city of vacaville ron rowlett dilenna harris
TRANSCRIPT
Lagoon Valley Self Storage - Outstanding Items (File No.
18-263)VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95688-6908
VIA EMAIL January 11, 2019 Community Development Department Planning Division Mr. Ron Smith Praxis Properties, LLC. 5701 Lonetree Boulevard, Suite 102 Rocklin, CA 95765 [email protected] SUBJECT: LAGOON VALLEY SELF STORAGE – OUTSTANDING SUBMITTAL ITEMS
5920 Lagoon Valley Road (APN 0127-040-140) Environmental Review and Design Review (File No. 18-263)
Dear Ron: Thank you for resubmitting the Lagoon Valley Self Storage application. Since our last meeting on December 13, 2018, the Project Review Committee (PRC) has had a chance to review the resubmittal package. The resubmittal provided much of the requested information from our initial letter. Below, you’ll find PRC’s comments regarding other remaining items:
OUTSTANDING SUBMITTAL ITEMS
PLANNING
1. REQUIRED FINDINGS – The resubmittal did not include an item-by-item response to the required findings for Design Review and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please update the project description to include responses to each required finding. The required findings for Mitigated Negative Declarations and Design Reviews are attached (Attachment 1).
2. TREE REMOVAL – The project proposal includes a request to remove several mature Oak trees. Please update the project description to describe: (a) the number of trees that require removal; (b) the reasons why the project cannot be designed around these trees; and (c) proposed mitigation for the trees proposed for removal.
3. FLOOR AREA RATIO – The project proposal includes a request to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.30 FAR to 0.40 FAR. The requested exception must be supported by the findings identified in Section 14.09.084.030.A (Floor Area Ratio) of the Land Use and Development Code. Please update the project description to include responses to each required finding (Attachment 1). Staff has not yet determined whether it can support the requested exception. As noted in the “courtesy design comments” below, this exception may not be required if the project is redesigned to meet certain General Plan policies.
RON ROWLETT DILENNA HARRIS
4. SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES – The response letter states the utility analyses are still being prepared (water tank size; fire flow requirements; design of the proposed septic system, including location of a reserve drain field). Please note, staff cannot move forward with the environmental analysis of the project until we receive and review these studies. These studies would help staff determine whether or not the project will have a significant impact to the environment. If the project will have a significant impact to the environment that cannot be mitigated, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project.
FIRE
5. BOAT PARKING – The project description describes boat parking for 18 boats. Please update the site plan to show the exact location for all boat parking.
6. BUILDING B – The site plan shows parking stalls under building B. Fire is concerned with anything parked in these areas because of the placement of fire hydrants in those same areas. Please confirm the types of vehicles that will be parked in these stalls.
7. FIRE FLOW – Provide information on what the fire flow will be for the location. Provide information on the tank and how the fire flow, tank and pump house complies with the requirements of the California Fire Code (CFC) and National Fire Protection Association Standards (NFPA). Sheet C3 currently does not show the proposed fire water line size.
8. FIRE HYDRANTS – Existing fire hydrant locations are not approved as currently shown on plans. Fire has concerns about how close they are to the buildings and hose lays to buildings based on the proposed locations of the fire hydrants. Please contact Jill Childers at (707) 449-5482 to identify better locations for the fire hydrants.
9. SHEET C3 – Sheet C-3 currently states buildings are not proposed to be sprinkled. Per our local and state codes any building 5,000 square feet or larger in size and residential are required to have fire sprinklers.
10. SHEET A8 – Sheet A8 shows fire walls separating buildings. What is the rating of those fire walls and what is the square footage of each of those separated areas?
11. TURNING TEMPLATE – Fire is still concerned about the turning template appearing to have apparatus hitting buildings. Please provide all inside and outside turning radius dimensions to confirm that fire apparatus will have sufficient turning room to clear all buildings.
12. FIRE HAZARD – Fire is concerned about what will be placed in the setback area behind building “B” due to potential fires coming from the side of the freeway. Please confirm whether the 20 ft. setback area adjoining the freeway will include any combustible materials.
3
COURTESY DESIGN COMMENTS
Although courtesy design comments are not required for completeness, Staff is providing the comments because they require a redesign of the project.
ADVANCED PLANNING
13. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY – The project conflicts with GP Policy LU-P13.7, which calls for the application of the highest development standards to Highway Commercial areas to ensure that major entrances to the community are not diminished by “inharmonious” site development concepts. Staff found the following issues with the project:
a. SETBACK – The project design conflicts with GP policy LU-P13.10, because it does not provide an “increased” setback; the project only provides a 20 ft. setback to the property line. The project also backs up to the freeway, whereas this GP policy calls for the City to ensure that new projects do not appear to back up to the freeway.
b. FAR – Regarding the request for an increase in FAR, the project is of much greater
scale in terms of building coverage on the site than the surrounding development in the City (the pottery place and the adjacent church), thus making it potentially an “inharmonious site development concept” for the area. The pottery business has a very small FAR, probably less than 5%, and the church is approximately 15% FAR at buildout of all approved phases according to information in their file. Exceeding the 30% FAR would be inharmonious with the existing character of the area.
c. TREE PRESERVATION – While preserving a number of trees, the project also
proposes removal of some of the larger native oak trees on the site, such as Trees #10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 26, 27, and 34 which are prominent in the center of the site and at the northeast corner of the site near the freeway. Since the project design exceeds the maximum FAR allowed without an exception to the code, the removal of these trees is not consistent with GP policy COSP1.14, which intends to prevent impacts to woodland resources by clustering development on sites in order to reduce tree removal “to the maximum extent feasible”. It would be difficult to justify removal of so many large trees in order to approve more development than the code normally intends to allow.
Redesign Alternatives: Staff recommends redesigning the site plan to comply with the above-mentioned policies. It is staff’s opinion that the project could meet these policies by eliminating Building B and removing portions of Buildings D, E, F, and H, which will help avoid impacts to the trees noted above, and achieve an approximately 0.30 FAR.
4
CURRENT PLANNING
14. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN – Thank you for making changes to the building design, we appreciate your willingness to work with staff on the design. As discussed in our previous meeting, the project is located in a gateway location for the City of Vacaville, which requires the project to use high quality architecture design as required by General Plan land use policy LU-P13.7. We believe the design still needs some improvement and have provided some guidance in this respect:
a. MASONRY – The proposed building façade should consist primarily of masonry materials such as cultured stone, brick or other masonry materials. Accent materials such as metal and glass should be used to emphasize major architectural features and building corners, as shown in the picture below. Special consideration should be given to those building elevations facing Interstate 80 and Cherry Glen Road. All towers and features above the parapet must contain four-sided architecture.
b. SETBACK – Towers and architectural features should be offset approximately 10-15 ft. from adjoining surfaces to reduce the mass of large buildings (Buildings A, B and I) and emphasize depth. Each staggered portion should contain different materials and accent colors, as shown in the picture below.
15. WATER TOWER – Staff is concerned about the water tower visibility along Cherry Glen
Road. Please provide a rendering of the water tower showing dimensions for the height and width.
BUILDING
16. BMP DESIGN – The proposed pretreatment design does not appear to provide sufficient area for treating storm water runoff. Please provide calculations to show how the project will meet current Building Code requirements for pretreatment.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMENT
The Police Department has prepared the comment below. Please note that their determination will affect the IS/MND because the project may result in significant impacts to Public Services. We recommend a meeting with their team to discuss the comment. The Police Department representative, Sgt. Nathen Benevides, can be reached by phone at (707) 469-4724 or by email at [email protected]. 17. SAFETY – Due to the semi-remote location of the proposed storage facility, the Vacaville
Police Department recommends a design change to an indoor storage facility only. The subject site is located in a rural area that does not have a lot of vehicle and/or foot traffic and the proposed outdoor facility would create an attraction to those persons looking to burglarize the storage units, a strain on the resources provided by the City of Vacaville and the Vacaville Police Department. The typical security measures incorporated in an outdoor storage area such as a fence, lights, padlocks, and cameras, are not going to be a deterrent when the project is located in a remote area. By incorporating an indoor facility design, access to the property can be better controlled and secured. The U-Haul storage facility on E Monte Vista Avenue is such an example of an indoor storage area in the City of Vacaville.
Staff would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of the above-mentioned items. As part of your resubmittal package, please include a written response to the individual items in this letter. If you have any questions or if you would like to meet regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (707) 449-5364 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely, ALBERT ENAULT, Associate Planner Cc: JILL CHILDERS, Fire Prevention Bureau Manager FRED BUDERI, City Planner JAY SALAZAR, Chief Building Official SGT. NATHAN BENEVIDES, Traffic Supervisor
1
DESIGN REVIEW Section 14.09.111.070 Findings Required for Approval. The Director of the Planning Commission, as applicable, when approving a Design Review project, shall make findings of fact.
These findings shall include but not be limited to, the following:
That the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Development Code;
That the proposed project is consistent with the standards and regulations of the applicable zoning district, and is consistent with any other approvals for the site;
That the subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development proposed, and that the design, size, and other physical characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent uses, or with adjacent natural resources;
That the proposed uses will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community;
That adequate public facilities and services are available to serve the site or will be made available concurrent with the proposed development;
That projected traffic levels and levels of service are, or as result of conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies of the Transportation Element of the General Plan;
That the project is consistent with any design guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14.01.003.020(C) of Division 14.01, Administration, of this Title, for the type of use or structure proposed.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section 14.03.023.050 Findings Necessary to Adopt a Negative Declaration. Prior to adopting a negative declaration, the City shall consider the proposed negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process:
A negative declaration shall be adopted subject to the finding that based upon the initial study and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the decision-maker shall make the following findings:
The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory;
The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals;
The project does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but are cumulatively considerable;
The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly;
The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Vacaville, acting as lead agency for the project.
2
FLOOR AREA RATIO INCREASE The maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, standards for each commercial zoning district shall be as specified in Table 14.09.084.01 of this chapter. An exception to the floor area ratio standards may be approved by the decision-maker for uses of a lower intensity than uses generally permitted within the applicable zoning district. The decision-maker shall consider the intensity of the proposed use, the availability of public facilities and infrastructure to serve the use, and the projected traffic levels of service.
An exception to the FAR standards may be approved when the decision-maker determines the following:
The proposed use and structure for which the exception to the FAR standards is
approved shall have a lower employee density or a lower peak hour traffic generation than uses generally permitted within the applicable zoning district;
Public facilities and services are available to serve the proposed use and structure; and
The scale of the proposed building is compatible with surrounding development.
SUBJECT: LAGOON VALLEY SELF STORAGE – OUTSTANDING SUBMITTAL ITEMS
PLANNING
1. REQUIRED FINDINGS – The resubmittal did not include an item-by-item response to the required findings for Design Review and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please update the project description to include responses to each required finding. The r...
2. TREE REMOVAL – The project proposal includes a request to remove several mature Oak trees. Please update the project description to describe: (a) the number of trees that require removal; (b) the reasons why the project cannot be designed around t...
3. FLOOR AREA RATIO – The project proposal includes a request to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.30 FAR to 0.40 FAR. The requested exception must be supported by the findings identified in Section 14.09.084.030.A (Floor Area Ratio) of th...
4. SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES – The response letter states the utility analyses are still being prepared (water tank size; fire flow requirements; design of the proposed septic system, including location of a reserve drain field). Please note, staff cannot...
FIRE
5. BOAT PARKING – The project description describes boat parking for 18 boats. Please update the site plan to show the exact location for all boat parking.
6. BUILDING B – The site plan shows parking stalls under building B. Fire is concerned with anything parked in these areas because of the placement of fire hydrants in those same areas. Please confirm the types of vehicles that will be parked in the...
7. FIRE FLOW – Provide information on what the fire flow will be for the location. Provide information on the tank and how the fire flow, tank and pump house complies with the requirements of the California Fire Code (CFC) and National Fire Protectio...
8. FIRE HYDRANTS – Existing fire hydrant locations are not approved as currently shown on plans. Fire has concerns about how close they are to the buildings and hose lays to buildings based on the proposed locations of the fire hydrants. Please cont...
9. SHEET C3 – Sheet C-3 currently states buildings are not proposed to be sprinkled. Per our local and state codes any building 5,000 square feet or larger in size and residential are required to have fire sprinklers.
10. SHEET A8 – Sheet A8 shows fire walls separating buildings. What is the rating of those fire walls and what is the square footage of each of those separated areas?
11. TURNING TEMPLATE – Fire is still concerned about the turning template appearing to have apparatus hitting buildings. Please provide all inside and outside turning radius dimensions to confirm that fire apparatus will have sufficient turning room ...
12. FIRE HAZARD – Fire is concerned about what will be placed in the setback area behind building “B” due to potential fires coming from the side of the freeway. Please confirm whether the 20 ft. setback area adjoining the freeway will include any co...
COURTESY DESIGN COMMENTS
ADVANCED PLANNING
13. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY – The project conflicts with GP Policy LU-P13.7, which calls for the application of the highest development standards to Highway Commercial areas to ensure that major entrances to the community are not diminished by “inharmoni...
a. SETBACK – The project design conflicts with GP policy LU-P13.10, because it does not provide an “increased” setback; the project only provides a 20 ft. setback to the property line. The project also backs up to the freeway, whereas this GP policy ...
b. FAR – Regarding the request for an increase in FAR, the project is of much greater scale in terms of building coverage on the site than the surrounding development in the City (the pottery place and the adjacent church), thus making it potentially ...
c. TREE PRESERVATION – While preserving a number of trees, the project also proposes removal of some of the larger native oak trees on the site, such as Trees #10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 26, 27, and 34 which are prominent in the center of the site and at...
CURRENT PLANNING
14. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN – Thank you for making changes to the building design, we appreciate your willingness to work with staff on the design. As discussed in our previous meeting, the project is located in a gateway location for the City of Vacavi...
a. MASONRY – The proposed building façade should consist primarily of masonry materials such as cultured stone, brick or other masonry materials. Accent materials such as metal and glass should be used to emphasize major architectural features and bu...
b. SETBACK – Towers and architectural features should be offset approximately 10-15 ft. from adjoining surfaces to reduce the mass of large buildings (Buildings A, B and I) and emphasize depth. Each staggered portion should contain different material...
15. WATER TOWER – Staff is concerned about the water tower visibility along Cherry Glen Road. Please provide a rendering of the water tower showing dimensions for the height and width.
BUILDING
16. BMP DESIGN – The proposed pretreatment design does not appear to provide sufficient area for treating storm water runoff. Please provide calculations to show how the project will meet current Building Code requirements for pretreatment.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMENT
17. SAFETY – Due to the semi-remote location of the proposed storage facility, the Vacaville Police Department recommends a design change to an indoor storage facility only. The subject site is located in a rural area that does not have a lot of vehi...
Attachment 1 - Required Findings for Approval.pdf
DESIGN REVIEW
A. These findings shall include but not be limited to, the following:
1. That the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Development Code;
2. That the proposed project is consistent with the standards and regulations of the applicable zoning district, and is consistent with any other approvals for the site;
3. That the subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development proposed, and that the design, size, and other physical characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent uses, or with adjacent natural resources;
4. That the proposed uses will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community;
5. That adequate public facilities and services are available to serve the site or will be made available concurrent with the proposed development;
6. That projected traffic levels and levels of service are, or as result of conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies of the Transportation Element of the General Plan;
7. That the project is consistent with any design guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14.01.003.020(C) of Division 14.01, Administration, of this Title, for the type of use or structure proposed.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. A negative declaration shall be adopted subject to the finding that based upon the initial study and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the decision-m...
1. The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to e...
2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals;
3. The project does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but are cumulatively considerable;
4. The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly;
5. The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Vacaville, acting as lead agency for the project.
FLOOR AREA RATIO INCREASE
A. An exception to the FAR standards may be approved when the decision-maker determines the following:
1. The proposed use and structure for which the exception to the FAR standards is approved shall have a lower employee density or a lower peak hour traffic generation than uses generally permitted within the applicable zoning district;
2. Public facilities and services are available to serve the proposed use and structure; and
3. The scale of the proposed building is compatible with surrounding development.
2019-01-11T16:26:04-0800
VIA EMAIL January 11, 2019 Community Development Department Planning Division Mr. Ron Smith Praxis Properties, LLC. 5701 Lonetree Boulevard, Suite 102 Rocklin, CA 95765 [email protected] SUBJECT: LAGOON VALLEY SELF STORAGE – OUTSTANDING SUBMITTAL ITEMS
5920 Lagoon Valley Road (APN 0127-040-140) Environmental Review and Design Review (File No. 18-263)
Dear Ron: Thank you for resubmitting the Lagoon Valley Self Storage application. Since our last meeting on December 13, 2018, the Project Review Committee (PRC) has had a chance to review the resubmittal package. The resubmittal provided much of the requested information from our initial letter. Below, you’ll find PRC’s comments regarding other remaining items:
OUTSTANDING SUBMITTAL ITEMS
PLANNING
1. REQUIRED FINDINGS – The resubmittal did not include an item-by-item response to the required findings for Design Review and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please update the project description to include responses to each required finding. The required findings for Mitigated Negative Declarations and Design Reviews are attached (Attachment 1).
2. TREE REMOVAL – The project proposal includes a request to remove several mature Oak trees. Please update the project description to describe: (a) the number of trees that require removal; (b) the reasons why the project cannot be designed around these trees; and (c) proposed mitigation for the trees proposed for removal.
3. FLOOR AREA RATIO – The project proposal includes a request to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.30 FAR to 0.40 FAR. The requested exception must be supported by the findings identified in Section 14.09.084.030.A (Floor Area Ratio) of the Land Use and Development Code. Please update the project description to include responses to each required finding (Attachment 1). Staff has not yet determined whether it can support the requested exception. As noted in the “courtesy design comments” below, this exception may not be required if the project is redesigned to meet certain General Plan policies.
RON ROWLETT DILENNA HARRIS
4. SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES – The response letter states the utility analyses are still being prepared (water tank size; fire flow requirements; design of the proposed septic system, including location of a reserve drain field). Please note, staff cannot move forward with the environmental analysis of the project until we receive and review these studies. These studies would help staff determine whether or not the project will have a significant impact to the environment. If the project will have a significant impact to the environment that cannot be mitigated, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project.
FIRE
5. BOAT PARKING – The project description describes boat parking for 18 boats. Please update the site plan to show the exact location for all boat parking.
6. BUILDING B – The site plan shows parking stalls under building B. Fire is concerned with anything parked in these areas because of the placement of fire hydrants in those same areas. Please confirm the types of vehicles that will be parked in these stalls.
7. FIRE FLOW – Provide information on what the fire flow will be for the location. Provide information on the tank and how the fire flow, tank and pump house complies with the requirements of the California Fire Code (CFC) and National Fire Protection Association Standards (NFPA). Sheet C3 currently does not show the proposed fire water line size.
8. FIRE HYDRANTS – Existing fire hydrant locations are not approved as currently shown on plans. Fire has concerns about how close they are to the buildings and hose lays to buildings based on the proposed locations of the fire hydrants. Please contact Jill Childers at (707) 449-5482 to identify better locations for the fire hydrants.
9. SHEET C3 – Sheet C-3 currently states buildings are not proposed to be sprinkled. Per our local and state codes any building 5,000 square feet or larger in size and residential are required to have fire sprinklers.
10. SHEET A8 – Sheet A8 shows fire walls separating buildings. What is the rating of those fire walls and what is the square footage of each of those separated areas?
11. TURNING TEMPLATE – Fire is still concerned about the turning template appearing to have apparatus hitting buildings. Please provide all inside and outside turning radius dimensions to confirm that fire apparatus will have sufficient turning room to clear all buildings.
12. FIRE HAZARD – Fire is concerned about what will be placed in the setback area behind building “B” due to potential fires coming from the side of the freeway. Please confirm whether the 20 ft. setback area adjoining the freeway will include any combustible materials.
3
COURTESY DESIGN COMMENTS
Although courtesy design comments are not required for completeness, Staff is providing the comments because they require a redesign of the project.
ADVANCED PLANNING
13. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY – The project conflicts with GP Policy LU-P13.7, which calls for the application of the highest development standards to Highway Commercial areas to ensure that major entrances to the community are not diminished by “inharmonious” site development concepts. Staff found the following issues with the project:
a. SETBACK – The project design conflicts with GP policy LU-P13.10, because it does not provide an “increased” setback; the project only provides a 20 ft. setback to the property line. The project also backs up to the freeway, whereas this GP policy calls for the City to ensure that new projects do not appear to back up to the freeway.
b. FAR – Regarding the request for an increase in FAR, the project is of much greater
scale in terms of building coverage on the site than the surrounding development in the City (the pottery place and the adjacent church), thus making it potentially an “inharmonious site development concept” for the area. The pottery business has a very small FAR, probably less than 5%, and the church is approximately 15% FAR at buildout of all approved phases according to information in their file. Exceeding the 30% FAR would be inharmonious with the existing character of the area.
c. TREE PRESERVATION – While preserving a number of trees, the project also
proposes removal of some of the larger native oak trees on the site, such as Trees #10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 26, 27, and 34 which are prominent in the center of the site and at the northeast corner of the site near the freeway. Since the project design exceeds the maximum FAR allowed without an exception to the code, the removal of these trees is not consistent with GP policy COSP1.14, which intends to prevent impacts to woodland resources by clustering development on sites in order to reduce tree removal “to the maximum extent feasible”. It would be difficult to justify removal of so many large trees in order to approve more development than the code normally intends to allow.
Redesign Alternatives: Staff recommends redesigning the site plan to comply with the above-mentioned policies. It is staff’s opinion that the project could meet these policies by eliminating Building B and removing portions of Buildings D, E, F, and H, which will help avoid impacts to the trees noted above, and achieve an approximately 0.30 FAR.
4
CURRENT PLANNING
14. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN – Thank you for making changes to the building design, we appreciate your willingness to work with staff on the design. As discussed in our previous meeting, the project is located in a gateway location for the City of Vacaville, which requires the project to use high quality architecture design as required by General Plan land use policy LU-P13.7. We believe the design still needs some improvement and have provided some guidance in this respect:
a. MASONRY – The proposed building façade should consist primarily of masonry materials such as cultured stone, brick or other masonry materials. Accent materials such as metal and glass should be used to emphasize major architectural features and building corners, as shown in the picture below. Special consideration should be given to those building elevations facing Interstate 80 and Cherry Glen Road. All towers and features above the parapet must contain four-sided architecture.
b. SETBACK – Towers and architectural features should be offset approximately 10-15 ft. from adjoining surfaces to reduce the mass of large buildings (Buildings A, B and I) and emphasize depth. Each staggered portion should contain different materials and accent colors, as shown in the picture below.
15. WATER TOWER – Staff is concerned about the water tower visibility along Cherry Glen
Road. Please provide a rendering of the water tower showing dimensions for the height and width.
BUILDING
16. BMP DESIGN – The proposed pretreatment design does not appear to provide sufficient area for treating storm water runoff. Please provide calculations to show how the project will meet current Building Code requirements for pretreatment.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMENT
The Police Department has prepared the comment below. Please note that their determination will affect the IS/MND because the project may result in significant impacts to Public Services. We recommend a meeting with their team to discuss the comment. The Police Department representative, Sgt. Nathen Benevides, can be reached by phone at (707) 469-4724 or by email at [email protected]. 17. SAFETY – Due to the semi-remote location of the proposed storage facility, the Vacaville
Police Department recommends a design change to an indoor storage facility only. The subject site is located in a rural area that does not have a lot of vehicle and/or foot traffic and the proposed outdoor facility would create an attraction to those persons looking to burglarize the storage units, a strain on the resources provided by the City of Vacaville and the Vacaville Police Department. The typical security measures incorporated in an outdoor storage area such as a fence, lights, padlocks, and cameras, are not going to be a deterrent when the project is located in a remote area. By incorporating an indoor facility design, access to the property can be better controlled and secured. The U-Haul storage facility on E Monte Vista Avenue is such an example of an indoor storage area in the City of Vacaville.
Staff would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of the above-mentioned items. As part of your resubmittal package, please include a written response to the individual items in this letter. If you have any questions or if you would like to meet regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (707) 449-5364 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely, ALBERT ENAULT, Associate Planner Cc: JILL CHILDERS, Fire Prevention Bureau Manager FRED BUDERI, City Planner JAY SALAZAR, Chief Building Official SGT. NATHAN BENEVIDES, Traffic Supervisor
1
DESIGN REVIEW Section 14.09.111.070 Findings Required for Approval. The Director of the Planning Commission, as applicable, when approving a Design Review project, shall make findings of fact.
These findings shall include but not be limited to, the following:
That the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Development Code;
That the proposed project is consistent with the standards and regulations of the applicable zoning district, and is consistent with any other approvals for the site;
That the subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development proposed, and that the design, size, and other physical characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent uses, or with adjacent natural resources;
That the proposed uses will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community;
That adequate public facilities and services are available to serve the site or will be made available concurrent with the proposed development;
That projected traffic levels and levels of service are, or as result of conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies of the Transportation Element of the General Plan;
That the project is consistent with any design guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14.01.003.020(C) of Division 14.01, Administration, of this Title, for the type of use or structure proposed.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section 14.03.023.050 Findings Necessary to Adopt a Negative Declaration. Prior to adopting a negative declaration, the City shall consider the proposed negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process:
A negative declaration shall be adopted subject to the finding that based upon the initial study and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the decision-maker shall make the following findings:
The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory;
The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals;
The project does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but are cumulatively considerable;
The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly;
The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Vacaville, acting as lead agency for the project.
2
FLOOR AREA RATIO INCREASE The maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, standards for each commercial zoning district shall be as specified in Table 14.09.084.01 of this chapter. An exception to the floor area ratio standards may be approved by the decision-maker for uses of a lower intensity than uses generally permitted within the applicable zoning district. The decision-maker shall consider the intensity of the proposed use, the availability of public facilities and infrastructure to serve the use, and the projected traffic levels of service.
An exception to the FAR standards may be approved when the decision-maker determines the following:
The proposed use and structure for which the exception to the FAR standards is
approved shall have a lower employee density or a lower peak hour traffic generation than uses generally permitted within the applicable zoning district;
Public facilities and services are available to serve the proposed use and structure; and
The scale of the proposed building is compatible with surrounding development.
SUBJECT: LAGOON VALLEY SELF STORAGE – OUTSTANDING SUBMITTAL ITEMS
PLANNING
1. REQUIRED FINDINGS – The resubmittal did not include an item-by-item response to the required findings for Design Review and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please update the project description to include responses to each required finding. The r...
2. TREE REMOVAL – The project proposal includes a request to remove several mature Oak trees. Please update the project description to describe: (a) the number of trees that require removal; (b) the reasons why the project cannot be designed around t...
3. FLOOR AREA RATIO – The project proposal includes a request to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.30 FAR to 0.40 FAR. The requested exception must be supported by the findings identified in Section 14.09.084.030.A (Floor Area Ratio) of th...
4. SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES – The response letter states the utility analyses are still being prepared (water tank size; fire flow requirements; design of the proposed septic system, including location of a reserve drain field). Please note, staff cannot...
FIRE
5. BOAT PARKING – The project description describes boat parking for 18 boats. Please update the site plan to show the exact location for all boat parking.
6. BUILDING B – The site plan shows parking stalls under building B. Fire is concerned with anything parked in these areas because of the placement of fire hydrants in those same areas. Please confirm the types of vehicles that will be parked in the...
7. FIRE FLOW – Provide information on what the fire flow will be for the location. Provide information on the tank and how the fire flow, tank and pump house complies with the requirements of the California Fire Code (CFC) and National Fire Protectio...
8. FIRE HYDRANTS – Existing fire hydrant locations are not approved as currently shown on plans. Fire has concerns about how close they are to the buildings and hose lays to buildings based on the proposed locations of the fire hydrants. Please cont...
9. SHEET C3 – Sheet C-3 currently states buildings are not proposed to be sprinkled. Per our local and state codes any building 5,000 square feet or larger in size and residential are required to have fire sprinklers.
10. SHEET A8 – Sheet A8 shows fire walls separating buildings. What is the rating of those fire walls and what is the square footage of each of those separated areas?
11. TURNING TEMPLATE – Fire is still concerned about the turning template appearing to have apparatus hitting buildings. Please provide all inside and outside turning radius dimensions to confirm that fire apparatus will have sufficient turning room ...
12. FIRE HAZARD – Fire is concerned about what will be placed in the setback area behind building “B” due to potential fires coming from the side of the freeway. Please confirm whether the 20 ft. setback area adjoining the freeway will include any co...
COURTESY DESIGN COMMENTS
ADVANCED PLANNING
13. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY – The project conflicts with GP Policy LU-P13.7, which calls for the application of the highest development standards to Highway Commercial areas to ensure that major entrances to the community are not diminished by “inharmoni...
a. SETBACK – The project design conflicts with GP policy LU-P13.10, because it does not provide an “increased” setback; the project only provides a 20 ft. setback to the property line. The project also backs up to the freeway, whereas this GP policy ...
b. FAR – Regarding the request for an increase in FAR, the project is of much greater scale in terms of building coverage on the site than the surrounding development in the City (the pottery place and the adjacent church), thus making it potentially ...
c. TREE PRESERVATION – While preserving a number of trees, the project also proposes removal of some of the larger native oak trees on the site, such as Trees #10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 26, 27, and 34 which are prominent in the center of the site and at...
CURRENT PLANNING
14. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN – Thank you for making changes to the building design, we appreciate your willingness to work with staff on the design. As discussed in our previous meeting, the project is located in a gateway location for the City of Vacavi...
a. MASONRY – The proposed building façade should consist primarily of masonry materials such as cultured stone, brick or other masonry materials. Accent materials such as metal and glass should be used to emphasize major architectural features and bu...
b. SETBACK – Towers and architectural features should be offset approximately 10-15 ft. from adjoining surfaces to reduce the mass of large buildings (Buildings A, B and I) and emphasize depth. Each staggered portion should contain different material...
15. WATER TOWER – Staff is concerned about the water tower visibility along Cherry Glen Road. Please provide a rendering of the water tower showing dimensions for the height and width.
BUILDING
16. BMP DESIGN – The proposed pretreatment design does not appear to provide sufficient area for treating storm water runoff. Please provide calculations to show how the project will meet current Building Code requirements for pretreatment.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMENT
17. SAFETY – Due to the semi-remote location of the proposed storage facility, the Vacaville Police Department recommends a design change to an indoor storage facility only. The subject site is located in a rural area that does not have a lot of vehi...
Attachment 1 - Required Findings for Approval.pdf
DESIGN REVIEW
A. These findings shall include but not be limited to, the following:
1. That the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Development Code;
2. That the proposed project is consistent with the standards and regulations of the applicable zoning district, and is consistent with any other approvals for the site;
3. That the subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development proposed, and that the design, size, and other physical characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent uses, or with adjacent natural resources;
4. That the proposed uses will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community;
5. That adequate public facilities and services are available to serve the site or will be made available concurrent with the proposed development;
6. That projected traffic levels and levels of service are, or as result of conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies of the Transportation Element of the General Plan;
7. That the project is consistent with any design guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14.01.003.020(C) of Division 14.01, Administration, of this Title, for the type of use or structure proposed.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. A negative declaration shall be adopted subject to the finding that based upon the initial study and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the decision-m...
1. The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to e...
2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals;
3. The project does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but are cumulatively considerable;
4. The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly;
5. The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Vacaville, acting as lead agency for the project.
FLOOR AREA RATIO INCREASE
A. An exception to the FAR standards may be approved when the decision-maker determines the following:
1. The proposed use and structure for which the exception to the FAR standards is approved shall have a lower employee density or a lower peak hour traffic generation than uses generally permitted within the applicable zoning district;
2. Public facilities and services are available to serve the proposed use and structure; and
3. The scale of the proposed building is compatible with surrounding development.
2019-01-11T16:26:04-0800