SAINT MATTHEW SCHOOL & PARISH

Transcription

1 SAINT MATTHEW SCHOOL & PARISH Master Plan with Use Limitations and Traffic & Parking Management Plan School Gymnasium Project PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL JANUARY 7, 2013

2 SAINT MATTHEW SCHOOL & PARISH Master Plan with Use Limitations and Traffic & Parking Management Plan School Gymnasium Project Table of Contents I. Introduction a. Project Description & Introductory Memo b. Comparison of 2009 vs Submittal c. Responses to the June 2009 Staff Report Alternative Actions (Item 1) d. Historical Review of existing Auditorium Building e. Analysis of the 1 vs. 2 Building Scenarios II. Proposed Master Plan III. Proposed Use Limitations IV. Facility Descriptions & Uses V. Environmental Analysis a. Arborists Report b. Tree Evaluation Schedule c. Geotechnical Letter d. Noise Assessment Letter e. Drainage Report VI. Parking & Traffic Management Plan a. Parking Plan 356 b. Traffic and Parking Management Plan Memo, prepared by Parisi & Associates c. Traffic & Parking Management Plan, prepared by Parisi & Associates d. Paths from Parking Lots to New Gymnasium VII. Planning Application (PA 1 & PA 2) a. LEED Checklist b. Water Efficiency Letter c. Proof of Ownership d. Hazardous Materials & Air Quality Checklist

3 Cascade Consulting 240 Cascade Drive Phone / FAX Mill Valley, CA Brian@CascadeCapitalLLC.com June, 2011 Project Description & Introductory Memo To: City of San Mateo, Planning Commission From: Brian Swartz, Cascade Consulting Re: Saint Matthew s Parish and School, Planning Application Submittal Saint Matthews is proposing a Master Plan with Use Limitations and Traffic & Parking Management Plan, a School Gymnasium and an additional 108 parking spaces for a total of 306 parking spaces. The newly proposed building is proposed to be approximately 11,683 square feet. This is approximately 1,378 square or 10.55% less than the previous submittal due to the deletion of the two meeting rooms. The only programmatic room in the proposed new building will be for the existing before and after school care program. Nothing in this application creates any new or more intense uses at Saint Matthews. This submittal also includes the following proposed documents: * Comparison of 2009 vs Submittal * Responses to 2009 Staff Alternative Actions * Master Plan * Use Limitations * Environmental Review * Traffic & Parking Management Plan * Proposed Findings * Owner Proposed Conditions of Approval Saint Matthews has been working since June of last year to respond to the input it received from the Planning Commission, the Planning staff and the community. This Application includes responses (See Section 1c) to the issues raised in the June 2009 staff report under Alternative Actions Item 1 and via the 2010 Pre- Application process including the July, 2010 Planning Commission, Study Session. This includes the following: A. Development of a Master Plan which can be codified into an Overlay Zone in accordance with the City s Municipal Code Section (Section 2) B. Working with neighborhood groups to develop acceptable criteria for the regulation of onsite activities, including special events. (Section 3) C. Provision of onsite parking that, in conjunction with the Use Limitations (Section 3), meets the minimum parking requirements for the new building. (Section 6) D. Evaluation of the use, expansion and demolition of the existing auditorium building. This included consideration of a small addition to the existing auditorium building instead of a new building. (Section 1c and 1d) PAGE 1

4 E. Determination of how Saint Matthews can better utilize existing buildings so less new square footage is required to be constructed. (Section 2) F. Redesign of the building in response to prior comments by the City s design consultant, staff, and the Planning Commission G. Preparation of a Traffic & Parking Management Plan (Section 6) The provisions of the Master Plan and Use Limitations, the Traffic and Parking Management Plan and the Parking Improvement Plan specifically detail how Saint Matthew will meet the City s parking requirements. A Civil Engineer, in consultation with the Traffic/Parking Engineer and Landscape Architect, prepared this Parking Plan. Their work is consistent with and/or in excess of the recommendations of the Hexagon Report. These documents represent a distinct and substantive change from Saint Matthew s previous submittal. In total, these documents will significantly improve upon the existing parking conditions at Saint Matthew and the neighborhoods that surround it. There is nothing in any of these documents that creates any new or more intense uses at Saint Matthew. The following is a list of the new and key provisions within these documents: 1. The current proposal is for a School Gymnasium as documented within the Master Plan and Use Limitations. The previous submittal was for a Community Center. 2. The allowable types and level of usage at Saint Matthews is established via the Master Plan and Use Limitations and will be codified through an Overlay Zone per the City s Municipal Code. 3. A Use Limitation stating that Saint Matthew s shall not use the existing Auditorium nor the proposed School Gymnasium one half hour before or after its regularly scheduled church masses on Saturday evenings or on Sundays until after 1:30pm except as needed in preparation for and in conjunction with the masses. Given the current regularly scheduled Saturday Mass times of 5:00 and 7:00pm, this provision means that St. Matthews will use neither the Auditorium nor the new School Gymnasium between 5:00-8:30pm on Saturdays and until after 1;30pm on Sundays. This is a critical provision that eliminates the potential for the Church, Auditorium and new School Gymnasium to be used simultaneously during peak Church building usage, except as provided for in the Major Events provision of the Use Limitations in Section 3 of this submittal. 4. Use Limitations prohibiting the use of the School Gymnasium or Auditorium during the 11 major masses during the year except as needed in preparation for or in conjunction with the masses. This provision has been added to further eliminate the potential for simultaneous uses of the Auditorium and School Gymnasium during other, non-regularly scheduled Saturday or Sunday Mass times in which the Church building is used to a significant degree. 5. A Use Limitation with stringent requirements for all Major and Minor events designed to mitigate any impacts, on the surrounding neighborhoods, of these events to less than significant. This includes provisions for weddings and funerals. PAGE 2

5 6. The addition of 108 parking spaces to the existing 198 parking spaces for a total of 306 parking spaces. The Hexagon Report documented a peak parking requirement of 273 parking spaces, assuming the above stated Use Limitations. (Hexagon Report Updated June 8, 2010 Recommendation #9) 7. A comprehensive Traffic and Parking Management Plan for all activities of the school and parish. 8. Parking and traffic improvements identified in the Parking and Traffic Management Plan (including the creation of 108 new onsite parking spaces) and the Hexagon Traffic Report as mitigation for the proposed school gymnasium project will be constructed and be operational as the Phase I implementation of the St. Mathew s Master Plan; prior to issuance of any building permits for the school gymnasium (Phase II). 9. A Use Limitation for the proposed School Gymnasium limiting it to athletic events related solely to Saint Matthew School. Athletic events related solely to Saint Matthews school means games and practices that a Saint Matthew s student is participating in. This year s athletic schedules are attached. This includes provisions prohibiting any competitive games outside the school s existing athletic programs and prohibiting the rental of the School Gymnasium or Auditorium to outside organizations. 10. The aesthetics of the project have been carefully considered by Saint Matthews, its architect and are responsive to the input of City s design review consultant, the Planning Commission and the community. 11. The proposed new gymnasium s current design fits well in the context of the other parish buildings. To be complimentary to the existing structures similar colors and building materials are used throughout the proposed new gymnasium. The proposed building shape is similar to the existing Auditorium form, which is directly adjacent. The east and west ends of the new gymnasium are dropped by approximately ten feet to help reduce the overall mass of the building. 12. The deletion of two of the Meeting Rooms proposed in the previous plan which reduces the square footage of the new building by [1,378] sq feet or an approximately 10.55% reduction. The only programmatic room in the proposed new building will be for the existing before and after school care program. 13. Use Limitations specifically identified for each of the buildings on the Saint Matthew property. This includes allowed types and hours of use as well as the maximum numbers of students and employees. 14. A requirement that Saint Matthew pay for a City of San Mateo Parking Enforcement Officer to patrol the area around Saint Matthew during Special Events to determine potential violations of conditions of the parking and traffic requirements of the Special Events/Use Permit and to enforce the City Parking code on neighboring streets. PAGE 3

6 15. Similar provisions as proposed in the previous submittal have been included for a Facility Use Master Calendar and a Parking Traffic Advisory Committee. 16. Proposed Findings and Conditions of Approval (Section 7) documenting that the project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community and that the project conforms with the City s General Plan. We appreciate the City s and the neighbor s input in developing this Application. Please don t hesitate calling Brian Swartz at (415) or ing him at brian@cascadecapitalllc.com with any comments or if you need any additional information. Thank you. PAGE 4

7 San Matthew's - Comparison of 2009 versus 2011 Planning Applications Item 2009 Application 2011 Application Comments 1 Proposed Building Community Center School Gymnasium Type and intensity of use to be codified 2 Master Plan None Comprehensive Master Plan To be codified via City Overlay Zone 3 Use Limitations None Included in submittal Peak concurrent uses prohibited 4 Parking 56 added/254 total 108 added / 306 new total Total exceeds peak parking demand 5 Hours of operations No limits Restricted per Use Limitations To Be Codified via City Overlay Zone 6 Athletic Uses No limits Solely Saint Matthews athletics Rental to outside organizations prohibited 7 Major Events No limits 6 a year beyond the religious gatherings in the ULs Individual Special Use Permits required 8 Number of students & employees No limits Restricted per the Use Limitations To be codified via City Overlay Zone 9 Building size 13,061 11,683 Meeting rooms eliminated 10 LEED Rating None LEED Silver None 11 Traffic/Parking Engineer Analysis None Improved Existing Conditions All Hexagon recommendations addressed 12 Traffic & Parking Management Plan None Comprehensive Plan Addresses all uses at Saint Matthews 13 Phasing None Phase 1 - Pkg Improvements/Phase 2 - School Gym No School Gymnasium until Phase 1 is Completed 14 Design As submitted Revised per City's Design Consultant comments Compliments Parish buildings & decreases mass * Please contact Brian Swartz at either Brian@CascadeCapitalLLC.com or with any questions or comments.

8 Cascade Consulting 240 Cascade Drive Phone / FAX Mill Valley, CA Brian@CascadeCapitalLLC.com Saint Matthews School Gymnasium Project City of San Mateo Planning Application Responses to the June 2009 Staff Report, Alternative Actions Item 1 A. Development of a Master Plan/Overlay Zone. Please see Section 2 of this submittal, Saint Matthews Master Plan. In accordance with the City s Municipal Code Section this will be the basis for the establishment of an Overlay Zone by the City to govern the growth and use of Saint Matthews for the next 25 years. B. Develop acceptable language for the regulation of on-site activities, including special events. Section 3 - Saint Matthews Use Limitations, Section 4 - Saint Matthew s Facilities Descriptions & Uses and Section 6 Traffic & Parking Management Plan C. Provision of onsite parking that meets the minimum parking requirements for the new building. Section 6, Traffic & Parking Management Plan and the Parking Improvement Plan within the submitted Planning Application Plan Set. D. Evaluated the use, expansion and demolition of the existing auditorium building (1c and 1d). Section 1c and 1d of this submittal is a summary of the seven elements that went into analyzing the issue of demolishing the current auditorium and building a new multi-purpose building or expanding it into a multi-purpose purpose building (1 building scenario) versus maintaining the current auditorium building while primarily upgrading the audio/visual and mechanical portions of it and building the new school gymnasium building (2 building scenario). This analysis assessed the following factors of each scenario: programmatic, operational, parking, adherence to use limitations, FAR, historical (Section 1c and 1d), and cost implications. The analysis lead Saint Matthew to conclude that the 2 building scenario was the only viable solution. Saint Matthews also considered a small addition to the existing auditorium building instead of a new building. This was found not to be viable due to the very significant retrofit needed to achieve the objectives of a new School Gymnasium and the structural limitations of the existing building. PAGE 1

9 E. Determine how Saint Matthews can better utilize existing buildings so less new square footage is required to be constructed. Saint Matthews studied how the Parish Center/Administration Building could best utilize the space within it and the administrative portion of the Rectory. It was found that the potentially available space was neither big enough nor properly located to meet the needs of the existing after school care program. The after school care program requires approximately 900 square feet whereas, the available administrative space in the Rectory is only approximately 500 square. The after school care program also would be an incompatible use for both of these buildings, due to the noise that this program generates. There is potential however, to use these available spaces as meeting space for existing programs. It is for the above reasons that the meeting space was eliminated from the School Gymnasium building for a reduction of 1378 square feet from the previous proposal. Saint Matthews is only proposing the inclusion of a room for the after school program in the currently being proposed School Gymnasium building. Flexibility has been built into the Master Plan for the above described future uses within the Rectory and the Parish Center/Administration Building. This is detailed in the Master Plan (See Section 2). PAGE 2

10 PRESERVATION A R C H I T E C T U R E February 22, 2010 St. Matthew Catholic Church 1 Notre Dame Avenue San Mateo, CA Attn: Brian Swartz Brian: Here s are my historic architectural observations in response to your inquiry about the St. Matthew School s Auditorium. The St. Matthew School (SMS) of San Mateo originated in 1931 on the site of the former residential estate of Charles W. Clark, first occupying the former Clark residence, thereafter adding proper school buildings to the property. The first set, an auditorium and classroom building, were constructed in In 1938, another classroom building was added, followed by additional classrooms in 1948, all the while retaining the original residence, presumably for administration purposes. That former residence was removed and replaced in 1953 by a convent, which is today the Parish House and administration building. Lastly and most recently, the St. Matthew Catholic Church (SMCC) was constructed on the site in 1966, rounding out the St. Matthew Parish complex as it stands today. There is, to date, no identification of the SMS Auditorium building or of any of the buildings of the SMS or SMCC as an historic or potentially historic resource, and there is no evidence of any motion in that direction. The SMCC did not originate on this property, but was housed in two previous church buildings, the first dating to the 1860s and the second to the late-1800s, both located in downtown San Mateo. Its second home was utilized until their move to the current church building on the subject site. In 1982, the second SMCC was demolished. The 1966 SMCC is documented in a book about its creation, and which acknowledges some information about the history of the institution. However, but for the general information noted above, apparently little about the SMS property and buildings has been recorded. There is, at this juncture, no known architect or builders of the original SMS buildings, and no original documentation about the SMS has been located. So the historical evidence about the SMS is scant. The 1936 SMS Auditorium building stands at the center of the overall property and facing east to El Camino Real, with a secondary, internal frontage to the south. The Auditorium is a building of simple nobility. Its overall form and characteristics distinguish it as an auditorium structure of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style. This style was an important one for civic and school buildings of its period and locale. It is also, apparently, an all-concrete building, so given its timeframe has the potential to be of good quality construction. On the basis of its age and of its being the oldest structure of St. Matthew Catholic Parish in San Mateo, the Auditorium building appears to have potential historical importance. Its architectural style and character, while modest, reinforce its potential importance (as does the further assumption that it is of construction worthy of retention). The Auditorium building is not a freestanding structure, but is partially incorporated into associated th Street #302 Oakland mhulbert@earthlink.net

11 SMS buildings of the 1930s and 40s. In this respect, despite its relative scale and prominence, it is difficult to isolate the Auditorium for the purposes of individual identification. Since it is part of a larger grouping, it has limited individual recognition. Moreover, the overall setting of the original SMS buildings has been compromised, beginning with the Auditorium s placement and façade on El Camino Real. It can easily be assumed that the Auditorium s façade once had a more gracious relationship to its frontage. Today, its presence on El Camino Real is diminished both by the intensity of that roadway and by the character of the perimeter of the church property, which is strictly and somewhat unpleasantly bound by undistinguished masonry walls. (In fact, for example, a fenced, central trash area adjoins the Auditorium building directly along the El Camino Real frontage.) The issue of the importance of context extends to the original SMS group of buildings. Based on extant conditions, with areas of the site shared by these buildings dominated by paved drives and parking areas, it is very hard to imagine what the original site would have been like upon the school s completion in the 1940s. The current site and setting provide no clear evidence of an original planning concept. Given that it was a school, there were undoubtedly open areas of outdoor use. Today, such open and possibly landscaped areas are not identifiable, with the exception of the open landscapes to the north of the Auditorium. Presumably, when the new SMCC was added to the site, landscape and site patterns were significantly affected. As a result, while the original school complex stands, the original, physical setting and context changed to the extent that the site and setting are merely circumstantial, thus compromising the overall character of the property and of its consideration as a potential historic resource. On first glance, the Auditorium building and, by extension, the adjoining school buildings appear to have potential historical significance. Yet, upon further consideration, potential significance appears somewhat compromised by changes to the immediate setting and context. Current considerations lie in the balance between these two perspectives. Nonetheless, I must conclude that the Auditorium building has historical potential, as it is the oldest structure of the SMS and SMCC, and as it is an apparently good quality Spanish Colonial Revival school building. And yet, even if its potential significance is confirmed and formalized, adding to this structure is possible. There are no standards of historic preservation practice that prohibit adding to an historic structure or property. Even highly significant properties such as National Historic Landmarks have been added to. The more relevant question is what constitutes an appropriate addition to an historic building and/or property. A baseline consideration is that building additions to historic resources should not adversely impact any identified basis for significance. In this instance, the building s primary and secondary facades are obviously its most important architectural characteristics, whereas its north façade is relatively undistinguished. This basic premise would suggest that a building addition to the north would be the more appropriate (also presuming that that portion of the property does not constitute any kind of a significant piece or pattern of landscape). Likewise, the Auditorium s west facing exterior also does not constitute an area of primary significance, notwithstanding that there are of course existing buildings that adjoin the Auditorium to the west, one of which was also an original structure to the 1930s SMS. However, the other building was a convent added in the 1950s. From an historic resources perspective, it can be suggested that the original grouping of SMS buildings, with the Auditorium building front and center, are the more historically interesting and relevant structures, and that the convent is of lesser importance. On that basis, preservation priorities further suggest that the current location of the Parish House could be an appropriate site for a building addition to the SMS Auditorium. ST. MATTHEW SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MHPA EVAL P2

12 While understanding that there are pros and cons to possible building additions and their respective sites and effects, the point is that additions to historic buildings are acceptable if appropriately planned and designed with specific respect to the historic resource. On the other hand specific to the question of whether the Auditorium building may be removed the answer at present is also a conditional yes. At present, there are simply no specific prohibitions against any proposal to do so, as the structure has not been identified as a potential historic resource at any jurisdictional level local, state or national. Nor, in the course of the recent process proposing to add a new SMS building does it appear that any outside suggestion was raised about historical potential. So it seems that there is a possibility of removing this or another structure from the campus (while also understanding that a proposal to do so may trigger consideration of whether the proposed demolition has any historic resource consequences). It may also be demonstrated that removal of a structure would have several overriding benefits, including mitigating density of the built environment, retention of open space, as well as the possibility of beneficially resolving the site plan. Such planning consideration is not entirely separate from the historic resources issue. Still, given the relative prominence of the Auditorium building, the question of building removal should also be balanced by consideration of buildings other than the Auditorium. Signed: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect ST. MATTHEW SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MHPA EVAL P3

13 Cascade Consulting 240 Cascade Drive Phone / FAX Mill Valley, CA Brian@CascadeCapitalLLC.com Summary of Analysis of the 1 vs 2 Building Scenarios Saint Matthews School Gymnasium Project City of San Mateo Pre-Application In accordance with the June 2009 staff report under Alternative Actions Saint Matthews evaluated the use, expansion and demolition of the existing Auditorium building. This included consideration of a small addition to the existing auditorium building instead of a new building. The following is a summary of that analysis. 1. Parking The potential parking requirements/needs of the 2 building scenario would be less than the 1 building scenario. Please see Attachment 6 which addresses this issue in more detail. 2. Adherence to Use Limitations The adherence to Use Limitations would be easier/more straight forward with the 2 building scenario. This is due to the fact that each of the buildings within 2 building scenario are smaller than the one building within the 1 building scenario enabling a more controlled segregation of uses. 3. FAR The project site is approximately 310,400 square feet with an existing floor area of 85,841 for a current FAR of 28%. The two building scenario would create an approximate FAR of 32% with the FAR for the 1 building scenario being approximately 30%. In that the project is now going to be processed via a Master Plan/Overlay Zone it is pertinent to note that the FAR for Serra High s Overlay Zone is 37%. 4. School & Church programs The School Gymnasium is solely for the use of school athletics while the auditorium is used by both the school and church. The 1 building scenario would not work because it cannot accommodate the range of programmatic needs of both the church and the school. The 2 building scenario allows for the flexibility in scheduling that is required of the church and the school. While the School Gymnasium submittal is not proposing any intensification of use for neither the church nor the school, the 1 building scenario would in part defeat the purpose of the project. 5. Historical The Historical Analysis, Attachment 8, details the findings of Historical Architect, Mark Hulbert from Preservation Architecture. 6. Cost The 2 building scenario is significantly less costly than the 1 building scenario. The additional cost of the 1 building scenario would be in excess of $2,275,000, not including site prep, soft, mechanical and other costs. The 1 building scenario would be at least 6,500 square feet more new construction than the 2 building scenario (Estimated $350 per square foot for building construction x 6,500 =$2,275,000).