Pre-App - Proposed Mini Storage - 2015Daniel Fama
From: Daniel Fama
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:15 AM
To: ~ 'gordon wong'; 'Jim Chalmers'
Cc: Aki Snelling
Subject: RE: McGlincy Ln. Storage Building Pre-App - PRE2015-04
Good Morning:
I hope fast night's study session was informative. Clearly, there are concerns from both the neighbors and the
Commission on the project concept. As a quick recap, here are key points as I heard them:
• Height: Certainty four:stories was as anon-starter. It's seen as too imposing for the residential
neighbors. Should you go forward, this building should be brought down in height. Perhaps, shifting
the massing and height away (stepping/tapering) from the residential homes at the rear could be
considered.
• Land Use: Whether this is the best use for the site seems to bean open question. Further explanation
as to why this approach was taken will likely be necessary. Some Commissioners had issue with the
. single purpose building General Plan policy, but I think there's some recognition.thatthls site is already
storage and the project wouldn't change that.
• Condominiumization: There seemed to some concern about the desirability of splitting the buildings
into separate air parcels. More explanation as to how a owners association and CC&Rs would be
structured may help to alleviate some concerns. That being said, perhaps limiting condo mapping to no
more than two condo parcels per building should be the most that should be proposed. Four owners
seems reasonable, eight or more, less so.
• Design: It appears the design approach was,generally supported. Concerns regarding the overall.
size/FAR were a reflection of the building's height. Working on window placement to further maximize
visibility into the building should also be considered.,,
• Operational Characteristics: Explaining how the facility will;operate is important, particularly with
respect to hours of operation, safety/security, lighting, and noise generation.
• Caretaker unit: Please ensure that the caretakers unit is reduced in size to 640 sq. ft. per CMC
21.36.040.
If you wish, we can schedule a meeting to discuss next steps.
Thank you,
Daniel
_~''"~ ~ ~ _,_ Daniel Fama ~ Associate Planner
~'`~ Community Development Department ( Planning Division
' danielf@cityofcampbelLcom
~l` 408.866.2193 ~ ~ 408.871.5140
.f ~
1
L
McGlincy Study Session-5/26 Notes
Public Comment
• Applicant (architect)
o FAR is inline with other storage facilities
o condo mapping allows more investment opportunity
o many windows can be made visible
^ 60% on 1st floor and 100% on 4thfloor
o Want to reuse existing map due to easements
o Windows will have a light glow for emergency lighting
o not financially feasible to build phase 2
• Jim F. -West Valley Construction
o Make sure has driveway access
o want 10 foot tall CMU wall to block view
• Tim -Regis Dr.
o current facility well run
o height of the building a concern
o shadowing
0 only 4 story in the area
0 24 hour facility?
o lighting a concern
o noise less of a concern
o wants two or three stories
o FAR is high-> examples not relevant
o traffic maybe?
• Francuas thomson
o traffic, truck count,
o hours of operation
o blocking sunlight
• Francisco
o too tall buildings
o tallest buildings by two stories
o no view from neighborhood
o landscaping won't block view
o would be an eye sore
o negative effect on property value
• Josh
o would change character of regis
o buildings would like a wall
o access hours -> no 24 hours
o restrict to day light hours
o lighting after dark
o safty issues
• Nick whitestone -project broker
o mcglincy business park works with multiple owners
o CC&Rs governs multiple owners
o condo mapping provides more flexibility for investment
o construction more today and selling prices less in today's market
o underwriting will be assisted with more investors
o project could be done w/o condo mapping if necessary
o density necessary for the project -> couldn't build otherwise
o FAR comparables are in Campbell
o hours would be limited
• Thomas
o circulation could be tight
o can the project could go down
• Pete Bovernburg
o supports idea
o simulations aren't accurate
o power poles should be shown
Commission Comments
building is tall
• FAR a bit high
• Alt land uses for job.creation?
• could building taper backwards 4->3->2
• what is the brand of the city? dont want to be the storage city
• we may need this space for other use --> single use building may be too limiting
• parking
• not sure if a storage facility is desirablity ->no flexablity
• 4 stories wont fit
• massing should be reduced
• project should not be shoe horned into previous design
• design aesthetic is okay
• false windows not desirablity
• consider access
• What's the PDs concern?
• more than 25 ft might be a problem
• the use might be okay if theres a need
• four stories not representative in the area
• lowering the height will help
• bridge the two buildings
• look at noise
• maybe limit condo to one owner per building
• feels like were shoehorning the project
• concern about a large limited use building
• the single-use policy makes sense and we should follow it
• Thisis a test oftsking notes for planning
• renolds would like to see other land use options
c
• the architecture is nice at two levels not at four
Other Notes
• Reduce embellishments on photo simulations
• review initial occupancy
• require circulation plan
• limit operational hours