Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
City Council tells builder to redesign alley house
by deb belt, published on February 2, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Storyline: Alley house conundrum
Community Tags
alley development
architecture
boulevard park
city council
debate
design
modern
redesign
Loading images
Seven months of review and countless hours of debate and negotiation came down to a 20-second vote Tuesday night as Sacramento City Council voted 7-2 in support of redesigning a single-family home proposed for an alley site in Boulevard Park.
The action prevents the infill project from moving forward without changes to either the height or design style. The builders of the proposed home, Nathan and Erica Cunningham, said they are done and cannot take on redesigning the home.
The council listened to two hours of discussion about the project, including testimony from neighbors, city Design Director William Crouch, the builder and the architect.
More than 20 area residents showed up to oppose the scale and design of the proposed home, which they said does not fit into their historic neighborhood and its turn-of-the-century homes.
Crouch outlined why staff and the city Design Commission approved the project and said the city supported the design as high quality and appropriate for its context facing an industrial alley. Some neighbors also spoke in favor of the proposed design and said it would bring positive change to a neglected alley.
The lot for the proposed 2,400 square-foot home is on the alley behind C Street between 22nd and 23rd Streets. The 33x80 site is 80 feet from the street front and is surrounded by residential homes on three sides and faces an industrial area and the railroad tracks to the north.
The resolution forwarded by Council member Steve Cohn and approved by the City Council calls for the proposed home to “limit the design as proposed to two-story, not to exceed 24-feet in height to the highest point or keep a three-story structure if it is redesigned in traditional vernacular style appropriate to this Boulevard Park neighborhood.”
The proposal also requires the applicant to submit new plans for review and approval by the Design Director, and that the director consult with neighbors in reviewing final plans.
There was considerable discussion of the Central City Neighborhood Design Guidelines during the meeting, and both advocates and opponents cited references from the guidelines in support of their positions.
The proposal forwarded by Cohn directed city staff to “undergo a process, as staffing and resources permit, to supplement the Central City Neighborhood Guidelines with more specific guidelines dealing with single family/multifamily residential alley development in traditional single-family neighborhoods, including consideration of visual impact of new alley development as seen from traditional neighborhood streets.”
Disclosure statement: Writer Debra Belt is married to Stephen Henry of Henry + Associates, the architect of the proposed alley project. She has no financial investment in the project, and has followed the discussion out of interest in the design approval process in Sacramento.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
These Boulevard nmby's ought to move to Curtis Park, where there are plenty of their own kind there.
What is so sad is that all one has to do is walk along Q Street and look at the steel and wood three story complex and the Spanish style three story complex up the street to know these neighborhoods can easily accommodate unique modern styles..in fact they have added even more interest to the street.
Yeah right. Because every old ramshackle building is somehow sacred, and because bums *never* congregate in abandoned buildings.....
"Builders went out where the land was cheap"
And you and your ilk had everything to do with making building utterly too costly in the central city.
Were.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3637735/CDD_Records.pdf
From the Report:
“One deferral agreement with Nathan Cunningham and Erica F, Cunningham (Developer)
deferred Developer's payment of $15,674.42 in development fees for construction of two new
single-family residences in East Sacramento. In accordance with the Fee Deferral Program
Developer's obligation to pay these fees was secured by the City's ability to withhold issuance of
the C of 0 or final inspection until the fees were paid.
Without requiring payment of the deferred fees, DSD ordered final inspections for the
two homes August 13, 2009 and Sept. 10, 2009. DSD inspectors performed and signed off on
final inspections so that these homes could be occupied. An audit of the Fee Deferral Program
by DSD between late October and early December, 2009 discovered that the permits were
finaled [RES-0901661 3631 Folsom Blvd. and RES-0902484 1460 37th Street]. Developer was
contacted but has refused to pay the deferred fees. DSD has withdrawn its final inspection.
The fee deferral program ceased December 31, 2009 in accordance with the terms of the
program. Outstanding fee amounts must be paid no later than 3 years after the fee deferral
subject to one one-year extension.”
And according to City Auditors report of Oct 6, 2010,
““While most of the permits associated with the deferral program participants
are still active and deferred fees not yet due, at least one of the seven participants received final
inspection approvals before more than $15,000 in deferred fees owed to the City were paid and
has since refused to pay.”
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/01/3367043/proposed-alley-house-too-big-too.html#ixzz1CvhhZ1OJ
A developer such as these guys usually tries not to pay the designer upfront...they try to work it so the cash (if it comes at all) comes on the back end of shady deals like this...if that is the case here, which is highly likely considering the history of these guys then the writer of this article is in on the "deal" and has a financial stake in this thing BEYOND what has been stated...
It is my impression that the root problem is that the applicants proposed 2,400 sf residence is too much house for their tiny lot, which resulted in a three-story solution. None of their other residential development projects, many of which are 3-4 bedrooms with at least 3 baths, is larger than 2,000 square feet nor more than two stories. Perhaps trying to run two businesses out of their home contributed to the size of the house and you know that contractors typically have a lot of stuff (tools, leftover materials, etc.) Note also that the average new home size in the US has decreased significantly in the last few years and is now less than 2,100 sf.
It would not surprise me if their "dream home" residency would have lasted just over two years so that they could get favorable treatment on the capital gains when they sell it and then do the same thing all over again somewhere else.