Item 4 - Annual Review of CUP 88-14 First Church of Christ Scientist
TO:
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
PROJECT
PLANNER:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION
~&GENDA REPORT -
CITY OF POW A Y
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L, Bowersox, City Man~ ~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~
\ "L
Carol M, Edmonds, Assistant Planner II t'\I'
August 25, 1992
Annual Review of Conditional Use Permit 88-14. First Church of
Christ Scientist. ADDlicant: The addition of a 6,760 square
foot sanctuary to an existing rel igious complex located at
16315 Pomerado Road in the RR-C zone.
APN: 275-510-12
The annual review of Conditional Use Permit 88-14 was initially considered by the
City Council during the public hearing of June 30, 1992. The Council continued
the item to the Council meeting dates of July 14, 1992 and August 25, 1992 to
allow time to resolve the various issues raised during the hearings by area
residents. A neighborhood meeting was held July 28, 1992 at the church.
Representatives from the church board, a few of the concerned neighbors and
Planning Services staff attended the meeting. The issues that were discussed
included:
1. The impacts of the church lights on area residences.
2. The erosion of the banks of an on-site drainage swale and the resultant
exposure of the footings of a fence located adjacent to the swale.
3. The lack of effectiveness of a recently installed wood fence to attenuate
church parking lot traffic noise and light impacts on adjacent residences.
4. Concern over the environmental impacts of the project and a question as to
whether an EIR should have been required.
ACTION:
'1, of 6
- ~ u ::. J :::t.
~
Agenda Report
August 25, 1992
Page 2
5. The proposed height of the new building.
6. Trash collection noise emanating from the church site.
7. Concern that the soil in an area that was required to have dense
landscaping may not be able to support plant life because of a reported
herbicide application.
8. The required on-site equestrian trail.
9. The projected time line for completion of project.
To resolve issues No.1 and 6 the church has agreed to take prompt action. The
lighting contractor will be contacted to install the low pressure sodium parking
lot lights immediately. This will lessen the amount of light emanating from the
site. In addition, the lights on the fascia of the church building which provide
a security safeguard will be re-directed, replaced, and/or have lower wattage
bulbs will be installed to decrease the amount of light that is emitted. The
church has also agreed to contact thei r trash haul er and have the temporary
construction and landscaping dumpster relocated to a site that is further away
from residences so that there will be less noise impacts.
The issue of the on-site equestrian trail is closely linked to how the drainage
swale will be repaired. The church proposes to repair and re-stabilize the
channe 1 as it is currently des i gned. They are presently worki ng wi th the
Engineering Services Department on the proposal (see Attachment 1). If the
Engineering Services Department approves the repair proposal, the required
equestrian trail will remain where it is currently sited along the northerly and
easterly property lines. If the proposal is determined not to be viable, staff
recommends that the fence that runs adjacent to the drainage swale be relocated
four feet south, the equestri an tra i 1 be relocated to Pomerado Road, and the
channel be repaired with a small piece of equipment. Both of the approaches to
repair the drainage swale will add notable costs to the project.
A concern voiced by some of the church's adjacent residential neighbors deals
wi th the 1 ack of effect i veness of the six foot high wood fence along the
northerly and easterly property line to attenuate and screen out parking lot
traffic light and noise. Dense foliage previously existed along the easterly
property line and provided an effective visual buffer between the church use and
adjacent res i dences. However, recent gradi ng for the project removed th is
existing vegetation thereby eliminating the landscape buffer. The conditions of
approval for the project requires the church to install a six foot high wood
fence and dense landscaping. A landscape plan has been approved for the project
and a minimum five foot landscape strip including bushes and trees is to be
planted along the easterly property line. This landscaping should provide an
additional buffer between the church and adjacent residential properties. Staff
recommends that the church also plant and maintain a vine on the northern side
2 of 6
,lUG .~ 5 1992 ITEM
Agenda Report
August 25, 1992
Page 3
of the fence located along the northerly property line to shield any parking lot
traffic lights that might shine through the gaps in the wood fence.
Concern had been voiced during the July 14, 1992 hearing as to whether the soil
on sect ions of the church property and the Saylor property coul d support
1 andscaping because of a reported past appl ication of a herbicide called "spi ke."
Documented information regarding the herbicide appl ication has not been presented
to staff. Currently various weeds and vegetation are growing in the area
reportedly affected by the herbicide, so it seems the soil is able to support
plant 1 i fe.
Another concern mentioned by adjacent neighbors is the question of whether an EIR
should have been prepared for the project. At the time of the initial project
revi ew, it was determi ned that the proposal woul d not have a signi fi cant
unmitigable impact on the environment, so a negative declaration with mitigation
measures was adopted by the City Council. The statute of limitations period for
review and appeal of the Council's action on the environmental assessment elapsed
without any appeals being filed.
The height of the proposed building is 32 feet which is comparable to the height
of the existing church buildings and compl ies with zoning standards. The
addition is to be sited on a pad which was raised to a level that is
approximately the same elevation as the existing church buildings.
During the neighborhood meeting a couple of the neighbors voiced concern over
nuisances such as dust and noise that have been experienced and are anticipated
as the church development progresses. They requested an estimated date for
completion of the project. The church advised that their goal is to have the
project completed by August 1993.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Copies of this report have been sent to First Church of Christ Scientist, Garry
Saylor, and Jim and Susan Farrar.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report and allow
Conditional Use Permit 88-14 to remain in effect. The project will continue to
be regulated by the conditions of approval listed in Resolution No. P-88-ID8;
however, with a possible minor modification to the site design. If it is
determined that the drainage swale as it is presently designed cannot be repaired
to meet City standards, it is recommended that the adjacent wood fence be
relocated four feet south and that the equestrian trail be relocated to the
church frontage along Pomerado Road.
JLB:RWQ:CME
Attachment:
1. Letter dated July 29, 1992 to church
3 of 6
,1ilG 25 1992 ITEM "+
CITY OF POWAY
\......-
IAN GOLDSMITH, Mayor
KATHY MCINTYRE. Deputy Mayor
DON HIGGINSON, Councilmember
B. TONY SNESKO. Councilmember
BOB EMERY. Councilmernber
July 29, 1992
Robert J. Mainiero
Mainiero, Smith, and Associates, Inc.
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, CA 92262-6784
Subject: First Church of Christ Scientist
We have received your proposal to repair the drainage channel and fence along
the northerly boundary of your property. While the method presented is
acceptable with the qualifications listed below, we still feel that the most
practical solution is relocation of the equestrian trail to Pomerado Road,
relocation of the fence four feet south, and channel repair with a small piece
of equipment. Manual removal and recompaction around and under the existing
fence footings and rocks to the specifications of the approved soils report
seems impractical at best. Removal and off-site disposal of rocks along the
easterly boundary only adds to the costs involved in implementing the
originally-approved plan.
If you chose to implement your proposed solution, it must meet the following
criteria which apply to your drawing (attached):
1. All disturbed and eroded material in the channel must be removed to
firm unyielding soil providing a suitable surface to compact against
as approved and certified by the soils engineer of record in
accordance with the approved geotechnical report and City grading
ordinance,
2. All soils material replaced shall be compacted to a mlnlmum of 90%
relative compaction and tested and certified by the soils engineer of
work,
3. The mat rex polyester geogrid must be embedded a mlnlmUm of 12"
vertical at both the top and bottom' of the slope to insure against
undermining,
4. You, as the engineer of work, must provide construction staking and
control to assure that an adequate channel cross-section and
alignment is maintained as originally designed and approved, and
5. The lower one-foot of the fence must be removed, as you noted, to
assure adequate overflow in the event of a 100-year flood.
ATTACHMENT 1
,.UG 25 1992 ITEM i.J.
4 of 6
,.,ailing Address
C.
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 789, Poway. California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600.695-1400--"
Robert J. Mainiero
July 29, 1992
Page 2
Before beginning these repairs, it is essential that a pre-construction
meeting be held on-site with your representative, a representative from
Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., Dennis Van Sickle, and our
inspector to define the methods of work and inspection thresholds.
Should you have any further questions, please contact me at 679-4272.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
Alan F. uler
Senior Civil Engineer
AFS/bw
Attachment
cc Keith Walker
Charles H. Christian
Dennis Van Sickle
Mark S. Weston
~l'lol..,fdmonds
Bud 01 i vei ra
G729-90
5 of 6
,1.UG '2 5 199(: ITEM
,
-.
Ir
W
~.....
Ou
..Jz
ww
>....
0....
~O
w
a::=-
W
c.!ll-c.!l
zWz
I-a::-
(J)UI-
---- x~g
-===::::1 }T~
c.!l
zz
-w
~o~E-------
,xg~ -------
w~.... ---------
;
"
:i
W
I-
U
<(
o...J
~-
00
U(J)
(J)
o w
w (J)
w::t:(J)
(J)I-<(
w-a::
a::~c.!l
1
~(J)
<(w
a::(J)
:;:)(J)
1-<(
<(0:
Zc.!l
,.
c.!l
Zo
~z
f-:;:)
~o
XO:
Wc.!l
...J
I.IJ
Z
Z
<C
::c
U
I.IJ
~
<C
Z
-
<C
a:::
C
~w
Z~
_U
. (J)
....0
C/)I-
- I-
xo
I.IJz
o
....
....
Z
w
:IE
w
>
o
a:::
a..
:IE
-
6 of 6
~jJG :2 5 1992. ITEM 4
Jl
.~
Jj
11
~I
,J;j
i~
fu
~
(/)
-
0:::<(
~-
OZ
a:::
l.L.O",
O!:!:cn
~-1'
0<(.....
a:::o~
::> ......
~>
0<(
~~
(/)0
a::Q..
-
l.L.
~
~
.
.i
.
.
o
- ~
o '
. .
:.3 ::
- -"
. . .
~. .
..;.
.' .
~:I: ~
. . -
. - .
..-;u
.; .-
...: :
. ;:
- i: ...
.:.:~
. ~-
. ~ .
.~.
,. RECEIVED , D1STRIBUTEDy~~4tr&~t_:iN
AUG 24 1992
. CITY OF f'aNAV
CITY CLERK'S OFFICI M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Poway City Council
FROM: The Executive Board
Christian Science Church, Poway-Rancho Bernardo
DATE: August 23, 1992
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-14
The Board and Membership of the Christian Science Church would
like to express its appreciation to the (ouncil for postponin~
the hearing regarding our permit to build a new edifice. This
allowed time for the Poway Planning Department to meet with
representatives of the Church, as well as interested neighbors.
before finalizing their recommendation to the Council. We would
especially like to thank Councilwoman Me Intyre for taking the
time to actually visit the site of the Church to bettRr under-
stand the problems that are being worked out.
The Board would like to request that four representatives from
our Church building program be allowed to speak for approximately
three minutes each at Tuesday's (August 25. 1992) Council
Meeting.
It is our desire to briefly present illformation to ~he COllncil
that will establish:
1 . )
The Church's response
Bowersox's report to the
(Please refer to Exhibit
to those items outlined in
Council dated AUGust 25. 1992.
A. )
Mr .
2.) The steps that hAve bef:!'n taken OVE'l r I'f~ D851 t.~."I'~ 'y'ear.,:. 1 'j
inSLJ14e Ul1T neighbvrs' nCt-'ds and al) rE:d~:,"'jnablE- ft'.!ql.le:=ts havE-'
been sought out. I istened and respond,,,d to (please refel tJ.
Exhibit B:
3.) That we have, complied with all and numerOL"'" requirements by
the Cit, of kOVJdY:3t. a (<lnsiderabll'? .ilK.l unt)udgt:'t~:-d e:xpen'~'.I'-
to the Church proje.ct (pl,:'acje' refer to exhibit C):
4.) Perhaps most importantly, that the locaLion and
specifications for the existing swale. bridal trail and
fence were put in after careful consideration and common
agl'eement of the e,ngi neer i n<;) and planni n9 ctaffs "t thE' C it y
of POINd!, th~; project I-;rchitects. and Gener31 \-(!ntr(~,-~t'-;l
(please refer to E~hibit [l), and. 'lit.houoh )n need nt'
refinement. this plan ramains the most viable. sate. and
desirable for the Church and neighborhood,
AUG 2 5 1992 ITEM 4
EXHIBIT A
RE: Response and update of action taken by The Church to items
of discussion outlined in James Bowersox's report dated
August 25, 1992 to the City Council.
1. Impact of Church lights on area residents.
At the recommendation of the Director of Planning Services,
all fascia lights [felt to be the most offensive by Mr. anrl
Mrs. Farrar) were turned into the building or removed. The
eight white-light bulbs on the pole light at the front of
the existing edifice were replaced with yellow light bulbs.
In addition, the three temporary parking lot lioht poles
have been replaced by permanent, lm"-sorlium ) amp poles.
2. Erosion of swale resulting in exposure of footings of fence.
Almost immediately following the completion and hydro-
seeding of the swale, Poway received unusually heavy rain.
which caused heavy erosion to the banks before any
protective ground cover could be established. With the
approval of the Engineering Services Department. the Church
has commenced with a plan to restore and improve the swale
(refer to Exhibit E). The completion of this task IS
estimated to be September 30, 1992.
3. Noise abatement not provided by newly installed fence.
Dense landscaping will be provided in addition to the fence
to help diminish any noise or automobile lighting.
4. Concern over the need for an EIR.
The Director of Planning Services estahlishpd that it harl
already been determined that an fIR was nut reouirerl fnr
this building project.
5. Concern over height of the new building.
It was established that the proposed plan for the new
edifice meets City requirements.
6. Concern over noise created by weekly trash collection.
The temporary dumpster which
relocated to an area which does
2
causerl the complaint
not impact any neighbor.
was
AUG 2 5 1992 ITEM 4
7. Concern that soil is incapable of supporting vege'Ation.
For as long as can be remembered the Church's primary form
of weed control has been quarterly manual effort~ made by
the membership, supplemented by the occasional use of
"ROUNDUP." Additionally, we believe it was demonstrated to
the representatives of the Planning Department at the on-
site meeting of July 28, that there is no lack of ability
for plants to grow on the Church grounds.
8. The suggestion that the equestrian trail be moved to the
front of the Church.
Once again, the location of the equestrian trail was
determined in March, 1989, by much input by the City
Engineers representing both the Citl of Poway and riding
interest groups (refer to Exhibit 81 the project architect
and builder, and was determined to be the most intelligent
placement. It is the Church's position that to require a
change of this magnitude (moving the existing fence over
three feet and widening the swale. and then constructing A
new bridal trail and fence across the front of the Church
property) would not only be so cost-prohibitive as to
endanger thE" very completion of the prnject. but" mort=>
importantly. it is undesirable for the following reasons:
a. It would be far less safe to have riders in such close
proximity to Pomerado Road than to the back and side of
the Church property, as well as requiring them to cross
in front of elderly drivers entering and exiting th~
parking lot in two places.
b. The Church has expended substantial effort anrl expense
to beautify its building and grounds upon the
completion of this project, and to be required to
completely efface th~t plan by placing a double fence.
and an unmaintained horse trail across the front of the
property, when a very suitabl~ trail has been provided
already, appears to be an unreasonable request.
c. with the approval of the plan to repair and improve the
swale as originally designed, moving the bridal trail
is not necessary.
9. The projected time line for completion of project.
The Church has opted to complete thi~ project in phases in
order to mainta.in a "pdy-aS-We-go" Ofoqr,:::un _ T'J date. :.11 i
plans, permits, fees, city improvement lequjrE:'ment~" parkin<:l
lot, site preparation and partial landscapinc has heen
completE~d and ~...)aid for at a cost of dPPfoxlnlEdelv 'f,S92.00r).
It is OUI' des\)"e to finish thl'. r](:,?;.;.t t:\.J.J'"' :::1nd findl ohase-:::: h.
August, 1993.
3
AUG 2 5 1992 ITEM 4
In conclusion, the Board would like the Citv Council to be aware
that on three different occasions the Church had everv reason to
believe it had completed all requirements bv the City of Powav
and satisfied all neighborhood requests, and this would in turn
allow for the release of most of its bonds posted with the City.
Although much of the money needed for the next phase (completion
of the pad and foundation) has been collected. successful funding
for the next step is dependent upon the anticipated return of the
bond money we are now eligible for, as well as the cessation of
new requirements imposed on the project. The numerous unbudgeted
changes have not only used up a substantial amount of revenue
raised for the building project, but have effected costlv delays.
abortion of schedules and negated bidding processes.
Three years ago when we began contacting and working with our
neighbors at each step of this program, we never regretted anv
legitimate delay to acquire a happier solution for all those
involved. We will of course attempt to continue to satisfy any
reasonable request made of us. We do feel, however. our Church
program reflects a viable intelligent plan, and should be allowed
to proceed without further delay.
Thank you for all the time and thoughtful consideration vou have
given to us and to our neighbors.
cc: J. Bowersox
R. Wright-Quastler
C. Edmonds
M. Weston
4
AUG 25 1992 ITEM 4
EXHIBIT B
The attached represents a partial chronology of steps, as
recorded in Building committee minutes, that were taken by the
Church to insure good relations be maintained between the Church
and surrounding neighbors throughout the building project in 1990
and 1991.
In 1992, representatives from the Church met with Mr. and Mrs.
Saylor and JoAnn Van Dyke and Carol Edmonds (of the POWBV
Planning Department) to discuss concerns of noise from the
parking lot and dust coming off the construction area into thp
Saylor's home.
The Church offered to rope off the end of the parking lot for a
few months until a proposed fence could be erected. and. at the
suggestion of the Planning representatives. agreed to spray the
building pad with a tacifier to prevent loose dirt from blowinq
into the atmosphere.
Mr. Saylor agreed that if these steps were taken he would be
satisfied. The parking lot area in question was roped off the
next day. Before a tacifier could be sprayed onto the pad. Mr.
Saylor sent a new letter of complaint to the city Council and
requested a hearing at the next City Council Meeting. The
Planning Department mandated that the fence across o\n eastern
boundary be built immediately. This was done within seven days
of that mandate, and the tacifier has since been applied to the
grounds.
5
AUG 2 5 1992 ITEM 4
Julv 12, 1990: James and Susan Farrar were contacted re-
garding a sewer easement. They stated they did not wish
an easement on their property.
August 16, 1990: Riohard Davis was contacted regarding an
easement. Although we did not get a positive no, Mr.
Davis seems to be leaning in that direction.
Solution: Then Deputy Mayor, Jan Goldsmith and City
Manager, Jim Bowersox met with George Rugge
and a solution was found.
September 18, 1990: Sent 28 "Goodwill Letters" along with a
sketch of our proposed new church.
November 1. 1990: The Farrar's requested that our lights
be lowered. This was done.
November 15, 1990: Mr. and Mrs. Gary Saylor visited our
meeting. Mr. Saylor wanted a tree removed at the corner
of his property. They also wanted to look at the draw-
ings and model of the new church. They are concerned
about their privacy when the parking lot is finished.
November 30, 1990: Sent letter to Mr. & Mrs. Saylor re-
garding removal of large sycamore tree. This would in-
volve dismantling part of their wood fence and some ex-
cavation at the base of the tree. Permission was granted
with the qualifications. He suggested that if the tree
was cut to firewood size, we could leave it on his
property. We did this for him.
October 20, 1990:
mission to grade
channel on their
Mr. & Mrs. Richard W. Davis granted
for the construction of a drainage
side of the common property line.
per-
Mr. & Mrs. Henry W. Bennett were contacted at this
time also. (See 1/5/91)
December 8, 1990: Mr. & Mrs. Richard W. Davis granted per-
mission to trim tree branches above the proposed sewer
ditch.
January 5. 1991: George Rugge and Frank Helmuth went to Mr.
Bennett's home to introduce themselves and to explaine
the need for our letter to be signed regarding the
drainage channel. His expressed attitude was olear from
the beginning - he would not sign. It was explained
that there would not be a concrete channel, but Buffalo
Grass as called for in the plan approved by the City.
This made no differenoe to him. His position was that
we should re-route the drainage channel by curving it 8
to 9 feet onto our side and than bring it baok into its
natural channel. He informed us that he was moving to
North Carolina.
AUG 2 5 1992 ITEM 4
Pase 2
January II, 1991: The City Was contacted and a meeting set
up with Alan Schuler, City Engineer; Mark Shagnun, City
Engineering Dept.; Glen Halmbacher our Civil Engineer
and Frank Halferty, Frank Helmuth and Georse Rusge from
the church. Two plans were proposed. (See 2/20/92)
January 23, 1991: Mr. & Mrs. James Farrar granted per-
mission to grade for the drainage channel.
January 15, 1991:
Church faxed
situation.
Dennis
a letter
(Several
Van Sickle, Owner's Agent for the
to Mr. Bennett explaining the
phone calls were made after this.)
February 5, 1991: Fax sent to Mr. Bennett showing Engineers
design of channel (swa1e) and notes showing existing
Church improvements as planned without improving his
side.
Mr. Van Sickle sent us the communications with Mr.
Bennett. The Civil Engineers design by the Building
Department and Planning Department will be implemented
as the church has made every effort to satisfy Mr.
Bennett.
February 10, 1991: Received fax from Mr. Bennett and his
main concern is the roots of his fruit trees.
February 20, 1991: Dennis Van Sickle faxed to Mr. Bennett
the Engineers suggestion regarding the channel and later
called him.
February 22, 1991: Dennis sent another fax to Mr. Bennett
regarding the channel. (3/14/91 The channel past the
Bennetts was approved by the City Engineers.) Mr. Bennett
than gave us his approval to proceed.
Au<<ust 5. 1992: Contacted people who are living in the
Bennett's house so they can be notified as to what we
are doins.
September 26, 1991: Temporary parking lights installed.
Received complaint from the Farrar's. We oal1ed BIF
Electric (rental company) to adjust them.
AUG 2 5 1992 ITEM 4
Swale: Cost undetermined
Horse Bridge
1st Fence
2nd Fence
Hydroseeding
Tacifier
Lights
Fence cutting
Consultant fee
TOTAL
EXIHIBlT C
$ 2,415.00
2,200.00
4,017.00
1,240.00
200.00
70.00
80.00
2,000.00
12,222.00
6
AUG 2 5 1992 naa 4
/'
o
DOMINY
,A:)(/J;'t:J; r
.L../
~ "" \ ;' - ';~-
!
,
'. ,
Q~
~Ob ~l-tOuSE OQ
SU'TE no
SA~ OIEGO CA
02'71
610 '58.Q440
CICIL
.I$OC"'I$
A'CMmen
CONFERENCE REPORT #8
DATE:
PROJECT:
./'-----~
arch 13, 1989
FIRS HURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST/
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
THOSE PRESENT:
COPIES TO:
Darrold representing The Vladic Property
Dan Cannon, City of Poway Recreation Dept.
Mary Sherperson, City Volunteer
Frank Halferty, First Church of Christ Scientist
Paul Bissinelle, St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church
Bill Cecil, Dominy Cecil Associates Architects
Those present
Tim Golba, Dominy Cecil Associates Architects
Mark Nitkey, Dominy Cecil Associates Architects
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
IIEM
To discuss alternate bridle trail location.
ACTION
8.1 The City recognizes the difficulty in trying to locate the bridle trail to
the west side of SI. Barlholomews' property, and suggests that the trail
be relocated to the east properly lines of both the Christ Scientist
Church and St. Barlholomew's.
8.2 According to Dan. the City already holds easement rights around the
property line of SI. Barlholomew's on all sides.
8.3
Christ Scientist Bridle Trail'
In lieu of the bridle trail along Pomerado Road, it was suggested that
the bridle trail emerge from the easement on the nOrlh property line,
turn east along the drainage swale to the east property line, then in a
southerly directio~IOng the properly line to the SI. Barlholomew's
Church properly. On the nOrlh properly line. it appeared that the soil
was a loose. allUVia material which may not be suitable for ~ horses
and new material would have 10 be imoorled, in that location. On the
east properly lines there were a few areas or rock outcroppi s which
the easement would have to route around. The material there appeared
to be suitable for horse traffic. ',. No fences would be required on the
Christ Scientist Church properly.'
J
~)
---
(ir
- .'
~.. ") Yr
/.}...-<.
AUG 2 5 1991 ITEM 4
.~ j}A")
mM ~(
~ Bartholomew's ChurchY
8,4 It was suggested that the Bridle Trail move along the east property line
to the higher elevations, at which time it would make a gradual change
in southerly direction to a point at the south property line. At the
construction site of a new home on the east property line, the grade
differential seemed too great to allow for an unfenced portion of the
bridle trail and it was suggested that, at this location, a fence be
installed, Just beyond this point in a southerly direction is a large
outcropping where the bridle trail would have to traverse around to
avoid the rock outcropping,
The church may use the upper portion of the property for future uses
and has requested that, at Ihat lime at the church's discretion, the bridle
trail be relocat~d further to the east, 10 the property line. 'j he City has
suggested that this may be possible, providing mitigating measures at the
property line be observed to lessen the bridle trail's impact on the
neigh bors,
8,5
8,6
8,7
WHC:mad
'.
ACTION
On the Vladic property it was suggested that the bridle trail follow
close to-the existing cut road near the large rock outcropping,
approximately I SO feet east of the Parish Hall, and follow this course
in a southwesterly direction until it meets up with the bridle trail on
Pomerado Road.
Mary will do a suggested map of the area for review by all parties, City
L Sll~ HIp 11-1117 rlf~jlv W~ s;c;v~ {/) A LI!1'il/e ~ C'W"~
Iril~ Ci IV)
~"V/~Y teNt.. ~ II~OIl,hi!""',
~ .f.{C /,c ~ (J~ 61>7
(' '.1 "-.,u,, ,,'......,C i</tW J""'~T'S'
,)<<'1'"
J,',wA: QC 7lI,&t;e """.<.f IYKT).
,r,(,,/6/tVU...es
AUG 2 5 199~ ITEM 4