HomeMy WebLinkAbout0376.093Joly 8, 1993
HOIKlRABLE CITY COUNCIL
~alo Alto, California
Appeal of Architectural Revie~ Board Approval of
Remodel of Existing 27,260-Square~Foot Chur~h Building
and Related Facnities Jncludir,g Parl;;ng and landscaping
at 600 Colorado Avenue
Kember. of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
--'. ,;
This report fO~drdS to Counc~l an appeal by Herb Bor~ck of the Director of
Planning and Community ~n~ironment's approval, based Gn the rpcommendations of
t~e Arcnitectural Review Board, for th~ re~del of the ex;stin9 ~7,260-sQuare
foot church facility to a proposed 24,400-sq~are-foot church building and
related facilities including parking and landscaping at 600 Colorado Avenu2.
BACKG mp
At it. meeting of Octobe. 19, 1992, the City Council appro,ed the tentative
subdivision map and conditional use permit t~ allow the consolid3tion and
reconfiguration of t~e existing St. Mark's Episcopal Church.
On NO',ember 12, 1992. the app1itant, St. Mark's Episcopa1 Church, submitted an
application for a major Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval to remodel
the e)',ist;ng 27.260-square-foot church facility to 3. proposed 24.400-square
foot ChLil'"ch building and related facllities including parking and landscaping
i A!proYements.
The application was in,tially reviewed by the AR8 at its ~anuary 7, 1993
~eeting and continued for the applicant to retYrn with a request for Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE). Th. Board gave general support of the project
wlth specific items to be 2ddressed in the revised submittal.
The al1P1icant revised the plans in r02sponse to pub' ic and ARB cornnent~, and at
the May 20, 1993 Architectural Revi .. Board meeting, the ARB voted 3-0-1-1
(-nth B~ard members Lyzwa absent and M~ser abstained) to recommend approval of
the project as presented by the applicant subject to a number of conditions:
including one whi~h required the final landscape plan fc~ the project to
CHR:376:93
: '
:,,--;.j",
~~~;"7h",:"";,{,; ~",
ret~rn to tne ARB and to addr~ss many
raised. The Director of Planning and
Board's aCL~~n O~ May 25. 1993.
of the concerns that the appellant has
Community Environ~nt approved the
On June 4, 1993, th~ decis'ion Qf thi:! Director of Planning and Ccmrnun'rty
Environment was appeal ,oj by Herb Borock (appeal application and letter
attached) .
A!!AlfSIS
The appellant has based the appeal on several issues. Ihey are addres~ed
below in the order they were raised in the letter of appeal.
L landscape Buffer on Eastern (Byron Stte..eLside} Prpperty Line
2. landscape Mfl1llt;-uance and Replacement
The appellant has raised two related concerns regarding the width of the
.,roposed landscape buffer along the church driv.::way ana' the maintenance of all
project landscaping. While t~e code does not require a minimum width of
lartdscaping. staff and two neighbors. Mr. Borock and Ms. thiape'la, ha¥e on
rumerous occasions encouraged the appli(.a~t to provide a minimum 10-foot
perimeter landscape buffer along tne church d~iveway. This issue was raised
in the earlier use permit process, but a spec;flc condition r~garding t~e
width of the buffer was nut fmposed by the City Council. The applicant's
architect and landscape a~chitect have submitted a design that includes a
perimeter landscape b~ffer ranging from 8 to 6 feet. The Architectur~l Revlew
Board has deter.wined that the dimension proposed by the applicant is
sufficient to support the dense landscaping required by code (section
18.83.100.f.1.) and use permit condition (conditio", #1'). Toe ARB decide<J
that the rigniflcant factor to success is not whether the strip is 10 or 6
feet, but ~ether or not it is properly designed~ installed and maintained.
(Refer to ARB minutes, page 56, comments by Shirley Wilson). The ARB
indicated a desire to review and discuss i condition, which would be imposed
on the 1 an~sci.pe pl if) app,·oval, requiring the appl icant to enter into a
maintenance contract to assure long-term success of the landscaping proposal.
Whether Oi not the /I.RB will phce such a condition on tile project is at this
point an Qutstanding issue. Property maint~nance is not ~ standard '~ndition
of approval in Palo Alto, but a maintenance condition could be applied on
specific properties wheTe maintenance ~as or may Decome a Droblem. The
condition requested by tne appellant is very spectfic and a11~ws for little
flexibility. For example, it would preclude the possibility of replacing
plant types witn a~ceptable substitutes that might be found to better survive
because of specific site conditions. It also places the b~rden of conoltion
IIOnitodng on City staff, rather tnan req'J.iring the applicant to provide
evidence of ongoing professional maintenance on a regular baSiS, which was
more the intent of the ARB. Staff recolJll'lends that tne Council dir~ct the ARB
to req~ire a la~dscape maintenance contract as a condition, but that tn~ ARB
develop a more general and ~nforceable condition than that recommended by Mr.
Boror.:k.
00:376:93
P: \011. \6OOOllo. ",.,
7/8/93
Page 2
.'
'.t!
3. Maintain M;~jmum Humber of Parking Spac~s
Mr. BorocK is ton~erned that the 152 required parking spaces will not be
provided. This concern was riised be(ause during the staff and ARB re~';e'ill of
tf'le proposeti plans, it was noticed thJlt the parking configllration was
irlfringing on the root zone of a major tree in the rear of the property. Tne
applicant has indicated that they have every intentf~n of respecting the needs
of the oak a~d that they can solve the problem of parking too close to the oak
tree t~rough reconfiguring some standard spaces to compact spaces, and
mai~ta;n the lSl required parking spaces on site. The intent of the ARB's
condition was t~ allow for some flexibility in order to both provide the
required parking and to prDtect the Dak tree, dual ~bjecti~es which the
appellant alsc supports. Acc~rding to the ~ppljcant a DEE would not be
required to a<:C-umplish: these objecth'es. Onc.e staff recei~es the revised
parking layout (prior to submission for building pe~its), the issue will be
resolved .and 152 parking spaces will be provided. Staff re-r::'Y.!!l'.endi r"iO change
to Clir7ejit corldahm~.
4. Ijghting Standards
The appellant is recommendi~g a specific condition to control on-site
illuainat10n and timing of the outdoor li~hting. ARB Condition 3 req~ires
that t~e final landscape plan return to the Board for review prior to issuance
of a building permit. As part of that submlttal, the applicant wll1 need to
supply the Board with. final lighting plan. The recommended condition
proposed by the appella".t is largely ("ontained in the loning Ordinance,
Sectioo, 18.~.030A(IJ and (2), which .re listed a' recommend~~ gUidelines,
and the 12 foot height limit is included in Section IB.11.05G(1). The code
[~~tains no req~irement for 1~m;tin9 the hours of tlluminition.
Staff does not recommend the condition requested ~y the appellant. because it
is largely a reiteration of eixsting code prQvisions. As a gener~l practice,
staff tries to not repeat the detailed Code provisions in conditions of
a~~oval because of potential futUre confysion regarding the intent for COdE
provisions that are not included as conditions. Tne 80ard will conSider the
integrated landscape pr09Qsa1 in Its entirety. lighting diagrams,
ph\ltometrics, and tithel' details Will be included as part of lhat final
submittal. Th~ ARB is very conscious of the impact of lighting on adjacent
sensitive neighbors.
Limiting the hours of external il1~minat1on in the manner reQuested by th~
i~a11a~t ~s anothe~ very specific condition tnat the (ity has applied on
occasion to other commercial or institution.l uses when they abut residential
uses~ These types of conditions are most effective when there is good will
between the nonreside~tial use and its neighbors, because the desire to be
conscientious in abiding by the condition is higher on the part of t~e
applicant anti the tolerance for minor infract"lons is higher em the part rf th~
neighbors. In thi s case, staff fors!Es tt,e J10ssibil it:; of expending
considerable resources responding to minor infractions, due to the breakdown
in the relationship of th~ chu~h and some neighbors. Tne hours when light
timing infractions Gcc~r are at night, an~ thus, are enf~Tceable only by the
Police Department. Understandably, lighting issues ar2 not high-priority
service calls for them. Staff recommends that the City encourage that the
CMR:376:93
p ;\otr\6OOal.O.1II9
7/8/93
Page 3
'\
\
,-
.", .
o
Church's relat'onship be rebui1t through the implementation of Condit;ons 3
and 4 of the conditional use permit, which ~quires requhr meetings and
communlcation between the Church and its ne'ghbors on 15sues cf mut~al
concern. Staff is skeptical as to whether a light ti~~~g limit will be either
effective or enforceable to the satisfaction of all parties without th~ mutual
cooperation of the Church and its neighbors.
S. Whit Trek'
The appellant is objecting to the lack of specificity in Condition 3 regarding
which tree 'is to ~ retained. ARB Condition 3 requires retention of the
existing Camphor tree on the east property line, but the appellant is
justlfied in his asse5sment that the c~nditlon does not adequately describe
tne tree. The tr!e is to be saved for 5 to 10 years 1.ll1til the newly planted
trees along that property 1 jr.~ mature. In order to better communicCI'te to
future parties whG will ~ikely be t~volved in the mor.itoring of this permit~
t~e co~dition should add the followf~g language to better describe the tree;
3. (bull~t 7) Save th~ existing mature muJti-w~nked ~ tree or.
the east property line for approximately 5 to 10 years to allow
other trees to mature.
The Church is requesting tnat the CounCil relieve them of the condition to
reti~n the tree. Because the tree was damaged dUilng construction and does
not possess 3 full canopy, they feel that they can replace it wit~ a far
better specimen which ~uld b~ sU?erior in screening the neighbors in only a
few years. Staff sympatni!es With the adja<:ent ml.llti-filfTlily unit neighbors,
Who have lost .11 vegetation at the r •• r of their .nits. This Stra9gly
Camphor is the last v!stige of tne ori;inal buffer and should be retained for
its sentimental ~.lue as we" as its screening val~e. Staff recommends that
the condition describing the tree be mad! DOre specific as identified a~Dve~
6. Trash Enclosure
The appellant is concerned that the trast, enclosure location should be moved
to a spot on the property ~here it ;s in proximity to the largest trash
generating actiYlties. Condition 6 re~uires a site plan wnich includes a new
location fOT the trasll enclosure with details to be su~itted for ARB final
approval. The condition aoes not speclfy the locaticn because there are
:;~veral fGctors whid! will dictate the locatiol1. proximi't1 to trash generation
belng one of the criteria. ~ther criteria include such things as PASCO pick
up requirements~ y;sual impact. and distance from sensitive neighbors. Staff
recommends allowing the applicant and ARB more flexibility in slting the trash
containers, with final consideration to Dccur with the final integrated
landscape plan submittal.
1. Cyrh a.nd Gutter
lhe appella~t '$ requesting that the rolled tur~ and gutter along the frontage
of the churcn be replaced with a verti<:al curb and gutter. He makes this
request based ,on tne aS~LlfIlption tnat the new curb and qlJtter to be constructed
a10ng the Colorado Avenu~ frontage of the single-family subdivision wi'. be
vertiGal. This is not the case. The cUl"b along the Colorado Avenue frontage
CMR:376: 93
P: \OIt\/iOIKtUl,APf'
7/8/93
Pd.ge 4
:
wi" remain rolled (refer t~ attached Exhibit B fram the SubdivTsion
improvEment .l.ns.) Wni1. Pl.nning .taff acknowledges t~e benefits of
vert1c.l curbs for protecting the sidewalks and pedestrians fr~m parked cars,
.. nd would sUPPO't't the re-ph.cement of rollad curbs in rnaY'lY portions of the
community for that reason, it does not seem logical to impose that requirement
in isolatton O~ thi~ sma" segment of Colorado Avenue. Staff recQmrr~nds
retii~;ng Conditinn 9 as it is currently ~orded.
S. CgDitryction StiSing
The appeilant has requested that the ARB approve recon$t.~~t~~n 0\ the e~tir~
pirking lot prior to ~ny n~ co~struct;on occurring. A temporary parklng lot
has already been approved administratively and constructed. Building permlts
for the adjilcent single-family suf',dhision have been issued. Construction has
'~~ncEd and the deve10per wishes to comp1ete the homes by ThanKsgiving of
tn1s yeaY. 1t is standard procedure and prefer3ble to wait to construct the
f;n,l puk.ir,g lut until after tt\~ major c{lnstructio" has been comp1eted. This
preven .... $ daaage to ttle new surface by constr1Jction veh.,c1es and equi'pment.
Staff would not recommend imposing the condition request!d by the appellant.
9. Extra Spi re
The appellaHt has noticed t~at tne projp.ct plans contain a spire over the n~
entrance wh'c~ was intended to be erased from an earlier version of the
draw1ngs~ The applicant has assured staff that this error will be corrected.
JO~ fire SDrjnk.l Irs
The appellant has requested that the cod! requirements regarding fire
sprinkling be made into a condition and attached to tne ARB approval. The
fire code and building code contain m~ny reqUirements. all of which cannot ~
contlfned in the final ARB approval. The Firt Department will enforce the
Fire tode at the time of the building permit reviow. The applicant has been
alerted to the need for sprinkler installation.
11. Parking lot landscapj~a Sprinklers
The appellant ha, r!quested that the ARB approv.l includ. language t~.t
requires a~tomatic irrigation of al1 pl~~ted areas in the parkin9 lot,
including boundary buffers. Section 18.83.)00(g) "quires provision of
automatic irrigation of all planted areas. This would apply to ooundary
buffer areas. The final landscape plan will include irrigation drawings
dspicting the installation as a requirement of submittal. P. condition to this
effect is unnecei~ary.
12. Damaged Sidewalk
The appellant is requesting rep1acement of damaged sidewalks. Condition 9 of
the ARB appro.iil maKes damagpd sidewalk replacement a requirement.
13. Cottage Sjze Violation
The appellant has consistently raised an abjection, throughout the use permit
00:376:93
p:\~6ootu.o.N'f
, ,
7/8/93
P"!J~ 5
o
afld ARB pro<:!!-u. that the accessory residence proposed by the church shou7d be
subject to to" limitations of Section 18,12.030 of the lDning Drdinanc •.
These regulations limit the size and desi9r, of second dwelling units. Staff
has maintained and the City Counei 1 has conCLiI red that the residence is not a
·seco"d unit" or ·cottage·, but is instead an accessory USe and facility for
the church use. Residences associated wlth t~e church use are therefore not
subject to the cottage provisions, though the residence does me~t the
requirements of Section 18.88.020 of the zoning ord+nance \l.'hid applies to
accessory uses anf facilities.
14. ArchTtectural Style of HOlJSe
The appellant is recommending that the resid~nce on Colorado, accessory to the
church, should be architecturally associated with the churLh rather than t~e
adjacent single·famil) ~ubdfv;sjon. While Section 16.48.120, Standar~s for
Review, of tke ARB ordinance require that the design of the proJect be
c~dt~bl~ with tne i~iate environment of the site and improvements both on
and off site, the AP.B in ~t! r~view of the plans did not specifically address
the desi9n cORpatibllity of the house with the church architecture. Much more
empnasis was p1aced at their hearing on the other numerous ,oncer~s ra~sed bv
the neighbors of the proj!ct, p~rticularly tree replacemp-nt and removal, site
landscaping and lighting. Staff recommends that th~ entire applicatio~ be
approved with the condition tnat this single issue of the arcnitect~ral style
of the accessory resid!nce be referred back to the ARB for specific
consideration.
l~. Gross floor Area
The appellant has stated that~ according to tne floor area calcu!ations of the
app11ca"t, the size of the prQject has increased since the conditional use
'permit precess. The use permit approval included plans for approximately
25,034 square feet of floor area, 374 square feet of _~ich was new second or
third floor equivalent. The current submittal has been reduced to
approx~.ately 24,520 square feet of floor area, 1,080 square feet nf whi'~ is
new second and t~ird floor equivalent. The n~est subm;~tal decreases tne
amount of usable floor area, diminishing the fntensity of ~se.
Additional Information Available
The St. Mark's Episcopal Churc~ remGdel ~roject received extensive review
during the Subdfvision, Use ~rmit and Archtt!ctural ReYi~ Board processes.
Materf.l~ related to the SubdiviSion and Use Permit have not been provided
w1t~ this report, but are available upon request by contacting lorraine Weiss
in tne Flanning D;~ision it City Hall. T~e following types of materials a~
ava; 1 .tlle:
• Planning Comission anc City CQUPlcil Staff Reports
• Minutes of Flanning Cummission and City Council hearings
• SubdiVision Project Plans
• Use Pi!'rmit Project Plans
CMR:376:93
':'0If\6IOCrIJ] .APf
7/8/93
Page 6
-.. -.
RECOI!!EbDATION
Slaff recommends that the City Council uphoid the decisior. of the Director of
Plan~inq and Community Environment and ARB ~nd approve the remodel of the
e~~st1n9 church facility at 600 Colorado subject to conditions of approval
outlined in ine May 25, 1993 appro.al letter to CUrtls S. Pe~erson (attached),
with t~~ addition of the following amended c~ndition:
Conditio" 3: (bullet 7) Save the exIsting mature IIlJlti-trunked
Canphor tree on the east prope,"ty line for approximately S to ].;
years to al10w othe-r trees to mature.
~taff .1so recommends tnat the (ounci1 direct the ARB t~ req~ire a landscape
maintenance contract as a conditiop of approvai of the landscape plans and
refer back to tr.e ARB reconsideration solely of the issue of a~chitect~ral
COMpatibility of the accessory residence on Colorado Avenue.
Respectfully ,u,""itt.d,
•
~tL0.40,,---;r;;:,>,,-/d Ie> --:,{!&t"
/'
KENNETH R. SCHREleER LORRAINE WEISS
Planner
~~
Director of Planning and
Communi ty Em'; ronrnent
City Manager
AttachMnts: Exhibit A: location Map
Exhibit B: Portion of Subdivision lmprovement Plans
Excerp! minutes of ARB meeting, January 7. 1993
Excerpt verbatim minutes of ARB meeting, May 20, 1993
ARB approval lett.r to Curtis S. Peterson, dated May 25, 1993
Appeal Application and Letter d~ted June I, 1993
Public Correspondence
Project Plans (City Counctl Members Only)
c:c: A~"it~ctural Review Board
~ack Barker, St. Mark's Episcopal Church, 600 Colorado Avenue, Pa1~ Alto
Jay Mitchell, Hoover Associates l 87 Encina Avenue, Palo ~lto
Curt Peterson, The Plymouth Group, 16H N. Shoreline Blvd.,
Meuntatn View, CA 94043-1316
Bill OWen, OTsee DeSign Associates. 9S S. Market, Suite 640~
San Jose, CA 9~J13
Gerard Moshofsky, ~34 Colorado AvenuE, Palo Alto
Lynn Chiape11a, 63~ (olorddo Avenue. Pll0 Alto
Herb Borock, 2731 Bryon Street, Palo Alto
CIIR: 376: 93
P: \OII'\6OOCll.O ......
7/B/.3
Page 7
Lill Jouppi, ~17 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto
Al Russell, 605 Color.do Avenue, Palo Alto
V. Keith Meinhold, 659 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto
Stever. A. long, 532 (o1crado Ayen~e, Pilo Alto
Emma E. Safftoan, elZ Color.do Avenue, Palo Alto
Claudia Oedo, 634 Colorado Aven'.e, P.lo Alto
Allen Toed, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto
John Lacerd', 628 Colorado Avenue. '.10 Alto
J. lacerda, 620 Colorado A~enue, Palo Alto
Doug Cox, 485 El Dorado Avenue Palo Alto
CNit:376:93 7/8/93
Pag"!' 8
'.
f
~~~ ____ A.. _________ ~ ________ ~
1
EXHIBli A
L
" ; -~ :,
}~?l/-\
,
-
~.
~
V;ASPAR
EXHIBIT B: Portion of Subdivision
Improvement ?1ans
~R:'.~H!C:: .HTACHMENT DATE: 7 .12-:93 SCP.LE~ no scaie
TO STAFF REPORT FILE ~O. 92-ARB-17S
PROJECT: St. Mark'. Church -Remodel of existing 27,260
square-foot church bUlldlng & rel~tea faCll,tles lnc U lng
parking & landscaping at 600 Colorado _la.'i~nue.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINIITES Thursday, January 1, 1993
B:00 A.~
A. ROLL CAlL
Board "~rs Present: Thomas Hise
Council Conference Room
250 ~amilton Avenue
Pal 0 Alto, Cal j forrzii
Mich.el lyzwa (left at 10:30 a.m.)
Jul ia MilSer
Aino Vjeira-da-Rosa
Shirley Wilson
Baird Members Absent: N~ne
Staff Mem~~s Presfnt: Jim Gilliland
lorraine Weiss
B. APPROYAL OF MIMES OF DECEMBER 17~
Approval of minutes with the following c_ents (4·0·0·1), (Shirley
Wilson abstained a~ snt was not present at the last meettng).
ARB to clarify condition II of the Blue Chalk Cafe lilem 3, 6l8-630
Ramona Street) regardir.g building colors of street level and second
stor~ for further review at next meet1ng. Condi~ion 'i rflds as follows:
the paint colors as proposed are accEptable with one madification,
eliminate red color it the second lev~l.
ARB recommends that the City attorney's off;,! rev;~ the para~raph on
limitations on appea15 to c1arify the wording. ARB also reco~r.d5 tnat
it be placed up front with the paragraph o~ appeals.
c. ORAl COIIHUHICATIOHS
r.lone
D. AoENDA ITEMS
APPROVALS: The Architectural Review Board {ARB} decision on the design
of the project is a rec.omendation to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment (the OlT€ctor). ~ho makes the fi~al decision.
Unless otherwise stated by the ARB or the Director, project approvals
F': \AR1!\Hll!\HI'UllIl7torr
Page
" .'.
o 0
g~nerally tncorporate Projeo;.t M:evie\l/ Committee conditioflS as mai'2d to
tne apPlicants and staff conditions as reccmmended in the Information
Hell'lorar,dur.ls ~
CHANGE): Any (hange to an approved design plan must be resubmltted to
the tity for approval. Resubmittal of a prnjec~ may also be necessary
if cfHlnges are mandated as i res:.J1t of complying wHh Publ ic
Works/Engineering Dr other City department requirements, or any other
applicable code or ordina~ce requirements.
APPEJQS: All major and minor proje(t approvals are subject to an a~peal
;~;';,;;d, .. ~.:,,:,~, iO~~~'n':; fc;~ !~i<; a.p):o~;oC.""!.':', ;:-.:::::-........ I"I~ HoC! ,"'ur:-.1'-:-+.r. f'il"
an appeal from the decision ~f the Director Qn the projp.ct. The appeal
period for majQr projects (designated with an asteriSK .*W) is eleven
{ll} working days fol1awing the date of the ARB's recom~endation on the
pro,ject. The appeal period for minor pr<ljects ;s seven (7) working days
foll~wing the date of tn~ ARB's recommendation on the project. Appeals
of minor site and design and minor zone changes are subject to Chapter
18.93 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Plann'ng staff should be
cont~~ted for further information regarding appeals and appeal
procedures.. <"
If you wish to appeal any item on this agenda, contact the Planning
DivisiOn (3Z9~Z441) regarding time and fee~ If you challenge ~his land
use decision in co~rt, yo~ may be limited to raising only those issues
you or scme~ne else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo A1to
at or prior to, the publiC hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: All m.jor projects not identified by EIA in
parenthesis (ETA} following the project address have been d~termined to
be Categorically Exempt from CrQA review. All minor prGjects have been
determined .to ~e Cc.tegorically Exempt from CEQA review.
TIME lIMIT: Project approval is valid for one (I) year from the
orfginal datp. of approv~l except for phased projects for which a
specific development schedule, not to exceed five (5) years from the
original date of ap,roval, may be approved. The time perioQ for a
project including a phased project ~ay, upon ~pp1;~ition, be extended
once by the Director fDr a~ a~~itional ye~T.
EXPIRATION: 1n the event the buildir.g p~rmit for a project is not
secul'ed within the at-oye sperified tirr:e 1 lrnits, the approval of the
project will exp; re and be of no further force and effect.
, :\II.Jt8"1 1 11\1'.1,"01 07eOf r
Page 2
-
'".,,,.~. ..~
,)~ ....... <~'l. ~.. •
!. CONSENT CALENOA~
ltems to be approved lS a group without debate unless discussion is
requested by the Soard, public, applicant or stiff.
1h;S 1 ist is not necessadly c.omp1ete, as ltems may bi! placed on t;,e
consent Calendar up tn 72 hours in adYAnCe of the m~eting.
None
i I • RrGULAA AGENDA
I. 600 Colorado Avenue* ilZ-ARB-17B
St. Mark's Episcopal Chu"ch
ft~pl;cat~on for a re~del of the existing 27,260-square-foot
church fac;'i~y to oil proposed 23,9S0-squar2-foot churt" ~uilding
and related facilities, including parking and landscaping_
PUBLIC TEST!HCNY; Jay Mitchell, architect of Hoov2r Associat~s,
presented the proposal.
tynr. Chiapel1 a~ 53] Colorado Avenue. stated that the entry to the
building is not as was rresent~d b~fore the City Council and the
churc'" has been revised to ~e situated c.1oser to (c1orado A .... ~nL'e
which 1s not as desirab1e. landscaping is not sufficientt
partictflafly on the eastern boundary whhh should be sufficient to
limit the impact of the new fence and ;~cr~ased height of
building. The second and third noor height equivalents cf the
chur<..h addition should be assessed in the fhor area calc.u1atians.
The trash enclosure shcu1d be relocated so a:; 'lot tn bs ~i;:· .. ~d
froln properties across Col or~do A¥c-i"iUe.
Herb 8orock, 2731 Byron Street. 5t~ted that the Design Exception
Enhancement 'DEE} requires that the project be ~ey'ewed with the
DEE application. th~refore. the project should b! continued. He
noted that the plans are different from those presented to the
Ci ty Council and the er.try orientation has been re.ised to
decrease t~e e~phasis on the rear parking area. He ~e1t that lhl~
was flot in keeping with the Council approved plans. l,lndscaping
shoul1 be reviewed by the ARB, as the size and number of planting:;
is not sufficient and not within the ordinance reQuirements. He
st3ted a concern for change<; in processing that .... i 11 .1 i ow
variances and modifications to the use permits after the City
Couoci1 has approved a project.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 80~RO ACTION: CONTINUED. (4-0-0-1). (Julio
Maser abstained), to return to the ARB With a request for a DEE.
Page 3
2.
o
Tha AA3 offt!fed gefi~r~'i suppo!"t for the project and the proposed
OtE app 1 i cat; on. They reques ted that C i t,Y s t a ff address th~
issues of height, floor arC'a ratio (FAR). and R-I zoning limits
r~;:-.:"di~; twc res~d'2nth1 !omit: 'C~ ~n R 1 ::;1te pr1:;r to th.,
projects r¥t~ro. fn addjt~on to t~e above) the applicant shall
address the fo'lo~ing issues in the revised submittal:
I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
The location of bicycle parking and type of screening.
The selection of paving materials.
The trash enclosure 10catlon and scr~ening material.
Prop&sed sfgnage.
A revised landscape pTan showing all e~isting trses, a 2:1
replacement for trees to be removed. new shrubs, fence
10cat1ons and details~ the type, sile, and Quantity of
:-,~,,::!:~~ .. "':o1 "r;lntinas. 0;'1 the Colorado Avenue side of the
site, and (YP!t s.ize, and quant1tH~$ ut ":\--... ;, ........ 1." ;:'~ .. u-"e.5
p'D!,SilW1'i~A!~0~~IOn9 the east property llne~ ~ possrlLl:i\y' or IJslng .... aJ';pa'rking lot monitor for the west
Side p~rk;ng area and insta11atinn of speed bumps or other
methodS" of deCl'"!iSinl] vehle1 e speeds.
A T!'vfsed circul atfon plan that shows: a) the easter1y
driveway perpendlc~lzr to the curbline for the
first 20 feet behind the face of curb, and bJ a redeslgn of
the parking which relocates the three proposed stalls
preJently located in the carport at the end of the ~esterly
dr;vfll'ay.
mJJl1iyp"~1t"! ~'-:j!"u€
Ahin° Pinel Realtors
92·ARB·191
Facade remodel and signage 011 COrMlercia1 .buil.cing.
PUBLIC TfST1MONY: None
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: APPROV£D with the following
conditions, (5·0°0·0) °
CONOrTIONS:
).. Prior to the issuance of _~ buP~,~_l1g".perldt~. the appl~c.ant
s.hall retuio t~ .. t~e ARB ~.fr;~~:~r~siJ11:\~it~~~!~ with a redesign
of the Webster/un1versity corner whlcn strengthens the
COrner charatt~r and ~nifies the architectural character of
the new entry fa(~de with the entire building elevation.
2. A landscape plan shall return to the ARB at the same time of
review of the building corn~r design.
P ;\AI'8VH II'." 11f01 07(:or I'"
Page 4
,0
. , .. . . "t...;~ ..
: '. : :
...... -, .. -
/
Arch1te~tural Review Board Hearing
6QQ Colorado Avenue 92-ARB-178
St. Kirk's C~urch
Revised ~lans per preYio~s ARB r!view for application of a remode' ~f the
existing 27,260-square-foot church f.ci1lty to • proposed
24,400·square-foot church building and re1ated facilities, including
park1ng and landscaping.
Mr. His:: We will now take up 600 Colorado Avenue, St. Mark's Church.
Are there any additional staff comments?
Ms. Weiss: Mancy lytle is here to speu and hik ibuut her-)nvQhement
with the applicQ~t9 as well as the residents. in the neighborhood,
~tle: I am reallj her~ to herp answer Questions and to bring some
continuity to the pl"Ocess, This has been a long process for the church
and the related subd1vis~Qn next d~o~. We have gone through the ARB, as
YOII a.re a.ware. lh~ Pl anning Com; ss;on and the City Coun<:il revle'lllled the
use permit and subdivision for the sTngle·family development next door.
Tnis is now the final review by the Architfctural Review Board of the
cburch consolfdation on the r~maining parcel left from the single·family
subdivision.
A lot of the nefghbors have been very involved in this proje<:t, for go~
reason. There is an apartment complex very c10se by and adjacent to tne
drivewiY constructi~n. Many cit~ deplrtments nave been involved, and ainy
of the policy boards have be~n ~nyoTved, so J just want to be bere to
answer questfons in Cise there is any confusion about what has happened in
the past and to bring so.e continuity throughout.
Mr. Hfse: Are there an~ board questions for staff?
"5. W1lson: i have a question for staff. Issues have been raised in
letters to us about tree replacement on this site. It :ieems like there is
a long histor~ that is almost iapossible for someone going out to the Site
today to respond to. J aD interested in what level staff is capable cf
ascertaining what has been removed and what kind of leverage we haye for
tree placement in that area.
Ms. lytle: Yes t I have done some pretty intp-nslye research on the trees
O~ both propert i es 9 so I am well briefed on w~at has o<:c~rred th!re.
Tnere are two separate sites, remember. but because it involyes a
sing1e-family subdivision doing some temporary work on the church slde, we
have one developer across both properties at this point. Two trees have
been removed, one on"ea~h property, beyond what was previously ~-prowed.
So we do nave a situation where a couple of mistakes were made, one on l
tree in the single-family subdivision that was taken out beyond what t~e
city had approyed~ and one tree along this property line has COMe out
beyond what was approved. Otner than th.t, ,11 of the other trees that
were stated to be r~tained have been retained, and at this point, h~ve
05/20/93
·1-
-~',-----.,.-----
•
o o
been rroperly fenced. In fact. ! want to compliment the developers. They
nave done the best job 1 have seen in tnf5 comm~nity, and we do not do a
very good job, frankly of trEe protection 1n the field. This developer
has done the finest job I have seen of fencing and prntecting the trees in
accordance w1tn the condltion~ we ha~e 1mp?sed.
There was so.e q~est1on by the neighbors as to wheth!T this was done
properly. ~e got in touch with the projett irborist and had a discussion
about the way those roots were trimmed around this grouping of redwoods.
That was dDne properly+ Our arbOTlst, Cave Sandage, walked tne site wlth
~; ill of t~e trees tnat are now out there Irt properly prot~cted. He
feelS pretty comfortable about this. There is one oak i~ this location
that we could, ] think. improve its &uc<:e'ss of sur ... i ... al H we plJlled the
temporary dr;\lNa) back a bit. I don't know if they have dOlle u,at yet.
They may baye responded there.
Dave Sandage was comfortable with th! manner in which it had bee,}
temporarily fenced n~w, although it ;s not to the full e~tent of the
requl~~nts. They bijye bent it a little bit to ailow for some tempor~ry
park.inq in t.~at ar:;a. But there iu't: too':; !;-:c::: ~~:~ ~.,,"'" ~""(>'" t ;l!1I:~'1' I)'''!~
beyond what was shown, and there is also, in this latest submittal, a
request to take out another tree on this property line beyond what was
previously appro\led. The neig~bors, when we hear from them today, are not
happy about that. Remember there is an ~partment building right here on
this property line. One unfortunate thing occlJrred, which is nobody;s
fault, but tne property line whfre t~e n~ fence was installed cs
actually biD feet farther toward the apartment complex than anyone
antiCipated. The existing f~nce showed it outslde of the pr~perty line,
so when this property line wall went Up, the) lost all of the plantings on
their side. They are understandabl~ feeling ~ery impacted b) that
actfon. Hlis one t.ree thoat f-ney ha~e kept there j 5 now the only gre-en
thing along this whole wi1; ~ :and it was not prtmed as well as it (;ould
have been. [t was ripped in a few pl.ces as the fence construction went
fn. now, 1n trois proposed ptan, ~ne applicant i~ d~~ing LQ t.~~ ~ver. t~.t
tre! out. The neighbors will doubtless communicate to you that that is
adding insult to injury, at this point.
Mr. H~se: What side is that on?
Ms. lytle: The) have given you a letter which, in fact, I thlnk is at
your plates. Tney claim that the reason for doing that 15 that the
driveway a~d the root zene --the intent of the original approval was to
get a ver~ nice, vegetated buffer along this side. We recommended that it
be as wide as you could make ;t~ ~en feet being the desired ~idth of the
buffer. Definitely, it complies w;t~ code. There was an appeal filed on
the entire use permit by one of the adjacent properties for the re~son of
~king sure that that buffer, in fact, was protected ~nough. So staff
would be \lery ~uch su?portiv~ of ensur1ng thoat this not be diminished
beyond its original intent, to get it nice and iush, and at t~is time,
hav1n~ a vine growing over the top ~f the wall onto the neighbors' Side
would be ver~ desirable. As ~ understand it, tne applicant nas proposed
t:'at, in fact, tryinq to get the vine establ ; shed.
We nave recommended that all landscaping should be as dense as possible
and as wide as we can possibly get it, as well.
OS/20/93
-2-
\ '
Mr. Hjse: What Is tn" width no.?
Ms, Lytle: Actually, r think. it varies. 'jOIl might
uchit'!ct waH. you th'cugil it in his presenhticn.
skinnier with t~is. Pj'op-osal, if I am not lIistaken.
.' .
nave the landscape
But it has gotten
Its. Weiss: AMut 51X to eight feet. rt is the same as it has Dee-n.
JIIs. lytle: It is the sa!Je as it has been? I tholJght it had bec(MIE!
narrower.
Jay "Hebe]], Hoover Associates. Pro1ett Arc"'itect~ That is omat was
approved in the use permit --eight feet in front ~nd six feet at the
rear.
Ms, lytle; Maybe we can pull that file and j~st verify that. The intent
was to get that as dense as possible. We can hear from the landscape
arc~1tect as to how that is go;~g to be accomplished. ~e do have two
trees taken out beyo~d what was permitted -one Dn this side and one on
this side. For tnis project ~t is one taken Dui beyond what was allowed.
J will add t~at there is a desire, now, to ret~in some trees that were
previously ~ot recommended for retentfon. Tney are the very large
eucalyptus at th! front of thE property. If those ~ere saved, it would
contribute _ lot to t~e neighborhood in terms Qf keepi~g a form there that
has been there for a very long time. Tbey are very .. ture trees. a
significant atiribute. From the people I oave talked to in toe field (and
[ have been out walking the site with many of the neighbors). that
cont~nue$ to be the suggestion, as I u~derstand it, that they retain the
very large eucalyptus at the front, now t~at the~ are no longer proposing
the turnaround there.
Ms. DaRgsa: Hancy, would you identif~ that border? Were you saying there
~as a ten· foot zoning requirement?
Ms. Lytle: There is not a 10-foot zoning requirement. There is a
requirement that there bi i c:~!_~~ ~moYnt of tree plantings gade. It is
supposed to be dense. This was the whole reason far one of the appeals,
to ensure tnat ~t be done, let me quote: -The appli~ant shall provjd~ a
dense~ yegetative~ eight-foot-high acoustical buff~,. i)!t!'eer. the church
and single-family homes.-Ho, that is not it. There was a condition
added in the use pen.it regarding that side. (Staff lOOKS for the
condItion in the use permit file.,
Nr, Hise: Are there a~y other questions by board members for staff?
.$. WjJ$Qn~ One of the thi~gs I was getting at was that one of these
letters referred to tree r~mov~l that occurred (and correct me if I a~
wrGng) prior to tnis project an that site. fs that something that· is out
of O1Jr control?
Ms. lvt'~: We have no private tree ordinance, n~ heritage tree ordinance
or anything that prohibits people from removing trees on private
property. I also ex~ined the air phDtos of several years back, and it
does look like there were five or six additional trees on the property
that al~ not there now. J think the staff report states that. My
understanding and explanation of that is that they w!re removed sometime
OS/20/93
-3-
'-:"' ...
..... ',
~ " ._------
o o
between the time of the air photo and the time-when this projet:t caPle
forward. It mlY bE as a result of tne freeze.
Ms. Wjlson: Thank you. wanted to understand that.
Hr. lijse: If there are no otnc,r quuti.:>ns of siaif, we ... ill have the
applicant's presentation. He has ten minotes.
Mr. Mltrhtll: 1 am the architect for the proje(t. ! have a co1or
elevitlon. It is the same elevation as tn~ one in the submittal. The
colors are the same as you saw bEfore, except for the changes in the
building. ] want to explain the changes in the project since it came
before you the la~t time. The plan on your rfgnt is the current site
plan. This is the plan you saw in January. At the january meeting~ the
churcn wa~ instructed to come back with a redesi;n for the entrance to tnf
church to make the ~eignt of the building within tne 30-foot hfig~~ ll.lt,
or come back .. lid app~y for a ~E[ exception for ttle project. That would
lllow you to ,pass judgent en He fleight interest of the church.
The church nas chosen to reduce the height of the entrance to the building
rather t~an 9~ for the exception to the height. So this plan sflows the
reduced floor plan of the ent~ince to the church, which in footprint is
about tne saltE! as the pre'ViDus one. In the elevatlon, you will see that
tht5 is lower and a smaller volume to tne church. So that changes the
process. We are no longer applying for an e.ception to the neight.
The church also made a decision to not ~ve the chapel. ln the previous
plan, t~e building containing tne chapel was g01n~ to have both ends
removed and the chapel was gGing to be moved on the site. They nave
decided to leave the chapel where it is and still take the ends off of the
chapel ~ilding, utilizlng it where it is and not move it. It turnLd out
to be too difficult and too costly to move it~ so they want to leave tne
c~apel where it is and re.ove the e~s from the chapel. leaving 1t where
it is generated a redesign of t~is portion of the parking lot. to move tne
parking in closer to where the chapel was going to be and to reconfigure
this portion of the parking lot. So that has been ch,"ged.
Tne other dange to the arch'itect'Jre since tne last meeting is that in the
previous plan, they were going to add onto the church in the southwest
corner a~d put a kilchen in the corner of the church. What we have done
since ttum is to poll this out Df t.he addition to' the church and attach it
to the new office wing th~t was going to be constructed between the churc~
and the parish nall. So tnis has been slid into this element so that it
is part of the office str~cture. Those are the fundamental changes to the
architecture that have been made.
The roof over the one-story portion nas been changed to a pitched roof
instead of a flat roof, in conjunction with pulling the kitchen into it.
That is a .inor change. Aside from that, the architecture is basically
what you saw b,-, 'Jre.
The second rl'rimary thing you wanted us to come back with was a final
landscape plan showing specific pl~nt ~~terials and more detailed
;nfo~tion on the landscaping. 8il1 Owen, tne landscape architect and
arborist, is present to give you a short summary on what was done on
that. Also, he is very familiar with every tree on the site, so he ~an
(U; '''n IO~ w"", LV;';">
-4-
-"---". ------
o
~!1~ !~~r questions as to what n3s happened wit" tne trees, what is
~ere and ~at is being done. I wiil let Bil' spend a few minutes
s .... r1zlog t~.t.
Bill Owtn. !anescaPe Architect and Certiffed Arborjst: As Jay said,
~ave been on the site a lot. rn answer to your questions, before the
freeze. t~e aerial photo was taken of the site. There ~ere seyera' large
B~azilian p~pper trees. which are susceptible to freeze. Tw~ were at the
front cf ttle church and ho ~re at the rear of the church. They all
froze. All you will see out there now are some sprouts coming up from the
roots. The stUllpS were left here. but tota11)' re:noved here. rhe~ are
two b1rc~ trees that were there years ago, but they put a Sidewalk in the
front of the church and the birch trees sit rignt here on the east side Qf
tne church. There were fi~e birch trees, and two of them died when they
put in a sidewiH::: uound tne side of tnE church. Becil .. se of the ne:avy
soil~ all the roots are at the surface. When you cut birch tree roots.
they often d~ not 5ur~ive. Two of them d;ed~ so these we a1so show as
~tu.ps being removed. So those are t~e six treE$ that were there, snDWn
in the aerial photograph, that are not there now ar.d have not been for
several years.
~r. Hise: Was there an e~etgreen tree in the front that has also been
cut? Were tnos~ the pepper trees?
Mr. Owen: Yes, t"ose were the evergreen pepper trees. Those wl!'re just
totally wiped out in the freeze. There are none 1eft ar~und.
Mr. H1se:
Mr. !Jlf!:n ~
M!. L~ll;
!I!:. Owen:
tits. Lytlr
original y
There were
HilS that been about two years ago?
Yes, in 1990.
(here were two in this area.
yu~ right f'lere.
They were identified or. the arborist's report that
got tnat weie to be saved. Oid they die in between
two tre~s in here identified to be saved.
•• that time?
Mr. Owen: I did not realize they did tnat. I might have, b~cause wn3t I
used was an old aerjal plan ar.d the arbor;st's report, and I had two da~s
to do it. All t~e trees that were on that plan that were orig;nall1 here
were taken off tne aerial pnoto. I did not ~n~ that. 1 just really went
throug~ t~at sit •• so r have had to modify that since then. Those trees
have been gone for i long time. 1 do know that. Th~ stUMps ere -'
Ms. lytle: One was a 30-int:h and one was a 24-incl1.
~r~ awen: Vest those were tne ones. Bijt the~ were B~aliliin pepper
trees. They are sprouting root spouts also. It is an old stu~. [can
tell you thlJ were frozer.. They were not on thare when I identified
trees, and I would ha~e made a big mistake nad I nGt noticed them. That
is sooething that the church had no control over at .11.
So beyon(l that, I ha'ie gi~t!'n you a sUlflllary all the number of trees. I
counted abo~t 64 that were there originally. and then you take off those
--'--,
o o
six, and you end up with 58 trees that would have ~e~ on tr.e site prior
to our project's b~9;r.ning. With the grading that we have already been
pulling back here, some of tne trees that J nad requested to be removed on
the plan have been removed. That one tnat was over ~ere that was taT ked
abolJt~ Nancy, was a seedling plum tree. Tne,"e WEI!re a number of seedling
pluas ,long tn,t side wit" multiple trunks ,bout yea-big_ '"ey .1most
were removed, and WI! were trying to save the one. but it ; nad'lertently got
taken out. It was pretty close to the grading line. Other t~an that, we
aTe saving eyeryt~fng we said we would on thi~ site.
I ~lve shown on this plan the trees that are existing that are conifers,
for I tot~l of 51. redwood trees. The anes with the dark black: and green
ire uisting 9 broadlnf e-vergreens and deciduous that art being saved.
Those total 26~ as I recall. Also a total of 53 new trees. Among those
ther~ are 29 24-inc" b9xed trees. We are c1ustering the boxed trees along
the edg{'S where we know people-wanted some, and some up in here where it
has impact. On" 1.st thing I would bo more th.n happy to do --knowing
Ti!)W where th!! buffer ;s needed, 1 think HI". Borock lives somewhere over in
here and see-s a fairly good stretch of tne proposed paVing. It is no
probleM for me to beef up with 24-inch or lS-gallon, as you wou11 deSire,
three camphor trees 9 which we know will grow there as they were i1~eady
here on the site. I can put one more-up here. That is net a problem for
us. We eou1rl also add a few snrubs in there, too. If you want to
condition that to provide an additional buffer in there-, there is no
problem with that.
There was an ~ak tree that r erase-d on the plan to do the ne~ lay~ut, but
it ;5 still there. That big oa«. is still there, along with the other one
that is shown is being saved. rt is being saved and landscaped. One
thing I would like to do is that we could add more root space to the oak
t~a.t lorraine talked abolJt, by taking this planter and taking t~at SJ!!W:'
spice and adding it t~ the root space of the oak. We would t~en have ten
parking stalls without i break between them. I think it would be to your
advantage to delete that requirement and have that sa~ five feet added on
this side of the oak. It would flat change the parking at all, and we
would bave the root space to preserve that roct system a lot better. I am
worried about that oak tree. That completes my presentation.
Mr. Hise: Any board questtons of the applicant?
Ms. Wjlson: (ould yo~ take a minute to talk about your landstape
concept? You have been dealing in details.
Mr. OW!~; First i~d foremost, you have a bad soil condition out there, so
I hi~e tried to pick trees that I think wi11 make it. the sycamore be~n9
one. My ~oncept was to try to get trees in the use areas wh~re people
would be entering the church and walking through. Definitely trees along
the property lines where we n~ed some shade. Considering the fact t~at on
this pr~perty line, people are going to have back yard landscaping, I
would nate to overdo someth'ing where tney are going to have trees, and
this could studE' them out. So there is some spaCE in there, as you car,
see. On this property line at the back, ~ knew we had people who were
concerned, because we have taken out a whole lot of trees tnere. So I
beefed those up. I have used deCiduous trees, because the sun here ;n the
winter gets real low, $0 that if yOiJ have evergreens, it is going to shade
these PEople .nd make that whale apartment alley very dark and very
> ... ,
.. "':-.. ...... ,.
OS/20/93
-6-
• "
-,'-' .
sl'tady. I was concerned ,!>out t~at. !n fact, as jlOU probably k.r'lO\IW,
la~scape 9ujdeline~ over the years ~ay that you should ha~e at least 60
ta 1~ percent deciduous in an urban area, primarily because of wfnter
shade. So thaL is why I did that. These ire lond~n Plane and ~y(amores.
All of these here are 24-inch.
Mi. "l$er~ I h~ve one question. You said t~ere were 58 existing trees on
t!le site. bactly how many trees are you now p1arning on removing?
Originally I thought 28.
Mr, Owen: Thirty,twQ are to be removed.
~r.~: Is that on both sites?
Ms. 1 ytJe: No, just the church site.
Mr. Hist: [would lik.e you to e~pla1n in a little detail your solution to
the dense vegetative buffer reQuirement. 1 am not as concerned about the
subd1v'sion side as r am that side.
Hr. awen: The one with the 24-inch box and 15-gallon Sjlcamores. In a
24-fnch box~ the head ,f t~at tree will probably b~ about fiye feet in
dia.eter. or a little 9r~ater, ~"d above the wall. Interspersed I have
lS~gallon phot1nea, which is that reddish shrlJb. It lifill grow up to IS
feet. In this soil. I WDu1d still e.peet it to get 12 to 15 feet high.
Tr.os£ are all through here. beginning where we did add the trash area.
Beginning ~ere is a cluster Jf thE~ running al1 the way through, and then
all along the wall all the _ay, I have Boston ;~Y. whi<:h will climb lip
that fence pro~ab~y in a couple of years.
Mr. Hise: HOw dense will it be on the wall?
Mr. owen, It is about 12 to 15 feet on center.
Hr. Hise: How much blllk. will it have or. the wall, assuming to clings to
tho wall?
Mr. owen: If you .re familiar with the old halls of i~y back east, that
is Boston ivy~ and it will tale over that wall.
Ms. Wilson: Will it grow on the shady side?
Mr. 0wP~~ Oh, yes, it certainly will.
Hr. Hjse: ThaL is mostly ill sunny exposure on the church Side anyway.
Mr. ~: It is shady on the apartment Side.
Mr. Hise: Are you pla~ting on that side, as well?
Hr. Owen: No, but what I thought we might have to do, if it doe~ not grow
under, b~t it 100(5 lik.e it might grow under and come up the wall on tne
other Side, and it even might grow through the wa1l.
~s. lytle: ~ou cannot, for the "~ise attenuation~ hQwe~er. Tnere was a
noise condition.
OS/20/93
-7-
-
, .
. /':'
"
/ , -
o
Mr. Owen: Tnen we will just dlg a litti£ trench. There won't be any more
fl'lOding pi"Ob'eftI.s wher. the parking <joes in, so we wiTi just dig a hole
underneat"~ &nd let it go, just a '~ttle trench under the wa~l, en~ugh to
spreld some shoots from the ivy plants.
Mr. "lise: Couldn't you just phnt on the oth-er side of the wall?
~re Qwen~ That doesn't 10D~ like i ver~ 900d area back tn~re. b~t
suppose it could be done.
Unidentifjed man: The t~in9 about planting on Our side is that it gets
water on our side, too, and requires less maintenance.
~.cn: I would be more than happy to be right there on tne job wherl
t~ty do that and n;ake sure it is done properiy.
~. paRp§a: There has been a lot of discussion about the width of the
easterly border.
Mr, OWen; All of tne shrUbs that J h~ve proposed for there, the phot1nea,
viburnu., suspensure, they .il1 fill and ~verKi11 that f~.~ f?~t.
Hr. Hise: So it is ) five-foot planting width?
Mr. Owen: I think. it is greater thin ttlit.
Mr. Mitchell: It is .ig~t feet from the property line to the curb of the
driveway_
Mr. Owen: So you nave t~e ivy that is going to fill o~t about a foot away
fram tne wall~ and you will have those plants from there to the curb.
Ms~ Lytle: I now nave tne code section~ if you ar~ interested in what it
s~ys. -Wher~ this title requir~s a landscapEd buff~r !whfth it does in
this case), a combination of trees and snrubs shall be used, and the
follOWing mini~m standards shall apply: On Site. abutting or located
opposite a residential site, a dense, visual buffer shall be prOVided. I~
addition, trees shall be planted or shall e-xist at a ratiO of not less
tb~!J one tre~ p~r 300 square feet of landscaped Streen, or fraction
thereof~ and supplemP,nted witn shrubs and grDund cover.-
Mr. Hise: Is staff satisfied tnat this proposal meets the minimum?
Ms. Weiss: It far excaeds it.
Ms. lvt}f; I fee1 th~t the commitment 1 would like to se-e made is to aake
this as dense as ~ pcssibly can make it. I would rely on your expertise
in ithieving that objective, with the help of the 1a~dscape architect.
OUr intent is to try and gfve th~ neighbors as much as we can in terms of
a nice lush and dense buffer.
Mr . .Jlill; Apparently they are .xceeding the minimum ri9ht no~.
Ms,~; I a~ not qu.lifiod to .ns~er that.
''' ...... --... "~
-'
OS/20/93
-8-
---------
.....
;: . ;.-
Ms, 'eiss; It S4yS one per 300 feet, and they really nave maxed that
out. What we do need to do, however, is that we have a rep'ace~nt value
to the line. P.i~ht n~w we need t~ have addltional trees ~lant~ to make
the two-to-one replacement value for all the trees that are to be removed.
~J, Lytle: So we are short ~f two~to-one replacement on t~is site right
n ....
Mr. awen: Vou must be counting the ones that were killed in the freeze.
Ms. Lytle: Ho, we just asked you, hDW many all together. eased on that,
w1t~ the two~to-one replacement and what you are adding. we are eleven
s~crt.
~wtiii: There are 58 existing trees, 32 trees to be remo¥!d, and 26
eXisting trees. If ~~u double the amount of trees to be remov~. you have
64 trees. You subtract the S3 that you are proposing. and then that comes
up with 11 new trees to be pl.nted.
Hr~ Owen: Tnat will surely give you th! buffer you want.
~~: rs there room to plant those?
Mr. Owen~ It depends on .nat Kin<:: of iI scrEe:') YOLI want. There is
definitely roa. to p~t theM either on both sldes or just the one side.
Yes, there is ro~. On the west side, 1 can put five.
Ms. Lytle: If you can fit them. I think they should be planted. That is
~ reco.ae~dattDn.
Ms. DaRpsa: On the width of the border, by putting in a lot of trees and
shrubs tnere, do you feel tnat the available space, whic~ must be seven
feet max1aum, is wide enough? Now narrow does that border get?
Hr. Mitchell: It is six feet at the back and eight feet in front. "f ... J>wen: It runs 60 or 10 feet.
Ms. oaRo1i; So you nave about five to seven feet in width of ~ctual
plantable area. Wil' that support the roots of the trees sc that they
will end up with reilly large trees there?
Hr. awen: [n that soil. that would support it.
Ms. DaRqsa: Nancy, was there anything ir the use p!rmit that required the
ten feet? Where did this ten feet come from?
~: No, ten feet is a rule-of-thumb that we generally follow when
~ t.l~ abaut de~se landscaplng. These resid€nts. I think, relied or. what
took place at ttle yrt(,q as another uilTlple of an jnstitutiorlal use in a
residential neighborhood where we did reQuir~ a t€n-foot buffer. That is
i rule-of-thumb that we use. But it ;s nDt in the code section.
Hr. Hise: If there are nD more Questions of the applicant, I wiil open
the public hearing portion. ] have three cards to this it~.
OS/20/~3
-9-
•
o
Gerard Mqshpysky, 634 ColQrado Avenue: I live direc~ly next door to the
church an this Sloe, upstairs, in the a~artm~nt building. So far , they
have torn out e~~ry tr~e except one. It is now a big old blight, whic~
presumably will be fixpd eve~tua1'y. I have a couple of questions.
First~ Is how b 9 is a Z4-~nch bJX tree? W~at is the actual diameter of
t~e tree, and how fast will it glow? How many years will it take ~efore
we have any kind of cover?
A1so, ~ was Qoing to ask about the 32 trees removed, but they aTe going to
r~place it with 64, so that is covered. !n terms of th~ eight feet, t~ey
~re now talKing~ instead of the ten feat that I heard ear1ier from other
people that was supposedly included in one of the earlier meetings, it
seems like the plan is getting sh~rter on our side in terms of t~e amount
of landscaped area. NDW they ar~ taTki~g about taking out the last tree
in that wnole section whlch shades our porch. I have a CDpy of the Tetter
which says, ·T~e 24-inch tree at the ground line, as a result of having
been heavily s~aded by adjacent camphor trees, the tree will be removed to
make way for the driveway anli church entry areil. Very l1ttle growth
extends over the driveway, making the tree one-sided.-That is not true.
The tree was very even to start with+ Wnen they chopped down th~ two
trees to ~ke room for their driveway, in order to move their heavy
equipment through, they chopped a .h~le bunch of big branches off the west
sid~ of the tree. Some guys g~t cut there with their chain saws and just
went -Hack-and drDpped t~e tree branches. It was a much more even tree
to start with. I presume that now tkat it is not shaded, it would grow
back in on that side fairly quickly.
T~e other thing is that I went out and fteasured it this morn~nq. The edge
of the fence to t~e edge of t~e turf line. which I pr~sume the cyclone
fencfng guards that you put uP. is eleven feet. The driveway. from that
point to ttl!' far side of ttle driveway, is 2J feet. which SE'ewts to be
~lenty of TOOl ~o put in a curb and na~! a little loop around the tree.
Saying that it is going to impact the memorial park does not seem to De
true in that tre ~morial park ;5 t~war~s t~~ fro~t of the pro,erty from
where that tree is. What it is actually i~actin9 is their new
landscaping that they are putting along side of the chapel. rf you look
at the plan ~p here, the tree is right about hfre. There are 21 feet
between the edge of the tree and the edge of where they have cut ln f~r
tne parking already. What tney will impact by leaving that tree is tnis
buffer of landicaping, not the me~rial park, which 1S up here. So that
is a spurious conment in this ietter. That basically compietes my
com.ents. The last tree tnat shades uy building is slated for removal,
and it is going to take ten years, probably. tc get trees back up to that
height. Early in his presentation, he ~iid the ground is terrible. and
later I)", he said it grows trees c;reat. I do not ur,derstand that.
Mr. H1se: I would like to defer to the other two board members present
toda~. ~s both cf you have been chairpersons. Should we let the applicant
have a chance to respond now, or should we listen to each me~r of the
p~blic i~d then have tne appllcant come back, h~¥i~g made i list of
concerns, ~nd address those concerns?
Mr. Gilltla~: It would be consistent with y~ur actions in the past to go
through .11 of the public te,timony. and then nave the applicant respond
to all o~ the questions that were brought up.
OS/20/93
·)0·
•
.~ .
Mr. His.: That is what! woold like to do.
in which to address. the ::MC!!'rrlS rai sed.
You t'i 11 have rebuttal perioo
Lynn ChiiQf!:lh. fiJI ColQrado Ave~!Je: TMis is .a,r, inventory which I did
laboriously, using the IUterial prolJided in the fne. r had r-I!Quested
this kind of information over and over again. These are photos taken. J
do not have i photo to show t:lat the apartment house is on1y 13 feet from
that fence. If yO" look at Page I. yo, .ill see that J matched the trees
froa top to bottom on the different documents that I found in the fiTe. I
could not ident;f~ all of the treas~ because tne X's moved on eac~
iteration of the pl.ns. J finally went back to what was provided by the
arborist and the church, and tried to do tne best I could. On Page 2.
which is what ! came up wtth by just matching wnat he said was there,
originally they found 55 trees. but some of them were dead stumps. They
say 27 Dr 28 remo'~ed, but ~n actllal ity, when you compare it to the second
iterat10n that [ received on May 14th from the arbodst, ... hidl is the one
be1ng used. 5upposedly, right now, there were 69 trees that ~ere six-foot
stumps, the total say~d was 23 and the total removec is 4~ or 47. So
there was a discrepancy t.~e!'"E'. Th~re was fr{)st damage and drought and
general neglect, so trees do die. That is a problem.
You will notice there th~t I said the original tree count was not
accurate. More trees and bushes disappeared in the clear cutting on the
east side, WhlCh caused that ~assiye flooding to all the properties on the
ci~t ~ide and nad to be drained o~to Colorado l1d Byron Street. Exhibit
B, attached to this, shows there were 93 trees planted on the church side
alone, in 1950. 1" addition to all of th~ trees ~hat have been planted
since then. Th~y had a lot of trees. What is at issue nere is the
10-foot buffar. That buffer I did not understand. which includes the
curbs, the g~tters and tne fence, but if you take an eight-foot buffer. or
seven or six, as it gets down there and you take a foot for the width of
those massive poles, you ha~e very little area remaining for a dense
buffer. However, I also understand that there is room for 1~n~5caping and
the reason for a 10-foot buffer. There could be i ten-foot landscaping
ci.iffer. I dCf'l~t know what the standards are for a fence, and I /jon't know
wnat the standards are fer curbs.
If you continue Of I , the fact is that tnis site has an enClrtnous amJunt of
activity n{)t related to Sunday church activities. We are talking about
eight to t~1ve AA groups in the past, which will probably continue,
according to their use pe~1t in the file tney submitted. We are talking
about church counseling attiyjtles.
We are talking about crisis counseling. W2 are talking aboyt Friday Hight
live, whicn ha~ generat~d enonlOus problems to the nelghbor~ adjacent to
the property. We need tnat buffer for protection just to fill in. Th~
sh, ff:'~t nc. ODe'S nDt reaiiy do that. Friday 'fight live is every night.
r Jive directly across t":.,,! street from lights and horns honking and
boom-boom boxes and the homeless shelters. So what I am trying to explain
is that this is a greatly used area during the day whicn has a great
impact on the neighbGrs.
Church use is not the problem, but all the other uses that 90 on are the
problea. TraffiC and nDise need a large ~~ffer. That is where tne
feelings of frustration COGe from by th~se who experience this daily, as
05/10/93
·11· c----_.------_________ -
...•..
o 0
opposed to those who tome in fo:~ Sunday chl.lrch services.
Vou will notice tnat I Ilave attaclled tile letter dated 1/18 .ncll says ••
replac~nt of three to one. not two to one. That is Attachmen~ A.
Atta,hment B is the 93 trees. Attachment C ~s about removing the last
tl"ee on that side that Gary 5pO~i' on. Attachment 0 has to do with water
use. They are proposing to use 49000 gallons {If \!later a day. I would
appreciate it if you would scan this Quickly. My own count on your pldns
sho.ed more trees, but the X's keep moving from plan t{l plan.
H,rb Borgck, 2731 ~yrDn Street, Palo Alto: The material in w~r files is
piec~al; new plans were submitted. but not in time for an adequate plan
check nor w;t~ adequate availability for the public. ] submitted a letter
to you. and I assume you have it. 1 include it now by refer~nce. My
following comments are in addition to that.
First, on the landscapln~. Staff. on this project and on previous
projects, has required ten-foot landscaping buffers. The plans, as the
p!'eviou5 speaker indicated, show a $;".-to ei.ght·foot crOss sectiol"1. from
the property line to t~e driveway. Thit cr~ss section in(ludes the fence,
fence posts. fencing inQentations, utility poles 9 curb and possibly a
g~tter. if you look at the stakes that are on th€ property line now
against the fer.ce) there is insufficient area to support t~e landscaping
that is requ1 red. The 1 andscapbg that is ne-e-ded ;s ten-fDot 1 andscaping,
not landscaping plus concrete ~nd five or six feet. So yo~ nave to double
th~t concrete to see how much landscaping is there now~ ~nd what is
proposed is fnsufficient.
[n the current situation, those tre~s and plants will di~. There is
adequate room on the site, because there is about 40 feet more of paving
between the driveway and tne church. So ,lear1y, there is paving that
cO'lld be replaced by landscaping on the Byron Street side of the property,
In tenns of ttle floor area calculat ions, a recent addltion to the file
indicates that the cilc~lations for floor area are wron~ and
inconsistent. Regardless of the legal reqUirements for FAR calculations,
you need a calculation of all existing and proposed areaS. Tne code
specifies second-and third-floor area equiva1ents, a single number that
repres~nts the building mass on the ~ite,
The new second-and third-floor area calculations in the file as recently
as last week contradict the state.ents in t~e information memorandum that
those ite.s were already incl~ded because they were additions to the floor
area n~r that tne council approyed.
The calculations on th~ floo~ !~ea of the building su~ary sneet dlsagreed
with what is on the Site ~lan and the floor area pla~ and what is in the
file_ For eXaMple, the summary jr.d~cates a house of 2.550 sq~are feet,
but Ue sheet imlicates over 3~OOO square feet. As ar,other example, the
office addition ~ndicates somethoing approaching 4,000 square feet and it
shows 3,000 in the bullding summary. T~ese have to be reconciied.
The next thing is on tne cottage. There are two issues on the second
liy;ng unit. Tne first is a legal issue and the second is i practical
OS/20/93
-12-
,
~; ,
tssue~ Ag11n. on t~e legal issue. the ARB staff is again f~lying on the
optn~on of the planning division stiff membe-r who is not preserl!. todilY as
to what the law requires. The statement in t~e information memorand~m is
both fal se and misleadi n9. It accurately states the 1 i ~ln9 unit situat-i~!'l
for i use t~at is faT a seminary or co~vent, but it inaccurately states
that i church use is the same thing, even though they are opposite. In
the one case of a seminary or convent, access~ry 1t~ing units are ir.eluded
in the definition in the code. In the case of a church, they are not.
T~~ practical situat!on is that this landowner has rented and sold
property in the past for income. To create a situation where there has to
be .anjtoring and possible controversy in the future whell tnes5-1 it'ing
units are rented out or sold makes no sense when it is possible to create
a lot of the proper size for those two units that can be separated at some
tiae in the f~turE, just as they suld off t_o previous rental units that
were on their own lot.
T~ere ~re a couple of issues in the staff recommendation. First. t~ere
are certain t~ings that tne staff says shauld be left for staff approval,
such as the drainage plan. I have a proD1em ~itn that, b~cause that is
what happened with the teli1porary drive,,"ay. That was 1 I;!ft with staff
approval, and the new construction flooded the Byron Street side. I
believe those kinds of things shou'~ be available fer public review before
approval and should come through the board.
Condition 18 on ~age lS is a change from the prior condition. Condition
.8 says that the c~rb and sidewalk shall be removed and replaced only with
topson. If YOl, look at the rninutes of the January 7tn meeting.
(Mr. Borock/s time has rur, D~~. Discussion ab~ut allowing him to
continue. Pel"llission is gritnted.J
1 WIS r~ferr;r.~ to the original condition in your mlnute~ of January 7th
which requires I~re than just top soil being added. It requires plantlngs
and irrigation, as well. That somehow has disappeared in this condition
at this tlme.
~'se: Could you repeat tnat?
Mr. Sorock: rt is on Page 19, Conditior, 0, and in th! minutes of January
7~ on Page 7 it is Condition '7. It is unc1tar fro~ the recommendation.
but I belfeve it should be i~cluded as a requirement.
The poTice depar~nt does nDt enforce the letter of th~ la_, so what will
~appen is what fs happe~ing now --the ears have b~en parking on the
sid~il~s~ ff vertical curb and gutter are required, it would be an
improvement. A white lone was SYPposed to replace the turnout.
There should be a condition abo~t the light fixtures that they be sh~elded
and as low as possible and as low inte~sity as possible so there is no
light spillover and will not interfere with nearby residents.
J~st briefly, r do want to respond to tree protection meas~res. The
reason the trees are being protected on the subdivision side is because
the C}ty manager ordered the staff to implement the condition ~f tke ARB
approval. Prior to that, it was the worst implementation of tree
protection. If y~u go there today, you s~e two kinds of fences, a
OS/20/93
-13 -
", -'"~~'--.c~';\.'~.;,
.,./, ..
o o
four-foot plastic orange fenc~ which is betng knacked over by bu"dozers,
<1f.~ t)j;l~zeY'.s rtlnning il'lt~ treeL ~~ you r.a1~ ;, six·foot dte:ln jink
cyclone fencp as required. It is !>eca~se ~If the city manager"s direction.
The final thing is on what is requir~d on the Byron Street side. ~hat is
~u~reQ 'S 'Y~setat.i9n that i:wotec.ts the facing neighbors. What is facir,'9
them is not so much the pavement, as the landscape architect says. but the
noise of that driveway and ir9~ the education building and off\,~s. For
exa.ple. my sight line is directly across the ~ducaticn building and
across to the new offices. So [ dGn't want landscaping to protect me from
the cars ttlat are parking tht?re. I want it from the tr!ff~ c, becausl!' the
wall and the loindscaping together-do ti\at t If)d also from the activity. I
appreciate the consideration of the extra time.
Mr. H;se: ] would like to allow th~ applica~t the opport~nity to respond
to the qYestiDns a~d make i rebuttal.
~~: The sycamores, the Z4-~~~h boxed trees that are now proposed do
not graw as fast~ but the ~ead of that tr~~ $hou1d be above the wall in
five years. The so; 1 type I thotJgnt was goed. J no".:e ~p.en watching the
trencher out there as they trenche~ ri9~t next door, and they are coming
into SOite pretty good soil. That soil wi 11 support tnt:" tree growth.
You can see that in the ~9~olia street trees. They are doing quite well
and I would not have expected them t. do that ~.ll.
On ~erb's c~nts, regarding the lO-foot buffer, the plants 1 have put ;~
there will grow. If they are mlintained properly, they will not die.
ot~erwise, .11 t~e stuff t~at is there would be dead today. I talked to
.jle gardener out there. I don't have any problem lrIith it. The ~lanter
strip on Colorado hiS ground cover and shrubs all the way through, along
with the elist1ng street trees.
Regarding the dropoff area, we left space so that people could walk
through with shrubs and ground cover from the curb area.
Regardlng light fixtures, we have 12-fo~t standards and all the fittures
at the back end of the property line haVe shields. That is ~hat the
legend is there, the second item, wnich says, shielded parking lights. It
na~ a hood benind it so that the light does not shine backwards all along
there. That will protect the neighbcrs next dOQr.
] wo~ld be ~appy to add moTe trees out there, eleye~ more. We can put
more stLlff in the"r'e. 1 ifou1d be happy to put "In Italian cypress or
closely spaced red_oods. You know redwoods would gro~ along there.
would be happy to add those in to the eleven trees.
Mr. His?: Could you addres~ the impact if tnis plant~r strip ¢n the side
were increased to, saY9 ten feet? How would that impact t;":e memorial
garden? It ~oes appear that the memorial sarden~ the dr1ve~ay ,s already
over.
Hr. Owen; Yes t it is wi6ened already. We did that for tne strutture and
also to get a gO-degree angle off the street. J see no reason why we ~eed
to change that 9 even if we take out the trash ~eceptacle. JUst add the
plants in t~ere and another tree right in the middle of the trash.
OS/20/93
·14·
------------'-'---
!II.!"', Hise: ;fJ'ld the <:I'ta.;;el planting, is well,
the chap~l plantings and also the paved ~rea
the ~Drthwest entry.
· ..
inat would defin,tely impact
in front of the church entry,
Mr. Owen: Again, any additional plantings along that east progerty line I
can INke effective use of it. There is no problem. What we have tnerc
..,111 grow whether tt is eight feet or ten -feet. The piants :J;l1 grow. It
will just give us tnat much more space to look at as planted space, as
opposed to curb and parking.
As regar~s the decreased width at the chapel, If the engineers and the
Irchitect say It has to be decreased, my plant materials will accommodate
to that, and Just snift over to the ~~11 side.
I ~aye no problem with the space.
Ms. Wilson: [s there no lighting on this side except for the parking
lighting? Is there nQ landscape 1ighting ~1~~9 the courtyard?
Mr. owen: Tilere wi 11 be low path 1 ighting. It is not indicated. have
been working on that design. It will be included.
Ms. PaRosa: Could you discuss the problems with saving the eXisting
reaaining tree?
Mr. Mitche] 1: r do not see a problem with moving over at t:'at point and
dodging around to save the existing tree. If you look at it, it is not a
large tr~. That;s not to say what will happen as it grows in the
future. It is a rather miserable looking tree an~ay.
I want to mention the width of the buffer. It was impl ied that this
buffer has changed in width. The width of eight feet froa the property
line to the curb line (and inCidentally. there is no gutter; it is i curb
line and asphalt abutting right up to the curb), the face of the curb to
the property 1 ine has been eight feet ever Since the IJse penr.it was
approved at that width. That whole issue was discussed at tne City
Council as to the width. It has not changed.
The wall has been located entirely on the church property. The fence has
typically straddled the property li,e, so the fa,t tnat the wall is on the
church property has diminished the size of the space, but it also did not
go under the previous approvals. What the c~urch did, in putting the wall
on their side of the property, was. to incur the wrath of diminishing the
space available. whe~as if it were done i~ typical fashion, the wall
would hive been farther toward t~e neighbors.
[ just wanted to point out that the buffer has not cnanged in size. It is
eight feet deep at the front and six feet deep at the back.
The otner thing I want to respond to is the floor area calculations. do
~ot know what Herb BorDck suggested is being incorrect. Staff has
reviewed this, and as far as I tnow, they are correct. The ~econd-and
tflirrl-floor eQuivi1ents were subll:itted to the staff. They are basically
for the residential folkS so that someone won't build a huge barn.
OS/20/93
-15-
.. -c
o
!!"l a. chUTtn, you cannot add .n)thing ld'~"out navlng pennits, so It is.
reaTly ~n irre1evant ar~a. but t~e calculations are there. If you add all
of the floor area:., you would come up with i number of square feet. 1'o'h1ci1
is the flo~r area ratio.
Ms, Oa.ItQsa: Is there a drQPoff zone?
Mr. Mitchell: Vas, there is iii dropoff zone on the street. Th~y will be
painting it. [believe the use permit says t~ey can paint a ~€ction of
the curb for a dropoft.
Ms. DaRosa: There has been reference to tree replacement Dr some sort of
~ saying that the trees were being replaced at three-to-one. Could yc~
clarify what that is?
~_11iland: The three-to-one originally dealt with the subdfvision
portion of it and tne single-family houses.
Ms. DaRpsa: ntere was some discussion wi th regnd to the Sllbdivi!i"'O':'l:.
Mr. Gilljland: It did not apply to the church property.
Ms. Lyt'e: j do not recall d1sc~ssion of three-to-one at any time.
know there was i Quote from Ken Schreiber at one point sayi~9
three-t~-one, but I do not know what that refers tl1. The subd";visian war
two-ta-one replacement; it requir'j trees being planted in the ba~kyard.
Tho.e trees are still to be pl.nted.
~Gilliland: What it says is that it was approximately three-ta-one on
subdivisions for single-faaily sites. But it did not involve the church
site. The requirement WiS always two-ta-one. I want ta make that very
clear. It was never illPl ieu' Dr intended to be tt.ree-to-on~. They have
done .ore than required.
Mo. Hhe: Would the Single-family devoloper like to cOlllnent on the
lighting plan?
Curtis Petersoo: We have gone over this carefully ~ith Jim Gilliland.
The original design was shown with a 14-foot pole height. The city
requirement is a 12-foot pole height. I had to do • little Investigating
on that. One of the main concerns of the neighbors is light spillover.
Our orig1r.al design had 17 lights. Tne latest design now shows 17.. I
talked to the landscape archite,t about it, and we came up with just 18.
The .ore lights, the .are lfght volume~ So even if you do not have direct
spillover~ yo~ have more light glow. So ~e redesigned it for 18 and
definitely have the cutoff pieces on the back. which is alMOst identical
to thie church parking lot. It is n<:lw shown to be 12 feet so again, there
were going to be 14. which would put more lignt out to the neighbors, and
It is down to J2, and we discussed that. O~r plan, right now, is that we
show 20. We would be glad to put it at 18, if everybody is happy with
this lig~t plan. You can see there are i couple of areas where there is
sa.. duplication at the entry. So that explain, the lighting.
I want to respond quickly to the rolled curb and gutter is,ue. The rolled
curb and gutter is a subdivision requirement to match all the curbs and
>-~ " " ,
OS/20/93
-16-
, ,
-.. '"
" ."'
gutters an Coioraa'o A"e-fiu-c;. T:-;~ :".;~;:~~fsiDn is doing a standard vertical
curb just i~side the s:Jbdh'islon. Out on Coluradu, there is rolled curb
to ~atch what ;s there. $0 we d~ it eltn!r way. We saw one fixture with
an unpainted portion on the Will. ] sincerely ap01ogize. J had no ~dea.
When you showed me a Dict~re, r was stunned. As you know, it hds been an
extremely rainy 'li1nter9 and the walls were painted after they were
~nstal1ed. It was probably too damp, and we apologize for that.
Ms. OaRos;: Is there a catalog f~r those lights?
{Yes)
Mr. !iise: Ooes anyolie else 'Want to speak to this issue? ,None)
Tnen r wfll (lose the public hearing portlon on this item.
Ns. DaRos.: On the lighting, what is t~e color of the material?
Mr. M1tehell: A dark color or black.
Mr. Mitchell: What is the wattag~ of the fixtures?
(1 naudi b I e I
Ms. paRosa: If you were in a second story looking at those li~ht poles,
what kind of liqot will there be? Are you going to see this glowing
object?
Hr. Mltchell; No, the light pattern Is .11 down, and it disperses. There
is a shield against the property line. All yDU will see is the light
floodirlg doom.
~. DaRosa: If you are looking out your window and up towards the light
fixture, are you going to see that s~rce?
Hr. Mitchell: If you are on the first floor and you look UP. you will see
the s~;iC!ld.
ML Wil:tQo: i ill still having problems with th',s dropoff. Is this the
final landscape plan?
Mr. ewen: It is final one, but we hive added some numbers to make a
correlation.
~. Milson: I do not understand when people are dropped off, ~ere tney
ge"i; across the landscaping. Tnere is no indication of a walkway, or else
I am .i$$;ng something.
Mr. Owen: You ha~e ground cover they (an walk across. There are not
stepping stones in there.
Mr. Hise; [would like Nancy lytle to address a couple of questions toat
were raised. Could you brlefly touch on the floor are. ratio
calculations, and the land use issue around th~ coLlage and church us~,
specifically about what kind of monitoring ;s there in the use permit
OS/20/9,
·17·
•
------_._---.",...,.-...,.,.",
~:.
o o
regarding who it i, rented to,
Ms. lytle: The flo<lr area ratio C31e:ulations have been met;<:ulously done,
as Uley are in all projects, both in the original submittal and in H,;s
recent Dne, There ~as some minor shifting in the uses ~hich were
co~sidered to bt an acceptable tradeoff witnin t~e scope of the use
per.1t. Overall, all floor iT!a has decreased.
Regarding tne second floor eq:,l1valf:!nt iHUP, Ioo!~~t M,.. £~!"~c!< ~a~ ~Ct:'1
conc~rned abou~ from t~e beginning is that ther~ was not good
documentation of existing seccnd-and t~ird-floor equivalents in the form
of elevations. We do not require, when peop1e a~~ reducing the t~tjl
floor area, that tney go in and u~necessarily create existin~ elevations
~;li!'~n the actual effect win be a r~uct;ort. !.Ie !{now it will be less than
it is now, therefore. there is no n~ed to document ~hat is extsting in
second and third floors. ThEre is ~o net 'hange in the building out
ttle'l e, aMI there is a reduction overall. He has fel t from the beginn; ng
that that is not right and that t~ey should have to doc~~~nt it. ~! just
have not reouired it, alHough we investigated it and know it to be the
case4 We have everything documented tha~ is new.
The accessory buildings, such as res1de~ces, are permftted in associAtion
wtth churches, as lO~9 as they are truly accessory to ~he church u~e. The
house is permitted as long as it is not used for non-cnurch-related
p~rposes. So that condition is not onl) witnin the definition of a c~urch
use, it is also for the benefit of Mr. Borock and other neighbors.
Haw do we ~~ndle cade enforcement? We do that on the basis of a
compllint. ~s you know. all of our code enforcement in this clt1 is not
active, it is passive. We do rely on neighbors to iet us "flOW when
so.ething is being a~used. If it is bein9 abused and we get a report, we
will be out there_
lorri'ne~s informational .emo was accurate. We do allow multipTe-fimily
use4 Tnere was convent style ~ousing in association wi!h i church
situation in tOl..n. It was found out apprcximately a year ago tt,at that
use had converted to a ~tudent rental fro. the permjtted use? and we ~id
indeed perform a code enforcement actioo at that church and had th~
students evicted frDm the church facility.
Mr. Hise: O •• y. Who would like to start?
Ms. paP.o:!sa: I appreclc:.te the -arcnitecttJral cO!'lsol idation e"n the site and
the changes that tne architect h3S made tv ~ork with~n the existing
loning. The changes are also arcnitecturally attractive. The cr1t;cal
issue that everyone has talk~d about is the landscaping. When you look at
that churcn, you have a sens~ of green, a sense of a churc~ in a garden.
Tnit spirit needs to be !aaintained. and whetner or not it ls 68 trees or
67-]/2 trees. tne essential tning is tnat the feeling that is there be
continued. The eastern fence is both a s~und wall and a Yisual ~ffer.
So the planting at that fence •• h~t .ili make a d;ff~rence is the planting
that. is aboVE! the fence or the planting that is ;)n the fence, not the
shrubs so MUch on the c~urch side that are below the fente. So the
.~terials t~at are chosen for that area need to have those
conSiderations. The trees need to be large when tkey go in, so that there
1s an i-.edi~te impact.
"
OS/lO/93
-18-
The other way in which planting is important is in terms of ~iew
corrioors. T~ere are some gaps that allow for lO~9 ~istas into the
parking lot which should be l~ked at so that you do~'t look ~ver the
f~nce and see I long expan~e of ~arking. It should somehow be stopped? if
not immediately at the fence, tnen at some point close by so that you see
green ~nst~ad of asphalt. 1 think that may ha~e been one of the problems
that Mr. Borod:. was having with his '.IilN. r don't k.r,1>W e:-:ac.tly where his
house is locatec!t b(.:t. in 1(1t)ld!1'g -!it tne hnd:::::;;:pc piii;;, vile ':in :S.i€ some
gop,.
Obviously, the trash container ~as to be relocated since it is in an area
that is not permitted by the zon;n~. It 1S also in an area that has too
much of an impact on the neighbors.
There h.s to be so.e guarantee, some specif~c requirement that occurs, so
that dense visual screening will be ~a;ntained. When the landscape buffer
shrfnks to six feet or within that six feet? there is a curb. and there is
the width of a walk, and the~e isn't a sen5~ of comfo~t that this dense
visual s(reen1ng is g~in9 to be maintained. W~en trees are inadverter.tly
cut down that are real~y important tD the neighborhood, that creates an
uncomfortable feeling. Th~ neighbors need to k.now tnat yes, they will ~
protected, and that they will be protected 15 years from now wh~n the
landscaping grows, and that It will be something that wiil not die. but
wil1 thrive and will have some immediate v;sual impact. So J would also
support keeping that one large tree there, even if it is removed in the
future, but keepi~ it tnere until the other landscaping is established.
Tne height of the tree alone is enough to maxe a big differeflce, it this
point.
T~ere are some minor issues, such as stepping stones, and making sure that
the dropoff, work .e"_
1 would like to see a catalog of tne lig~tin9 fixtures. J did not see
ttl at in the packet, and would 1 i ke to. Th'i s is a different fixture.
There.ay be ar.other way of dealing with the liqhting in that portion of
the parking. On t~at easterly driveway that 15 so close to tne neiqhbors,
therp. m4Y be anether way of cealing with thi lighting there so you would
not have tc worr) about shieldlng the jighting. perhaps s~thing on the
wall. Perhaps SOMe of t~es2 ballard things would work. I would like to
see some consideration for i different type of lighting in that area.
There is a condition thzt the final landscage plan return for staff
review. r would like to se! that retur~e~ for ARB re~iew, is well, and
that tnat landscape plan have stepping stones at the curb and snow how
cars will get in and out~ and how peoDle get in and o~t of cars to get to
the site.
I would like to hawe all the lighting clearly indicated and resubmitted at
that time, so that we will see the c~mplete packagE.
to be determined at that time. I don't think any part Df this pla~ snou1d
be appro,ed pi., ... al.
What is happening at this point in the landscaping?
OS/20/93
-19-
•
--------~~-~
'.
/, " "'-, ... -;~-
o
Mr. owen: That is the memorial gard~n there. Right now it is barren.
Obviously. we will kave to plan: there. It was originally
shrubs in there.
Ms. Wjlson: Aina has don~ an exce1lent job of gettir.g ;11 tne details.
concur with everything Aino has said. r am comfortable that the
landscaping will survive along th~t buffer. Something I have been toying
witn, Whic~ is somet~ing whi~n usually ~appens between and owner and a
landscape contractor -. I don't know if we might have a landscape
maintenance agreement for a period of tWD y~ars, some kind of condition so
that the neighbors have the ass~rance that the landscaping will get the
start it needs during t~e critical time. I am not wo~rie( that, once it
is established, that anything will happen to it. So let's think about
that. l;tt1e bit.
Everything you said about specific tre~s I w~ll not repeat. You moved the
trash enclosl're. bLit I do noOt !cnw where it is.
Mr. OWen: That has nat been moved. It is going to be moved.
Ms. Wjlsgn: All rignt. That must be moved. ! have a fun~y memory about
this dropoff t that tnere was some concern about neighbors not wanting a
lot ()f dropoff on Colorado. Am I wrong about that?
Ms: Weiss: No, tnat is corrert.
Ms. Wilsgn: So now we are talking a~ut dropoffs, and both AiDa and I Ire
responding.
Ms_ lytle; The City 'ounci1 allowed the opportunity for the ehurth to
h.VE a dropoff at the front, should they so desire. They could work with
Transportation to delineate a port~on of that curb for i church d~opoff.
Ms. Wilsen: ]f tnat is Ute case, tnerl the landscape plan should reflect
It. Walking across a ground cover is not my idea of a dropoff. So what
.. rea11y saying is that tnere are so.e elements of both tnt landscape
plan in regard to this and the lighting that [ feel are fncomp1ete and
need to be completed and resubm;tted. I co~ld deal with that on ~onsent.
I agree w;t~ what you are saying on t~e lighting. I do not really know
wnat the lighting is like in that cOlJrtyard. If you can get a",ay with
lower bollards along nere, I think it would be nice. J think you need to
be creative and keep this as residential in scal~ as you can and not use
the typical pir<ing lot lighting.
Mr. H1se: I have very little to add to t~e comments that have been made.
I would 1 i ke to compliment t~e architect. The changes you ha· ... e made have
i~royed y~~r plan a~d the parking layout, and I compliment you on that.
] have eade some notes here about a few things I would like to boar~ to
conslder. First of all, sinCE we are locating the trash enclosur~, ~re
you talking about a dumpster or just an enclosure? That was not clear.
Mr. Mjtchell: rt would be a dumpster within an enclosure.
Mr. Hise: I would encourage the board to mate that a condition. I ~ave
seen it on o~her projects where, in fact t there is no dumpster alla.ed,
OS/20/93
-20-
... -_ .. ------
4nd the trash ;s p~t in no~a' containers and tarried to the street. One
of u.(. things that nappens in a resldent~a' arp.a like this --there tire
t"o things that happen. If y~u l~c.te this thing in th. parki"9 l~t
s~ere, you are going to have the garbage trucks (oming in and out, and
they will r~'n the pa~eMent. They sit in one spot and raise the thing
up. It vibrates, and tne paving usuall~ gives waj. The oth~r is that you
have tne noise of th~s~ trucks gunning tnelr engines, raising the
dumpster. dumping it, and the Lacking up, that sort of thing. It always
~Ippe"s in the early morning on these :ites. 1 kno~ that the Unity
Church. for instance. uses a series of these larger wheeled plasti(
centainers tMat are whee1ed to the c~~b once a week. and they are picked
up at the $t~et. That was done specifically to 1essen the noise in the
nelghborhood. Also, it saveS the parking area. You do not have trucks
~~1n9 i~to the parking ~rea and trying to back out and maneuv~~ In the
parking area early in the mo~ing.
The next thing r have on ~ list is the drop off zone. J agree that the
dropoff zone needs tD have landscaping. Whit r got fr~m the neighborhood
interest in the droroff zone was tnat that looks like a curb th.t is going
to be painted wMte aTJd that there probably ""ill not !ie parking there. I
think they were looking for some aSSdTance that there was ltss parking on
t~~ street. If you ar~ providing a dropoff lone, tau need to have
landscaping that allows people to get onto the site without wa1king atro~s
grou nd coyer.
Again, the biggest share of community concerns and board concer"s are
zeroed fn on the landscaping and SOMe concerns about landscape lighting.
Aino's cOIIIIents about another landscape lighting scheme for the drh'2RCiJ
should be considered_ This could very easily b. on lower boll.rds in the
landscaping. Or these lights could be moved across to these parking areas
here. Then you would have a Similar kind of lighting that you ~ave h~r!.
You CQu1d ha~e circles ri9ht here and mayb~ lcwer landscaping and the
lighting to lj~nt the driveway_ I would llke to see some thought there,
especially ~th the neighbors~ concerns. although thtse lighting fixtures
you have chosen a~ very good lighting fixture5. I !nink the cityls
12-foot height requirement does work~ especially in conjunction with the
sfde yard shields. A"d you can go to Dther projects that are existing il'".
the community and see that light does not spillover, especially with a
fence. That is ~ith a six-foot fence. So ~ith an eight-foot fence and
the co.bination of side yard shie1ds, you are not g~ing to get spjllover.
especially as the landscaping aatures.. But there is pos.sioljo' a less
expensive way to do the lighting, so there ~;ght be interest there on the
part of the applicant if 'Ne make that i comBt'or..
I would l\ke to see the final landscape plan and some of these changes.
What 1 would like for us to do is perhaps a conceptual approval of the
landscaping, because I think we arf mostly talking about mi~Dr detail
change$ to tne landscaping. I would like to see it c~me back as a final
landscape review to the Architectural Review Board rather than to staff.
Is there not a parking monitor requirement in the u~e permit~
Ms. Lytle: A parking monitoring requirement?
Mr. Hjse: In other ~ords. tne monitoring of t~e church such as illegal
parking in drive~ays, parking on the street. that type of tr.ing?
OS/20/93
-21-
•
_. _____ . ___ ... _____ ._:;i,
-,
'/
o
Ms. Lyt1l!:-They have Ii M'!Iighborhood lie1s!I!'l requirement to P.1eet with
neighbors reguiarly about '"Y t.ypes of impacts. Parking would be
considered part of tnit. TMat is every six month,').
J1!r. Hise: Sc> YOLI feel that it gives the neigilborhood ample o~pDrt1Jnity to
address comp13ints?
Ms. lytl,: T~ere is no real parking monitor. but you are supposed to be a
good neiphbor a~d listen to the community and incorpor~te any tompla'~ts.
whetner it be Friday Night Live or spillover parking, etc. and come to
grips wit~ it. Tney, of course, meet the parking requirements.
Mr~ Hise: There are a couple of things still open. It is a judgment eail
whether this landscaping strip is adeq .. ate. I personal1y agree that it
will be ~~equate, and although adding a couple of feet to it would ~~lp
t~e landscaping, ] think it is adequate at present to fulfill the
requ;re.e~t, The applicant and the landscape architect are attep~:in9 to
aeet that requirement, which's a yer~ strict one. It w1l1 addres~ the
cOf-.majr S concerns, although I fully appreciate why you have concer~s
about thi.s~ especially .,men you see plants dyi n9. H brings into Question
t~e good faith of the applicant, 50 it ~s ~aturil tnat that would happen.
I also appreCiate the neighbcr~' frustration as to how this process seems
to go, not dealing with it on a dli-to-d~i basis. It does seem pretty
confUSing and a lot of thi~s happen at the last minute. There are always
changes and inconsistencies in all of this stuff. But I feel that there
is a good faith effcrt being made he~ by t~e lpp1icant, especially thE
architect and landscape architect, to r~.:lli satisfy the requirements and
conditions placed on this project. The built-in monit~r that ~as been
establi~hed with t~e neighbors on ar. ongoing basis after the project is
cOllPleted is more stringent than I have seen comir.g before us as a
require.ent.
Hr. Borack raised the issue of staff approval of drainage and that it
ought to COle back before us. J personally do not want to take
resp~nsibility for the draina9~ and ~~ether it wil' ~ork or not ~Tk.
That is more o~ a technical engineering matter. and I am ~ompletely
cOJlfortab1.:: with that proc.ess. ] am not sur'e what the public input is on
tnat process, and that may possibly be a reason for cringing it back here~
but personallY. J would not recon.end that it C.OIQe back here.
I am i little concErned about the discrep~nty in tree count and how many
will ~ replaced. It does seem that there is an Ggreeme~t between staff
and tne applicant that there is a deficiency right now in the two-to-one.
1 hear the applicant saying tnat they are willing tD do that. We are
probably going to make that a conditi~n to ~ome back to ~s for a final
",view. Tnat will g1ve the p'Jblic IIIOre opportunity for input at a couple
~f l~vels in this process. So I am satisfied that that is go;ng to
hap~n. I feel comfortable with the zoning administrator's explanation of
tne zoning issues that are at stake here, especially since it has already
been passed on to tne City Council. A lot of things have been "ashed out
in public previously. That is the extent of my comments.
Ms. lytle: One concern that 1 have regarding testimony today is in re9ard
to the old t~ that is existing that is cTos~st to the parking lot. What
OS/20/93
-22-
•
1 heard is that it is going to actually be D!tter preserved i~ this final
parking site. yet it looks to ~e like it is going t~ be more impinged upon
in this final plan. A space is very close to the trunk of th~ tree on
tills .ide.
tlr. Ow!'n: . That is why 1 asked that that [Hle 1andstape space be moved
over.
Mr. Gilliland: But it is ten SPi~~S. not more tnan te~.
Mr. Owen: No. it is eleven spaces.
Mr.9ilJtland: That is why +t ~as not been done and has not been movpd
over, because it leaves eleven spaces witnout ~ landscape island.
Mr. Hist: Is that sa.ething the ARB (ould make I finding of an e~ception
for?
Ms. Lytle~ With tne OEE1 No, because tne landscaping requirement is one
tnat is not allowed. The dimensional reQuirements of the parking could be
less, but ~ot the landscaping requirement. Th~ dimen5ion~l requirements,
yes, but not the trees.
Mr. Hi5e~ I was on the committEe that fo~lated that ordinance, and I
tf'lought we talked about t",at so that WI!' could have some flexibility in the
landsclpfng, so that it b!tter enhanced the architecture. 00 you reme~T
that, Aino?
"$. DaRasi; We could n~t cha~e that.
Mr. Hj$e~ We could not change the amount of landscaping or the n~mber of
parking spaces, but how it is configured, betause we actua11y nad a couple
of lot. that nad come before us.
H~. lytle: T~e ~~nt would be t~e Lree islands. The dimensional stuff
we can change.
~i1!; Our intent ~as that, in fact, it could be reconfigured as 10n9
IS the actual total area was retained, beca~se there have been parking
areas that required a variance.
~s~ Lytle; You are conditioned to save t~at oa~ tree.
Mr. 0weP.: It wtll be saved. Jt is just that the curb is two feet from
the trunk. The s~rface roots are a ver~ good size. I will go and
personally hand cut them so they don't get ripped. That does not iake
anything away. But the tree will not be ripped out. J ~ill have Ed cut
out those big roots.
J1s. Lytle: [thi nk the intent was for you to stay out of that who 1 e area
with your parking. 1 hav~ found tne cooe section. It reads: RNo
exception shall be granted under this section wnich ~Quld increase floor
area, decrease the number of required parking spates, decrfase the amount
cf requfred on-site landscaping.-
Pl"", Hise: Yes, the amount. not tne reconfiguration.
OS/20/93
-23-
o
Ms. Wi]so~: So we c~n reconfigure it.
Mr, Hise: So it may tak~ a DEE. which y~u may .3,t to exp1ore~ if YGU ire
going to co.e biCk here. What is the DEE time frame?
Ms. lytle: It can come back in tnt same timing as the submittal of the
landscape plan.
Mr~: You do not ha~e to bring that bac~ to YS right away. ~e are
91Yi~g you conceptual approval to move forward frr your parking.
Ms. Wilson: Who approves the DEE?
Ms. Lytle; This board. The point is that if y~u start to slick these
parking places. is you have shown in this plan, undern~ath this tree, you
are not complying w;!ft the intent tD save and preserve that tree, -whic;' is
what you agreed to as a mitigation. ~o you need to do something about how
to solve t~at. You also have a requirement for this landscape island.
YQ~ havp to c~ly with both 1 or you can get relief through this process.
That ;s your ~nly choice. It is not a Ilatter of "I 'JIIould' like to avC'id
the cost-or -J would -j ike to "ot do any of these tning~. -You have to do
all of them.
~r, PwE~~ But what does it say you have to do to preserve that tree? Use
s~~bodY'i judgment? The tree will not be taken out.
Ms. lytle, Right. What I heard from the city arborist is that the way
you have it fenced and spaced currently is adequate. ~at was told to us
by the applicant on tne site was that the pe~ane"t solution was going to
be In even better solution tr--an the temporary solution. It was the
commitment that was made in discussions in the fjeld. What I am seeing in
t~e plan is the oppo~ite) that you hav@ actually ,mping~d further on the
tree in the penaanent plan tnan with tne temp~rary fencing. The tree il
already stressed, whi~~ our arborist has confinued. He !lid that you
should nat impinge on it any more than it is now. So ~at I would like is
for you to comply with t~e intent that 1 ha~e Il~}ys heard communicat~.
which is not to impact that tree any further.
Mr. Owen: Our configuration sho.s considerably more space around the
tr~.
Mr. Mitchell: So there is more spa~e but ~t is just t~at on that one
side, I have t'O cut a couple of ...
er. Hise: What is your pir~i~9 requirement now? Are they right a9a;n~t
the wall. or can they j~st lose a space?
~s. Lvtle: They are right at tne requirement.
Mr. Mitc.he]]; It is a neg{lthted number, and we are right at it.
Ms. Lytle: You h~ve lost some square fO{lta~e. however.
Mr. Hfse: There is a very good chance you (ould lose a parking 5pace~ and
that sight be the easiest thing to do.
OS/20/93
·24·
;'1 \ ,
Mr. Hitchell; The use permtt requires 152 spaces, sc I pres~me we would
have t. go back to the C1ty Council about it.
Nr. Gilliland: The use permit is very specific about the number.
Ms. Lvtle: I know it is, but it was tied to the square footage in the
proposal, w~ich h4S been reduced.
Mr. Hist: That Is another avenue that you can pursue with the zoning
adminis!~ator as a wRy to satfsfy the protection ~f the tree.
Mr. ",tchell: We would not mind losing a parking stall.
Ms. Lytle: ] would fee1 comfortable l once] consultad with the ~eighbors
on this, to do something administrative in that regard.
Mr. Hise; So it looks l1ke you have severa' opportunities nere to satisfy
that.
!IQlllll!: ~D.il!s!u: I move the staff N!corrmen<latlon, with the follOWing
c"anges: a change to staff recOfD!Jendation '2 which says that the final
landsca.pe plan is to be revle'fl1ed by staff, and that the final landscape
plan instead be returned to the ARB; also tnat tne oak be saved and that
all the trees required in the t~o-to-one mitigation be shown; that the
concept of an i.mediate, dense buffer to the neighbors be demonstrated in
this plan; one that considers the i~diate impact on ~i~ corridors and
both sides of the fence; 1f there is any sort of dropoff, that tne
pedestrian pathways be shown; th~t the trash entlosure be relocated and
shown; the bicycle parking be clearly sho~; that the one tall tree
remaining on the east ~a11 be saved until tne otner trees grow; also that
the lighting catalog cuts be submitted at tn. time the lighting p1an is
suo-ittad, and that the lighting pl.n be looked at to see if there Is a
better solution for an appropriate sol~tion in an reSidential area,
~spect.lly closer to Colorado Avenue. Also a c~ange to tondition ,e to
Include current plants~ irrigatton~ all to be shown on the landscaping
plan.
Ms. Wilson: Are tree ,'eplacement requirements inc1uded?
Ms. DaRosa: Yes, two-to-one.
~St Wjlson: What about a landscape maintenance agreement? Is that
feasible?
Mr. Hlse: think it would be a good thing.
Ml. W11sQn: We could put it on the landscape plan when it co~s back.
~St oaRosa: There was anether issue about ~he dumpster versus trash
cans. What is the city's point of view on dumpsters and trash c.ans?
Ms. lytlt: 1 h~ard from the neighbor who ;s in the building the most
affected. Their feeling was that it was probably unre.listic to expect
tne church to do these separate containers, knowing the ~unt involved.
Even the reSidential users have dumpsters. What they are really l~oking
fur is a pl ace wt,ere the lid 1S not goi ng to cCH"Jstantly be up ind <lawn.
OS/20/93
-25·
( '. , ,
'.
",," /~:
It should be removed fro. the residenti.l side but they would not •• pect
the dHJrch to use the round cont"1n~l"'s., 1 ~'" un-sure -of what tHy peliey
i'5.
Mr. Gi1liland: There is not a requireraenL Pasco will do it in any way.
but wi 11 charge more for tile ind1Yidtnl containers than they do for the
dumpster. But it Is • 55011 charge.
"'r. Hj<:e: For Ir.e, it would have to do wHh where; t fina'l]y turns cut to
be located. So will that come ba(k as part of the landsc~pe plan?
Ms. DaRQsa: If they want to consider the barre~s and they have a way of
getting them cut.
Mr . ....t:i.U.e: Tney are fairly edSY to use. I see w(}men taking these out
regularly at anather 10cation+ They have wheels on them.
Ms. Milson: I would like to amend or add to the conditions that there be
ill -aintenance agreement for ill period of two years after completion ~f the
project. That agreement is usually het~ten the owner and the landscape
contractor.
Hr. Hise: Would you be willing to put that off Imtil tne final review of
the landscape plan?
M§ Wi1sDn: Tne intention of that is that there be an on-site gardener.
That makes the landscape contractor responsibil ity for He I, -: ~bil ity of
these plants.
Mr. Hise; There is probably already a one-year requirement. We have a
motior. and secand4 Does the applicant nave any comments relating to
clarification of tne action?
Mr. Mjtche]'~ How does tMis relate to proceeding witn p1ans for the
building? We are just redoing the landscape plan. Can we proceed ~itn
the other?
Ms. Lytle: !f t.r.e board so chooses tnat He bui?ding permit can go ahead
of this, that is the way the timing can occur.
Mr. pilliland: As r read our recommendation, it is that we adopt the
staff recOIAendation, wnich would be t~at tne building permit for the
bul1dings could move forward.
Ms. DaRosa: That was certainly my intent in my motion.
Mr. Gilliland: Certain conditions have to be met before the bui1d1ng
permit can ba issued. and they are in there. rt states that tne landsc!pe
plan is to be submitted prior to subaission for a building permit.
Mr Hjse: That;s not our intention.
M$. lytle: If you would like to let them pcoceed, you have the ability to
~nd that condition.
OS/20/33
-26-
•
.~'
Mr. Gilliland: What you would say is that i~stead of submission for a
building .>nait.
"s. DaRosa: Prior to issuance -of bullding permit, I amend the motiorl.
The landscaping is r~a'ly critical to this project.
Rgv. Doss: in':r'i: s.eems tc be an assumption, perhaps, that ~ want to get
away with as littl~ as possible in the landscaping. I want to assure you
that that is not the case. We want the garden view, as well. Whpn ft
COleS to tne neighbors to the eas.t, b~lieve me, we want to screen off that
building .ane than they waot to screen us off.
Mr. Gi1liland: Let me ~larify that the drainage plan has to be approved
by Public WorKs betore you can submit for a building permit.
Pfr. Hise: All those in faYor? Aye. n~at is three in favor and two
absent. Thank you ~ery .uch.
05/20/93
·27-
May Z5, 1~93
Mr. Curtis S. Peterson
1616 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain Vi •• , CA 94043
Dear Mr. Pet~rson~
The Director of Planning and c.ormtunity [nvironment, upon
reconmendatior, of the Architectural Re .... iew Board at its meeting of
May 20. li93 h~J approved the following ;pp1ication per the plans
5ubmitted for review, and subject to the following conditions.
600 t~lorad~ Avenue
St. Mark's Church
92-ARB-178
ReV1sed plan~ per preYic~s ARB review for applicatlon of a remodel of
the existing 27.260-square-foot church fac.ility to a proposed
24,400-square-foot church buflGing and related facilities including
parking and landscaping.
COHDlTlOlfS
1. The applicant shal' submit to the Transportation Divisl.{Jn and
Pl anning Staf; for review and approval t1rior to submission for
~ildin9 pe~it, details of the hicycle parking areas,
induding 1 ayout of racks and 1 ockers/l1anufacturars'
spetifi,ations, and ~uantities ~f eac.h clas$ of p3rking
facility. Cla3S 2 and 3 parking (racks) l!I'lst be shown 0(1 the
site plan and located in various locations on th~ site where
visitors and parishioners would want to park bicyclts. Class
parkjng (lockers), must be shown on the pl ans for staff arid
employees, and loc.ated closer to tne buildings where tkese
people would be ,"orking.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised circulation/site p1an for
review and approval which shows the employee parking area to
the west of the church with three standard parking spaces at
the end of the westerly driveway. The paf'king space closest to
the west property line must be a compact space and deSignated
as ~uch in order for no structures to be placed in the side
yard setback. In addition, in order for the vehicles to back
0:\564.colo """~""'"" P.o.Ebcla2.."(l
Palo Altt CA9Gl3
415. 32S0.2Ul
415.m.22fJFax
o
out ,one space must be shown on the pl ans to be cros:-·striped
and signed, IINo parki~g at any time. Torn ar-;]und lo~e a,~'y."
Tnis space must be i ~inimum of I6-feet long and IO-feet-wide.
~. Prior to issu~nce of a ~uilding permit, th~ applicant shall
submit a revised final landscape plan which meets the
requirements of the City's water Efflcienc~ tandsc~~e
Stan1ards. The landscape plan ~s to be .~vi~ed by the
Res~urce Conser~ation Division and Planning Staff and approved
by the ARB. The llndscap' plan shall include .11 existing
trees identified to b~ retained, location of all plant and tree
species j including additional trp.e~ to meet the 2:1 replacement
value for the accurate count of trees to be re~ved and to
plant ~s many of the replacemp.nt trees al~ng the eastern
property 1 irl! a.s possi.ble. The plan shall indicate spec-ies.
ilze, qU4ntities. and location of all trees. The landscape
plan is sllbject to the following requirements:
• Th~ row of parking on the north side of the parking lot,
aujacent to t~e educ:at'fln bundin9, shall De .djusted tro.
allow retention of the Oak tree by adjusting ~he
landscape islands. To accGmmodate the adJed landscape
area, a design Enha~cement exception may be necessary or
ttle number (If parking spaces reduce by one witn the
consent of the Zoning Administrator.
• The plan shall show the concept for a dense 1 andscape
screening buffer along the east property line that wlll
be immediate, i.e. the initial planting shall be cf
sufficient size and growth rate to ha~e an ~mmediate
i1l1~act .
• Tne drop-off area on ColoradG Street shall be s~own and
stepping stones or adjustments made in the lan~scaping to
allow pedestrians to cross the l~~dscaped area to the
church building.
• The p1an shall incltJde a den:e landscape bvffer on either
side of tnt! driveway that considers the view corridor
lO(lking down the driveway.
• c:.on~ider. utilization of a minilnum two year ldndscape
maintenance igreement from conpletion of cnnstruction to
ensure replacement and continuity of landscaping.
• Provide lignting catalog cuts .If",d consider iI. re~ised
lighting plan that utilizes ot~~!"" ljqht fixtures than the
proposed parking lot standards that ~ould be in k~eping
with the residential are •.
• :\564.c01Q
•
I •
'J
Sno~ all ext~rior lights including building and patio
areaL
• Save th~ existing mat~re tree on the east property line
for approximatelj S to Ie years to allow other trees to
mature.
~. All tr!ts retained shall be maintained as qualified in the
consulting arhoristis rep~rt. prepared by Wjl1iam OWen of Orse€
Design Associates, dated June l~. 1992 and revised en November
18, 1992 and noted on a revised final landscape plan to be
submitted for approval +
5. The following tree protection measures shall be included in
construct1on/demolitj~n~~PDtr~cts and be impiement~d during
demolition a~d construction activities:
4. Al' tl'ees deSignated to be preserved shal1 be protected
with six·foot-hi9~ chtin link fenc~s, mounted on two-inch
djameter gal¥anized iron posts, and driven into the
ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at nG more than 10-
foot ~pacln9" The fences shall enclose the entire area
u~der the dripline of existing trees. In no case shall
all,) vehicles or equipment be permi tted to be stored
within th~ enclosed areas. The fentes shall be erected
before construction begins and remain in place unti I
final of the building permit.
b. No storage of material or topsoil shall be permitted
within the tree enclosure ~rea.
c. Above ground surface runoff area snail r.ot be directed
into the tree canopy area frcm adjacent areas.
a:\564.(010
6. The site plan shall include a new location far the
tra!,", E:ilc1osure with details and is required to be
submitted to the ARB for r~view and approval.
Consider us in9 indi ~idlJal crmtainers fCrr tras.h that
could be mov~d to the strp~t instead of utjli7ing a
Dempster~Oumpster.
7. Drainage p1ans, including existing and proposed
elevations shall be Submitted t~ P~blic Works
Engineering for approval prior to submission for
building permit.
S. All concrete between the curb and Sidewalk shali be
removed and r€placed with a new j)lanting strlp to
include soil amendment, tGpsail, plantings and
irrigation ..
." -.
.:\564.colo
• 0
9. All side •• n shall b. replaced per the City',
standard specifi(atians.
10. The applicant sh;ll obt~in an encroachment permit
for all work ;1'1 the public right-of·way prior to
submission for building permit.
11. To r~duce dust levels during (l.S. 'uction) exposed
earth s~rfa~es shall be wateret fr2Que~tlYI during
the late mOTJing and at the end of the day, ~ith
frequer.cy of watenng increasing on windy days.
Spillage resulting from h~ulin9 opErations along or
acress any public Dr private property shall be
removed immediately and paid for by the contractor.
Oust nuisances originating from the contractor's
op~rations, either inside Qr outside the right-of
way, shall be controlled at the subdivider's
j:IIrp~~S-~ •
Following aie the use permit conditi~ns approved
for tn:s project which shall be met along with the
staff rec~mmended conditions above. The use ~ermit
conditions are .epeated hert!' for reference only.
1. All exterior modifications including, but not
limited to~ building, parking lots,
landscaping, fencing and signs shall be
reviewed and approved by the Archltectural
Review 8oar~ (except as provided in condition
IS) .
2. Prior to appllcaUon for a Bul1ding Permit,
the applicant sha11 submit a revised site
plan to the Planning Cfvision, which
elimlnates the vehicl~ drop·of~ on Colorado
Avenue and the i,2S0-\quare-foot future
addition. ";11 calculatitlns shall be re\'ised
to reflect this revision. A portion of the
Colorado Avenue frontage may be deSignated as
a passenger loading zone. The proposed
loading lone shall be reviewed and approved
by the Transportation DiviSion.
3. The appl icant shall appolnt a ne1)hborhood
liaison (responsible pa~ty or parties) ~ho
may be contacted by the neighbors during all
hours of operation and during special events
to voice complaints about noise violations
and other disturbancp~ at Saint Mark's
Church. This liaison shall be available to
recei~e complaints at any time the facility
..
. .
a: \564. co 1 0
is beir.g u~ed or operated. Tne person will
be provided the authority to (orre(t any
violation of th~ use permit conditi~ns, and
to provlde every tffort t~ a~oid disturbances
to the neighborhood. Any changes in the
names, phone numbers and dutJ ~f the
ne1ghhornood liaison shall be provided to the
nei9h~orhoDd representative and the Zoning
A~~inistrator lmmedjately.
4. The ':hurd, 5h.:11 schedul~ .regulai'" meetings
with tne neighborhrod, a minimum of one every
six months, to review the status of
compliance with the ter.ms of the use permit,
the status of noise and disturbance control,
and t~e stat~s of neighborhooQ relations.
Ad~an'Ed notice of these regular meetings
will be provided to the Zoning Admini~t~~:or
i~ order to allow attendance. A su~:.::::';'y
report on neighborhood relations s~;~ll b~
provided to the Zoning Administrator and
neig~borhood representative fn January and
July of every year. outlining the stat~s of
the meetings and measures taken to improve
the rElatlonship.
5. Church facilities shall be limited to--!"~"-'~~:
sponso~d or Church·rehted event,: ':;;" ..
ope-rat ions, and CO.,ITh.ln i tj CCU"S'" ~ f "_c _;;-'.
support servic~s (e.g., ATc.oh.o";~,~_·_;;; L .... ·...-ymous,
Clothes Closet and Urban fI<_i::>h~r:t). Lease,
donation or rental o.f ::".;; ':: ... <:11 ity~ including
living units, to iJ" .... ",'~r.-churc.h related or
comm~nity service ~p~ration shall be
prohibited, except pursuant to the issuanr~
of a separate conditional use permit.
4"
6. The two, on-slte, singl~~fami1y residences
shall be inhabited only by (hurcn employee~,
ciergy and guests.
7. All church operations including ~orship,
meetings, and community services~ uith the
!xception af temporary overnight ho~sing
(Urban Ministry) and special events, shall oe
prohibited from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. The
ChUrch may hold ]2 special events per
calendar year which may exceed the time
limits stated above. The Zoning
Administrator and neighborhood representative
shall be provided a biannual schedule of such
special events and their !~pecled duration.
, .
•
• :\564.<010
fJ.ny changp. in .. he schedule shaT 1 be submitted
to the Zoning Administrator and neighborhood
representative a minimum of 30 days prior tv
the ev~nL
8. The Church snaTl not conduct. sponsor, or in
any way allow tne main church, chapel and
education building to be used simultane~usly
for church programs or community ~erv;ces.
Use of any two of these buildin;s in
combination with other ,hvfcn facilities is
permitted and daily office operations are
permitted as listed in condition 9.
9. Sunday Ch.urch ser\'ices s.nail be limited to a
maxl~um of four services, three morning
services and one evenfn9 service. Office and
general administr6tlv~ activities SMall be
conducte~ betwee~ the hou~s of 2:00 am and
5:00 pm Monday through friday only.
10. The Church shall make every eff~rt tu educate
parishivners and gUE~ts to park on-site and
~ej~rp noise whenever possible.
11. Tne C~urch shall ~reserve the link between
the. property and HO,lver Park by maintaining
at least one 9at~. ,lCces~if:1le from either
side. in the rear ftnce.
1,_ The applicant shall pro~i~~ a dense
vegetati~e buffer and S~foot-hi9h a~oustical
wall between the Church an~ s;n9le-f~~ily
homes. The wall shall be ccmstrLlcted on '!'~:~
side property 1 ine~ startir'l~ !:: .~:'i. :r-""ii th!!
front property 1 ine ~:-.. ~ -:'.Iolnq it the rear
pr~periy 1~;-·-::_ :~,~ 'Ii.iteriils and design of
t"~:::. .~!; ~nill boe subject to Architectural
Review Soard approva1.
13. The Church will install one s1~n. acceptabl~
to the Arc~itectu!"'al Revl!!" Board and the
lransportation Di~ision, at each of the
driveway entrantes. The~e signs shall natlfy
us&rs that parking is restricted to Church·
related users a,d guests.
14. A.ll Churcn operations shall comply "With the
Palo Alto Noise Ordinance.
]5. On-site parking shall be provided for no
fe~er than 152 automobiles .
15. .If {aj t!1e prc.)'!ct rGiid";;oJ i~ 1e!;S tnan 50
feet from a road bump, and/or (b) a MW
project driveway 1S le~s t~an 5 feet from a
road bU~PI t~~ applicant ~hlll ~ responsible
for re~ovinQ the eXisting road bump and
rehted signing and striping, and install ;ng
a new road bump, including signing and
striping, at the closest feasible location ,
to the satisfaction of the Transportation
Di~lsion, at the applicant's expense.
Required r~locatiQn of road bumps and related
signing and striping shall be completed prior
tc fll'1a1i!atiofi r:;f !~;: LtLiildin9 permit.
17. Prior to demQlition of existing off-street
parking facilities, the applicant shall
install all requir~d parking or teGpor~ry
parking acceptable to the City in a mann~r
that is fully acceSSible and functional.
18. The Church may allow organized sports groups
to use their parking fatility at times not
conflicting with churth funct10ns which
require the parking_
J9. Within 30 days of approval of the use per.r.it,
the applicant shall provide sati,factory
written evidence ~f its acceptance~ ap~ro~~l
of an agreeme~t not to challenge t~e
enforceability of each term and condition of
this permit. In the event the applicant
hils to provi'O'e ~u'h l='!"Hte~. ~'.'~de~:e. t~;-,:;.
permit shall be null and void.
20. De~lition of the existing Sexton's quart~·s,
the existing!.. aild B cl assroom buildi n~ cliid
the eXisting rummage·~hed. ~nd ~nstallation
of temporary parking may proceed without
review and approval of the Architectural
Review Soard as long as a 7-foot-hign fence
{acceptable to tne Zoning Admini5tretor) is
installed along the ~ast property line prior
to the sta.t of demolition.
Your next step is to fulfill the conditions of project approval and
the~ apply to the Building Inspection Department for the appropriate
permits, provided that no app~al of the project is filed by
June 7. 1993.
The project must "omply with the requirements of all applicable City
codes and ordinances for j·our permit .
• :\064.co10
"..-.
c • ,
This project appro •• 1 ;$ val!d for ~ne (I) year from the date of
approval unless sperif~ca'ly stated otherwise.
J~ the event the buiTding p€~it for a project is n~t sec~fed within
the above specIfied tir.e lImit, the approval of the project will
exp1re lnd be of no further force or eff€ct.
snou1d yeu have any questions regarding this ARB action, p1ease do
not hesitate to caii tha Planning Department at (41S} 329-2546.
~~r::r.~~.JJ
Staff liaison
Planner
.:\564.colo
JUN ~ 1993
~r:.,..' U
· ..... -.~
;-if"
HAND DElNERED
CITY OF PALO ALTO
0IIic:e 01 tM CII)' Clorlc
~Of'PWNHG APPEAl FROM THe DECISION OF OmECTOR OF Pv..NHING •
MDOOOCoWNIT'I C£\~MUNITY ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVlEW I>J>PUCATIONS)
App/lcotion No. 92-ARB-178
Name 01 Appellant Herb Borock
To b<i lied In dLlj)llC81e
Receipt No._
Phone (~1 a 326-2398
~~ __ ~2~7~3~1~B~y~ro=n~s~t~re~.~t~ ____ ~p~a~1~o~A~lt~o~ __________ ~924~3;Of~----
Street Ci!y ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPEATY: Ass€:.,<><,s Parc<JI No. 1 32-5 5-1 ,; Zone District R-'
_ Address ___ ..;:6.:;OO~.::.:colora::d::o~A::. .. :..:-.:..:n::u::.,-___ . ___________ _
..-.-:':' "
~oiPropertyOwner{ifothertt-.anappel1ant)St. Markle Episcopal Church in Falo Alto.
CaIl!orn~a
,Properfy OWners Address 600 colorado AVOIlue 1>alo Alto 94}O6
Street Oty ZJ P
The decision of Ihe [);rector 01 PIar1ning and Community ErMtonn1EnI c::alod _.::M"a:.,:y~2",5 __ __
19 93 _eby!he IIIJIlIIca!ion of-,cu~r:..:t~i~B':..!S~':.,:P:,;':,t~~'ir7B:::o:;;n,,="-;-_________ _
torig"", appflCiUlI)
for atcNtec:turai f'8'\Ile"N 'WaS _=",a::.p",p"ro"",v::e",d".". __ ~ is hereby appealed lor the reasons SUIted
'approved/denled)
In the anachod le<!&f (Ifl d.,picate'.
om. June 1. 1993 Signature d. "'weIIant ~~=/::':";:;""i/ ... f"'_,"",4"-_______ _
.CITY COUN(:IL DECISION;
D~. ______________ _ Denied ___ _
Ren .. ~ arY!/0< Conditions:
SUBMrTTAl REQUIREMENTS SATISFlEI'l:
1. Plans ---By:
2. Labels By:
3. Appoo: AppI'lCation Foons / BY' ,n .. <...
4. Letter v By: \-., .. :.....,...
5. Foe ./ BIC. 9";6== ( I: r
12/89
i f
Hl!'rb Borock
21}1 Byron Street
~alJ Alto, CA 94306
.. TunE' 1, 19~3
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Av~nu~
Palo Alto. CA 900'
600 colorado AVE'nu~
~ar ~ity Council:
--.: .
App~al }Tom the ~cision on 92-ARB~178
I am appeal.ing the dC!'cision on applicatio r1 92-AF.P-1 i8 for thE'
rP8S0nB 8tat~d in this lett~r. Wh~re r~levant. 1 hav~ mad~
reterl!'nce to th~ numLer~d conditions D! appro7al.
I. Landscape Buffer un Eastl!'rn (Byron stn-et side) propt'rty :'in~
•
A la-foot landscape buffer is rE'qui~d TO h~lp mitigat~ the
significant ~ffect on the r~sident8 of Byron Street of th~
Increas~Q noise cau9E'd by the new eaBt~rly driveway abutting
properties on Byron StNe-t and by thE' ne'" par-ling lot.. Pri'Jr te thE' installation of th~ temporary par~ing lot. By~on stre~t
was buffpred from the traffic noisf' in the parking lot by c:hurch
bu11~n&s and by ~he 400 foot·.iBtanc~ from on~ drive~ay and
the 535 foot distanc~ from th~ other driveway.
The 10-foot landscapE' buffer is n~.dpd in addition to thE' requirpd
sound wall to proTide th~ sound buffer r~quir~d by Policy 11
of theo EnVil"OEU!lental ResourcE's section of thE' ComprehE"nei're Plan ..
Staif on this project and on other proJects has consistently
cited the 10-foot-wide r~quir~ment.
The Bite plan you concl'ptu&lly approved as part of the un!' ptorsi t
appeal (92-UP-26) pr.v~nted you from roquiring a 10-f.ot ~ffer
because of buildings beot'Wp~n the church an~ the driveway th·Jt
restricted t~p width availabl~ for land~caping.
rmmediatley a!tpr you approved that plan. the church (aJ~licant)
pnpar~d a new plan tilat eolil:.inate-d the building. DaSS bt",tweoen
thE' church and ~v~way,and ~plac~d it ~ith a wide {40 foot plUS)
plaza. The-re is now cle-a .. ~ly enough rQom to provjde a 1')-foot
land~cape buffer.
As r.cently as the plan check for th~ ARB application, the planning
diviSion not~d that a 10-feot buffpr is rt'quired.
The fact th~rp i_ adequatp srace for a 10-!o.t buff~r is taCitly
acknowlE'dg~d in the-ARB apprc,val in condition 3. bull"t -4, 'Where
a de>oae-land::;.cap~ buffer is :required on both SidpB of the drivE-way
for the a~sthetic enJoyment of the drivers.
It is lIore important to Dlitj.gatp the e-ifects of thorJt' drl?eTB
OD the adjoining neighbors QY providing thp 10-foot buffer b~tween
the driveway and the BYron Street p~p~rti~8, than it is to
aake the dnnway pretty [c,r the drivers who .. ill park in the lot.
---continued on page 2---------------
\
Herb Borock/Oity oouncl!
600 Oolorado --ARB App~.l
JutJE' 1, i993
Page ~
Landscap~ Bu!f~r (conti~u~d)
. ..:_-----.
Th~ sit~ plan pr~YidpB bptv~en 6 and B feet b~twee~ th~ property
lin~ ~!!{t 'th,=, dri. v~ltia:l for both landBcaping and coccr~te-ie-nce
and curb on both sidps of tnE' larJcloc3ping-. :L'he-a;:~l,!nt of J.a:nd-
8CaPE' i8 much smaller t.t~=3In theo 6 or 8 ft'et shown. This 18 not
6u!!icl!'!'!'~ to support the kinds Df plantl.ngs rt'qu1reod by law.
For e~pl~, you may wish to visit Unity ~hurch and obsprYe
th~ rear prop~rty ~1n~ where a similar inedpquat~ landscap~
bufftr V28 proYld~d. The parkiLg spaceos et the rear prope-rty
lint now aust be roppd off to pro~pct n~ighbor6, becaus!' the
landscapt buffer does not.
At the St. Mark'e site, the mitlgbtiCHt is :more iMportant becausE'
th~re 1s a drivpvay along the relevant property lin~. Evpry
car using the lot will uee that dri ve .. "ay twice for 'f'ach visit,
and aom~ ~a~s (sucb as FTiday Ni~ht Liv~} ~ill have each car
.a~ing two ro~d-tTip8 a night as parente drop off and pick
up their childr?n.
If st. Merkle used the sam~ aolut1o~ as Unity Church, th~y ~ould
havp to rop~ off an area that included most of th~ driveway Width
to substi tuteo for thp miSSing landSCApE"' width, just as Unity
Church has roprd of! a depth ~qual to th~ len~th of a standard
parkin! spac~ to SubBtitut~ for thp miSSing landscape width.
It 1s sillpleor to put in the 10-foot buffe"r in the first plilice.
Thereo is now room i_ the-site plan for thE' )luffer, which can
be obtained by reducing tho plaza (iapermeaole) width. Tho
chapel may Deed to be r.l.cat~d. b~t previoue plans showed that
such ~~location was feaSible.
r.ndscape Maintenance and Replacement
Cond1tioll 3, bullet 5 ia inadeq\late since it mt't'E"ly asks the'
applicant to ·COTlsidprtf landscape 11::lintenan::e.. 'f:he applicant
should b~ re~uired to maintain and replacE' as nec~ssary landscaping
that is net adE'~.atply maintained. For example', t~e follo~ing
language could De uS~d:
wLandscaping sball be Main~Gin~d in good conjltion by the
use pprmi t hold~r aDd ~ha:.l L.'t: replaced as neocessary In
conformance ~ith the spec~P8 i~dicated on the approved
landscape plan.. Replacem~nt ~f t~eB ltihen nE'oeesary shall
be on a 2 !U:I.' 1 baSiS, m.inimum 24" "tlox slzt-, and shall
apply to any tree that eXisted I or -.,'i:: rE'quind to be
planted, at th~ time of approval of the AE.:B aPFlicat1on~"
---continued on page 3---
~prD Boroe~ici~y Council
600 colorado --ARB App~al
JUDe 1, 1 <;9}
Pall" 3
~ Maintain Minimum Numher of Parking Spaces
.';
, ,
~e. p~rmit condition 15 rpquires a mini~u~ of 152 on-sit~ parking
Bpa .. !'s.. However the ARE approval in corldi tion 3, bullet 1,
p~pos~~ to r~duop th~ n~Dpr of spaces in violation of the
\IS-=' permi t ~~nd1 tion. Pirst. thl!' .oI,.RB condition suggpstB uSi~,~
a Design EnhB.nci'~ent Exception, t .... t !h~ DEE crdiaancp prohl"lts
r~--d\lcing parking. ~~f!' ARE approval catltt dirf"ct thE' Zocin~
Administ~tor to adminlb~~ativply ~~ •• ce the number of parking
sp~ce8 :r'~~ui!"~d by th~ USf> }I~:"'IUl t. 11' parking thre-ateJJEi the
a tl'E'e l there is !'u.;;~;!h im'pi'"rm-e'e.~~@ ccvE'ragc-on the site that
could ~ change-d to pa1-k:t!'l~ f:rolll plaz,o. to provide r;eo!oc3tec parkln~.
q. Lighting Standar.s
ARB condlt1~n ,. bullet 6 is too vague to prot~ct adjoi~~Dg
prope-rtlE'8~ Language trom anothpr proj(lct eppro¥al is btptt ... --:-:
-All lighting shall conform to city standards. Freestand1ng
light £ixtures ar~ limited t~ twelve feet in h~lght.
All lighting must be dpsiped and located in BiJch Q WI:!.;"
as to nQt cause light spill into adjacect properties.
All light !ixtur.. shall b~ of th~ lovost intensity aDd
energy use adquat-e for thlHr purpose. All 11~.'.,tiS ~hich
a~ highly visible from adjacent properties .hall b~ ~urn(ld
Qi~ at 10: 30 pm or wi thiYl:".30 minutes of the tond of sre-ciaJ.
pvents that, end after 10:00 pm."
&? . 'iha t 'I're.?
ARE eond~tiQn ,. bull~t a should describe th~ "matur~ tre~"
by species type, and location specificity adequate to ideDtify
thE' tree.
&. Trash Enclosure
ARB condition 6 should specify the location of the trash ~ncloBure
to be ~~ar the major trash generators, which are the education
building and tho of!ic"s.
~ Curb aDd Gutter
ARB co~dition 9 should explicity require the existing roll~d
curb on colorado Avenue to be replaced with vertical curb ann
gutt~r. rhPr~ are several r~aSODS for this.
---continued on page .---
o
H~rb Borack/City Council
600 colorado Av.nu. --ARE Appeal
Jun. 1. 1993
rago 4
..
_·:.i
Th~ adjoining subdivision is Tequirpd as part of its dpv~lopm~n~
agrf't!'Dle"nt to rE'place its colordo AvenuE" frontage wi th yprtical
curb and gutt~r. The church ehould do th~ s~mE".
Th~ devplop~r o! thE" ~ubdivi.1on belipvps hE" has a privat~ dpal
with city staff to i~norp th~ re~uirement for vertical curb
and gutter on Colorado Avpnue, but thE" d~YE"lopment a~~.ent
protects the-pab11c interest. ThE" church approval has no such
protfction in a form of a GPII'pllJpment agrE"IPBlent , there-.fore-the
vertical curb and gutt¥r must h~ writtpn into the ARB approval.
'!ii~ polIce dppart .. lllt rE'f1.l6E'S to ,pnforce the rolleod-c'?J.rb parki.r::.g
reBt~i::tions.. AS a CellSE'que-nee. cars on colorado Avenue park:
in the p16~ting strips. Vertical curb and gutter will prevent
thie and will provide the 8&m~ l~gal 8t~et width of 36 fe~t.
park1n~ in Yiolation ~f the law with roll~d curbs c~ates a
wid'E'r atrf:-l't and giVt'B d:r-.ivers the-imprl!'ssion that th-E'Y cen
go faeter than the sp&ed limit. To ml~1gate thl!' negative ~ftpct
of iuereased traffic from the ehureh aDd subdivision, a vertical
curb and g\l.ttt"r will provide drivers Oll this local strE"f't with
the impression that they shtuld Blow down in this rPsidpntial
neighborhood.
i. construction Staging
You should condition ~hp architectural approval to require
~conBtruct1on ot thl!' entire parking lot to be completed before
new construction takee p)ece.
q Extra Spire
The west elevation of the church appl!'ars to indl~ate a second
8pl~p over the ~ew p.t~aar..; but no spire is shown thpre on
the oti .. ~t' E'levatioDs. PJ eoaSe' require that this artifact be
removed fz,,;.!'l the plans ..
! C Fir£' Sprinklers
you should condition thE' a:r:.::h.itectllI'al approval to "quirt' automatic
fire sprinklers according to th~ tire codE' SP dE'acrib~d in the
fire department plan check datpd JQ~:," 30, 1992.
I I Parking Lot LandscaPing Sprinklors
you should condition the archit~ctural approval to include language
similar to section ld.83.10C(g) that roquires automatic irrigation
of ell planted areaS in llarking .. lots, including boua'ary bufff'ra.
---continu~d on pagE' ~---
Horb Boroek/City Council
600 Colorado AYPOU. --ARB Appeal
June 1.19;,3
Page 5
!:lBIage-d Sidewalk
..
· .
You show rl. oC'-':1!!ci t1'Jn thl:' a!."~hi 1:eetural approval to require thE'
applicant to re-placf' damaged sidewalk lOCE'.tpd d.i rpctly in front
of thE" chureh prope-rty. At a minill:UDl, you ShOllld require that
the s1d~walk be rE'8~orej ~hprp 1t was r~moved to install a new
conn~ction to the city's storm drain system in the vl~inity
of the new driveway.
I_~. cottage Size Violation
~he sE"cond dwelling unit 7101atrs the cottage ordina.~e in two
ways. It i8 gre-ate~ than 900 square feet gross floor area and
it is hlgbpr than 17.fee-t. If the cottage-was on thE' groi.i.."lC
floor~ an uncove~d de-ck would not count as square footagE'.
An internal memo in thp planning 81violon that purports t~ be
a legal opinion is m18l~ading and ralsp rpgar~ing th~ R-~ zone
district r~st~1ct1on8 Oli se-con.,~ 11 vlng uni "l:S.
The memo ac~rat~ly states the fact that living units 8r~ ~llowed
for reoligHluB instlutioDs, and 'then falsely sta.-es that churches
have th~ Bam~ usee permitted as reljgious in8titutione. ~hp
most significant diffprPnce between a church use and a religious
iDatlution use is that accessory dwellings are not 18cl,.ed in
the definition o£ church use, but are included in the d~fin1t1on
of religious institution UBe.
If.· Arcbitectural Stylo of House
be
jhe rew reSidence fron~:n~ on Colorado Avenu~ appears to/compat1blp
wi th the ne\," subdiv1eic.n l.rchi tecturt", rathez' than .,..1 th the
ehu~ch architecture. rfi~ ARB ~rdinanc~ r.~uir~8 all buildings
in church use-to be architecturally compatible. If the applicant
~ants tr~ n~w r~8idence to b~ c~mp&t1bl~ with the eubdivl.ioD,
then the new r~sideDce .hould have its own l~gal-Bized lot.
t5. Gross Floor Area
staff represent~d to you at thE" UBe permit appeal h~aring that
th~ gross floor area you approvea ~ncludpd 8econd-floo~ and thlrd
floor e1uivalent floor area for new construction.
Floor area calculations add~d to the projPct rilE" by the applicant
rm May 11, 1993, Sh01W calculatic:ms that indicate that IIOre-floor
a.na is inclUded in the ARB application then YOH approve-d for
the use permit. The floor area cal~ationB and th~ plan dimensions
a~ inCoDsistpnt.
Thank you for your consideration of ~heae comments.
S1ncerely, ~% .. v::-....,J'.c""-'-___ ~
u",~· ... 'tl" ........... 1,o-•
"" .. .r ,~ ..
~.
Nay 11. 1993
Mchiteo.;tural Review Board
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton
Palo Alto. C~ 94301
RE; St. Marks -600 Colo~",-do 1t.v€nue
Dear ARB Members:
o
RECEIVED
Mt,V I 2 199::;
CE'An"'n~::-,:-:'" -.-?,.AI'';:;JNQ
AN'JCC:;::'~: .. :-',-:; :.:.,::.oPMCNT
I had hoped that
would have time to
project~ t.o discuss
the project archjt~ct and landscape designer
rne~t with th~ neiyhbors m~st a!!ect~d by the
the concerns below:
TRASH CONTAINER: Move the tr4sh cor.tainer to a loca.tion
near ~he parish hall and offices sa that the emptying of
..... aslE.:baskets and garbage cans is neither visible no~ an
intn.l'Sion of noi$s on the imm ... diate !"I~ir;h~~::-"$ a.,jjacer:t and
bCrOS$ the street .
.E\:CALYPTUS TREES: Save two large sp~Clm!?ns next. to tt.e
new rri .... eway. They are thE' only trees whic.h now provid",
any respite from glare and heat 0: the imp~rvious material
in the wall, dl""iv€'Nay. parking arEa, and proposed patios.
LANDSCAPE WIDTH; Place a 10 foot lar:dscape bu.ffer 0" tr.8-
eastern boundary wh~r~ a 20 to ~O foot green buffer was
removed for construction of the new wall.
LANDSCAPING: P)e-ase add more larg~ trees ,,0 ale re-astern
boundary with a minimum size equal to thE new street trees
placed on Gaspar Court. Som~ of the new trees should be
larger than 24" hoxe-$ to mitigate the-removal of additicmal
tr ees from St. Mark~. The g!'"een canopy on St. Marks has
been effectively destroyed and is being replace~ with mostly
impervious material on the eastern b~undary. The propos~d
landscdre-on t.he P!lstarn boundary should include a mix of
large eVe'gt"E-€::.l tr~es and decidlJous tree::. to seften the
e£!ect of the iarge aMount of impervious material in the
concret~ fence, driveway. parking lot. exten~ive patiOS, and
walls of the ne\l-! church ':-i'ltr-orlC€.
Note that ~he rear of the eas~.rn boundary needs mu~h less
ad-Cit) .,na) landscaping because of the redwood grove and the
vE!ry iar"ge trees cf the neighbors that Dverhdng onte. church
property. The £Qu"heast corner is heavily landsc~ped on the
Southwood Park side of t.hat corner.
It is the front three hundred feet of the eastern hounda~)
that has been denuded and its canopy destroyed. Note that
most of the ~~autiiul large camphor trees have been removed
and only 4 single campho~ remains on the ~~slern side of the
property .. ~dditlo!ial campilol;s or other attractiVe e .... e-rgreeTl
trees would fit well with the planned deciduous trees.
• Go Plea$@ p:ace the d~nsest plarltin;= _~_ ~~r~est tre~5 forward
of the redwood t~ees to mitigate the damag~. recuce giot~
from midday and western su~ on the extensively paved areas.
REPLACEMENT OF REMOVED TREES: Are-tn ... 1 0; :;''';'!'!':''~:':'~''. r,lJmbo't'r
of trees to replace those temoveo? The ErA calj~ for ~:l.
Hcwp.ve,. ~en S~hrejber respo~dec ~~ th~ site visit by Ron
Anderson th~t the ~epla~ement W~~ ~lmost 3:1.
Aerial photos and p~ysical observa~ions (5-11-93, Lytle)
show there were many more than 50 tr~es en th~ p.operty thdt
were nc~ included in the or iginal count. Some o! the
miss1~g tr~es include the following:
3 Pru1."lus Kamikaw1 in ~oO'a!'" courtyard
3 F~lrn trees at rear of p,operty nex~ to Hoover
2 fruit trees, including rare ~pecjes of appl€
with oink pulp
5 large trees in the memorial garden behind the
2 eucalyp:us and many tr i stana. laur inc:.~ C"I,
2 large t~ees shewn on the plan b~tw~en the
-:hurch and parish tlall. bt.::t not icl.et"1tified ~s
t.o specil;'s
This brlngs the total trees of substantial size on the
church site to 66, not 50. I QjQ not include tree-like
shrubs o. new plan~.ir,g~, in my total. Some of the'se ne ..
plantings are 10 b~ removed and 4r~ toe small to count
in the t~ee list.
Horp. trees aroe now slated fOl removal en this new plan
than on the arbor1st list of July 199=:. I found NO updat'!?d
list in the file-and ccilloed Bil1 Owen to check on which
trees are actually being saved and which are being rernoved_
At. least 10 more arbor-ist n1d,""ntified tree$_ inc.ludir,g 4 ve-ry
large lDapl2s in b4Ck of the chapel, ( l-a.:--qe birch trees at
1".l.'~ ne ..... entry, and :2 or 3. t.rees in thFo proposed future-
'.lc;ition a.re slated for remova:. ~
nl' tot.a.I number of treE'$ of subs.tantial ~izE' on thE'
chu"!", site was 66, not 1.ncluding ':.a.ll t.ree-! i}'.e c;hrubs c-r
re-ce·,·. clCLr'.tings c! pine and ye..,.;. The removal of liS-50
trees; if"stroys the l!la.["ve.iOUS green canopy of the arEa.
Y':"'.J /11\"'::', 'Jet an accurate tree C01.1nt and removal list beLore
ar~ furV~:-tree rer.loval occurs. You fTl\.lSt. require the
de-.'s-lopet .. ~:) ClEiH'ly mark .... hich trees are to be sal/ed ar:d
wh.;.::' t!,e~'. ?re to be cut on th15 site. As recently as the
sit~, visit ~i,h ~s. Lytle on 5-11-93 t~e trees were-not
mArl-,1. Cur,-.,;:.,tly. e>:isting trees nea.r con~·truction are
unde-sp",'t.!re ,.t •• elo': -<rem soil c,')mpaction, lack of
cOlnp",,-:sat:::ry .... ';t.~·r, 5~vere '-,;"t. Pt"uning to withi~1 a foot
of t}-,:' trunks, n'~,O. no physicnl protection of trees at the
drip .ln€'. The51; ?roble-ms .... ill supposedly chan91:' duE' to a
brief dslt by city tranager on 5-9-c!3
o
You mutt require replacement·of removed tr~e$ in a ratio of
at leAst. 2:1 a.s P€t" EIA and sl'lould be 3:1 as per memo .. '5
mitiqatlon for the drastic effect of removals on the eastern
boundary. the sever~ dAmAJe ~~u~~d to ~~~~ining tr~~i ~u(ing
construction of the temporar) driveway, and propos~l for
additional tre~ removals, pl~ase include tr~es th4~ ~~e
greater in ~ize than 24 inch box,
Tr'i"e AHB file conta.ins aerial photos of thE-tree canopy at St.
l14rks church site befor-e t.hE-const~Ltction began. This wi11 show
trees overlooked in the orie;inal count. The original arbor-ist
drawing and the second site p16n submitted to the ctty show the
cha.nges in the tree removal program. As I read the new plan. it
does not lndicate all the trees to be sav~d and nor all cf th@
remova.ls.
ARCHrTECTURE~ Are the new house and c,ffic€'japt/kitchen
complex comp;stible with and do they er.har.'Ct'-the
architecture Qf the church and chap~l?
DRIVEWhYS: Th~re has b~en a serious cong~stion problem on
Colorado during Friday Night Live jn that carS have been
unable to $lmultaneously ~nQres5 and egress. This has
created a tra!fic jam o~ Colorado from 10:15 to 10:45 when
cars are backed up in both directions on Colorado because
parents all arrive at the 'Same time and 'try to pick \!p t.heir
ch\ldre~ ~t ~he pnrish hall~
The second new driveway proposed which is even clo~er to the
parish hall where Friday Night Live t.aXES place has no
turn.around that i'5 easf to use. Will that ariveway be of£
limits Lo t.wo way traffic a::tivities. 'Suer.. as r!':"iday Night
Live? Will that. driveway be used only for the chap~ron
parking for Friday Night Live which will limit it ~o mostly
one way traffic activities?
Please add a condition t.hat jf the pa.r.is.h hall is ev~r
replaced that ~he circular Qriveway connected by two
S~~3rat~ entries be added to St. Marks :0 £d~ilitate entry
and exit from the parking lot.
Thank you for your consider-atia;-••
< -.
~ '-'·01 .
._----------.
,
'i
----_ .. _-.::;:-
\
. \ , . ,.
·.
-':~ .:;
",.'
i
, ;<
May 10, 199)
Architectural Revie ..... Board
City of Pale Alto
250 Hamilton
P~lo Alto. CA 94301
RE: St. Marks -500 Colorado Avenue
Dear ARB Ne:r:tbers~
n \~'
RECEIVED
~:t,y 1 3 1993
DEPAATMtr.'TOF Pi.ANNI'NG
Me CO>',a'.uNm' 09lEl.OPMerr
! had hoped that the project architect and landscape d~signer;
would have time to mee_ with the neighbors most affected by the
project to disCl'$S the concern below:
TRASH CONTAINER: The present trash container is placed in
the landscape buffer on the eas.t~rn boundary wall less than
15 feet from the liVIng room windows of the adjacent 4-plex.
This place~~nt is also the furthest most point from the
source of trash generation. namel y the off ic~s ar.d the
par ish hall. It is my understanding that the proposed
placement is being do~e to facilitate weekly garhoqe
collect ion.
On the cur-rent plan! measure t-he proposed trash ,"cl"'",t.ainer
to be 300 -400 feet from the main source g~neration.
Please place the ~rash container near the source generation
so that it ii not a daily source of noise, odor. and
general nuisance to the exist.in~ neighbors," Formerly, lhe
tra.sh container was placed near tl'le parish hall and rear e£
the church for ease of use by parishioners and employees.
PASCO has always driven up the chut"Fh driveway and to the
reat" of the property to collect t.he· trash. Clearly, trIer!!
is less nuisance to immediate r.eighbors t.o continlJe this
pa'ttern than to place the container so that then:: is
treq'l'?ro.t. even dai ly. i ntrus ion to immedlate. ne ighhor 5 •
ThanK you for your cons !derat ion, <i l ~ ~
1,w.:. ~~ (;17 ~o.d.ff'_ f L_ ! ~. j ~ . 634, ulo(~ ~::r V;> <'
v : " J '" \j "" "" 1M 17~...... 2-7,1 ,s,,,,,,, S~ ..!l _ --" / ~ ~ ~V /I, {lC-? 60~ (OLoRfrQ().4'<€ ~" ~].
GV-d ';:( ~ '(, I't4 $'wf4 ",7 4 {c«"..o "v~ /\~ ~~
J _ (j ~ 53~ Co,-oR/!l>o IfVE: J' i ~
/fo. (}'. .~~. ~,~~. ~/~_Co~~c~"I.Jtvc ~J~ ~~
..
Herb Boroclc:
27~1 Byron street pafo Alto, CA 94306
)olay 12, 19~3
Architectural Review Board
City oi Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenu~
Palo Alto, CA 94301
600 CQlo~ado Avenue (92-ARB-178j 92-EIA-17)
Dear Board Members:
Th~ architectural re~i~w of this project com~s bp!or~ you with
two relll!'vant historit"s4
¥irst. for about a year, th~ applicant, city sta!!t and the
. ,.-.
public have partlclp8te~ in five different public hearing prOC~8SPS
about three different projects on th~ current and former lands
of st. Mark' B chlp'ch4 The fi"i£~ puhlic hearing procPSSE'.3 incl~QF
the churc~ use perMit and appeal; the single-lazily subdivision
on tht" futurP Gaspar court; a v~riance h~aring a~d appeal for
a subBtandartt 19t; archit~ctural ~view of the subdivision;
and this arohlte-ctural rt'vieilt of the churcl;..
s~cond, over a perioQ spanRing more than 40 y~ars, St. Mark's
church firat pxpand~a and then shrur~ the land used for church
use. ~h~ resUlt is th~t yuu have b~fore you the saNE' 2.745
acre 8it~ that cODtain~d much less bulldin~ a~d much more landscap~
iD 1950. Also, parkin~ that ~aB for.~rly on the adj8c~nt parc~l
has now been .oved back to the original church site to p~rmit
de.elo~~nt of the subdivision. The church had acquired the
adjacent parc~l tor parking to p~rmit it to expand the building
on ih~ origiDal church sitp. ROY that the additional building
&e8 oceur~d, the parking has be~D hrought back to the 8.all~r
site, aDd moat o~ th~ landscaping is gone. In addition, tA~
proposed site plan c\J~tains re-6i.cl;o;~c(":, vi th=-:.;.t tht" a:::;:;u::.i: vi
12ndscap!n~ normally aBBociat~d ~ith hous~s in R-1 zones~ InBt~ad.
that lang a~a is used !~r a parkin~ lot. Fi~ally, the hei~ht,
.ass, bulk, Rna denSity on th~ Site are und~rstated,. becausp
th~ floor area ~alculationB omit the s~c~nd-story and third-story
floor area eqUivalents that arp normally calculated for R-1 site-so
Attach~d 18 a she.t shoving the church UBP (including parking)
bp~ore and after th~ Sale of land for the subdivision and the
house on the 8ubsta~dard lot.
the following 8Ug~ested aa~nd.ents to th~ conditions ana the
site plan are intended to mitigate the aQverse ~!fectB o~ tAla
project and t.o prevent problells that lIil!ht occur in the-!14tU:re
should it be-co •• necessary tor the church to earn incoae fro.
the sale or lease of either or both ot the residences.
---comtinued on page 2
. '---~~--.~.------------
Herb Boro 011:/ ARB
600 Colora'o Ay~nu~
May 12, 1393
Page two
Landscaping
The size-s and dist.ribution 'Of plantin~s along "thE' 'E'as"'t~rn (Byron
street) side ot the property a68u~e that proposed ei~ht-foot
and Six-foot butt~r is aiequat~ and that B~~ting t~e .inimum
requirraente tor landscaping in th~ parking ordinance 1s the
only consldpration !or determining landscapin~.
The butfer nerds to be ten feet wide. Th~ very wide paved area
can be reduced to provid~ space for this bufter.
The ~uaber ~~d olze of the t~es ne~d to be jncreas~d to mitigate
the cuaulative e!f~ct8 of tr~e reMoval over the years~ The
tYI-es of tree-s nee-Ii to 1n:Clude fast ,;ro'Wing evergreens to I'E'place
the tall dense C8ROPY that prE'vioc.sly eXist€'G. on the eastern
bO-l,lodarf aDQ "that snieldrd adjacE'nt prope-nips from thE' 'Luildlnl:;8.
For e%SJlple, my second story 1i .,-ing raoll! windo ... · cirectly acress
£yrou street from the education building (parish hall) needs
a visual scr~en in front of that building and the ~uture office'S.
Eventually, the new trees will prQvide th~ ~rotpctio~ of the
old trees. I can now Bee Palo Alto Square' at Page Mill and
El ca.lno because of th~ whol~eale re~oval of t~e~s~
Attacbed is aD article fro. tAP Palo Alto Times ot February 27,
1950, that reports the plant1n~ ot 9} shade and flow.riDg fruit
tre~s tor the church ~rounds. AS this 2.745 acre parcel has
beel'll dev61oped. o '.!' '!:'-'t;:::: years, the treoes have been remQTed,
but DO~ replac~.. It you look car~fully, you can still see
re"m:aat\tn of i:!:~ .fOnlH' s1 til!' design. por f'xBmpll!' I thl!' art1c:l~
~QyB th4~ ~ca.phor tre.a lii~ tbp drlvFway·. The c~rrf'nt offIces
\and proposed ~~w rea14f'Qee are in the path of that 6riveway.
you can still S~& t!l~ camphors ill thf' front and back of tlJe
building that was built aft€r th~ tr~~s w~re pla~tpd.
Wb~n ycu ieciie tht nuaber and siz~ of replace.ent trel!'s, ya~
Deed to take into cO~8~'era~loa bow much has bell!'n r~.oye~ and
D.~ replac~d oyer the years.
rh~ applicaRt's e~~ arborist has said that the trees havp been
nCf!;lectet. A"ttacht!'d 15 a co)'y .! the .July 30. 1992 .. letter
from the arborist wher~ n~~lect 1s mpntloned in the second
p8ra~raph. talrd sentence. ~leo, the c~nstruction will be 40nt
by the sasp coapany that is building the subdivision. That
fira kas B~Gr~d ~qulpaent in the ariplinl!' of tr~eB to be protected,
and some tre.s have had lime aad root dama,p since construction
b.gan. Attaob •• is oopies of photographs showin~ e~uipm.nt parke(
wher!' it is eompactin8 th~ 80i1 near the base of tr~e8.
Therefore, you should condition th~ ARB approval'. to require thp
app1ica~t to .aintsin and r~p1ace as ncc~8sary all trees de6ignat~d
for preBervRt~on aJ'ld all trees rf'quir~d to b~ plantpd as a eondl tlcm
01 approyal. A two for one or thr~~ for one replacement tor
trees tb~ app11ca~t cannot keep Tiabl~ .sy .otlvat~ the applicant
to take better car~ o~ t~es in the future.
;1;
I ,
;
;~
Horb :Boroclc
600 coloraao Avenue
l':ay 12, 19'33
Page T'hree-
Trash Enclosure-
,.
-~~~'
/' '.;';
The-dUllpst~r and t:rBSh eonC":losurE' should be mov~ next to the
lart~st trash genE'rator~, which are the officE's and the parich
hall. The approval shlJuld contain.;;. ccnditinn to require curb
=ide piCKUP ~. trash and to require the applicant to wh~~l the
dumpster out to the curb on garbage pickup days~
Future Meeting R~om
At the use permit hearln~s the a~plicBnt was required to reaove
all nfutu~~ buildings from th~ plans. This should b~ donE'
at this stage as well. This propo6~1 do~~n't fall under thE'
noraal ARB approv~~ of phased dpvE'loPMe~t of large projects
~lth an approved d~velopment schedQle •
.> Acoustical Wall and/or FeDce
A concret~ f~~cp yaa installed on the ~astern boundary to p~rmlt
the construct1on of t~.porary parkin~. The applicant waated
thls: . .fence to substi tut" for th!' requirement tor an aeou*tical
wall and t~e staf! b~li~ves that it dcps~ I am not'Bure~ because
drt y r~g~~!f~ .. E~!.":tgi ;~. ~~~~!~~~,;o,;t~~~ =~~,,,_~_~!~~.n:~~ ~~~u!~~cal-
wall: t.he fi VO' inch wide pan~+. are 1II"~h narrowef than the walls elong BayahorP 7~eway; I don t know 1! this ~a!l meets the
three PO~4s per squar~ toot crit~ria in the YMCA permit. and
I hay~ ~ot visited the Ter.an site. Please aBsure tbat this
i& an acoustieal wall. and if n?t, require the. installation of one~
The applicant should be required to t~ain vines to grow on the
other side of the wall.
Construct1o~ Stagi~g
You should con.1 tioD yOUl'" approval to nquireo reconstruction
QI the entire parking lot ~o b~ ~n~rl~t~d b~for~ n~w bu11Qin~
construction takes place.
Extra spiro
The west ~1~vat1on of the c~urch appears ~o i~~iGat. a second
spire OVE'r the . .:nf'w entrance. but no spire is shown thel'e ... the
other el"vations. The curr~nt spire dominates th~ skyline due
to height variances tor both the cburch and the spirp,. A second
spire is not needed, and shvuld be re.oved trom th~ plans for
the west elevation, if that is what is shown the~.
Fir" sprinkler.
'he approval shouli contain a condition to re,uire automatic
sprinklers according to the fire code ae described in the attached
plan ch~clc from th" Fire Depart.ent dst"d July 30, 1992.
---continued en pagE 4---
"
Hub Borock/ ARB
600 Colorado Avenue
May 12., 1993
fag!' Four
hIkiHP Lot Landscaping Sprinklers
A condition cf anproval.should track the languag~ of Section
18.83.100(g) palo Alto Municipal code: "provisIon .h~uld be
made for auto3ati~a~ly irrigatln~ all planted areaS"4 Other
sections of the parking ordinance make clear that the boundary
buffers are part of the parking area that must be automatically
irrigated4
hanr11capped Parking
The~ should be nandicap spacE'S next to the .ducation building
and of.!icE's.
Bicycle Parking.:-
A~ all required bicycle spaces shown on the plans?
Suggested Site Redesign
I have contin~ing concern Gnat the church at some future date
may want to rent or sell either resid~nce for income. I recall
that last year the initial plan or the church ~QS to first rent
th~ bous~. It is better to plan ahead now for this possibility
by deBi~lng a typical R-1 lot for the hOUB. and apRTt •• nt (cottage).
~hiB would ~rmit the church to later subdivide the lot for sal~
without controversy (or possibly subd1vid~ now, but still keep
in church UBIP).
The ~part~ent floor plan shows only 86( &qaure feet or lese than
the 900 e~aure f~et cottage max1auo, although the plan summary
shows a larger number. A d~~k (uncovered) ~n the groU~d tloor
wou.ld not count as f:~oor area. and .iK"ht not even count as si tc'
coverall[>·
To create a separate lot would require giving up the private
d.r1vtoway for ceDmutrrs ","'ho uae the church as th~ir workplace
(staff/teacher parkin~ letl. The offio. buildin~ (now one .tory
without the ~p~t.ent could be moved in that former second parkins
1ot. All c~ch Far In~ would then be access~d by the same
drlv~waYt but st9ff and teachers could still hav~ reserved spaces
near the buildings they use. on occasions whpn all parking spaces
are needed J a ein~le parkin~ lot makes .ore sens~, tor the late
£I.n! vals who will not knoW' ... hich lot to go into if therl are
two park~ng lots.
1 also belie •• the chapel 8ho~ld be rotated 90 degr ••• and lc~ated
opposlt~ the chureh as in khe original plan that was desi&ned to
encourag~ peopl~ to use the parking lot. Here is what archit~ct
Jay Mitchell said at the first use permit hearing on August 6 t
1992:
---c~ntinu~d on ~agp 5---
Bub Borockl ARB
600-Colorado Avenu~
May 12, 1993
Page Five
.~ ,.
'\
-The ess~nc~ of this plan .~. has been to relocate the
entrance to the church from the street side to the south side
of the church; to provide parking at the rear of the church
property in closer pruximity to the entrance 80 ~hat the people
will camp into th. site .4. The church wants to encourage people
to come in this way •••• By doing ~aat, this parkln~ lot ~ill
be ~oh morw utilized than the e~i6tlng parking lot ••• "
(zoning Administ~ator hoaring minut •• , 8/6/92, p. ~)
Attached Ie a plml showing the dimensions o~ d separate lot
for tl'"lf!' hCr!lse and cottage. Also attachf'Q is a revi'3ed si tt'
plan tr~t incorpo~at~s this lot. I have shown exaaples of how
to relocate about hatf of the space5 in th~ seeDed lot, and
the~ i~ clearlJ~room for the ~e.aind~r. The revision,ala.
shows the chapel being t ... ed and relocated as i: was on a prio~
plan ..
Architectural styl~ of Bouse
The plans S~~. to indicate that the houBe is to match th& style
of the houses in the new subdivision, rather than the atvle of
the ohurch. In fact, th~ floor plan •• eMB to~he s~e a~ I~t Q
2,550 aqu&re' .root -Stud.,. Floor Plan'" labeled. "Plan A BU m eo
by the .ub~ivi.ion arohitect on JUDe 16, 1992.
~h~ AlB ordinance requires all buildings in church UBe to be
areh1'~ecturally cClipati ble, and that includes the new residence! ~
lor e~,le. the curr~a~ o~tices serve. as the rectory until
1964, and that build~g is architeoturally oompatibl. with the
d.sign of the ohurch.
It' a b&use 11k. the subdivision hOllses i8 ",-ante-II! here. theoD
that is one more r~ason to create the lot I have sugKested,
where such a house (and sexton's cottage) can be built.
SUf, •• ted APproach
If you a&rf'_ with me that it make-A ;;~".D;? to provide a lot or
a lot-equiyalent for u,_~ :;.. ... -8i-dence-s, 'th~r, you can ached'Sl!' your
n~%t .~~t1~g ~= ~nls proje-ct to occur tht' same (ay (probably
in tw~ ~~n~hs, in J)ly, third week) ae the honing Adainistratorts
~~aring re-quire-d to crPate a minor subdiTi.1 ••• approve-a
conditional use p~rmit tor tne oottagp. and amend the use permit
lanagua~ for church re«arding r~Bidences. the ARB can .~et
at 8:00 aa and approvo tho project subjoct to the Zan in! Adminis
tastor's act1on_ and then that hearing can t~e place at 3;00 P.4
Thank yOll .for your consideration of these co_enta • .a: 1.ist of
attacheaents appears vn the following pa~e.
Sincerely,
~ .. ~.~ '-----
Herb Bcrock/ ARB
6~ ~lcrado AVPDue
Kay 12, 1993
List of Attachments
1. Before and after site use plans for church property~
2. palo }lto T!m~s. February 27, 1950, ~St. Mark's .embers
give trees to church".
3.
4.
6.
7.
July 30, 1992, l<tter troll William Y. 0",." to Curth Peterson.
Construction eqUipment perked in driplin~ of protected trees
on 8ubdiYision site.
July 30. 1992. fire department plan check, including code attachment (total 4 page.).
Lot ei.ensions for house and cottage.
-' R_v1sed .i~e plan showir.g separate. lot ~.r reSidences, relocated
chapel, and all parking (excep~ reSidence parking) accessed
froa Bam. driveway.
SITES,
H. rb Borock/ JJIlI
600 Colorado
May 12, 1993
0::
j.(j
Q..
3
0
V
SI""T£:: ~I C HuRcli
;.
(5.015 AC.;R.ES.) ~
C""o
I-PRo(>vS8) ~IJO~
'" S tT'CS
p~ 0 \'0 S'E])
I'rIJTOI\'\I'T I c: Pf<..O{'O$ 8) SIT£ ~I
L.CT M~"eR S \--rE: #< ~ P..€~" \~E:t>
('-.1. ~'4! 9~O) C \-\uP-CH
\4 HouSE:S
D:'
UI
( ~ . i 't S A c.I'.e-s) ~
3 c
V --
, ".
" "
" .
---. ~ --. ~\I..U 1.:'1"" 1" ....... St.M&~'s memb'e .. s
fED 27 '~I]
give trees to church
Parishioners of St. Mark'$lbleSS the trees was Gonducted by
Church on Colorado Ave. are Dr. Brown arter the service next . " , ,Iday , mak!ng good headway on their I ' . '. ' . ,. Besldf$ the rector, members of proJe~t to purchase 93 shade the landscaping committee are
and flowering fruit tref$ for the Schuyler G,oss, William Radford,
church grounds, according to Dr. A. S. B0ulware, Paul Brink, Evan
E. Tann~:-Br-o\vn , rcctc!',;-iF. Thomas. Don Richards, CaL
St. Mark's is ,In the vanguard L. D. Davl~, Col. Walter Gaspar,
, , . . . and Irwm Johnson of the city
0_ local ClV,lC grl)llPS Whi~~ are street deportment.
answering calls "by Mayor 1~·2.He!',
Gaspar and 'Governor Warren to' !.lrea~y, the entrance to the
help beautify. the ce;inmunlty byichapel lS graced b,~ ,two. IrlShl
plsnti.iJg trees on or "before yew tr£es. one on et,her ~lde of
March 7 Arbor Day. !th~ doo~. Camphor .'cco Ime the
, dnve",a., and the sacristy door
The ~ay Is observed all over ",ill one day be shaded by the
the natlO", although at a later Modesto ash tref$ planted betore
date elsewhere because of dlffer-It.
ences in clImate. It also has the 'To the left off,he chapel ,door
~upport of .thO: CalifornIa Arlx>r-are azaras and on the other Side,
iS~ ASSOCIatIon, members of aucubas. , Later, . roses will be
whl;h include Allan H .. Re!~, planted on the ·.fence marking
chaIrman of .the area beautlh-the lx>undary on,"the lett.
catIon commIttee of the ,Palo . An area Is to be set aside for a
Alto Chamber ot Commerc~. . B!blka! garden In tpe rear at the
Members of the (;lluFch are do-chapel and west 'of. the cloIstu.
nating one tree 'or more as a. gift The tree plimagr~~d upon also
or In memory of a frlenrt ,or rela-includes junipers, 'quince, rosea,
t!ve. Each of the tref$ Is given single white oleaptlers, and flow
an identity tag noting the spe-erlng peach, eraS, 'bechtel, and
elf$ and the name -:,f the donor. plum trees.' •
Men and women parlsh!oners It is not planned to plant
and their chUdren planted the frult-b~arlng trees because of
first trees II week ago under the the maintenance problems In
s~pervislbn-of a profess1onal gar-valved. As It Is, m"mbers of St.
dener. A special ceremony to Mark's have volunteered to keep
.. FO~ RE~i.. .FooI,c()~~E~T ... the church grounds In order .
. ------_.'-~~
i'.'
, -. ,
U r ... ~-, rr-, ~ r ,IT '7' ~ •
R E ~ \ S £ ~ ':J(~~l~ ~j l~~:l ~~Il
Joly 30, 1992
ll'. \, ~-I": \II ~,,' !,<,"jf, --r
I" I" j' 'A'o Al-'" I 1_'_'_'_ ~~ ~'~""",--"-'-'-'"'-l,
Mr, Cwt Pe!e""'''
'7-;)-lIP-;;U j 9;;J-SVB-3; 9;J-EIIj-/7
F.!)liiUuth Grt-tlp Palo Aho, Inc.
1616 North Sborlioe Blvd.
MouOlain V_, CA 94043-13!6
Dear Mr. Peterson,
Re: Saint Mark's Episcopa! Church property
Revised Aborisl" Repon peT Giay of Pale Allo , .. !f.
In accordaot.e with the COlltrad of Orsec: Design Associales ~ith your firm fo! Landscape
Architecl.um1 design.servK:es and lor recommendations of a certified aOOns! concerning existing trees
'n the pr<>pO&ed ""'identia: deveIopme., for the SainI MM. 's Episcopal CbUTCb pwperay ODd Ibe
pre:servaoon of the trees thereon. I;'CSp""...ctively. [ am attaching her-!to my aboris.t report. The report
is bawJ: on the CJcisung ;5itc and tree location plan for the property aod on the: proposed dc:vek1 pment
pJans for :single family homes an~ ror new chtorc:b-rc:lated. $tnJct~ (dated Iune 29, 1992).
M05t of the existing troea: are in locatioos re!a.tive to proposed development that 'Will anow th~rn to
be retained. However,a number of the tr'ee$ are unde$irable e orn3mental l1ees in. dose proximity
to lesidentLal aDd cburch structures.. Also, the age of the larger trees. and. neglect over the years has
degraded ..the value 0( many imfrviduaJ ~ mrnplcs. 0( such Iree:s are [he California pepp:r.
Cacary Island daie palm. SiberiaD elm, .00 m,'1Y of the: Cherry plum tr~; aU of wbich have
llumcrtlUS prob1ems, sud> as poor 0UtJCture, "'.ok and limb decay, poor growtb patterns due to
eompetition and CJVer .... bacfmg by adjat:ctlt trees and l\Ie2k brallch attachments due to poor pruning
9t&Ctioes 'O'ICr the ~.an. On the attached P..Immary of the c:xlsting tree5 a number of such undesirable
trees have been recommended Cor removal by virtue cl (he ha that they 5hould be co[ULderC'd a
poteo Iial risk I<J the proposed dew:lopment as well 10 !be as exisling buildings 00 Ihe properly_
The existing pzlm trees are: of particular <:o.aa:ro tclalive to tbeir value u ornamental trec:5 on Ibis
property. Unles:& they are clea,n~ r\l_~. ~!!': :.TI ~ f'rvr,di. jt;[PoveO acd fsoml t-raeicets pcal.:d from
the tnmb. and then regularly mamtained thereafter, they will harbor U;\S and pi&eC'ns and will
ronlieu.:: to be • litter problem. Most of the California pe?ptt trees 00 the property are quite old
aDd suffer from branch dic:bac:k and from decay in the trunk .aDd main limbs_ These peppers should
be consiriered as risk trc:e.s. unIess very carefuDy prutJ.ed tnd maintained over the coming years.
Sin<e ""'toy of the existing trees ODd shrubs are """ted around the perimeter of ~he properay Ihey
can be rctaiocd as pa":t 0{ lbe proposed landscaping. New plantings of more desirable ornamental
IlU species IIw! !be aboloe noted probkm trees, ohould be ronsidered for rep!acemenl of \rea being
ren!O"Od.
Pkase give tne. CJt) if you need any additional information.
William F. Owen
CertiIicd Aborist (CeIl. No. 209, )SA)
Em:l
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE· URBAN PLANNING· PARK & RECREATION PLANNING
•
245 OI!Imeni Street. San Francisco. CA &4'1 S {4 1:i) 668-0063 FaA (415) 666-0099
2620 "'-'QUSIine Or .• Suite 140, Sanla Clara. CA95054 (408)496·624.4 Fa): (408) 968·i21S
,,/ ;
\
•
.,<
Clrt OF PALO ALTO
DEPARTMEIIT OF PlAHNl~G AnD COMKUNITY ENVIRONMENT
TO: Building rns ection -Gail Sc~~'er
f" p par me ~ Frank Fia1a
epartment -Halardous Materials
iight & power -Donna Hilden
DATE: ~< J, /<11.L
tl~-!(1'-.2(..
PW Operations-Trees -Oave Sandag~
Polfce • Ken Gibson
APPLICATION NO: qJ -£1/1-17
Pubfic Works -Dave Hatson
Transportation -Carl Stoffel
Utilities -Scott Akin
Water-Gis-Wastewater -Jack Spence
Zon; ng -
FROM: Planning Department • ...
SUBJECT, 71~_~ ~
TYPE OF APPLICATION: @) ARB e0ESIGNJONE CHANGE HIE
USE PERlfIT VARIANCE PARCH HAP SUBOIVISI()'~
You" evaluition and' tonments regarding the proposed project Jr!!' requested.
Tne contRents may be Q~oted in a s.tiff report to the C:olTl'llission .nd Counc; 1_
Please do not .ark ~p tne plan. as it will be used by the Comm!ssion. Please
return thl!' plans and VQ(Jr conwnents to by . If
no coaaents i.re rf'ceived by !fli$ date. we will assume that tFie plans ..are
/, ;Jj,Wi·/~~t>v. 17(} -/,1) ee) .~ ~'~
~OHM£NTS~ ~.~ ~~ ~r~~, fl~.~-'-~ r~r·~~Q~<
~'ifn-< • ~ ~ ,.:...~~~ ~. ~~~~-~~"~ ,~ £M;(~(..."p:~''Y~/--~
.d~~.. • •
th-a.<.{ -(~hd..-¥~)...;.,... ~ ~_MI.
L. ~ r~ --..d~~.
Reviewed by: ;3 -N t...f... Oate: 7h () /tz..---
White Copy . Planning Department Copy (Return to Planning Department)
Yellow Copy -Return to Planning Department (Mailed to Applicant)
L) PinJ( COPJ. -.. Retained by depart-.ent rejpo_ndi.ng 1. r~~~ tr>-_~~
PlANFORlf ~ • I . ,,_ /: ;;, r lS/I/~,~ ~ -t-<-~~ <;>-aa<T'<""<u-<'
rA~$ ~ II '1 ih~0Y-F~ ~b-(~~f~'F
tp , nG
TO:
CITY Of PALO ALTO
'TMENT OF PlANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
BUild' ~n5pectlon -bail Schuler
Fire 0~yartment -Frank Fiaia
Fire Department -Hazardou~ Materials
lfght & Power -Donna Hilden P'. Opera.tions-Trees -Dave Sall;;:1age
Pol ice -Ken Glbson
Public Works -Dave Matson
Tr~~$port~~ion -Car~ Stoffel
Utilities -Scott Akin
Water-Gas-Wastewater -Jack Spen~~
Zoning -
DATE: ~
APPllCA HON NO:
3. /'J'1 z.
¢J--It'/'-:z.~
/J;; -C/~ -t7
FROM: Pl anning Department.. f,,:""" _ ')
SUBJECT: ~ &uLk-1-d~ fc,ffO ~_
. l.!) Ji-;-; -)
TYPE OF APPlICATIONL7_ ARB SITE & ~ ZONE CHANGE HIE
USE PERMIT VARIANCE PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION
Vcur evaluation and conments regardSng the proposed project are requested.
The cOIIlTIents lIIay be quoted in: a staff report to the COlmlission and Council.
Please do not mark. up the phn, as it will be used by the COI7lJ11ssion. Please
return the pl ins and your CCHI1l'Ients to by ______ . If
J no cOl1'lDE!nts are received ~11 this date, we wn j assume t:li'a't-the phns arE!
Gn~~~Pt.~ ~/ .r.L .
.,-_ CO!1M£rm: • • ~ ~ ,L It>? ;b '1 ~ ~ ~
7-£,..d-.~ ~ _ .7, ~A-/~ ~.t« I"'~ .4~ ; --i ~ ~-~ ~71--·.~. -.
3"-~X 8BJ( (" a/~;--dl ~ ~ I uU1 ~) .,. J ~~• .~ (~Ol.q-IO,,,t!/
'? ~~ ..---7' ~~
~"IS-~
'''. -~.~ ~_~_~-0-~'
~ t( 13C. /l.r" -
Reviewed by: Date:
White Copy -Planning Department C~py (Return to Pl.nning Department)
Yellow Copy -Return to Planning Department (Mailed to Applicant)
Pink Copy -Retained by department responding
PLAN FORM
LS/l/90
(b) stand4rds~ Fire-~xtlnguishing sy.:;t.ems shall comply
"dth the appropriate NFPA stan-1ards.
EXCEPTIONS.
1. Automatic tire-extinguishi~g syste.ms not covered
:t'Ii· the NF?A standards shall be approved and in:::.talled in
accordance ~'th the Uniform Building Code.
3. Deleted.
1.5.0t.170 Sub§.c;tions (b)S and (hi' added to Section
10 .. SC7 .~ Autom.tic lire Extingui,hing syst\3ms ~
Subsections {b}S and (b)6 are added to section 10.507 of
the Uniform Fire Code to read as follows:
IS (b} 5 In any b'.Jilding or group of buildings where, in
the judgment of the Fira Chief, such building or ?roup of build
i~s, due to size, height,. type of construct.ion, location on
property, contents, or occupancy classificat .. on 'Would exceed or
severely tax the capabilities of the locaol fire department. to
perform a reasonable level of rescue and firt suppression opera
tions. such buildings shall include, but not be limited to:
(aa) Al~ new buil.dinqs requiring 1,000 ;pm or
more fire flow. Required fire flow shall be ~etermined by using
the formula anlj proce.J:ures established in the FPB fire flo'W
worksheet, FPB-23~ (See 15.04~J70 for fire flow worksheet.)
The area ~ed in the fire flow ~or.mula shall be
the gross building area reqardless of area or occupancy seperatior.
walls.
50 ft. in height.
(bb) All new buildin9s mere than five stories or
(cc) All new buildinqs constructecl in the
hazardous fire area '''hazardous rire area-is defin"ed as, a.na.
includ:es, all property locatecl w'Ctst of Il,tei~tate 280). See UFC
Appendix rIA. NFPA 13-0 IShall be the-reference litandard tor
residential installaticd. For remodels se.e subsection (ee) b-=lo\i.
(ad) Existing buildings vhic--h have occupiable
square footage added to the gross square footaqe or ~hich have the
principal ocC\..pancy clas:;ification chanqed to a mQre hazardous
classification, shall have an autoillatic .fire sprinkler system
in&talled throughout the entire buildinq ~ Hazards related to
(.~cc·.Jpal"lcy classifications shall be determined by the Fire Chief
using the Palo Alt~ Fire Department Listing of Occupancies
According to Relative Hazards guideline FPB 24 (Sec. 15~04~37S) ~
13
, ,
, .
i
~
I
j
i
l ,
I
I
I ,
~ ,
I ,
j
r
!
,
(ee) When additions, ~lterations, or repairs
• .... !:t.i~.in any tW£I'1.ve {12}-l!!onth period ex~e"E;J. fifty perce.nt (50t) of
the value of an existing building or structur~, such pui ldiTlq shall
be lrIade to confor::l to the require17lents of SuDsection 10.507 (pi 5 'I.a.)
for new buildinss or structures. Value shall be determined from
the cost per squar~ foot table in the ~05t current Building Stan
~, published by the International Conference of Bu.ilding
Officials.
under Se ct i on
sprinklered..
I.f the buildinq addition req'.,lires sprinklers
~O.501(b)5(aa), the entire building shall be
(tf) If an aloltomatic fire sp .. :inkler system is not
required tor purposes other than this section, thQ area, b~i9ht or
story increases or the fire resistive s~stitutions which =ay have
been permi~ted in Chapter 5 of the UBC shall apply~
(gg) The F~.:."e. Chief may waive the lOOO-qptt. fire
flow provisiQn when copplied to b1.lildinqs housing only "R-) occu
pan.c.ies and open paJ'idng structures not located in the hatardous
t.!..re area.
(hh) Sprinklar systems shall be equipped ~ith a
bini~um two-way siamese Fire Oepartmen~ connection~ Connections
shall be located on a street front not less than three {3} teet or
more than four (4) teet above qrade ana shall pe equipped with an
appruved straightway check valve~ Locations sha~l be subject to
approval by the Fire Chief prior to any instal1ation~
E"XCE'PTION: Auto:=.atic sprinkler systelflS installea in
accordance with the NFPA .&tandards 13-0, and. 1.3-.R~ may have
a single 2: ~/2-inch connection with approved strai-ghtv;;sy
check valve ..
(ii) Any person, firm, cOlD.pany, ot' corporation
perfo:r1llinq servicinq .. s required by Title 19 of tlle calitornia
state Fire Marsbe)rs Rules and Regulations t on any fire protection
appliane~, sha~l affix a permanent label to the ris~r of ~e Fire
Department cO'm&cti:::on directly below the two-w~y siamese.. This
sticker or label shal.l :meet the requirements Of the California
state Fire Marshal's Offi~e.
(b)6 Life Safe~y Systems in R-J an~ R-i Occupancies.
Tbe Fire Chief may approve lite S8£ety designed
automatic fire sprinkler syst~ms for installation in R-3 and R-l
occupancies:, r,ot Eore than thr!!e (.3) stories or 35 feet in height.
COla) Materials: Lit .. safety automatic fire
sprinkler systeas may be installed using any materials listed for
such use by UL or other nationally recoqnized testing laboratory
including ~~terials made of plastic.
'?
·-• ll~rb Borock/ARB
600 colorado (92-ARll-178)
/IIay 12, '993
S$PARATE LOT Fan C~RGY AF~ SEXTON RESIDENCES: SUBDIVIDED OR NOT
NEW
'~~I1NI'l'
SI1'I3DnISIO
I
I LOt ANa ~ 9675 .~ ft
HOUS~ • 2550 sq !~
cotta~e aaximum •
900 sq !t +
zoe "'l tt c."~Nd
parl<ln~ --L.--L._ r-75
, 17 • 975 FEET
CHURCH USE
,
I
f II
Berb Berook/ARB ~
600 Colorado (~2-ARB~7b
May 12, 1993 '
..
--_ ..
',' ..
l.
2.
3.
4-
5.
5.
7.
8.
9 •
10.
11.
12 .
___ 1) •
v14.
15.
16.
17.
18
19.
20.
21.
22.
.23.
24
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3l.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
4l.
42.
43.
44-
45.
~6.
H.
48.
49.
50.
fREES
JUNE -AUGUST 1 9 9 2
SAVE Carob
REMOV,-Camphor
S;;'VE Camphor
S;" VE C.amphor
(not cou!".tec. ~
(not countE'd)
:;A.VE Camphor
(nc.t count ed)
SAVE Eucalyptus
S~Vt Whlte Alder
;
(l1ot counted)
51\'/'£ Whl te-birch
REMOVE ~ite Birch
SAVE White Birch
SAVE Camphor
REMOVE Camphor
SAVE Camphor
REMOVE Cherry Plum
SAVE Coast Redwooc
SAVE Amer. Sweet Gum
REMOVE Amer. 'sweet gum
SAVE Ar.er ~we~t qurn
REMOVF ~mer. ~weet gum
REMOVE Saucer magnolia
SAVE Hollywood juniper
SAVE Holly oak
SAVE Cherry plum
REMOVE Evergreen p~ar
REMOVE Carolina cherry
LATEST F'Lh~ ~ MAY 1993 ,
S
S
S
S
R
S
S
f-SMOl.rE C-arr.phur •• 113
RENC" .. 'E Carr.ph~r (not c-Cu!'lted j
S
S;'.\i~ Hollywo':)d Juniper, sidor;: door
S
S
S
S
SAVE Wh te Ald~r. # 12
S.D.VE ',,[n t ~ Alder. #l 12a
SA'\FE Wh teo Alder. II 13
REMOVE
REMOVE
REMOVE
R
REMOVE
REMOV£
R
REMOVE
R
~
R
R
R
R
S
S
S
REMOVE
REMOVE
R
RE.~OVE
R
R
S
S
REMOVE
REMOVE
R
R
P
R
. ,,'" ,4~. :;""./ ••.•. <~::;~;;<.
51 .
52.
53.
54-
55.
56.
57,
58.
59.
60.
61 .
62.
63.
64.
E5.
66.
67.
6R.
REMO'J:=: Ta .... hi\O,lhi
$.1\VE Holl)'"Wood jl.Jnipe-r
REMCVE Espa.liered pyn..l5
SA.vE Hol~y oak
REMOVE Da,' e Pa 1 rn
REM.OVE Date Falm, #111
REMOVE Da~~ Palm, ~110
(not count e 1. J
(not ~ount.E'C:)
(not. coun~ed)
(not counted'
REMOVE It 39 0.""1 CJrtg.list
'REMOVE tt 40 0;-' crig,11'St
(r.o~ counted)
(n(')~ counted)
'not count ... Q)
~
p
S
R
s
R
R tr 116
R
REMOVE Tar&ta
REMOVE Carol i na Cherry
REMOVE pink flesh aFpl~ tre~
REMOVE cld v~riet) pear tree
R
R
REMG,lE :, ilIon. ne-w list
RF.11.0VE # 112 or. ne .... 1 i st
R lar~e stump of tr€e recently cut
R '. (mem grdn. 22" 26" d~ams)
69. REMOVE ch .... n y, ;; 109 r:
;.
TOTAL TREES 55
TOTAL SAVE~ 27
TOTAL REMOVED 28
2, 1 replacemnt. tr eel', . 54
54 + 27 . 81 tree S
3:1 replacemnt tr ees . 82
82 + 27 . 109 trees
TOTAL TREES 69
TOTAL SFo:VE[' 23
TOTAL REMO\.'ED 46
2:1 replacemnt trees ~ 92
92 of 23 115 tetal t.tE"€5
3:1 repl~ce 135 (SEE EXHIEIT A)
136 of 2:3 :: 161 'rOt", 1, tree'S
In the ~ast few years several very large tree~ have been r~moved
due to frost damage~ drought. neglec~, and gen~ra] ~oor
condition. The front wall c·! t.he cl"'.urct. faCing Coloradc ,,"venue
h;:;.d 3 large t.rees. cne of which wa.s an exceptionally large and
attractive evergreen. Ewtra greenery or street tr~es would help
soften the ma.ssive fa.C2.dE-faCing Coiorad,) 1\venue.
The original tree count was inaccurat.e a~d many mo~e trees and
tall bushes di-sa.ppeared iiI t.he c.learcutti['g of the eas.t ~ide.
Note that in 1~50 the church plan~ed 93 trees on th€ church ~ite
at 600 Colorado' .1a.venue . ;"mong these were the eamphcl" trees a.nd
flC\'.l!'rir.g fruit tre'!"S. Most of these trees werp/~re -still en the
pr"perty. (EXHIS!r B)
All of th. old g~{geous camphor t~ees on the eastern sid~ ~f the
proper~y have been removed. The lb~t one which i5 much smaller
than the removed one5 l$ now sl4t~d fc~ removal. (EXHIBlT C)
The rea.son .for thi-s removal is be-:au5~ u:'! church is unwilling t.o
pro'llde the 10" lanuscape buffer that is ne"".essa.!"y to pr-otect the
adjacen~ neiqhbof"-s.
Th1s cam.phor tre-e is 6 fe~t from th~ prc.perty line ~"d is ~ell
within the original 10 foot landscape buff~~ that W5S dis~ussi2'd
with ~ancy Lytle and three representativ.s from H~over park
Nelghbol"hoiJd 1\$$ociation 0-. I\ugust .;. 1992. Not only is thE? last
re~aininq tree along a 275 foot length to b~ removEd. the buf!e~
is. to be further >:educed in Slze so that the acoustical wall,
curbs ~nd gutter can be consider~d Pdr~ of the landscaping,
This is unconscionable! There is plenty of rO';jm on this design
for the 10 foot buffer. However. the ~evls~d plan ptaces the
larg~st landscaping buffer O~ the west side of the driveway near
the ml?m.orial garden and chapel. whi,:h ha'Je plenty of grl?enery
already. The 15 foot landscape area on the west side (church
side) of the-drlveway could o:asily he reduced tc, pro .... itfe an
adequate buIfer adjacent to the wall.
It i~ impor~ant to rl2'merr..ber that ~he nE'ighbcr-s live w1t.h thE!'
noise and traffic from churc:h activities on a D}o.ILY ~ASIS
lncluding th~ fotlowing:
9-12 AA groups per w&ek
Church counseling activities (includinq on-call 24 hour
criSIS counseling as per testimony at city counc~l)
Friday Night Live whi~h generates enormous con0estio~ and
noise every Friday Night
Homeless Shelter in November
Urban Ministry Cloth9s Clo~et twice pe" w~ek
Educat;on activit;.es
The police record fo~ Midtown
Nights show several prob!ems.
affected the ac!jaceut ~eighbo~' i
628. 630, 632. and 63~ Colorado
were called.
and Colorado Avenue for Friday
Re~en~ly. two proble~s airectly
on the other side of the wall at
/I.venue. [n both cases the po] !.c~
It is CRUCIAL tha.t the 10 foot bt:ffer b;;o .restored to ~rovide a
peac~ful. neutral greerl zone, especiall} !ln~~ the~e is a~equ4te
space for the buffer', jr'"!;;':'w~y. parking and lan<:1scaping.
h,J,\J'O! cequested that the la.nds,ap... pla!"1. beef up the tree
pl~nt1nq on the eastC!t"n bOLmdar 4 using both evergreen a.nd
decid.uous t.ree mix. Shr-.J.bberyand trees need t.o be fast growing
tall va.rietieS to insulate the .sojaceO:lt neighbors from the ~aily
intrusion of church nOise and activity.
Because the new !ence is t~o feet clos~r to the aQj~cent
~p.1ghbors than t.he original fence. these neighbors have lost all
their shrubS a.nd tree-s. They have also lost their pl<'tnting ~trip
next to the wall in which to pla.nt trees or shrubs. Right now
because of flooding the church ca~tr~ctor$ have poured sand on
the nelghbors ~ide of the wall to prevent further flood da.mage.
" ,
..
Lastly, I notlce in the EIA (SEt £XHIBIT D) that the church has ~
dally usage of 4000 gallons. Even so, many of the plants wer~ in
poor-shape due to drc1uqht and neglect. I believe that it is
important that 4 conditlon of maintenance and replacement be
incl uded in thl s approvlLl. Thi s ha,; bo?e-n lack ing in prev lous
Mldtown projects in the last 18 years and the wo~ful ~tate of
lan:lscape in Midtown. a.nd espe-:ially at Colorado and HiddlE'fieI'd
attests to thi'S.