R Ranch Snack Shack Design History In February 2018, when attending a BOD meeting the owners in attendance were expressing their discontent about the lack of progress being made on the Snack Shack rebuild. Randy Cohn volunteered to head up a committee to start the process of designing, permitting and eventually building the Snack Shack. At that time, one of the owners with ties to Dawson Family Art & Architecture presented the set drawings seen below.
Although this was a fine-looking design, it really didn’t fit the style of the ranch and after talking to a structural engineer we were informed that it will be far too expensive to engineer and build
due to the floor to ceiling glass and high ceilings. We then set out to find a design that would be cheaper to build and fit the style of the existing ranch buildings. We presented the rendering below to the structural engineer and they assured us that the style below would most certainly be an easier cheaper build. This was an image that was captured off the internet to give the engineers and the architect a basic idea of what we would potentially build.
Here is the email from 2/6/2018
We contracted with Wayne Holland of Wayns Holland & Associates later that month and the process began. The next step was to go back to the Napa County archives to determine what the original footprint of the building to avoid having to go through a lengthy planning commission review and a modification to the existing use permit we needed the new design to
be no larger or smaller than the original dimensions. Brad Miracle and Ed Russell spent hours at Napa County going through records and were able to dig up the drawings below. This image is from the 50’s or 60’s and not exactly what it looked like before burning but provides an interesting look back at the history. This turned out to be an important find because the dimensions shown below when adding the patio were larger than the patio that was attached to the more recent building. Some of our owners remember this building as it’s pictured here.
From these drawings we learned that the café had to be no more than 1295 square feet, however the porch could be larger than the building that was destroyed. This enabled us to go with roofed design as opposed to a trellis.
The Trellis design was used so the County would not count the square footage of the porch, however the drawings that were discovered allowed us to add the roof. Which of course added to the esthetics and the functionality of the building.
In May of 2018 we get word from the architect that we can build without the minor modification to the use permit below. On May 31, 2018 at 12:45 PM Wayne Holland <wayneholland@me.com> wrote: Hi, Had a meeting today with the County, Suzanne Gambill, and compared existing [3114] and new [2880] square footage. Since we are under the existing square footage, we can proceed with construction documents and apply for a building permit. There is no need to have a Minor Mod application for the Cafe. Thanks Wayne
Current design with revised roof, cupola, and covered porch.
From the beginning the goal was to design and build a practical replacement to the Snack Shack that would not only enhance the desirability, value of R Ranch, and be done as cost effectively as possible. Unfortunately, after two fires, the Covid pandemic and related supply chain issues, inflation, and labor shortages the costs to build anything has gone through the roof. In addition, this is and must be a commercial building with a commercial Kitchen. There is no way around that. Commercial kitchens are one of the highest costs per square foot structures to build. Here is some input from the builder and architect.
Input on design and cost savings from the contractor firm Bruce Tucker Construction - President Warren Bowers To get back with you regarding the Café Building at the R Ranch and related costs. BTC has been involved / complete a variety commercial and residential structures through our years in construction Commercial Kitchen Assemblies like we have for the R Ranch Facility has far and away the highest cost to construct of any commercial building type. The volume of Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing requirements that go into a kitchen drive the costs up. Also, the specialty finishes associated with walls (FRP), ceilings (smooth drywall with epoxy paint) and floors
(yours epoxy flooring and base) also drive costs vs other assemblies. The cost to install a kitchen in anything, but a new building enhances the costs further. The thought of using any pre-engineered / pre-manufactured structures for the same use as the proposed café would not be effective, due to the fact that everything you have purchased would need to be torn apart or retrofitted to accommodate Kitchen Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems. In addition, you could expect added structural work to support hoods and equipment. This idea does not seem like a viable option. The location of this facility also has cost impacts arising from WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) building requirements (windows, wall assemblies and roofing in your case), distance of travel to site for septic tanks, piping, trucking costs for concrete, road base and surfacing. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need anything further regarding current design and cost to construct. Thank you Warren Bowers
Input on design and cost savings from architect Wayne Holland Subject: R-Ranch Cafe Re-Design Hi Randy, Based on our conversation I do not see the advantage of redesigning the building to save costs, but I do agree that taking the existing building drawings and value engineer specific assemblies like MEP equipment, finishes and Kitchen equipment is a good idea. Complications of a re-design of the Cafe as follows:
If the roof structure is re-designed, which will affect loading conditions all the way through the structure to the foundation with changed structural and MEP assemblies.
The current square footage is a little bit below the max allowed based on replacement of a burned structure. You can only build what was existing.
Any changes to the existing drawings will have to be re-submitted to the County Building Department and if you can’t get another extension the drawings will need to meet the current 2019 CBC and you may have to go through Planning.
Areas that can’t be re-designed:
Accessibility upgrade of the existing Pool Toilet Rooms upgrade.
Accessibility upgrade of site conditions including parking, ramps, stairs and railings.
Location of the new grease interceptor system, grading and paving and new road cuts as indicated on the Civil drawings.
I hope this helps and if you have any questions please call-or e-mail Thanks Wayne Holland Principal Wayne Holland & Associates My history with the Snack Shack rebuild. Discussed below:
Meetings with Napa County Napa County Measure J Minor Modification to the permit Insurance Food Truck research and findings Conversion of Lodge Kitchen to Commercial
I joined the Board as an appointee after the Atlas peak fire and the loss of Ranch Managers and 2 Board members in November of 2017. There were meetings and planning for the Snack Shack rebuild that had already happened before I joined the Board. I was elected Treasurer and tasked with the 2018 budget so my first efforts were to become as informed as I could about all that had previously been done. I learned that insurance company had already paid toward our claim and the cleanup of the fire debris had already taken place. Joe Meyer (The president of the Board) was handling the ongoing communication with the insurance company. I was told that there were meetings planned with Napa County to talk about our losses and get their input because there had been talk of difficulty with communications with the county. As a new Board member, I felt it important to attend as many of those meetings as I could so that I fully understood what the Ranch’s business dealings were as well as knowing what the county’s position was toward all our recovery efforts.
I was aware that there had been Snack Shack design efforts and by the time I was attending meetings with the county I was aware that an Architect had been employed. (Keep in mind that the board had many tasks going at the time. We had all the Atlas Peak fire damages to also work on (which became a much larger issue than anyone ever imagined with the county) replacement of the cabins, the theft of our safe and its contents, finding management, employee issues, …The board divided tasks amongst its members to be able to keep momentum going in each task.)
In that first meeting with Napa County there was a representative of all the permitting departments at the table. (i.e., design review, fire safety, code enforcement…) Randy Cohn, Brad Miracle, Me, and I believe Joe Meyer, were there to hear firsthand what the County’s position was on several of our recovery situations. The snack shack, the cabins, and the water tanks, use of our Lodge kitchen, and even the use of a Food Truck, were main topics. In the conversation there was talk about the snack shack size and the conformity of its original footprint and permitted use. We learned about the “Measure J” moratorium on development in agricultural watershed properties. We learned about our Grandfathered use permit due to Measure J and we learned that modifications to our original permitted use would fall into “the discretion of the county” as to how they would handle granting the rebuild permit if the design included any major modifications.
It was after attending that meeting that Brad and I (Mostly Brad’s effort) went to the county and attempted to attain the original permit information for the snack shack. It was up to the ranch to provide the documentation to the county’s design review that gave the dimensions of what was granted in previous permits. It was from those findings that the size of the replacement design was based and the information that we wanted to remain in a situation of good standing with the county and we wanted NOT to be forced to apply for a (minor modification to our original permitted use (which may cause the entire County of Napa population to be involved in a vote to allow us a modification because of Measure J). From that point the discussion of the “Look” of the replacement began as I remember. Ideas of the rebuild design were discussed in owner meetings as well as committee. We knew that the building could not be designed exactly as it had originally been built due to the new codes that would be enforced. There had been a design rendered that took the original 1960’s look with an upgrade that was vetoed based on the design not necessarily blending with the surrounding buildings and the fact that it was far too expensive a building to erect. The idea was to move toward a design that would blend with the surrounding vernacular. A building that projected Farm or Ranch House instead.
Randy who was the remaining member of the committee established to help the board with Snack Shack design process eventually presented to the Board a design that met the requirements of blending into the Ranch or Farmhouse look and maintained the build within the original footprint. Wayne Holland was then employed to develop the idea into a set of plans that the Ranch could then get estimates to build. Joe Meyer was primarily involved with the communication with Wayne Holland and Randy Cohn at that point because of Joe’s extensive knowledge of construction. I remember Joe always sharing his conversations with the board about challenging the Architect to keep the design’s build costs down. Once the design was done the board voted to accept the design and Joe took on effort to get contractors to bid the job. Joe informed the Board members that the first bid for the snack shack was approximately $700K and a second bid was $1.1million. With that information the conversation started about finding ways to further change the build in regard to materials used and such to bring the costs down. With an average of $900K for the build and considering that there would be some input of “Code Upgrade” money from the insurance company, there was still an amount that the Ranch did not have as Guaranteed funds for the build. This fact was talked about in the newly formed Reserve Committee as well. The average of $900K in bids was then estimated that a minimum of 20%, or an amount of approximately $180K (if the bids didn’t change) would be needed as deposit and the balance would be $720K of funds to come up with to be able to build. It was estimated that $300K of Code Upgrade funds may still be available from the insurance company. With that $420K was what was thought to be a good estimate for the funds to be acquired. The Reserve Committee voted to approve a $125K in funds assessment to be added to the remaining insurance funds to build funds available for a deposit towards the future Snack Shack rebuild. The Board approved the Reserve Committees suggested Reserve fund contribution and included it in the following years annual assessment. While enduring another fire and evacuation and while working on a lengthy demand for final determination of our permitted uses case (cabins replacement) we were hit with a Worldwide Pandemic. During this time, it was difficult to get a 3rd contractor to bid our project. That bid was finally achieved thanks to one of our owners Lisa Massaro. By the time we got that last bid the cost of the build and all that it entails the costs had dramatically increased. Randy went back to that contractor that gave us that lowest bid and asked him to update his bid. That is our current bid by Warren Bowers. Back to the Food Truck idea. We were informed by the county that we could not use a Food truck at the Ranch because of a law they have about having a commercially licensed “Commissary” kitchen within certain number of miles. They also stated that they have a map of
Allowable Locations for food trucks to park within Napa County and that it is not allowed within the Agricultural Watershed designated areas. Thers has also been questions raised about converting the lodge kitchen to a commercial kitchen. In exploring that option we found that the entire lodge would have to be brought up to code, ADA compliant throughout which would more that likely cost far more than the current project.
Ed Russell
In conclusion, I hope this provides a clear look into the evolution of the Snack Shack rebuild project and I hope it clearly identifies the fact that the board has always planned to accomplish this in the most affordable way possible. Our goal was to replace it with a building that would enhance the value, desirability, and functionality of the ranch. Although we of course wanted a building that was beautiful, we never expected to build something grandiose or irresponsible, it was always meant to be a functional commercial kitchen with the exact dimension of the original of 1295 sq. ft. with a porch and friends that is all it is. We added the cupola to match the pool house and the lodge to further enhance the look but this is also something that can be removed to save on costs. We have also asked the contractor to do some value engineering which would provide additional savings. Please see below.
The items broken out below represent the cost associated with the project no matter what we build. It comes to $867,255 and that’s the same if we brought in shipping containers, pre fabs or cinder blocks, which by the way would cost more than the proposed building.
Over the past four years there really isn’t much we haven’t considered in dealing with the rebuilding process, including spending over a month exploring the possibility of acquiring a food truck. In fact, we almost bought one to serve as a temporary fix until finding out the at County wouldn’t allow it. I would like to add that during the entire decision-making process for this Snack Shack replacement the Board has always had a clear focus that this project offers the opportunity to have several of the Ranch’s future reserve expense projects included into this
project and therefore having the addition of insurance monies to help with those projects. The repair and widening of the main entrance road, the repair and upgrade of the pool bathrooms, the repair of the sewage system at the lodge, the repair and grading of the parking lot near the back of the lodge and Snack Shack, all of which are on our “Big List” of future reserve expenses. All of which will eventually have to be done. All of which fall under the “Code Upgrade” expenses in this claim. All these expenses must be considered by the insurance company for reimbursement. This Board never thought this to be a bad thing, and those are some of the largest expenses in the rebuild project. If we vote to not replace the Snack Shack, we lose the opportunity to have the insurance company pay for these expenses.
Ed Russell, Anthony Moscarelli, Randy Cohn
