No preview available
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