mark handler
SAWHORSE
New Patten St. options eyed
By David Bolling INDEX-TRIBUNE EDITOR
Nov 7, 2011 - 07:21 PM
http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2011/New-Patten-St-options-eyed/
While no concrete conclusions were drawn about the future of the old fire station at 32 Patten St., a second public workshop held Saturday, Nov. 5, exposed a couple of new design options and provided some clarity on the city’s intentions with the property.
The workshop was once again hosted by Foothill Partners, a Sacramento-area green development company, that won a city contract for the property that has now expired.
Valued at $2.8 million when the city sold the building to its Community Development Agency (CDA) in 2006, the property’s value is currently estimated at about $1.2 million and the city wants to sell it outright, but with significant prior control over its use and design.
And while the city is currently barred from entertaining offers from developers, City Manager Linda Kelly revealed that three other parties have expressed interest in the property and have inspected the building.
Because the CDA owns the property, it is subject to the restrictions placed on all redevelopment assets in the state, which can’t change hands until a January state Supreme Court decision resolves the legality of the Legislature’s plan to close down redevelopment agencies.
Meanwhile, however, Foothill Partners continues to explore plans with the city and city residents, even though its contract has lapsed.
While Foothill president Doug Wiele hosted Saturday’s workshop, he passed the lead to his company’s architect Brian Wilson, who laid out plans for two alternative concepts for the property.
The first concept revealed an 8,600-square-foot, two-story building with retail shop space on the first floor and seven live/work lofts on the second floor. A variety of parking diagrams met the legal parking requirements for the building, with parking stalls both on the property and on Patten Street.
A second concept showed a single-story, 3,000-square-foot commercial building facing Broadway and surrounded by significant landscaped public space, with a second, 3,646-square-foot, single-story building that Wiele said would probably wouldn’t pencil out financially unless it were a restaurant.
And if a restaurant were sited on the property, “It won’t park for code,” Wiele said, meaning the space could not accommodate enough parking spaces for a 50-to-60-seat restaurant.
Wiele reiterated that his agreement with the city was that his company could not buy the building until it is 50 percent pre-leased. About the two-story, single-building concept, Wiele said, “That works. We’re very confidant about it.”
For the two-building plan, however, he said “We’re a little more nervous.”
Audience members questioned why developer’s can’t preserve the eastern half of the building that has served as both fire and police office space, and bears an attractive, balconied front façade.
But Wiele explained that ADA requirements for an elevator (which would cost $100,000), along with other code provisions, makes it cheaper the tear the building down and rebuild it than to retrofit the existing structure.
Some members of the audience insisted that discussing design details of a proposed commercial building was a waste of time until the parties resolve whether any commercial building should be built on the site.
Some members of the audience brought up the suggestion of creating a park and a landscaped parking lot, but Kelly pointed out that, “A public park would require a different process. We’d really need to do a community assessment … (to answer the question) do we need a park? We have an eight-acre park a block away.”
One audience member suggested tying the property to the historic Nash-Patten Adobe next door, an idea that intrigued architect Wilson.
But Sonoma attorney and historian Bob Parmelee warned the gathering, “The success of retail establishments in this location is questionable. You should give considerable thought as to whether this can be a financial success.”
Several neighbors insisted there should be no additional parking on Patten Street. One nearby resident argued the most sustainable use of the property would be to leave it as is and let someone buy it as a home.
After two-and-a-half hours, Wiele ended the discussion with an invitation to residents for small group meetings in the future, but no more large public gatherings were planned.
By David Bolling INDEX-TRIBUNE EDITOR
Nov 7, 2011 - 07:21 PM
http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2011/New-Patten-St-options-eyed/
While no concrete conclusions were drawn about the future of the old fire station at 32 Patten St., a second public workshop held Saturday, Nov. 5, exposed a couple of new design options and provided some clarity on the city’s intentions with the property.
The workshop was once again hosted by Foothill Partners, a Sacramento-area green development company, that won a city contract for the property that has now expired.
Valued at $2.8 million when the city sold the building to its Community Development Agency (CDA) in 2006, the property’s value is currently estimated at about $1.2 million and the city wants to sell it outright, but with significant prior control over its use and design.
And while the city is currently barred from entertaining offers from developers, City Manager Linda Kelly revealed that three other parties have expressed interest in the property and have inspected the building.
Because the CDA owns the property, it is subject to the restrictions placed on all redevelopment assets in the state, which can’t change hands until a January state Supreme Court decision resolves the legality of the Legislature’s plan to close down redevelopment agencies.
Meanwhile, however, Foothill Partners continues to explore plans with the city and city residents, even though its contract has lapsed.
While Foothill president Doug Wiele hosted Saturday’s workshop, he passed the lead to his company’s architect Brian Wilson, who laid out plans for two alternative concepts for the property.
The first concept revealed an 8,600-square-foot, two-story building with retail shop space on the first floor and seven live/work lofts on the second floor. A variety of parking diagrams met the legal parking requirements for the building, with parking stalls both on the property and on Patten Street.
A second concept showed a single-story, 3,000-square-foot commercial building facing Broadway and surrounded by significant landscaped public space, with a second, 3,646-square-foot, single-story building that Wiele said would probably wouldn’t pencil out financially unless it were a restaurant.
And if a restaurant were sited on the property, “It won’t park for code,” Wiele said, meaning the space could not accommodate enough parking spaces for a 50-to-60-seat restaurant.
Wiele reiterated that his agreement with the city was that his company could not buy the building until it is 50 percent pre-leased. About the two-story, single-building concept, Wiele said, “That works. We’re very confidant about it.”
For the two-building plan, however, he said “We’re a little more nervous.”
Audience members questioned why developer’s can’t preserve the eastern half of the building that has served as both fire and police office space, and bears an attractive, balconied front façade.
But Wiele explained that ADA requirements for an elevator (which would cost $100,000), along with other code provisions, makes it cheaper the tear the building down and rebuild it than to retrofit the existing structure.
Some members of the audience insisted that discussing design details of a proposed commercial building was a waste of time until the parties resolve whether any commercial building should be built on the site.
Some members of the audience brought up the suggestion of creating a park and a landscaped parking lot, but Kelly pointed out that, “A public park would require a different process. We’d really need to do a community assessment … (to answer the question) do we need a park? We have an eight-acre park a block away.”
One audience member suggested tying the property to the historic Nash-Patten Adobe next door, an idea that intrigued architect Wilson.
But Sonoma attorney and historian Bob Parmelee warned the gathering, “The success of retail establishments in this location is questionable. You should give considerable thought as to whether this can be a financial success.”
Several neighbors insisted there should be no additional parking on Patten Street. One nearby resident argued the most sustainable use of the property would be to leave it as is and let someone buy it as a home.
After two-and-a-half hours, Wiele ended the discussion with an invitation to residents for small group meetings in the future, but no more large public gatherings were planned.