Tag Cloud
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Land deal close for Stitch
by Suzanne Hurt, published on November 2, 2009 at 9:18PM
Storyline: Alleys
No high resolution image exists...
Loading images
A plan to build condos on some of Midtown's alleys may push ahead this week with the sale of a back lot on L Street.
Homeowner Deanna Marquart is close to an agreement to sell 60 feet of her lot to Jeremy Drucker and other developers of an alley housing model called Stitch, the parties announced Monday.
Selling the land for $100,000 will allow her to pay off the mortgage on her house at 2216 L St. Marquart, vice president of the Urban Design Alliance, said she also supports the concept.
"I think this is the kind of development Sacramento needs," Marquart said. "Sacramento has to become denser in its residential development, and this is really a very desirable way to accomplish that."
Construction is expected to begin within a week on a sales model behind 1801 Capitol Ave. Construction on Marquart's back lot should begin in three or four months, after the model is completed, Drucker said.
City of Sacramento departments — which ones are not quite clear — have approved splitting the deep lot for this construction. The property has been zoned for that kind of development in the new general plan, Marquart said.
Drucker is the developer who brought the central city its first certified "green" residential building, 9 on F at 1419 F St. He teamed up for the project with architect Ron Vrilakas, Township 9 developer Ron Mellon and veteran construction company owner Jim Cuttle.
Drucker studied at UC Davis for three years and transferred to California College of the Arts, where he received a bachelor's degree in architecture. For the next year and a half, he helped a nonprofit redevelop slums in India.
After returning to the United States, he saw that Sacramento's central city was experiencing a spurt of construction and other signs of rejuvenation.
"Sacramento is now at an interesting point where the commute is becoming a geological constraint, and downtown and Midtown are starting to come alive," he said. "The thing that's exciting about Sacramento is it's a city that's in the midst of really some great changes. There's a lot of growth and opportunity. The future of Sacramento has not yet been written."
The developers say they have identified other 160-foot-deep residential lots that could hold Stitch condos in alleys. They're working to find interested property owners. The proposed construction increases the value of the land, and the developers are offering three times the appraised value for the back 60 feet, about $60,000 to $100,000, depending on the location.
The design or exterior of the three-story buildings and purchase agreements could differ depending on the surrounding architecture and neighbors' concerns, Drucker said.
Marquart, for instance, has requested that one of the condo building garage's three parking spaces be reserved for the front house. She will lose a two-car garage that she uses for her car, storage and a studio.
Parking spaces may be a priority in neighborhoods like hers that are heavily impacted by commercial parking needs, Drucker said, while in historic districts, buildings may differ in form, material or color.
"We are not proposing a one-size-fits-all solution," he said. "We want to be responsive to people's concerns and their needs."
Marquart has worked as an independent public policy consultant for 25 years. Upon retiring in January 2007, she planned to sell her four-bedroom house and move elsewhere in Midtown. Then she learned about Stitch and decided to sell the back lot and her house, and buy one of the two-bedroom condos in back.
Now, she says, selling the back portion alone will allow her to remain in the 100-year-old house where she's lived for 25 years and where she raised her kids.
"Right now, other than having a garage to park my car in, that property isn't doing anything for me," she said. "I am on a fixed income. If I could pay off my house, that would improve my monthly financial picture substantially."
The contract has taken time to put together because the lot is being split and the developers are buying the land outright, she said. The contract also contains provisions that would require the property owner to buy the land back if the developers, due to financial reasons, don't build within a certain timeframe.
Marquart said she likes the building's design, which she described as a blend of contemporary and traditional.
"The compromise they're working on would be an asset to the neighborhood," she said.
Drucker said he and the other developers want to build residential units with "integrity."
"A lot of development is bad — profit dictates the project," he said. "I don't want to go out and build the quickest, cheapest project. I want to go out and build a building that, in 20 years, I can come back and be just as proud of as when I started. I think that's part of being a responsible citizen."
Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.
Leave a Comment
You can park there if you drive a reasonably-sized car. A crew-cab dually pickup truck wouldn't fit, but most people living downtown don't drive that sort of car.
As Marion mentions, the original plan was for a 3-unit building with 4 parking spaces, but the 4 spaces proved too narrow to practically fit on a 40 foot wide lot. The compromise at the other site is an off-site parking space with a 10 year lease for the fourth unit.
But generally, folks in the central city don't need more than one car per household. It's pretty easy to walk or bike to the supermarket, the drug store, a bite to eat, the gym, etcetera. If you work downtown, it's easier to walk, bike or take public transit--and cheaper, because you don't have to pay for parking at work. The garage becomes "car storage." In fact, that's part of how I use my own garage--often I won't get in my car for a week, and it is easier to park it in my garage (even though it is small, only 8 feet wide) and leave it there than have to move it on street cleaning day. And if I come home late on a Saturday night, the street is parked up. So I can either park it in my own house, or park it a block away from home.
Keep in mind that the folks in the alley units won't necessarily have access to the building from the street side! If they park in front, along L Street (assuming they can find parking) they would have to walk all the way around the block to enter via the alley. Or they can pull into the parking garage and be at home.
Say goodbye to parking in midtown...and SAY GOODBYE to the MIDTOWN SO MANY OF YOU LOVE.
With the downturn in the economy, these scumbags are going to go on a feeding frenzy now that some midtown property owners are hurting for money. $60-100K for a 4-5K SQFT lot is $15 to $20 DOLLARS to PER SQUARE FOOT! The property is worth two or three times that...at least.
The owner might as well just give them the property for free for gods sake, 60-100K will not save their property most likely...try re-financing, or sub-dividing the lot in a joint venture with a contractor. You will come out much better than you will with the predator developers.
I support limited development of midtown alleys if:
A: If it will have adequate off street parking for BOTH front and back units. (NOT micro garages)
B: the density is limited to maybe 4 of these back units per block.
C: the design of the units are reviewed by the Design & Review committee, and are architecturally compatible with midtowns historical heritage.
METAL SIDING??? Are you friggen kidding me?
Ron Vrilakas, is a nice guy and all but he is simply an average architect. If left to his devices, downtown would look like IKEA. He loves modern Euro style of architecture. His style of architecture is simply NOT compatible with mid-town. (At least it will be hidden in an alley)
If anything, it would make much more financial sense for the owner to joint venture the project with a CONTRACTOR and NOT a Developer, They should retain ownership of the parcel, build one or two residential units. Sell them as a single family unit, a condo, or as a TIC (Tenancy In Common - popular in City's like San Francisco) and sell it themselves for a profit, or rent the unit/s out.
Developers are evil scumbags who will destroy this town....but then again maybe Sacramento gets what it deserves....you elected the morons in the City Council...and you allow developers to control our town.
There are only 8 40x160 lots per city block, and many of those lots already have alley buildings of one sort or another (ranging from carports to entire houses moved from other parts of the city and apartment buildings.) So even having 4 units per block seems unlikely.
Units that are located within preservation districts will require preservation review, although it is uncertain whether or not they would be reviewed by the Preservation Commission. Due to city "streamlining," the Commission only reviews some of the biggest projects. Units not in preservation districts still undergo design review, because the entire central city is a design review area. Units in historic districts are supposed to be architecturally compatible with historic buildings, but they generally do not have to resemble historic buildings.
Metal siding is appropriate--for a building on the alley. Take a look down some Midtown alleys, a lot of the buildings already there have corrugated metal siding.
In reference to Ron V's architecture, I really disagree with you Jim. The one thing that Ron has show over the years is his ability of his firm to design a number of architectural styles including a number smaller projects in Midtown that you most likely do not know.
I like this concept overall. Its an great alternative way to get the density up in the Central City without needing large lots and large developments.
One parking space per unit is a good compromise for the present day. We aren't quite to a place where we can do without parking spaces, but we certainly don't need multi-unit parking and driveways for central city housing.
As it stands -- this article proving the concerns -- the picture of the alley unit model with three garages will portray "normal" and the flexibility of plans working off that base, rather than what the truth is.
The most impacted block of midtown at 18th and Capitol, already filled with a 24/7/365 business placed in the alley in the middle of the block, overimpacting further the neighborhood and absurd parking situation and now Stitch with a parking waiver and no disclosure.
Does in matter? I don't see that it does.
As long as the project can find at least 1 space per unit that is what matters at the end of the day. If that remains the standard then why pound the point of how it got there over and over and over again?
The 22nd & L project will have no parking space for the front unit--the owner of the house does not mind, because she does not drive.
As William points out, "the standard" is still four spaces -- the perception here is that three is the standard and the "flexibility" starts from there. Wrong.
My concerns are for the block/area where the Stitch model will be built and for other neighborhoods that may be future sites, as well as Midtown as a whole.
That is why the process matters. That is why this sets a misleading precedent -- the fact that you now consider it "the standard" proves the point. That is why the neighborhood association requested -- and Jeremy agreed -- that he include the complete parking information in his marketing of Stitch.
If you read the comments -- at least once, "over and over again" isn't necessary unless you still don't understand -- you'll see why the process -- and the precedent -- matter.
What IS repetitive is your petty, personal, invasive badgering at me, while hiding behind your screen name. It suggests you have another agenda.
It would be better to use those back lots for fruit trees and garden plots. Knapp is right.
Metal siding is just one of several possible treatments for these buildings--not the only option.
it's been a very long day and my apologies for not weighing into this discussion earlier...i'm just now reading the thread.
If any of you want to meet in-person to discuss your concerns, I'm available and can be reached through the Stitch website: www(dot)stitch-space(dot)com
Marion's absolutely right regarding her (and other's) concerns about parking in heavily-impacted blocks of the central city. The only garage that we could get to fit onto a 40' wide lot while providing "front doors / eyes on the alley" is a 3-car garage; necessitating a parking waiver/variance when there is an existing single-family home. I agree that in certain parts of town, this places an undue burden on street parking and in those instances we will do our best to mitigate the parking situation...as we have done at 1717 Capitol.
Sure, there's plenty of healthy skepticism regarding "developers" but not all are alike and I, for one, firmly believe that there are many benefits for the long-term livability of the central city with the Stitch development strategy - and I welcome the opportunity to meet with any of you to clarify what we are proposing and why so many groups have supported our efforts.
JD
One thing about the article photo, and the metal siding idea: I think that was one of the early concept sketches, it is not much like the most recent drawings that will be used for the prototype Stitch project at 17th & Capitol. I do not think there is any metal siding on that one. I maintain that it isn't inappropriate for alley-facing projects, used in moderation, but it is just one of a variety of approaches Drucker showed us. And he did show us (Midtown Neighborhood Association, as well as SOCA) a lot of sketches and little models over the past two years. The one bump in the road was the switch from 4 to 3 parking spaces, which for various reasons we didn't hear about until a meeting with the Zoning Administrator. Rather than dig his feet in or stop talking to us when met with opposition, Drucker made an effort to meet with the neighborhood. The result was a compromise, three usable parking spaces plus a lease for one off-site space adjacent to the project. Because of that compromise, and his willingness to meet and discuss the issue, MNA actively supported the project.
I'm a skeptic when it comes to most things, especially when it comes to developers. But even I refuse to paint them all with the same brush. Some really are trying to produce a good product, and build something that will work with the existing neighborhood. I consider the Stitch product to be a good example of that sort of developer.
A man reason why is that this sort of development is nothing new--as I have mentioned, there are already hundreds of alley units throughout Midtown. Second is that while Stitch units will add density, they won't add undue levels of density. Currently, a single-family home ona 40x160 home is about 7 units per acre. Adding a tri-plex to the back increases this number to about 28 units per acre, which is within the range planned for most of the central city. It is also well below the existing density in many parts of Midtown. Witness the many four-plex apartments on 40x80 lots, ranging from 100 year old historic buildings (some built as single-family homes and subdivided, some built as apartments) to the Mansard-roofed 1960s/70s fourplexes. 4 units on a 40x80 lot is a density of about 52 units an acre--nearly twice that of Drucker's project. Some of Midtown's existing apartment buildings (again, ranging from century-old buildings to the latest infill projects) have densities approaching 100 units per acre.
The best part (in my opinion) is that building alley units increases density in the central city without requiring the demolition of historic homes on the street facing--and provides a mechanism to make those buildings more financially viable.
I would like to point out that many of the percieved parking problems in Midtown are not only related to new commercial development but of some of the residential projects over the past 30 to 40 years that you mentioned. Many residential projects throughout Midtown were built with little or no off street parking. When the historic structures, that you mention, are subdivided into more units they are done mostly with no off street parking.
Jeremy...keep up the good work. Most people don't understand the risk involved in making development projects happen and make vast generalizations about developers. As you can tell I am with Bill on this...some developers are better than others at engaging the community to work things out.
The compromise included:
making it clear that the model was not the standard, promoting it with the information that it required a parking waiver; that the Stitch model unit legally ought to have had three units with four parking spaces (including one dedicated to the front property owner, who happens to be responsible for much of the traffic impaction on the block, from his nearby business) OR have two units with three parking spaces.
At this point in the mitigation discussion, the aspect of the third unit being ADA compliant came up. The neighborhood association was very supportive -- and swayed -- by the importance of the Stitch model including an ADA compliant studio apartment. There was not more pressure from the neighborhood assocation for Stitch to have two units with the three (four being too crowded) parking spaces, because that third unit was considered such a beneficial and important feature of the project.
That studio has reportedly been sold ''to a local lawyer who is no hurry to move in." The report did not state whether the studio in the model would be built as ADA compliant, now that it has been presold.
" Second is that while Stitch units will add density, they won't add undue levels of density."
The Stitch ,model unit at 1717 Capitol Ave. will add undue levels of density of parking/traffic issues at the middle of the most overimpacted and underparked neighborhood block in Midtown. That is why the neighborhood association was so alarmed to find out about the switch in the plans (that had been presented in all prior meetings), at the last minute.
The concerns were that the model would serve as a model, a norm, a template, for other neighborhoods and (physically) misrepresent the facts and requirements of the model's very existence. This is turn would downplay the seriousness of the parking/traffic realities in the neighborhood the model was subsequently approved for (and potentially others).
It was approved based on the support of the neighborhood association, which was based on the mitigation discussions that amounted to much more than simply leasing a nearby parking space.