Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2011-09-07 #3CITY OF
Meeting Date: September 7, 2011
Case Numbers: ED 11-043
Project Planner: Kraig Tambornii�i— 415) 485-3092
(
Community Development Department— Planning Division
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 2500 Fifth Avenue (Mt. Tam Cemetery Master Plan — Phase 1) — [ED11-043] Environmental
and Design Review Permit for Phase I site improvements of the Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery 50 -
Year Master Plan project; APN: 177-240-03; Planned Development (PD -1870) Zone District;
Buck Kamphausen, Marin County Cemetery Company, Owner/Applicant; A.J. Moore, AIA,
Representative; Sun Valley Neighborhood Area.
SUMMARY
The Mount Tamalpais Cemetery 50 year Master Plan project was approved by the City in 2008. The
project's Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-010) included condition of approval #
5, requiring that the applicant submit final colors, materials and landscape details for review by the
Design Review Board prior to implementation of Phase I of the project. Pursuant to project approval
Condition of approval # 4 of Master Use Permit (UP08-031), Phase I must be implemented by August
16, 2012 in order to vest the master plan approvals; i.e., within two years from the date that the
property was annexed into the City, which was completed August 16, 2010. The applicant has
submitted revised plans and materials to address the following elements, as required by the Condition
5 of the Master Design Review Permit:
a) Review of the clay tile material for the chapel/office building roof and darker body colors for all new
buildings (chapel/office and mausoleums) to better fit into the natural setting.
b) Review of revised landscape plan that incorporates additional screening trees and shrubs along the
Ray Court frontage adjacent to the two proposed mausoleums in Angeles Gardens.
The revised details submitted by the applicant propose darker colors for the buildings and provide
additional landscape screening at the new mausoleums facing Ray Court. Staff recommends that the
Board review and approve the final colors, materials and landscape plans, if it concludes the conditions
above have been satisfied.
BACKGROUND
The Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery is a 55 -acre site located at the end of Fifth Avenue in the Sun Valley
neighborhood. The property is bordered by Sun Valley residential neighborhood to the east, Marin
County Open Space lands to the north and the town of San Anselmo to the west. The following
approvals have been granted for the property by the City of San Rafael and Marin County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
➢ On December 1, 2008, the City Council by Resolution 12628 adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery project (Master Use Permit, Design Review, Pre -
zoning and Annexation).
➢ On December 1, 2008, the City Council by Resolution 12629 approved the Master Use Permit
(UP08-031) for 50 year master plan for the project and Environmental and Design Review Permit
(ED07-010) for 22 new mausoleums, office and chapel building expansion, new parking and road
improvements, and new landscape improvements.
➢ On December 15, 2008 the City Council adopted Ordinance 1870 establishing a PD Zoning District
designation for the site.
➢ On August 16, 2010, the Marin LAFCO filed a Certificate of Completion completing the annexation
of the property into the City of San Rafael.
Following completion of annexation into the City of San Rafael, all development on site must be
consistent with the approved Master Plan. The applicant has two years from date of annexation to
implement Phase I of the cemetery project. The Phase I work consists of the following:
• Construction of three new mausoleums on Upper Lakeview roadway and associated roadway
improvements;
• Dedication of easements for emergency access and public open space access; and
• Design Review Board review and approval of a revised landscape plan, the colors and materials for
new chapel/office and mausoleums, colors for the existing buildings (Chapel of Lights and Angeles
Gardens mausoleums), installation of new visual buffer landscaping in the Angeles Gardens area,
and
At its May 6, 2008 meeting, the Design Review Board recommended approval of the project subject to
its review of several specific final building and landscaping area details. The City Council Commission
subsequently adopted approved ED 07-010, with Condition of Approval No. 5, requiring that the owner
submit final plans and design details for Board review and approval prior to implementation of Phase I,
to address the following details (as recommended by the Board):
a) Review of the clay tile material for the chapel/office building roof and darker body colors for all new
buildings (chapel/office and mausoleums) to better fit into the natural setting.
b) Review of revised landscape plan that incorporates additional screening trees and shrubs along the
Ray Court frontage adjacent to the two proposed mausoleums in Angeles Gardens.
Staff notes that the applicant has also submitted documents to Marin County Open Space for access
easements that were proposed as a part of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In response to Condition 5, the applicant has submitted a color and materials board with the color chip,
masonry, and paints samples for the buildings, and landscape plan sheets L5, L7 and L8 with revised
screening along Ray Court. The materials changes consist of darker colors selected to blend in better
with the hillside setting as well as to respond to building design, setting and architecture. The colors
and materials board and roof tile sample will be presented at the hearing. Reduced and full sized
revised plan sheets have been provided with this report, along with a reduced copy of the approved
project plans. The architect will elaborate on these changes at the hearing. The revisions submitted for
review are summarized as follows:
Colors and Materials:
Main Mausoleum and Angeles Garden Paint
Upper Wall Spandrels "Suntan Glow" Behr 230F-5, matte clay/reddish-brown color
Paint: Pier & Walls "Arabian Sands" Behr 280E-2, matte sandstone color
2
Old Mausoleum Building Paint
Walls & Parapets:
Cornice and Arch High Relief,
Balustrades & Pilasters:
Arch Relief Undercuts & Capitals
Garden Mausoleums Existing & New
"Arabian Sands"
"Suntan Glow"
"Red Tomato" Behr 17013-8, matte color`
Crypt Travertine, White (e): "Travertino Navona" Pink-Mortar-Parged
Crypt Granite, Pink (e + n): "Pink Perino" aka, "Texas Rose" Beta, white/pink/grey marble
Crypt Granite, Red (n): "Texas Red" Balmoral Course F2, burnt reddish/black marble
Corner Trim Stone: Bucks County Castle Stone (cultured), sandstone color
Fascia: "Brick Dust" Behr 170F-5, matte pink/reddish hues
Fascia (alternate): "Suntan Glow"*
*The project architect states that the color choices and undercutting techniques were selected to
respond to the design of the building and surroundings. The alternate fascia color selected for each
location would be varied in the field to respond to conditions.
Landscape Revisions:
Upper Lakeview Area Q Sheet 5
The plant list has been revised to remove California laurel tree from the plant list, change the former
Blue Oak specie to Live Oak native tree (11 trees) with 5 gallon tree plantings, and incorporate some
additional non-native Myrtle and Olive plantings within the palette.
Angeles Garden Crypt Area N, Sheet 7
California laurel have been removed and replaced with an understory Fern Leaf Ironwood tree to
provide a taller, denser screen facing Ray Court. Tree sizes are proposed at 5 gallon size. Swan Hill
Olive is included as an optional additional tree that may be interspersed within the planting area to
provide specie diversity.
ANALYSIS
At its May 6, 2008, meeting the Design Review Board concluded that the Angeles Garden mausoleums
would fit well into the open area adjacent to the four existing mausoleums and that visibility of the
mausoleums by neighbors along Ray Court would be reduced with additional landscape planting. The
Board recommended approval of the design and location for the Chapel/Office building with revisions
recommended for roof materials and building and mausoleum colors. The May 6, 2008 meeting
minutes are attached (Exhibit 2).
Staff's analysis of the revisions that have been submitted by the applicant, as required by ED condition
5, is as follows:
Colors and Materials
The Board gave direction that colors for the mausoleums and chapel/office building needed to be
darkened and toned down, with a change in materials to a tile style roof for the office/chapel,
elimination of white trim, and incorporation of darker green and brown material colors for mausoleums
to blend in with the hillside. This direction was implemented as a requirement in ED condition 5a
referenced above.
The revised colors and material choices appear to provide darker "earthtone" colors that would blend in
with the hillside setting. Staff requests that the Board determine if the revised palette and roof tile (to
3
be presented at the hearing) adequately respond to their direction that the materials blend in with the
setting and provide a high quality roof tile in lieu of composition shingle.
Landscaping
The Board recommended more robust landscaping throughout the site, noting that screening at the
back of Angeles Garden is very important and necessary to screen views of the two new mausoleums
from Ray Court. The screening recommendation for Ray Court was implemented as a project
requirement by ED condition 5b, referenced above.
As noted in the description, the architect has revised the palette to propose an understory tree planting
that should grow denser and taller to screen this area. Staff requests the Boards determination whether
the revised plant selections proposed along Ray Court address the requirement to provide sufficient
screening of this area.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
On August 19, 2011, staff posted a hearing notice on-site, and mailed notices to the Sun Valley
homeowners association and all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the site. No
comments have been received to date.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Board review and approve the building colors, materials and landscape
screening details. If approved by the Board, staff will finalize this action by issuing an approval letter for
these details and stamping the exhibits as approved.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. May 6, 2008 DRB Meeting Minutes
3. Approved Project Plan Set (provided to DRB members only)
Full-sized and reduced plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Jack Thorton, Mt. Tam Cemetery, 2500 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
A.J. Moore, 1038 Stonybrook Drive, Napa, CA 94558
Buck Kamphausen, 1525 Sonoma Boulevard, Vallejo, CA 94590
t
I
Exhibit 2
May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
D. Old Business
(3) ED07-010 Request for Annexation, Prezoning and Environmental and Design
ZC07-001 Review Permits for approval of a 50 -year Master Plan for the Mt.
Tamalpais Cemetery to allow future mausoleums and Chapel/office
building expansion.
250 Fifth Avenue (Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery (Lisa Newman)
Newman summarized the staff report and recommended that the Board consider the
applicant's modification to the parking and landscaping plans as well as neighborhood
concerns including relocating the two proposed Angels Garden mausoleums, the desire
for a solid property line fence and effective landscaping along the Ray Court frontage,
and provide comments and recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Olmsted asked staff about the issue of whether or not the Fire Marshal will require the
removal of Eucalyptus trees, which was discussed but he saw no suggestion as to a
method of resolution. Newman explained that the applicant is required through a
condition of approval to develop a vegetated management plan that would be submitted
with the building permit application that must be consistent with the standards identified
in the City's Ordinance and reviewed by City staff. Boloyan noted that the vegetation
management ordinance has specific goals and it does not always relate to removal of
trees. Primary goal of the ordinance adopted is attempting to prune trees for adequate
clearance from the ground and remove shrubs and other low line areas that can ignite
fires and prevent certain types of materials in urban wildland areas such as junipers and
bamboo species. Staff further added that the Fire Department believed this area would
require trimming, pruning and ground management.
Olmsted clarified with staff that all that will be resolved during the environmental review
period. Newman explained that it would become a condition of approval attached to the
design review applicant, so staff will prepare for the Planning Commissions and City
Council's consideration.
Summers asked staff about the color palette. Newman indicated that the Board had a
presentation by the applicant's architect in November and the Board may want to
structure some recommendations that call for the color palette to come back for review.
The applicant thanked the Board members and members of the neighborhood that
attended the Saturday meeting. They gained a tremendous amount of good information
from that meeting relative to some of the problems perceived at the site. The main issues
were addressing the color of the buildings and that they use earthtone colors to be more
readily acceptable by the neighborhood. Also, screening is a concern and they have been
removing the non-native species. There have been a number of trees die and they lost a
beautiful oak that they wanted to replace in front of the office. The building was designed
to go around that oak tree. Several redwoods were lost during high windstorms as well.
The area near Ray Court is an ideal location to place trees. They have lost some business
to other cemeteries for not having mausoleums available, so it cut their income
considerable. Originally, they thought it would be the flagship of their group and
appreciated Olmsted's comments of 19th century cemeteries and their beauty, but they
Exhibit 2- May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2011 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 2
May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
inherited the current situation and tried to build and provide what is desirable within the
public framework today. He discussed the problems with cemeteries in this County and if
they can build mausoleums they will be available for those in this County. A cemetery
must look for all areas that make it economically feasible to build and is also
economically feasible to the community. They wonder if they will ever be able to build
the full chapel or just an office addition. They are in need of more office space. The color
palette will be a major improvement on the facility and relationship with the community.
The master plan just evolved and it started out as a 100 -year plan and ended up a 50 -year
plan. They will need two mausoleums on the curved area as seen during the field trip and
then build one every two to five years, so it is a limited amount of sales and impact as
they move forward.
Chair Huntsberry noted that they received a very in-depth explanation of the operation
and thanked the applicant for the tour that occurred on Saturday.
Chair Huntsberry opened the public hearing on this -item.
Jay Thayer, Ray Court resident, expressed concerns about the cemetery and a letter was
submitted asking the Board to consider relocating two of the mausoleums that were
proposed at Angle's Garden. He recommended changing out the two at Ray Court to
reduce the impact on the neighborhood. Screening is not the issue. Currently there is a
wonderful opportunity and view from Ray Court up the hill across the meadow to the
cemetery beyond. They see the chapel of lights and gravestones in the meadow further
back, which is a rather bucolic scene that they wished to have preserved. Also, in the
future as part of this plan, that there be a better attempt on the part of the applicant to
maintain the edge of Ray Court adjacent to Angels Garden and perhaps construct a fence
or wall that separates the cemetery from the neighborhood. He asked six months ago if
story poles could be erected so the public and Board better understand the location of
these proposed buildings. He further believed with a small amount of work on the part of
the applicant these issues could be resolved.
Mike Britting, Fifth Avenue resident, understands that acceptance of the 50 -year plan has
an implication that when the applicant applies for various permits will have achieved a
certain level of assurance that the City will issue the permits subject to the Building
Codes, but an EIR will not be needed. Then what is the requirement of the order of
construction. They were told last weekend there is a dire need for mausoleums and a
compelling reason why the City should allow this plan, but is there any requirement that
the mausoleums be built first or in 50 -years. He also expressed concern about parking
and the phasing in regard to construction. Also, there is an 8,000 sq. ft. expansion of
chapel and office and expressed concern for traffic and use of the 8,000 sq. ft. building.
The applicant explained that early on the County went out to bid that not only was sent
out to all mortuary facilities in this County, but to other counties and agencies. They were
the only facility that made a bid for the facility. It would have been a separate facility
from there's. At the time they felt it would be a very easy addition to put on to the back
of the mausoleums where a preparation room and facilities room is present. The County
Exhibit 2- May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2011 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 2
May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
has always rotated the corners facilities to various mortuaries. They are doing the bulk of
the work due to the cost constraint and uproar within the community of having dead
bodies in the cemetery, so that was withdrawn from their application and is no longer
included. Although, they are presently doing the bulk of the coroners work, and probably
will continue doing so with a substandard facility. In regard to traffic, it has decreased
significantly because they eliminated two to three trips per day up and day due to
electronically filing of death certificates. The case count in the facility out of 400 cases
per year there is approximately 100 cases of services that equates to about nine per
month. Larger services are few and far between and are held at public buildings. 15 to 25
vehicles is the norm and larger services are met at the gate for parking in that area. For
the two Jewish cemeteries on top of the hills they provide buses, so they park below and
the buses transport individuals to the site.
Cliff Maekon, Fifth Street resident, stated that it is a rather unusual area that there is City
property all the way up to the cemetery of a quiet residential neighborhood. Almost
exclusively a neighbor to the community for several years. The over commercialization
of this neighborhood is a concern. There is a lot of traffic in the morning around 75 to 80
vehicles traveling back and forth. There is a lot of business activity occurring at the
facility now and expressed concern for the impact this facility has on the general
neighborhood. Also, another concern is compatibility with the second floor being
proposed for the office. If there is a second floor built in a residential neighborhood that
statues requires that it be compatible with the predominate style and scale of the
neighborhood judged by the adjoining street. He surveyed that street on Fifth Avenue to
the end and there are about 20 homes of which 19 are single story. Only one is a second
story home. So the predominate style and scale is a single story and to have a second
story in that area would not be compatible with the predominate style of the
neighborhood. He noted that staff must make sure the zoning regulations are addressed.
A second floor in that area would impact the views of the public hills because it is
surrounded by open space. He further pointed out that the views must be protected and
enhanced according to the code.
George Mills, Alpine Street resident, appreciated the comments and the process because
it was difficult at times at the County level. The landscape plan was not available at the
time the staff report was distributed and appreciated the comments in that regard tonight.
He believed the question about better architectural design for the mausoleums was
insightful. He heard the applicant's explanation about industry standards and finances,
which he can appreciate, but lilted the idea that the alternatives were being explored.
Public access is a real disappointment. He asked the Board to provide guidance on how
they can best work with the Marin County Open Space District. He then discussed
emergency access and wanted an emergency access identified. He really appreciated the
site visit on Saturday because many were able to voice concerns and make comments. He
further designed direction on the landscaped area and public access.
Chair Huntsberry pointed out that there is an easement out the back end of the cemetery
over to Red Hill. Mr. Mills requested that the easement be clarified.
Exhibit 2- May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2011 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 2
May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
Howard Hill, Ray Court resident, discussed the garden along Ray Court and water
coming from all the hills basically washes into the drainage ditch on Ray Court and
questioned whether that is the best place for a scattered garden. Also, he is concern about
the two mausoleums on Ray Court, and if in fact the Board approves this plan, he hoped
other mitigations could occur. Given the number of mausoleums, the 50 -year plan should
show the phases such as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3.
Diana Britting, Fifth Avenue resident, appreciated the site visit on Saturday, which was a
great idea. She understands and sympathizes with the applicant's situation, but the reality
is long after the applicant is gone and she is gone, the cemetery and neighborhood will
remain. She continues to hear about a chapel, but she understood a casket store. Also, the
50 -year plan is a process of expanding services, so traffic will increase. The biggest issue
is the responsibility of the County morgue, which should be the responsibility of the
County and did not understand why it is being pushed onto the City and why the
cemetery in their neighborhood is accepting more and more responsibility of that. She
wanted to see that responsibility discontinued. Chair Huntsberry noted that it has been
discontinued. Mrs. Britting noted that they are still performing as a morgue for the
County. If it is annexed to the City then why is the City doing the County morgue
business. She further stated that it becomes a default issue if more and more business is
preformed then what is the point.
Kathleen Weinberg, Moody Court resident, stated that during the November meeting she
was under the impression that the office could possibly be moved. There is a lot of space
in the cemetery, so why keep the huge office in the front. She objected to a second level
being added onto the office at that location. She desired the office to move to another
location due to all the acreage on that site in order to lessen the impact to the
neighborhood.
There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public hearing
and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion and action.
Olmsted acknowledged a rather deep disappointment that issues brought up by the DRB
at the previous hearing have been completely disregarded by the applicant. The issues of
whether there are other suitable locations on the site were not addressed at all. A blanket
statement was made that there is no other location. On the issue of the appearance of the
crypts and the mausoleum structures, there was a suggestion that a design concept might
be appropriate, which was dismissed with a simple statement that they like what they
have and anything else would be too expensive. But the only way to evaluate whether or
not they are too expensive is to develop a concept and price it out. The most significant
issue is the appearance of these mausoleums, which was ignored. There may not be an
alternate location for the office and chapel. Perhaps there is an opportunity to split the
two and have them in separate structures. There was no examination. The notion of
enhanced planting was discussed, but it is not illustrated on these drawings. Color has
been discussed and the notion that earthtone colors or natural character is a good idea and
should be fully explored, but there was no documentation in that regard provided to the
Board. In regard to the issue of tree loss and fire hazards, he has a better understanding
Exhibit 2- May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2011 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 2
May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
that more care must be given to the existing trees. If the trees were lost from this site it
would be a disaster, and if they were lost, replacement planting must occur now. Timing
is terribly important. It is not an issue DRB normally deals with, but strongly
recommended that the issue of timing of events when they occur be carefully studied by
the Planning Commission and City Council. He is disappointed. The notion that this
somehow equates to a 19t" century cemetery design is boastful at best. Much more could
be done in his view. At the Saturday meeting he learned that the site constraints were
essentially budgetary constraints and that is a sad state. He hoped for a more robust
approach to this design, which is not before the Board, so he is greatly disappointed.
There was an opportunity to drive for better and that has not been done. He further
desired the color change; more robust planting plan; and he wished the mausoleums had
been reconsidered in design, particularly the uphill slope where they could have been
worked into the hillside. The use of concrete, masonry, travertine and Arizona sandstone
are totally alien to the site. They must maintain consistency. He is left with a feeling of
grave disappointment. If the Board wants to consider a list of conditions he will
participate in that formulation, but he wanted it clearly understood that he is disappointed
with the effort put forth by the applicant.
Summers agreed that different materials or a different architectural look of the
mausoleum should have been explored. They only received a statement of, "this is how
they are, " but no exploration of a different type. The idea of phasing is good and possibly
add language that, as stated by the owner, "these will be the last built. " He wished story
poles were erected, but after visiting the site he can judge the height. He did drive up Ray
Court briefly to get a better understanding of the vista. The cemetery should maintain the
landscaping. Regarding office/chapel building he appreciated the architecture. He
supported the darkening of the colors. He believed with this type of architecture a tile
roof would look better rather than asphalt shingle roof. It is well under the height limit, so
in his view the second floor concern is not an issue, so it is compatible with the
neighborhood and history with this City. Access should continue to be explored, so the
Planning Commission and City Council should review public open space.
Chair Huntsberry believed the design for the suggested addition for the chapel and office
is a nice direction and appropriate design. He agreed with Summers that a clay tile roof
would be appropriate and better fire protection. In general, he had no problems with the
chapel and office design as proposed. The solution would be to tone down the colors. He
talked to the applicant and he was not aware of some of the concerns in regard to the
hillside design guidelines that are enforced in the City. They require earthtone colors and
the applicant agreed to paint the fascias a darker color. The large mausoleums will also be
painted a darker color. The colors should recede, not jump out. They took a lengthy tour
on Saturday and they do have a single design. Again, they could be improved by toning
down the colors, using darker colors on the mausoleums themselves. Any kind of stone is
a lot better than concrete walls. Most of these structures will not be visible. The cemetery
has a right to be developed, continued and provide the service for the County. In regard to
traffic along Fifth Avenue, there is a school so most of those vehicles are dropping their
children off. The talked about the view corridor in front of Ray Court, and the City is not
required to protect views. They can suggest that heavy planting and screening be
Exhibit 2- May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2011 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 2
May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
provided to mitigate the situation. The parking proposed is appropriate for this size of
operation. He wished the mausoleums had more character, but the bottom line is to have
better colors and tone down the travertine and paint the buildings for a better appearance.
In terms of access, that is a Planning Commission issue. There is also an issue from the
local community in regard to access across some of the lands and connect to the trails,
which is also a Planning Commission issue. The Board does not design projects, but
reacts and tries to do the best they can to make projects better.
Boloyan clarified that statutory predominate design requirement is a requirement in the
Zoning Ordinance, but for upper story additions to single-family homes. It is not
applicable to all development within a neighborhood or any commercial development or
any multifamily development. Also, Policy C5 regarding views, the City does not
regulate nor protect private views from private property. However, Policy CD5 does
evaluate and look out and tries to respect public views from public places from public
locations such as public streets, trails and sidewalks, which was reviewed. Given the
great expanse of the property and the small addition and given the overall backdrop it
was found not to be a significant effect, but that will be brought up in more detail at the
Planning Commission.
Liaison Pick wanted a better explanation in regard to the view of the two mausoleums
near Ray Court. He added that there is no question that the office structure is properly
situated, but in terms of the two new mausoleums, he wondered if any specify inquiry
was made and what the response might have been. Chair Huntsberry noted that from his
point of view there are four existing mausoleums present now, which are hard to view
due to trees and Ray Court. There happens to be a window in that meadow where the two
new mausoleums are proposed, so in his opinion it will continue to be a long-term
development. Liaison Pick clarified that it is a continuation of an existing pattern and it
seems to be a reasonable place. Chair Huntsberry concurred.
Liaison Pick found it pretty straightforward from a planning standpoint, but there will be
a lot of questions about the morgue issue and use and what that means as well as traffic
impacts. So actual data might be desired because they have widely conflicting views from
the neighborhood and owner. He believed hard data should be provided to the Planning
Commission in order to make a reading. Also, public access will be another concern. He
further noted that the order of construction is desired, so they must understand the
phasing aspect.
Boloyan summarized the Board's comments:
• Anticipated phasing must be spelled out.
• Colors must be darkened and toned down. White trim should not be used. Base
material should be green and browns to blend in with the hillside. The
mausoleums on the hill should have darker colors, greens/browns.
• The office/chapel architecture was well situated and an appropriate design. Tile
style roof should be included in the design rather than comp shingles.
• The stone should be darker on the mausoleums. Although, most are difficult to
view from most public vantage points.
Exhibit 2- May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2011 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 2
May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
• Landscaping must be more robust throughout the site.
• The screening at the back of Angels Garden is necessary to screen those new
mausoleums, so that screening should be planted early.
• Public access to trails must be reviewed and considered. Staff is working with the
County Open Space District.
• Public access for emergencies should be reviewed.
• Final colors and landscaping planting plan should come back to the DRB for
approval of final details.
Boloyan then asked the Board for a better explanation in regard to more robust
landscaping. Chair Huntsberry believed Ray Court in front of those two new mausoleums
is a very important area for landscaping. Also, Kent submitted a letter who felt the
planting around the offices and chapel was appropriate. He would leave the landscaping
plan up to Kent and staff. Olmsted added that the areas near Ray Court were suitable for
more robust planting and also if major modifications is to occur of the existing tree
canopy for fire purposes, he would liked to view replacement planting that would be
planted in the schedule where its growth period could be realized early on. Summers
desired some consistency along Ray Court.
Chair Huntsberry suggested that Public Works take more action with the ditch and try to
resolve the problem of flooding during heavy rains.
Chair Huntsberry asked for a motion.
Summers moved and Chair Huntsberry seconded, to approve the project tonight as
conditioned with details, colors and landscaping coming back to the Board for review and
approval. Motion carried 2:1. Olmsted opposed. Crew/Kent absent.
AYES:
Members:
Summers, Chair Huntsberry
NOES:
Members:
Olmsted
ABSTAIN:
Members
None
ABSENT:
Members:
Crew, Kent
Exhibit 2- May 6, 2006 DRB Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2011 DRB Meeting