifications. As a reference to this case I would. like to quote from a rather old and-distinguished document....the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to to effect their safety and happiness , rr The second reference I'll make, which is considerably shorter is just as, if not more, important is a quote from the. first amendment of the. United States Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It is my opinion, supported by the loose constructional interpretations :of Lhe constitution and it's amendments, that by attempting to censor the type of sign in front of a business you are violating the first amendment right of freedom of speech. In addition I shall attempt to point out that you are in fact neglecting the rights of those who, in good faith, elected you to office. The freedom of speech is guaranteed to us by the above mentioned constitution. Speech, by definition, is self expression and comes in many different and varied ways. It can be oral much like a presentation, It can be written by a journalist, reported be a newsperson, signed by those who can't speak and even expressed on a sign used to advertise one's own business. It is the right of the business owner to determine what type of sign best advertises his business and only his landlord should dictate if the sign can be•put up or not. . - It is your duty as Planning Commission to regulate signs that may be construed as lewd, vulgar or perverse, those that might be to large for the property they are on, or for any reason might be unsafe and -- hazardous to the public. The sign in question is neither vulgar or perverse, it is a profess- ionally done sign which poses no hazard to the public and it is well within the size limitations allowed for said property. If it is the boards reasoning that because the first amendment dons not specifically mention signs as one of the items protected under the freedom of speech, I will refer to the case of !laryland vs. 1'fcCulloch which appeared be-fore the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Afarshall in 1819. In this landmark decision federal law was found to be supreme to state and local laws, and set forth a doctrine of "implied powers". One must to a degree read between the lines, this is known as "loose construction" and has since the 1800's protected the citizens of the United States from themselves and from over- zealous politicians. This country was founded on the doctrine of individualism, a founding doctrine that you are without foresight destroying at it's most basic level. By attempting to regulate the type of sign that A CUT ABOVE can display to promote the business, you are in effect taking away the owners inalienable right of individualism understood under the freedom of speech amendment of the United States Constitution. Thank you for you patience end understanding and I look forward to a favorable resolution of this matter. Sincerely, 9 ~~~ Jesse Jaquez DJ`s A Cut Above