RCAC July 2012

rcac@eastraleigh.org

6 participants
12 discussions

City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation System Plan (Planning Committee)

by Mark Turner

Good morning, fellow RCAC members. Below is an opportunity to help guide the development of Raleigh's parks System Plan through participation on the Parks' department's planning committee. If you're interested in being one of our two RCAC representatives please let me know by this Friday, August 3rd. Thanks and have a great week! Regards, Mark RCAC Chair 919.741.6329 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation System Plan (Planning Committee) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:09 -0400 From: Bentley, Stephen <Stephen.Bentley(a)raleighnc.gov> To: Patterson, Dwayne <Dwayne.Patterson(a)raleighnc.gov>, Mark Turner (jmarkturner(a)gmail.com) <jmarkturner(a)gmail.com> CC: Maughan, Grayson <Grayson.Maughan(a)raleighnc.gov> Good Morning Dwayne and Mark, I hope you both had a nice weekend. As you both are aware the City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department is starting the process to develop our new long range System Plan which will guide our facilities and services the next 20 years. As a part of this process we are creating a citizen based “Planning Committee”. This committee will be comprised of stakeholders from a broad range of backgrounds and interests ranging from Senior Adults to Athletics to Nature/Environment and several more. At their July 19^th meeting the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board <http://www.raleighnc.gov/government/content/BoardsCommissions/Articles/Park…> recommended that two representatives from the Raleigh CAC participate on the Planning Committee. We hope that the two RCAC participants will represent the broader citizen interests in the process. The Parks and Recreation System Plan process will be about 16 months long. We expect to have 6 Planning Committee meetings during that period of time. In addition we will ask Planning Committee members to participate in various community meetings and focus groups as well. The Planning Committee will review information from staff, the consultants and the community to ensure that the best interests of the City of Raleigh are being addressed. I have attached 3 documents for you: ·General project and Planning Committee outline ·Detailed scope of work to be completed by the consultants and staff ·DRAFT schedule for the Planning Committee We hope to bring our Planning Committee recommendations to the City Council at their August 7^th meeting. The first Planning Committee meeting would tentatively be the end of September or early October. During the System Plan process we will communicate the status, progress and other involvement opportunities to the RCAC so other members are aware of how they might get involved. We also plan to make a few presentations to the RCAC for input as a part of the process. */Since the RCAC does not meet in August can I request that you two send this request to the RCAC distribution list and seek 2 volunteers?/* Please let me know if there is something I can do to assist with seeking out the two RCAC volunteers. If either of you or any RCAC members have questions please let me know. Thank you, Stephen Stephen C. Bentley Capital Improvement Program Manager City of Raleigh PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602 stephen.bentley(a)raleighnc.gov <mailto:stephen.bentley@raleighnc.gov> (919) 996-4784

13 years, 4 months

Teaching students about CACs - Nov. 16th

by Mark Turner

Hi folks, I got more information on the opportunity to talk about CAC's to the visiting students from Charlotte. The CAC-specific sessions will take place the morning of Friday, November 16th, from 9 AM - 2:30 PM. Lunch will be provided. If you've already let me know you're interested, please reconfirm offlist so that I can get you more information. Thanks and have a great day! Mark RCAC Chair 919.741.6329

13 years, 4 months

Fwd: City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation System Plan (Planning Committee)

by Mark Turner

Take two, this time with attachments. Regards, Mark -------- Original Message -------- Subject: City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation System Plan (Planning Committee) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:09 -0400 From: Bentley, Stephen <Stephen.Bentley(a)raleighnc.gov> To: Patterson, Dwayne <Dwayne.Patterson(a)raleighnc.gov>, Mark Turner (jmarkturner(a)gmail.com) <jmarkturner(a)gmail.com> CC: Maughan, Grayson <Grayson.Maughan(a)raleighnc.gov> Good Morning Dwayne and Mark, I hope you both had a nice weekend. As you both are aware the City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department is starting the process to develop our new long range System Plan which will guide our facilities and services the next 20 years. As a part of this process we are creating a citizen based “Planning Committee”. This committee will be comprised of stakeholders from a broad range of backgrounds and interests ranging from Senior Adults to Athletics to Nature/Environment and several more. At their July 19^th meeting the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board <http://www.raleighnc.gov/government/content/BoardsCommissions/Articles/Park…> recommended that two representatives from the Raleigh CAC participate on the Planning Committee. We hope that the two RCAC participants will represent the broader citizen interests in the process. The Parks and Recreation System Plan process will be about 16 months long. We expect to have 6 Planning Committee meetings during that period of time. In addition we will ask Planning Committee members to participate in various community meetings and focus groups as well. The Planning Committee will review information from staff, the consultants and the community to ensure that the best interests of the City of Raleigh are being addressed. I have attached 3 documents for you: ·General project and Planning Committee outline ·Detailed scope of work to be completed by the consultants and staff ·DRAFT schedule for the Planning Committee We hope to bring our Planning Committee recommendations to the City Council at their August 7^th meeting. The first Planning Committee meeting would tentatively be the end of September or early October. During the System Plan process we will communicate the status, progress and other involvement opportunities to the RCAC so other members are aware of how they might get involved. We also plan to make a few presentations to the RCAC for input as a part of the process. */Since the RCAC does not meet in August can I request that you two send this request to the RCAC distribution list and seek 2 volunteers?/* Please let me know if there is something I can do to assist with seeking out the two RCAC volunteers. If either of you or any RCAC members have questions please let me know. Thank you, Stephen Stephen C. Bentley Capital Improvement Program Manager City of Raleigh PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602 stephen.bentley(a)raleighnc.gov <mailto:stephen.bentley@raleighnc.gov> (919) 996-4784

13 years, 4 months

Re: [RCAC] Talking to 9th graders about CACs - Nov. 15-16

by Mark Turner

Good afternoon, folks. I have heard from some CAC chairs about participating but wanted to ask again if others want to join us November 16th when we'll be talking about CACs to students from Charlotte. If you'd like to tell your story, let me know soon so that Ms. Katy Field can arrange the trip. Thanks! Regards, Mark RCAC Chair 919.741.6329 On 07/16/2012 02:18 PM, Mark Turner wrote: > Good afternoon RCAC members. > > I wanted to let you know of an upcoming opportunity to share the > wisdom, ideas and experiences you've gained through CACs with some 9th > grade students from Charlotte. A group of about 150 students from > Charlotte's Providence Day school are planning to spend a few days in > Raleigh (from 15-20 November) learning how an ordinance goes from an > idea into law. In addition to hearing CAC success stories, the > students plan to participate in a "mock city council session," > pitching their ideas to a board of CAC chairs and/or city councilors > in order to get feedback on their approaches. > > If you'd like to participate, you'd likely be needed only on Thursday > the 15th or Friday the 16th as discussed in the schedule below. No > need to be there all the time, either: whatever time you could share > would be great. > > The trip is still tentative at this point but if you've got a good > idea NOW whether you'll be able to join in or not, let me know and > I'll pass that on to Ms. Field, the teacher organizing the trip. > > Regards, > Mark > RCAC chair > 919.741.6329 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > > > > > > > The following is a possible draft outline for our trip: > ------------- > Before Nov 15th > -Students learn about the basic institutions of the governance system from the local to the global level in their Global Civics classes -Students are also introduced to the topics of citizen action and advocacy (including sub-topics such as how a bill becomes a law and lobbying)--specific activities, questions, and/or readings can be chosen to intentionally set up Raleigh experiential learning activities -students will have been introduced to mock congressional activities which involve simplistic rules of parliamentary procedure and resolution writing -students could prepare research on issues of state and/or local concern for upcoming CAC activities in Raleigh > > Thursday Nov 15th > - ~140 students and 12 teacher chaperones arrive in Raleigh -students are introduced to the Citizens Advisory Council process: ideally the students receive a short primer on the CAC process, a case study on an issue that went from local issue to municipal ordinance (e.g. dealing with dangerous dogs), coaching on how to turn an idea into a real legislative proposal, how to build support for an idea, etc and are thus empowered to participate in break out activities where they work in 7-8 groups of ~16-20 students each to craft proposals from the research they have completed in class and guidance they've received from CAC leaders (perhaps the Center for Community Leadership through the Junior League of Raleigh would be a good locale for this work?) -Thursday evening students would do something fun like see an NC State basketball game or spend time at a local entertainment locale like Adventure Landing -students spend evening in Raleigh > > Friday Nov 16th > -students nominate peers from each of their 7-8 groups to present 3-4 min proposals to CAC representatives (and any other relevant, local officials possible) in a mock city council meeting. They receive responses and questions that would be asked of citizens who may be presenting similar ideas at a city council meeting, etc; at the end, CAC panel provides feedback on which proposals they found most compelling and the challenges/opportunities they would each face to moving forward in the legislative process -students move on in afternoon to visit state Capitol building and/or local NGOs in rotating groups of ~50 each -students return to Charlotte > > Monday Nov 19th > -students sent in groups of ~50 to do morning visits to 3 different local businesses to learn about their self-advocacy processes and how they engage their local elected officials and institutions in the legislative process- they hear about case studies of how these businesses advanced their interests through the legislative process -students return to campus for lunch and an afternoon interactive session with Crossroads Charlotte on challenges/opportunities of how underrepresented populations engage their local governance systems > > Tuesday Nov 20th > -students debrief trip activities (led by class dean, guidance counselor, and Director of Multicultural Affairs) with a focus on the process of self-advocacy and the challenges of coalition building > > In Global Civics classes after Nov 20th > -students refine and debate modifications and evolutions of their initial CAC proposals as part of in-class simulations > ------------------ > > Our timeframe for the trip has been set by our school administration, but the Thursday and Friday portions of the trip are malleable. > > In addition to being the class dean, I am also a 9th grade Global Civics teacher and can thus be a point person to coordinate the in-class set up and debrief activities that help facilitate and maximize the learning opportunities that will be made available to our students from this trip. I'm also cc'ing my history department chair, my division head, and the director of multicultural affairs--all of whom are integral to the 9th grade curriculum and our class trip process. Please feel free to forward these ideas on to anyone who you think may be able to and interested in helping us as well. > > I am very excited about the processes of experiential learning and empowering civic engagement in our students, and the CAC system sounds like a wonderful opportunity to thus engage our students. I look forward to learning more about how we may be able to work with you and those involved with the Citizens Advisory Councils in Raleigh to promote meaningful, hands-on, civic leadership education for our students! Please let me know if you think you see any real possibilities in the ideas I have brainstormed above and/or have further thoughts that would improve upon what I've sketched out. Please feel free to call me if this is easier than email: (980) 297-3725. > > Thank you so much for your time and help. > > Sincerely, > Katy Field > > History & Global Studies Teacher > 9th Grade Class Dean > Coordinator of PDS chapter of Critical Friends Groups Professional Development Program

13 years, 4 months

request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying ... (part 2)

by Linda Watson

Dear RCAC members, I just sent you an email that helps bring you up-to-date in a discussion was triggered in part by my request before the RCAC meeting to Christine Darges to discuss the backyard cottages. This email exchange is what I'd hoped for instead of a presentation on the basic structure of the code. I felt quite rude being insistent that we at least mentioned the backyard cottages, but perhaps from these mails you'll be able to see why I felt the need to do so. I am now also concerned about accessory apartments and attached dwellings (duplexes). Below, I've included a part of the thread that was cut off: my response to Christine's comment about the RCAC meeting. *I hope you will share my concern about how the city is tracking comments.*You will see that I've raised the issue of setbacks for the cottages for over a year but the planning staff only "identified" the issue in March 2012 after the public hearing. If you have submitted comments on the UDO, please check to see if they have been addressed. Only yesterday did the planning staff recommend to the Planning Commission that the setbacks for backyard cottages match the setbacks for the main residences. Fortunately, the commission approved this change. At our CAC meeting on Monday, our planner Doug Hill told us that emailed comments to the planning staff should go to Christine Darges *and* to Travis Crane (travis.crane(a)raleighnc.gov). It's surprising that we don't have a public change-management system of the sort that's been used by software developers and technical writers for decades. Thanks to everyone who has put time, thought, and effort into creating the UDO and to everyone working to make Raleigh an even better place to live. Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC ******* July 20th, 2012 Christine, Thank you for your detailed reply. We have different opinions about how the RCAC meeting went, but I appreciate your intent. I know that you are handling a tremendous number of comments on a complex issue and thank you for your hard work. *From your note today, it seem that despite my best efforts, my comments on the backyard cottage setback was not included in the public hearing.* From the city website<http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleighCo…>, from RaleighUDO.com, and from many comments at RCAC and CAC meetings, I'd understood that emails would have the same weight as comments made during an in-person meeting. Here's how I've tried to raise this issue: June 6, 2011: I sent this comment to newcode(a)raleighnc.gov as part of my UDO review: > Article 2.2.1 (page 2-4) An accessory building that is only 5' away from > the side property line and 25' tall could significantly block sunlight to > the adjoining property. I'd recommend that accessory buildings have the > same setback as the principal buildings (10') > March 26, 2012: The Glenwood CAC discussed these setback at our meeting and I'd discussed my concerns with Doug Hill before the meeting to makes sure I understood the proposal. May 15, 2012: I sent you my comments on May 15th in an email with the subject line *UDO review: deep concern about accessory dwellings*. You replied the same day and I replied to you. (Our email discussion is included below.) My neighborhood book club also discussed the setback in May and some said they would send in comments, but perhaps none of them did. It continues to be a topic at neighborhood gatherings. *I'm alarmed at this point wondering how many other significant concerns have been raised several times and possibly dropped.* Did anyone consider my request last June for: Regulations limiting outdoor theaters in residential neighborhoods<http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/19/1210354/tv-under-the-stars-052111.ht…>, > such as this. Perhaps the solution to this potential problem lies with the > noise ordinances, but imagine having someone watch shows full of > explosions, screams, pounding music, or even X-rated content with large > speakers just 5 or 10 feet from their neighbors' house. > *If there is a better way for the public to submit comments, please let us know.* It's not practical for many of us to come downtown and physically attend meetings or meet with staff in person. See below for the May 15th correspondence mentioned above. Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC The first person to minor in design at NCSU, with a focus on architecture and city planning ****** *UDO review: deep concern about accessory dwellings*. Emails from May 15, 2012. ********* Dear Christine, Thanks for your responses and I'm sorry that I didn't see your first one until just now. Here is the link to my image: http://www.cookforgood.com/storage/neighborhood_map_cottages3.jpg You write that: so there isn’t much difference being proposed, only that they can be > detached. *But they can also be built* *five feet closer to the property line*. Because the cottages have to be set back 20 or 35 feet from the main house, the design tendency could be to build narrow cottages as near as possible to the property line. Maybe they should be called "accessory shotgun shacks." Many of the houses in my neighborhood have had student apartments at times. In the last eight years or so, many parents have purchases smaller homes for their children to live in while they went to college and then sold them or rented them to strangers. Assuming that NC State continues to grow, gas gets more expensive, and more people move to the Triangle, it seems completely possible that someone could create a business of building and managing Backyard Cottages for home owners. I'd rather make sure the code doesn't allow this than to assume that past building patterns will hold. Thank you for fielding what must be an enormous number of comments. ... Linda Linda, I apologize as I am unable to open the image. It’s important to note that backyard cottages cannot be placed on all properties. There are specific requirements such as setbacks, separation, parking, height and placement to be accommodated. We currently have regulations today in our current code that allow attached dwelling units and very few properties utilize this. The percentage for detached is less as the standards are more strict for detached. The reality is that the requirements to meet the code will result in many properties not being able to add the unit. Christine Customer Service Survey<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> ** * * *Christine Darges* Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov ------------------------------ *From:* watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Linda Watson *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:48 AM *To:* Darges, Christine *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug *Subject:* UDO review: deep concern about accessory dwellings Dear Christine, I'm deeply concerned about the effect the proposed UDO ordinance could have on the neighborhoods in the Glenwood CAC. As an example, I've sketched the effect of adding accessory cottages to my immediate neighborhood. The image below shows the Dellwood Drive & Elvin Court area. It's a rough drawing but should give you the general idea. The yellow rectangles are new cottages that are 690 square feet (700 is allowed for lots between 10,000 and 19,999 square feet) and the orange ones 770 (800 is allowed for lots between 20,000 and 39,999). The dark gray showed additional driveways. Even though we live just a block from a bus stop and in a very bikeable area, each cottage is required to have an extra parking slot. The lot outlined in red is mine (1421 Dellwood Drive) which is .44 acres or 19,166 square feet. Across the street, the Osbornes' lot is 11,325 feet, so it could also have an accessory dwelling of up to 700 square feet. The Ferrell's lot two doors down is 20,473 square feet so it could have an 800 square-foot cottage. [image: Inline image 1] Please: - Require that cottages respect the current 10-foot no-build zone between lots - Eliminate the off-street parking space requirement for cottagesoccupied by people who don't have a car on site - Make more accurate drawings that show the possible effects of these cottages available to more people so they can understand the potential impact Our neighborhood is in flux, torn between renovating or scraping existing house to build larger ones and renting out the existing house to students. Right now, it seems that the larger homes will prevail, with higher property values and a re-stabilized neighborhood. But the cottages as defined could turn this into a student and renter neighborhood. I could easily see the cottages being built to provide rental income for the existing residents and later being turned into all-rental property when our aging residents are no longer there. These cottages could also provide an additional incentive to re-zone from R-4 to R-6, as would be allowed by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Building so many cottages and the parking needed for them will remove trees and pave more area, increasing water run-off problems and increasing global warming. Having the cottages within five feet of the property lines could shade out existing vegetable gardens and sunny patios. We have a hilly neighborhood, so a structure that is "only" 15 feet tall and five feet from the property line could easily seem like one that is 25 feet tall to a house downhill. If I were building a granny cottage for my blind parents, a parking space would not be needed. If I later rented it only to students without a car, then the space still wouldn't be needed. I've sent this image with a version of this note to my CAC mailing list and to my neighbors. In private discussions with some of them, I believe they are just starting to understand the impact that the new UDO could have on our neighborhood. Although I know we've tried hard as planners and activists to engage people earlier in this discussion, I believe that many are just now starting to pay attention. I hope you and the Planning Department will allow us to extend the conversation about this so we can find a better way to incorporate these cottages. *From:* Darges, Christine [mailto:Christine.Darges@raleighnc.gov] *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 12:16 AM *To:* linda(a)lindawatson.com *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner *Subject:* RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Linda, As your email came in a day before the RCAC presentation, I felt it would be better to respond to your email at the meeting where all present could benefit from the discussion. I included this in the presentation for this reason and believe the discussion was very productive as it prompted the group to ask several questions and resulted in a better understanding of the proposed housing option for everyone. It was very helpful and thank you for bringing this up. This morning, I culled through the approximately 175 Planning Commission recommended edits to the UDO draft and I did not see that they made the change from 5’-10’ as I had thought, but recall it was in our staff notes. Looking into this further, I saw that this topic had not been raised during the public hearing, so was not incorporated into the public comment record; however, the staff had made a note to look into this further as the 5’ setback for an accessory structure does not have the same impacts as a detached structure with a dwelling unit. With the Commission reviewing chapter by chapter in early March, they had finished with chapter 2 by the time staff identified it. This is why it was not an official comment presented and acted on with other chapter 2 comments. For the July 24th UDO review, the item is on our agenda and there will be a recommendation that the rear and side setback for backyard cottages be increased from 5’-10’ as staff identified and you as well. Staff is currently preparing a draft of the final PC recommendations for web posting that the public will be able to access in the near future through the link below. Also through the link, you can access weekly reports for specific discussion items. Reports are normally available by end of day Friday. http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleighCo… Sincerely, Christine Customer Service Survey<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> * * *Christine Darges* Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC

13 years, 4 months

request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO

by Linda Watson

Dear RCAC members, Here are several emails that will help bring you up to date on the recent UDO discussion. My "fears" in the top email are the ones I presented to the Planning Commission yesterday. Thanks to Mark Turner for fixing the email list and for meeting with me yesterday to discuss this. Thanks to Phil Poe for the long and useful phone conversation and his continued work on this long and complex process. ... Linda On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Linda Watson <linda(a)lindawatson.com> wrote: Vincent, You wrote: To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its > the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. > I'm afraid that Raleigh, known for its beautiful, green neighborhoods, will allow extensive building that will diminish the quality of life in established neighborhoods. Accessory dwellings, which can be added to the front of existing homes, and backyard "cottages" can turn single-family neighborhoods into duplex and rental neighborhoods. Even the best scenarios bring problems, as you can see from the examples below. The worst ones are horrific. I support and have personally benefited from affordable housing, but don't believe we have to sacrifice single-family neighborhoods to provide it. Here's what I'm afraid of: - *Slumlords*, yes, doing just what you and others have described: cramming in shoddily constructed and poorly maintained accessory dwellings and backyard "cottages" (or backyard shotgun shacks). - *Unemployed relatives or friends* who build accessory cottages themselves using scrap material. Building an accessory cottage gives Cousin Fred a way to feel useful and eventually gets him off the couch. (See U.S. poverty rate on track to rise to highest rate since 1960s<http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2213598/us-poverty-on-track-to-rise-…>in today's *N&O*). - *Tiny-house enthusiasts* who say Viva la Tiny House Revolution<http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/blogs/tumbleweed/5912793-viva-la-tiny-revol…>. See some clever examples in Tiny House Design<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/>and one on Method Road. These house can be built built out of shipping containers<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2012/07/22/shipping-container-cabin-concept-…>and using odd DIY materials<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2012/07/21/derek-deek-diedricksen-exposes-di…>. Long and narrow designs<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2011/09/23/coastal-cottage-tiny-house-framin…>can be placed parallel to the lot lines, meeting the requirement of 35' building separation while blocking the sun and view for the neighbors. With so many design graduates and creative-class members here, backyard cottages could become the McMansions of the 2010s. - *Parents of students* who will see an even better economic reason to buy a smallish house for their kids and their friends to live in while in college. They could build an accessory cottage for their darlings and rent out the main house or vice versa. After the kids graduate, the rental income could be good enough and the local property values now bad enough that the complex stays rental instead of being flipped back to owner-occupied. - *Savvy friends who decide to try co-housing or landlords* who want to increase their income by doing this. These landlords could include people who inherit 1960s brick ranches near universities, hospitals, malls, or other suburban activity centers. - *Affluent homeowners* investing in a well-designed and maintained cottages that are occupied first by young-adult children, then by their grannies, then by renters, and finally by live-in servants and caretakers. - *Employers* have new opportunities to offer living quarters in lieu of wages and to increase their employees' dependence. Think not-so-migrant workers. - *Human traffickers<http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2212782/local-groups-seek-stronger-a…>or pimps <http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/101354/>* could use accessory apartments and backyard cottages to expand or distance themselves from their unsavory occupations. For all these possibilities: - Smaller dwellings lead to more outdoor living, says the article Think Small<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/realestate/greathomes/16tiny.html?_r=1>in the *New York Times*. > > To compensate for the lack of interior space, the couple cook, > entertain and, for the most part, live outdoors. “We live in our view > rather than look at it,” This may be lovely in your neighbors are reading Thoreau, but not when they are showing Fight Club III in their backyard theater<http://backyardtheater.com/>. - Dwellings may first be occupied by the allowed two people and their pets, then also by their sweethearts, friends, children, and their pets. At what point do you want to be the landlord that evicts a growing family or the neighbor that calls the housing inspector? - Additional housing means increased water run off due to additional hardscape. It can significantly change the views from nearby backyards and isolate the remaining trees in nearby lots, increasing the possibility of storm damage. - UDO section 2.4.2.C says that backyard cottages "typically include" a kitchen and bathroom, but does not require that they do. Imagine the cottage residents going back and forth to the main house to use the facilities or cooking outdoors. - No matter how lovely or high-minded the first use is, the building remains after Granny or Sonny moves on or the original owners sell. How will the next owner use the building? Given the proposed semi-judicial way of approving building plans, we must treat the UDO is like a prenuptial agreement: a way to protect ourselves from the worst possibilities in a situation where we are hoping for the best. Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Thomas Crowder <tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com>wrote: Vince: They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So I thought I would follow-up my pervious e-mail with some pictures of the “typical” quality you see from rental investor improvements in SW Raleigh. They are just a few examples in of single-family properties; before and after investors made the “improvements”. Granted these are R-10 zoned properties; however you get a feel for what these investors see as appropriate for our neighborhoods. BTW, the majority of these landlords live outside Raleigh and even out of state. The first is 1916 Greenleaf, once a wooded affordable single-family neighborhood street with beautiful ranches, now almost 100% rental: *Photograph Date: 1/8/2003 (AFTER) Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE)* [image: http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/20030108/C8113125.JPG] [image: http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/WAKE1229/00650700.JPG] Next is 3800 Greenleaf (the new roof was due to a fire in 2003), another beautiful ranch home: *Photograph Date: 2/1/2004 (AFTER) Photograph Date: 1/8/2003 (AFTER) Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE)* [image: http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/20040201/A1112203.jpg] [image: http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/20030108/C8113216.JPG] [image: http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/WAKE1229/0073DE00.JPG] Unfortunately I could not pull up photos for 2809 Avent Ferry Road on I-Maps, but I highly recommend you ride by the next time you are in the area. There other examples on Buck Jones Road and Bashford Road. Hopefully these photos better illustrate the legitimate concerns folks and I have regarding the future of our affordable neighborhoods in SW Raleigh and throughout the city. Betsy, I believe this may illustrate one reason why you are advising your municipal clients not to allow such entitlements. Also, please remember Rooming Houses were deemed at one time a great way to provide affordable housing in Raleigh. Have a great week folks! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011* *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!* *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Crowder *Sent:* Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:30 PM *To:* vincent(a)vincentwhitehurst.com *Cc:* karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff *Subject:* RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Vince: You are correct, if the backyard cottages could be limited to owner occupied structures, then it would not be such a problem and a desirable income stream for families. The challenges surface when rental investors divide an existing single-family unit into two units and the density now expands from four unrelated persons to six unrelated persons or more than likely more than six. As stated previously, the current four unrelated limit is never enforced due to the difficulties of proving who is a tenant and who is a guest. I’m all for design standards, but the legislature currently has a study group looking at preventing local government from enacting them on properties zoned R-5 and below. So I would not count on any rental investors constructing high quality accessory units…backyard cottage or internal to the single-family structures. It is pure economics. If you can buy a home and quarter to 1/3 of an acre lot for under $150,000 (which plenty exist in SW Raleigh) you can easily divide it into or add another 700 square feet structure in the rear yard and rent it out to 6 individuals. Rents around the university can go as high as $500 per room, per month. Furthermore one of our largest problem landlords has been Vernon J Vernon. He constructed the beautiful “blue” multi-family units on Avent Ferry Road, which was once a single-family home lot. We also have fine examples of single-family homes converted (added onto) into multi-family structures on R10 and higher lots, some constructed by Vernon and Donna Preiss. I’ll be have to take you on a tour sometime. As for Cameron Park, I am sure the residents that bought their homes in the 1970’s will tell you it was not affluent. Homes could be purchased for around $30,000.00. There were a large number of rooming houses (more than four unrelated tenants living in the homes) in Cameron Park and a high percentage of rental properties. It was these residents led by Al Adams that pushed to down zone Cameron Park for that very reason. Any grandfathered accessory units today are owner occupied; however even with one of the highest single-family property values in the city, you still have problem landlords in the neighborhood. I’m sure Christie Terrell would be happy to elaborate further. The best strategy to add mixed-income units and control sprawl is through the development of our mixed-use centers throughout the city, which are accessible to transit and hopefully pedestrian and bike friendly, with the right design standards of course. Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011* *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!* *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Vincent Whitehurst *Sent:* Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:15 PM *To:* Thomas Crowder *Cc:* karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff *Subject:* Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO All, To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. What I've always seen happen is they purchase a property and don't spend a dime on it. I can't imagine them spending any money at all to create backyard dwellings. It seems counterintuitive to the idea of being a slumlord. Also, we have PROP laws, zoning, building codes, and ordinances that should address most issues. New building has many quality requirements that you can rarely enforce on existing buildings. I don't like the idea of penalizing all the advantages of what backyard cottages could offer by only looking at the worst case scenario. Why not look at the best case scenario? Maybe we need some design standards for materials on these dwellings. We could also have some sort of "overlay' requirements for at-risk areas we think need more protection such as the areas Thomas is mentioning. If a home is the only investment some people have, then they can increase their investment by building an apartment that could help with rent, such as many properties in Cameron Park, one of the city's more affluent areas, already have. I think we have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. If we want to start combating sprawl, we need to look for ways to up-zone properties to allow higher uses. We have to do this IN THE BELTLINE and outside the beltline. Backyard cottages are an opportunity for smart, small scale infill. I think we need to look at the big picture on issues like this. Just my two cents. Vincent Whitehurst, Architect 919-821-3355 On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Thomas Crowder wrote: Karen: As always, thank you for your thoughts, as we often agree on such matters; however this is one where we must agree to disagree. I concur that the affordable housing community should always have a seat at the table during these discussions. You know I have been a vocal advocate for supporting “affordable housing” but through the creation of mixed-income communities, particularly within mixed-use centers throughout our entire city, where jobs are within walking distance and which are adequately served by transit. I will continue to support a mix of housing opportunities for ALL income levels, as “affordable” is a relative term. What is affordable to you, may not be affordable to me, etc. But the rub is that historically (and currently) this does not exist. “Affordable” housing is only constructed in communities that currently is or historically has been “affordable” such as areas within Northeast, Southeast and Southwest Raleigh. That is why the City created a scattered housing policy for subsidized “affordable” housing decades ago. Our affordable rental housing providers were only focusing on areas where the land was less costly, within already “affordable communities. Debbie Moose notes in another string, the concerns she has about this matter. She lives in one of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city and the most affordable Zip Code within Wake County as quoted by Michelle Grant with Community Development. Due to the affordability of neighborhoods like Ms. Moose’s, rental investors (absentee landlords) are able to purchase single-family properties and covert them to rental units that are quite profitable. It is just simple math: less upfront investment + low overhead (maintenance investment) cost = maximized profit. Unfortunately, one residual impact is these properties are not often well maintained, the appearance of the neighborhood declines, the quality of life in these neighborhoods degrades and home values stymieing. Why is this a problem? Homeowners like Debbie who live in these neighborhoods are not only personally invested in their community, their home in many cases is their primary or the only financial investment they have. The majority of their net worth is tied up in their home and they are not heavily invested in other real estate portfolios, or the stock market. Their home is it. The majority of the time this is not the case for the rental investors, who do not reside within these neighborhoods and who as a rule live in more affluent areas of the city. Historically, a majority of these rental investors do not maintain their rental investments to the same level of their homes. To add insult to injury, I often see many of them before the city council objecting to public nuisance or zoning violation fines, requesting the council abate them in the name of them providing “affordable housing”. It is the very reason so many at-risk communities lobbied the city to create the PROP and landlord registry. It was lower and moderate income communities who were out front supporting this legislation in order to protect the quality of life in their neighborhoods and to protect their home investment. Furthermore, middle and upper income residents do not historically live in, or move to areas where there home investment will not appreciate, or where they believe their quality of life will more likely diminish. Who can blame them, no one does and would not if they could afford to. And while it is illegal to steer, residential real estate advisors do not promote these communities to middle and upper income citizens. Therefore it is an endless spiral where we segregate our lower and moderate wealth citizens, that we all know is broken but will not fully accept. Why do we know such a cycle is broken? It is through another well intended concept, the urban renewal efforts of the 1960’s/1970’s, that we now recognized segregating and warehousing our lower wealth citizens is not the answer to assisting them move towards a path of building wealth and self-sufficiency, nor creating healthy sustainable communities. Acknowledging our mistake lead to the creation of the Hope VI program. Through the Hope VI program we are now turning these complexes into well planed, well constructed communities for a mix of income levels. Segregating our neighborhoods based on socio-economics is no different, nor less damaging than segregating our schools. When we do not integrate a mix of incomes and segregate our moderate and even more so, our low wealth citizens into large geographic areas of the city, we deny them the opportunity to close access to both, entry level and higher paying job and force them to drive long distances or multiple transit transfers. Furthermore, we deny them close proximity to retail and other health and professional services. This is because income demographic data that every business references drives their decision on where they locate, or not locate. One only has to drive through the city to see where the majority of such services are concentrated, at least those services furnished by the private sector. While we are in principal working towards the same goal, I must respectfully disagree that allowing back yard “cottages” and duplex conversions in already “affordable” or at-risk communities is the answer; particularly when the city does not have the legislative nor legal authority to insure such communities are not exploited. As Phil Poe noted in another string, we do not need to create opportunities for unenforceable conditions. The net result of allowing this entitlement will be worse density zoning violations that will not be (and currently are not being) enforced, parking overburdens; etc, and you can bet these will not take place in our more affluent communities. Low wealth communities and communities with a high student population are where they will be constructed and the majority of them will not be on owner occupied properties. While one city planner stated these were consequences he was willing to accept in exchange for the opportunity for more affordable housing, the consequences are far too egregious and too high a price to pay in the long run for me, others and I hope ultimately you too Karen. If we (the city) truly wish to solve our “affordable housing” dilemma, then we must either earnestly work towards obtaining exclusionary zoning authority, or be willing to otherwise financially invest in the creation of mixed-income communities throughout our entire city. Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011* *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!* *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com<ddna(a)googlegroups.com> ] *On Behalf Of *Karen Rindge *Sent:* Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:15 PM *To:* Thomas Crowder; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com *Cc:* 'Darges, Christine'; linda(a)lindawatson.com; 'McFarlane, Nancy'; 'Philip W. Poe'; 'Hill, Doug'; 'Joyce Kekas'; 'Crane, Travis'; 'Hallam, Greg'; 'RussStephenson'; 'Gaylord, Bonner'; 'Mark Turner'; 'District D Neighborhood Alliance'; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff *Subject:* RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thomas, Considering that accessory dwellings are about the only thing in the UDO that would provide some new affordable housing in Raleigh, I suggest we weigh this carefully. We’ll be glad to talk further about this issue. I do think the affordable housing community should be consulted on this too. *Karen* Karen Rindge Executive Director, WakeUP Wake County Karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org 919-828-3833 www.wakeupwakecounty.org <image001.jpg> <http://www.facebook.com/wakeupwakecounty> <image002.png><https://twitter.com/#%21/wakeupwake> *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com<ddna(a)googlegroups.com> ] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Crowder *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 10:09 AM *To:* oldurbanist(a)gmail.com *Cc:* Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance *Subject:* RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thank you Betsy for your comments. I too believe, as you noted that this is a noble goal, if restricted to owner occupied homes and other limitations imposed; however as you also noted, the city is currently unable to make such a restriction. They are in fact serious and legitimate reasons to exclude this provision. However the best way for the Mayor and Council to understand the severe negative ramifications of these two proposed entitlements is for the public to be educated on what can be allowed under any circumstance and then speak out. While I, or any one councilor may bring this concern forward and articulate how serious the unintended consequences are, much greater weight comes from hearing such concerns from our citizens. That is why it is very important for the public to fully understand from staff the “good” and the unintended “bad” and “ugly” opportunities, which lie in the proposed new code. Another example is the assumption that all our Mixed-Use categories will truly be Mixed-Use. As written in the draft document. All Neighborhood, Community and Regional Mixed-Use categories could end up being one story strip retail development per the code. I honestly do not believe this is what the public wanted when developing these categories during the Comp Plan Update. I know that was not my intent. The UDO is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission and it is critical that our citizens express their concerns to them prior to their forwarding their recommendations to the City Council. Thanks and have a great weekend folks! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011* *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!* *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Betsy Kane *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 9:46 AM *To:* Thomas Crowder *Cc:* Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance *Subject:* Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thomas, Thanks so very much for staying on top of the backyard accessory dwelling unit issue. As I believe you know, I am writing a law review article on this topic, specifically in relation to the current state of the law in North Carolina flowing from the *Hill* case which prevents regulation of these units by the condition that one unit on the property be occupied by the owner. Lynn Coleman (then-Assistant City Attorney for Wilmington, who litigated this issue on behalf of the city before the N.C. Court of Appeals) and I have talked about this issue, and she stated to me that *after their ordinance provision regarding owner-occupancy was struck down by the Court of Appeals, the result was that entire districts soon afterward became double-rental conversions *(not one, but two rental problems on each lot), with resulting problems for those neighborhoods. I write and amend zoning ordinances for communities in North Carolina, and I believe accessory dwellings are a wonderful goal and have worked well in other states without this hampering problem of jurisprudence -- -- *However*, because of the legal situation in North Carolina, I have been advising my towns and cities here NOT to allow accessory dwelling units at the present time until the current state of the law is reviewed and amended. (In my legal opinion, the decision by the COA rests on tenuous propositions and was improvident; however, the City of Wilmington chose not to appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court, therefore, the principle does stand at the present time.) The issues that you have raised are serious and legitimate. Thank you for looking after this. I am hopeful that our mayor and otehr councilors will support these concerns, especially given the great effort and care of many neighborhoods in dealing with the issues created by excessive rental presence. Betsy Kane On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Crowder <tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com> wrote: Thank you Christine for your response. Was everyone also aware that due to recent court rulings, accessory apartments and backyard accessory cottages *CANNOT* be restricted to owner occupied properties, as Raleigh has done in the past. In other words, rental investment property owners share the same entitlement as an owner occupied property. Any landlord can add an accessory apartment attached to the house or add a backyard cottage apartment in the rear yard of a single-family rental property and rent both structures out. Also, did you discuss another key change in the new code? Accessory apartments are no longer a percentage of the base single-family unit like in the current code (I believe it is limited to 25% of the house and cannot have a kitchen)? Under the proposed UDO these apartments can be up to 700 SF. While it is true the 700 SF unit cannot exceed the area of the main house, depending on the house size it can occupy up to 99% of the house; i.e., a 1410 SF house (many post WWII ranches range in size from 1300-1500SF). Therefore a duplex in reality can be created on many R-4 zoned properties. In each of these provisions up to 6 unrelated persons can live on the same parcel (4 in the main house and 2 in the accessory apartment or backyard cottage). Unfortunately we have a long history of not enforcing unit density violations. The Zoning Department consistently states that they cannot limit the number of overnight guest (as long as they do not have a dedicated bed, clothes stored in closets and they have a license with another home address listed); regardless of the number of days they reside at the house. Therefore properties with an accessory apartment or backyard cottage unit could have as many as 12 unrelated persons living on an R-4 zoned parcel or more. That can also mean 12 cars or more needing a space to park. This would not be unrealistic in many parts of our city, particularly around our major universities. In many of these areas we have 6-8 people living in a single-family house with 6-8 cars parked out front. I do not believe a vast majority of the public understands these provisions or the potential negative impacts to our at-risk lower wealth and middle income communities. While the concept in principle may be noble by allowing “granny” flats, small units for young starter families and professionals, etc., the opportunity for abuse is significant. I agree with my former council colleague Mr. Tommy Craven, who at the UDO public hearing stated this provision of the new code could become a major problem for our city. When presenting this option to the public, lets please make sure they fully understand *ALL* examples that can take place under this proposed entitlement and other ones like the Mixed-Use Categories. I hope the Planning Commission and Council looks very careful and this provision and reconsider how and if this provision should be included in a new ordinance. Thanks again for helping educate the public on the provisions of the proposed UDO. BTW Linda…thank you and your Glenwood CAC members so much for delving into the specifics of the proposed UDO. It is difficult for most lay persons to understand the content, or the ramifications of this document. I do want to say there is many great improvements in this proposed document verses our current code; however issues like this matter need major tweaking or removal before it is approved. Have a great weekend! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011* *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!* *From:* Darges, Christine [mailto:Christine.Darges@raleighnc.gov] *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 12:16 AM *To:* linda(a)lindawatson.com *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner *Subject:* RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Linda, As your email came in a day before the RCAC presentation, I felt it would be better to respond to your email at the meeting where all present could benefit from the discussion. I included this in the presentation for this reason and believe the discussion was very productive as it prompted the group to ask several questions and resulted in a better understanding of the proposed housing option for everyone. It was very helpful and thank you for bringing this up. This morning, I culled through the approximately 175 Planning Commission recommended edits to the UDO draft and I did not see that they made the change from 5’-10’ as I had thought, but recall it was in our staff notes. Looking into this further, I saw that this topic had not been raised during the public hearing, so was not incorporated into the public comment record; however, the staff had made a note to look into this further as the 5’ setback for an accessory structure does not have the same impacts as a detached structure with a dwelling unit. With the Commission reviewing chapter by chapter in early March, they had finished with chapter 2 by the time staff identified it. This is why it was not an official comment presented and acted on with other chapter 2 comments. For the July 24th UDO review, the item is on our agenda and there will be a recommendation that the rear and side setback for backyard cottages be increased from 5’-10’ as staff identified and you as well. Staff is currently preparing a draft of the final PC recommendations for web posting that the public will be able to access in the near future through the link below. Also through the link, you can access weekly reports for specific discussion items. Reports are normally available by end of day Friday. http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleighCo… Sincerely, Christine Customer Service Survey<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> * * *Christine Darges* Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov ------------------------------ *From:* watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Linda Watson *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2012 8:34 AM *To:* Darges, Christine *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner *Subject:* Re: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Dear Christine and all, I'm surprised and disappointed to not have received a single response to this email. I'm even more surprised but also grateful to have learned in your presentation at the RCAC last night that my main concern, the setback for backyard cottages, has been addressed. *No one who received my original email told me about the change and I cannot find that information on the city website.* (I'm adding RCAC Chair Mark Turner to the copy list today to help him understand my questions and comments last night.) You questioned the version of the UDO I was using, which describes a 5-foot setback for the cottages. I used chapter 2 of the UDO shown in the upper right-hand corner of the city's UDO page<http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleighCo…>. I just checked the staff-report comments on that page related to chapter 2 and the backyard cottages and see only comments followed by statements that the staff does not recommend any changes. You mentioned that a document will be coming out in a few weeks with the updates that you used in your presentation. I regret wasting my time, my neighbors' time, the RCAC's time, and all your time trying to bring attention to this issue. I missed going to the Blue Ridge Corridor meeting because I was working on a dead issue. This is not the way to encourage citizen participation in the process. *At our next CAC meeting, I hope that Doug Hill will tell us how we can be informed of the status on key issues without having to attend all the meetings.* Should we get that information from the city website, from our planning representative Doug Hill, or from our RCAC representative Phil Poe? *Phil and Mark, how should this work for the CACs?* I hope this solution does not require that we take advantage of your offer to come downtown to have a planner walk us through our questions. A simple email response would be much faster and more sustainable. Sincerely yours, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Linda Watson <linda(a)lindawatson.com> wrote: Christine, I'm looking forward to your presentation for the RCAC tomorrow night. I'm hoping you'll address two topics that concern me and many neighbors I've spoken with in the Glenwood CAC. The first has to do with rules for the backyard cottages and the other has to do with the basic assumptions being made about how strict the UDO needs to be. 1) The current UDO draft allows free-standing accessory dwellings within 5 feet of the property line, which is 5 feet closer than primary residents in zones 1 through 4. *Backyard cottages should only be allowed within the allowable envelop for the primary residence. * I disagree with your statement that there isn't much difference between the currently allowed attached accessory apartments and a free-standing accessory dwelling. While I might be willing to have two students living in my backyard far away from my house in exchange tens of thousands of dollars of rent every year, I would not want to share a wall or floor with them. 2) *The underlying assumption that undesirable building patterns should be allowed by the UDO if there isn't precedent for that sort of building.* Both you in the note below and Doug Hill at our CAC meeting indicated that the UDO allowances for backyard cottages shouldn't be a concern because no one would build that way. Doug cited the expense of building a driveway to the cottage, but there is no requirement for a driveway, only for an additional parking space. I've posted several pictures on the Glenwood CAC Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Glenwood-CAC/154567751228362?sk=photos> showing formerly unthinkable building patterns that are transforming the Coley Forest neighborhood. The Facebook page also shows a map of how these cottages could transform my neighborhood and similar neighborhoods in the CAC, with those nearest to NCSU at most risk. If this assumption is being used for backyard cottages, then what other unacceptable building patterns will be allowed by the UDO but are being assumed to unlikely enough to not be an issue? As Western hero Virgil Cole says when quoting his favorite military theorist: *This Clausewitz says you got to prepare for what your enemy can do, not what you think he might do* Developers aren't our enemies, of course, but they have interests that may be different from the residents in an area. Developers are asking for clear rules to avoid future disputes. Let's show them what they *can* do without triggering a fuss. Ten years ago, I never would have dreamed that Glenwood Avenue inside the Beltline would be lined with big buildings, with more on the way. I hope that ten years from now I won't be looking out into my backyard at a double-row of rental housing between my house and those on Ridge Road, wistfully remembering the trees that used to be there. I urge you and the Planning Department to develop a UDO that assumes the worst and allows for the best. I hope you will address these topics tomorrow night. I've attended several sessions on the UDO, read two drafts, and spent considerable amount of time on this topic without getting a response that makes me feel that these concerns are unfounded. Sincerely yours, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Darges, Christine < Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov> wrote: Linda, There are many facets to this discussion. As stated previously in my response to you this morning about these additional dwelling units as backyard cottages, the requirements that accompany them will not allow every property to add a dwelling unit. In reality it results in a very low percentage of properties. We have a regulation today that allows them as attached units, with height and size requirements, so there isn’t much difference being proposed, only that they can be detached. In Raleigh we have very few accessory dwelling units for various reasons, such as cost, need or other. As far as the height of these structures goes, all structures such as sheds, homes, accessory buildings for all uses are required to meet height requirements, so these structures will not be treated differently. Regarding stormwater, the use of existing infrastructure and addition of impervious surface can be looked at in different ways, on a lot by lot basis on as a whole. The downtown area is almost 100% impervious, but the additional height allows the efficient use of infrastructure. To compare that with a sprawling model where impervious on a lot by lot basis may be lower, the reality is that you are using more infrastructure to serve the same amount of development. Stormwater can be captured in underground devices in an urban setting or above ground in suburban setting, with the same result. We appreciate your comments and thank you for taking the time to submit them. Christine Customer Service Survey<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> * * *Christine Darges* Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov ------------------------------ *From:* watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Linda Watson *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:18 PM *To:* Darges, Christine *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas *Subject:* Concern re: increasing density resulting in neighborhood upheaval Christine, Much of the Glenwood CAC area is show in the Comprehensive Plan as being Low-Density Residential, which would allow it to go easily from R-4 to R-6. When combined with the proposed UDO definitions of Accessory Cottage, which can house two people unrelated to the people in the main house, our neighborhood could: - Go from having four dwellings per acre to twelve - Go from single-family homes to duplexes - Increase the required parking spaces per acre from eight to eighteen I moved into this beautiful, mature neighborhood in part because the houses are nestled in the trees. With these changes, additional stress will be placed on our aging infrastructure, many trees will be cut down, and green areas will be replaced with built structures or paving. These changes will increase water run-off problems and speed global warming. Please also note that all the drawings in the UDO show flat land, but Raleigh is hilly. A structure built up slope seems taller than its measurements indicate. And I share former City Councilor Joye Kekas's concern: I am concerned about the UDO giving too much authority to staff in designing our City. This relieves the Planning Commission and Council from making decisions. We elect Council for these decisions and they should be making them on a case by case basis. I agree some things should go to staff, but not major ones that redesign our City. If we pass the UDO and it has unexpected consequences or times change dramatically, we will not be able to change course by electing new leaders. Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC

13 years, 4 months

Invitation to special meeting of Glenwood CAC: How Far Can You Go with the UDO. Should your CAC have one too?

by Linda Watson

Dear RCAC members, Please consider coming to this special meeting of the Glenwood CAC, which will attempt to help the city come to grips with the intended and unintended consequences of the UDO's provisions for backyard cottages, accessory apartments, attached dwellings, and detached dwellings. In a separate email, I'll attach the highlights of a lively discussion that has been going on since just before our RCAC meeting last week. *As you read on, please consider if your CAC would like to host a similar event* focusing on another aspect of the UDO that needs further consideration before being finalized. Key topics include mixed-use development, which Councilor Crowder and others worry may lead to miles of strip malls, and the administration process, which may lead to great citizen frustration and many fraught CAC meetings. I'd be happy to drum up awareness for multiple meetings. *Extreme Design Competition: How Far Can You Go with the UDO?* - Why: to be thrilled, horrified, and amused by the creative possibilities allowed by the UDO. Insights gained will be used to revise the UDO draft as needed so it puts us on a path toward its most livable and desirable future. - What: show how far you can go with the UDO using 3-D models, illustrations, and short videos. Show how good or bad it can be in one of several categories such as sardine, bunker, urban farmer, crime boss, extended family, party time, tiny house, and green. - Entry concept: Include at least one detached house or attached house on one or more lots within the Glenwood CAC boundaries<http://www.raleighnc.gov/neighbors/content/CommServices/Articles/CAC/Glenwo…>, using or cottage court, backyard cottages, and accessory apartments as your vision demands and the UDO allows. See chapter 2 of the UDO for definitions<http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/PlanCurrent/Documents/DevelopmentPlansRevi…>. Details coming soon: the exact categories and rules will be announced next week, but look for several categories (young designer, adult amateur, professional) and three rounds of judging (would pass the UDO, picks by celebrity judges, community favorites) - When: Monday, August 27th from 6:30 to 9 - Where: Glen Eden Pilot Park, 1500 Glen Eden Drive, Raleigh NC - Join on https://www.facebook.com/events/423225384385580/ - Email linda(a)lindawatson.com if you'd like to help. *We'd love to have CAC leaders participate and attend*. I presented my fears about the UDO to the Planning Commission yesterday and invited them to come to the competition. They seemed enthused. As one member suggested something I'd just discussed with Mark Turner: asking other CACs to host similar competitions to look at other hot UDO topics, such as the mixed-use development. Some of you may also want to go to the Tiny House Workshop<http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/pages/workshops>next weekend in Durham: "These workshops, created by Jay Shafer, founder of Tumbleweed Tiny House Company and expert in tiny house building and design, will revolutionize the way you think of space." ... Linda Glenwood CAC chair

13 years, 4 months

RCAC mailing list updated

by Mark Turner

Good afternoon, folks. I'm dusting off the RCAC email list to better facilitate inter-CAC communication. Some of you receiving this are no longer CAC officers but you are still welcome to subscribe. If you'd prefer to be unsubscribed, please send me an email offlist and I will make it so. There is also a digest format which will only email you once a day with all of the day's messages in a digest. This is a good way to keep up without getting overwhelmed. If you'd like to email the list, simply send your message to RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org. To make other changes, visit this page: http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac Regards, Mark RCAC Chair 919.741.6329

13 years, 4 months

Re: [RCAC] [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO

by Thomas Crowder

Well articulated and factual Betsy. Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Betsy Kane Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 5:16 PM To: linda(a)lindawatson.com Cc: Thomas Crowder; vincent(a)vincentwhitehurst.com; karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; Darges, Christine; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff; RCAC; Mary Cates Subject: Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO All, I appreciate the many contributions by all the participants in this discussion. Linda, a most creative and observant comment by you! Couple of points I'd make: 1) The city IS considering the accessory dwelling unit provision in the code. It's not that the city is not considering or has not considered them for the UDO. It's the context we're having to operate in that makes them problematic. The problem is that current state law prevents cities from imposing the very condition that makes these "cottages" so palatable, cute, desirable, appealing, supportive of the resident-owner's own income stream (making their own house more affordable), supportive of an elderly resident's need to have an able-bodied younger adult on the premises for chores or occasional help, etc. The state of current North Carolina law simply prohibits the most important condition for ensuring that all these good effects would be realized, and for preventing the known bad effects of absentee landlord properties -- on-site owner occupancy. It's not the City's fault or illiberality in its views toward these units -- it's that the state's second-highest court forbade our ability to apply the appropriate regulation and best practice, gutting our ability to administer the concept correctly. It's a lovely concept; it works well when administered correctly; we are prohibited from applying it correctly. The court did this based on probably faulty analysis (in my considered view), and contrary to what many other cities are able to do in other states where this is used -- but the law is what it is until successfully appealed, and there is little chance that it will be any time soon. The city's policy decision may have to be that these units simply cannot be relied on to support the city's goals for quality neighborhoods, given our current inability to regulate them according to the best known practice. 2) I would point out that the ADU allowance would in effect result in many more duplexes. Duplexes are problematic in that they combine *multi-rental* sites with *absentee-landlord* problems. Apartments -- although they are multiple rental units on one site -- are usually at least somewhat professionally managed by a company either on or off-site. And single-family houses that get rented out by a small investor are at least *capable* of attracting a quality household tenant, such as a responsible person or a couple-three responsible people, or a family. But it is harder to attract responsible people and families to live in one side of a duplex or on the same site as another rental property, for the simple reason that they too are affected by the rental of the other side. Thus it is that duplexes end up embodying some of our worst rental problems. They combine the ills of part-time absentee landlording with the double the level of rental presence on a single site. And it's the increase in rental presence that (at a certain point) overwhelms a neighborhood. I have nothing against renting; I was, until last month, a responsible renter for over twenty long years, and all my best friends are renters, etc. etc. (insert whatever class credentials you need to see here; I've got plenty more "street" where that came from). It's rental *overwhelm* that threatens neighborhood quality of life. Doubling rentals through ADU potential will result in rental overwhelm for many neighborhoods currently struggling to stay amenable to buyers -- -- Including some of the most-challenged neighborhoods, where existing owner-occupants with limited income are struggling to ensure that their life's biggest investment retains a decent value as an owner-occupied house! In finally buying a house of my own, I relied greatly on the presence of some, but not TOO many, rental properties on and around my block. (I relied also on Raleigh's PROP ordinance or I would not have invested in a housee where I did.) I also agree with the point made by the observer who commented that the name 'backyard cottages' is too fraught with cutesy. We should discuss and evaluate them using a more objective term. Betsy Kane On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Linda Watson <linda(a)lindawatson.com> wrote: Vincent, You wrote: To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. I'm afraid that Raleigh, known for its beautiful, green neighborhoods, will allow extensive building that will diminish the quality of life in established neighborhoods. Accessory dwellings, which can be added to the front of existing homes, and backyard "cottages" can turn single-family neighborhoods into duplex and rental neighborhoods. Even the best scenarios bring problems, as you can see from the examples below. The worst ones are horrific. I support and have personally benefited from affordable housing, but don't believe we have to sacrifice single-family neighborhoods to provide it. Here's what I'm afraid of: * Slumlords, yes, doing just what you and others have described: cramming in shoddily constructed and poorly maintained accessory dwellings and backyard "cottages" (or backyard shotgun shacks). * Unemployed relatives or friends who build accessory cottages themselves using scrap material. Building an accessory cottage gives Cousin Fred a way to feel useful and eventually gets him off the couch. (See U.S. poverty rate on track to rise to highest rate since 1960s <http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2213598/us-poverty-on-track-to-r ise-to.html> in today's N&O). * Tiny-house enthusiasts who say Viva la Tiny House Revolution <http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/blogs/tumbleweed/5912793-viva-la-tiny-r evolution#more-474> . See some clever examples in Tiny House Design <http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/> and one on Method Road. These house can be built built out of shipping containers <http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2012/07/22/shipping-container-cabin-conc ept-part-2/> and using odd DIY materials <http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2012/07/21/derek-deek-diedricksen-expose s-diy-nature-of-tiny-houses/> . Long and narrow designs <http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2011/09/23/coastal-cottage-tiny-house-fr aming-plans/> can be placed parallel to the lot lines, meeting the requirement of 35' building separation while blocking the sun and view for the neighbors. With so many design graduates and creative-class members here, backyard cottages could become the McMansions of the 2010s. * Parents of students who will see an even better economic reason to buy a smallish house for their kids and their friends to live in while in college. They could build an accessory cottage for their darlings and rent out the main house or vice versa. After the kids graduate, the rental income could be good enough and the local property values now bad enough that the complex stays rental instead of being flipped back to owner-occupied. * Savvy friends who decide to try co-housing or landlords who want to increase their income by doing this. These landlords could include people who inherit 1960s brick ranches near universities, hospitals, malls, or other suburban activity centers. * Affluent homeowners investing in a well-designed and maintained cottages that are occupied first by young-adult children, then by their grannies, then by renters, and finally by live-in servants and caretakers. * Employers have new opportunities to offer living quarters in lieu of wages and to increase their employees' dependence. Think not-so-migrant workers. * Human traffickers <http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2212782/local-groups-seek-strong er-anti.html#storylink=misearch> or pimps <http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/101354/> could use accessory apartments and backyard cottages to expand or distance themselves from their unsavory occupations. For all these possibilities: * Smaller dwellings lead to more outdoor living, says the article Think Small <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/realestate/greathomes/16tiny.html?_r= 1> in the New York Times. To compensate for the lack of interior space, the couple cook, entertain and, for the most part, live outdoors. "We live in our view rather than look at it," This may be lovely in your neighbors are reading Thoreau, but not when they are showing Fight Club III in their backyard theater <http://backyardtheater.com/> . * Dwellings may first be occupied by the allowed two people and their pets, then also by their sweethearts, friends, children, and their pets. At what point do you want to be the landlord that evicts a growing family or the neighbor that calls the housing inspector? * Additional housing means increased water run off due to additional hardscape. It can significantly change the views from nearby backyards and isolate the remaining trees in nearby lots, increasing the possibility of storm damage. * UDO section 2.4.2.C says that backyard cottages "typically include" a kitchen and bathroom, but does not require that they do. Imagine the cottage residents going back and forth to the main house to use the facilities or cooking outdoors. * No matter how lovely or high-minded the first use is, the building remains after Granny or Sonny moves on or the original owners sell. How will the next owner use the building? Given the proposed semi-judicial way of approving building plans, we must treat the UDO is like a prenuptial agreement: a way to protect ourselves from the worst possibilities in a situation where we are hoping for the best. Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Thomas Crowder <tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com> wrote: Vince: They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So I thought I would follow-up my pervious e-mail with some pictures of the "typical" quality you see from rental investor improvements in SW Raleigh. They are just a few examples in of single-family properties; before and after investors made the "improvements". Granted these are R-10 zoned properties; however you get a feel for what these investors see as appropriate for our neighborhoods. BTW, the majority of these landlords live outside Raleigh and even out of state. The first is 1916 Greenleaf, once a wooded affordable single-family neighborhood street with beautiful ranches, now almost 100% rental: Photograph Date: 1/8/2003 (AFTER) Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE) Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified. Next is 3800 Greenleaf (the new roof was due to a fire in 2003), another beautiful ranch home: Photograph Date: 2/1/2004 (AFTER) Photograph Date: 1/8/2003 (AFTER) Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE) Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified. Unfortunately I could not pull up photos for 2809 Avent Ferry Road on I-Maps, but I highly recommend you ride by the next time you are in the area. There other examples on Buck Jones Road and Bashford Road. Hopefully these photos better illustrate the legitimate concerns folks and I have regarding the future of our affordable neighborhoods in SW Raleigh and throughout the city. Betsy, I believe this may illustrate one reason why you are advising your municipal clients not to allow such entitlements. Also, please remember Rooming Houses were deemed at one time a great way to provide affordable housing in Raleigh. Have a great week folks! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Crowder Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:30 PM To: vincent(a)vincentwhitehurst.com Cc: karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff Subject: RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Vince: You are correct, if the backyard cottages could be limited to owner occupied structures, then it would not be such a problem and a desirable income stream for families. The challenges surface when rental investors divide an existing single-family unit into two units and the density now expands from four unrelated persons to six unrelated persons or more than likely more than six. As stated previously, the current four unrelated limit is never enforced due to the difficulties of proving who is a tenant and who is a guest. I'm all for design standards, but the legislature currently has a study group looking at preventing local government from enacting them on properties zoned R-5 and below. So I would not count on any rental investors constructing high quality accessory units...backyard cottage or internal to the single-family structures. It is pure economics. If you can buy a home and quarter to 1/3 of an acre lot for under $150,000 (which plenty exist in SW Raleigh) you can easily divide it into or add another 700 square feet structure in the rear yard and rent it out to 6 individuals. Rents around the university can go as high as $500 per room, per month. Furthermore one of our largest problem landlords has been Vernon J Vernon. He constructed the beautiful "blue" multi-family units on Avent Ferry Road, which was once a single-family home lot. We also have fine examples of single-family homes converted (added onto) into multi-family structures on R10 and higher lots, some constructed by Vernon and Donna Preiss. I'll be have to take you on a tour sometime. As for Cameron Park, I am sure the residents that bought their homes in the 1970's will tell you it was not affluent. Homes could be purchased for around $30,000.00. There were a large number of rooming houses (more than four unrelated tenants living in the homes) in Cameron Park and a high percentage of rental properties. It was these residents led by Al Adams that pushed to down zone Cameron Park for that very reason. Any grandfathered accessory units today are owner occupied; however even with one of the highest single-family property values in the city, you still have problem landlords in the neighborhood. I'm sure Christie Terrell would be happy to elaborate further. The best strategy to add mixed-income units and control sprawl is through the development of our mixed-use centers throughout the city, which are accessible to transit and hopefully pedestrian and bike friendly, with the right design standards of course. Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Vincent Whitehurst Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:15 PM To: Thomas Crowder Cc: karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff Subject: Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO All, To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. What I've always seen happen is they purchase a property and don't spend a dime on it. I can't imagine them spending any money at all to create backyard dwellings. It seems counterintuitive to the idea of being a slumlord. Also, we have PROP laws, zoning, building codes, and ordinances that should address most issues. New building has many quality requirements that you can rarely enforce on existing buildings. I don't like the idea of penalizing all the advantages of what backyard cottages could offer by only looking at the worst case scenario. Why not look at the best case scenario? Maybe we need some design standards for materials on these dwellings. We could also have some sort of "overlay' requirements for at-risk areas we think need more protection such as the areas Thomas is mentioning. If a home is the only investment some people have, then they can increase their investment by building an apartment that could help with rent, such as many properties in Cameron Park, one of the city's more affluent areas, already have. I think we have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. If we want to start combating sprawl, we need to look for ways to up-zone properties to allow higher uses. We have to do this IN THE BELTLINE and outside the beltline. Backyard cottages are an opportunity for smart, small scale infill. I think we need to look at the big picture on issues like this. Just my two cents. Vincent Whitehurst, Architect 919-821-3355 On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Thomas Crowder wrote: Karen: As always, thank you for your thoughts, as we often agree on such matters; however this is one where we must agree to disagree. I concur that the affordable housing community should always have a seat at the table during these discussions. You know I have been a vocal advocate for supporting "affordable housing" but through the creation of mixed-income communities, particularly within mixed-use centers throughout our entire city, where jobs are within walking distance and which are adequately served by transit. I will continue to support a mix of housing opportunities for ALL income levels, as "affordable" is a relative term. What is affordable to you, may not be affordable to me, etc. But the rub is that historically (and currently) this does not exist. "Affordable" housing is only constructed in communities that currently is or historically has been "affordable" such as areas within Northeast, Southeast and Southwest Raleigh. That is why the City created a scattered housing policy for subsidized "affordable" housing decades ago. Our affordable rental housing providers were only focusing on areas where the land was less costly, within already "affordable communities. Debbie Moose notes in another string, the concerns she has about this matter. She lives in one of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city and the most affordable Zip Code within Wake County as quoted by Michelle Grant with Community Development. Due to the affordability of neighborhoods like Ms. Moose's, rental investors (absentee landlords) are able to purchase single-family properties and covert them to rental units that are quite profitable. It is just simple math: less upfront investment + low overhead (maintenance investment) cost = maximized profit. Unfortunately, one residual impact is these properties are not often well maintained, the appearance of the neighborhood declines, the quality of life in these neighborhoods degrades and home values stymieing. Why is this a problem? Homeowners like Debbie who live in these neighborhoods are not only personally invested in their community, their home in many cases is their primary or the only financial investment they have. The majority of their net worth is tied up in their home and they are not heavily invested in other real estate portfolios, or the stock market. Their home is it. The majority of the time this is not the case for the rental investors, who do not reside within these neighborhoods and who as a rule live in more affluent areas of the city. Historically, a majority of these rental investors do not maintain their rental investments to the same level of their homes. To add insult to injury, I often see many of them before the city council objecting to public nuisance or zoning violation fines, requesting the council abate them in the name of them providing "affordable housing". It is the very reason so many at-risk communities lobbied the city to create the PROP and landlord registry. It was lower and moderate income communities who were out front supporting this legislation in order to protect the quality of life in their neighborhoods and to protect their home investment. Furthermore, middle and upper income residents do not historically live in, or move to areas where there home investment will not appreciate, or where they believe their quality of life will more likely diminish. Who can blame them, no one does and would not if they could afford to. And while it is illegal to steer, residential real estate advisors do not promote these communities to middle and upper income citizens. Therefore it is an endless spiral where we segregate our lower and moderate wealth citizens, that we all know is broken but will not fully accept. Why do we know such a cycle is broken? It is through another well intended concept, the urban renewal efforts of the 1960's/1970's, that we now recognized segregating and warehousing our lower wealth citizens is not the answer to assisting them move towards a path of building wealth and self-sufficiency, nor creating healthy sustainable communities. Acknowledging our mistake lead to the creation of the Hope VI program. Through the Hope VI program we are now turning these complexes into well planed, well constructed communities for a mix of income levels. Segregating our neighborhoods based on socio-economics is no different, nor less damaging than segregating our schools. When we do not integrate a mix of incomes and segregate our moderate and even more so, our low wealth citizens into large geographic areas of the city, we deny them the opportunity to close access to both, entry level and higher paying job and force them to drive long distances or multiple transit transfers. Furthermore, we deny them close proximity to retail and other health and professional services. This is because income demographic data that every business references drives their decision on where they locate, or not locate. One only has to drive through the city to see where the majority of such services are concentrated, at least those services furnished by the private sector. While we are in principal working towards the same goal, I must respectfully disagree that allowing back yard "cottages" and duplex conversions in already "affordable" or at-risk communities is the answer; particularly when the city does not have the legislative nor legal authority to insure such communities are not exploited. As Phil Poe noted in another string, we do not need to create opportunities for unenforceable conditions. The net result of allowing this entitlement will be worse density zoning violations that will not be (and currently are not being) enforced, parking overburdens; etc, and you can bet these will not take place in our more affluent communities. Low wealth communities and communities with a high student population are where they will be constructed and the majority of them will not be on owner occupied properties. While one city planner stated these were consequences he was willing to accept in exchange for the opportunity for more affordable housing, the consequences are far too egregious and too high a price to pay in the long run for me, others and I hope ultimately you too Karen. If we (the city) truly wish to solve our "affordable housing" dilemma, then we must either earnestly work towards obtaining exclusionary zoning authority, or be willing to otherwise financially invest in the creation of mixed-income communities throughout our entire city. Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Rindge Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:15 PM To: Thomas Crowder; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com Cc: 'Darges, Christine'; linda(a)lindawatson.com; 'McFarlane, Nancy'; 'Philip W. Poe'; 'Hill, Doug'; 'Joyce Kekas'; 'Crane, Travis'; 'Hallam, Greg'; 'RussStephenson'; 'Gaylord, Bonner'; 'Mark Turner'; 'District D Neighborhood Alliance'; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff Subject: RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thomas, Considering that accessory dwellings are about the only thing in the UDO that would provide some new affordable housing in Raleigh, I suggest we weigh this carefully. We'll be glad to talk further about this issue. I do think the affordable housing community should be consulted on this too. Karen Karen Rindge Executive Director, WakeUP Wake County Karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org <mailto:Karen@wakeupwakecounty.org> 919-828-3833 www.wakeupwakecounty.org <http://www.wakeupwakecounty.org/> <image001.jpg> <http://www.facebook.com/wakeupwakecounty> <image002.png> <https://twitter.com/#%21/wakeupwake> From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Crowder Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:09 AM To: oldurbanist(a)gmail.com Cc: Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance Subject: RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thank you Betsy for your comments. I too believe, as you noted that this is a noble goal, if restricted to owner occupied homes and other limitations imposed; however as you also noted, the city is currently unable to make such a restriction. They are in fact serious and legitimate reasons to exclude this provision. However the best way for the Mayor and Council to understand the severe negative ramifications of these two proposed entitlements is for the public to be educated on what can be allowed under any circumstance and then speak out. While I, or any one councilor may bring this concern forward and articulate how serious the unintended consequences are, much greater weight comes from hearing such concerns from our citizens. That is why it is very important for the public to fully understand from staff the "good" and the unintended "bad" and "ugly" opportunities, which lie in the proposed new code. Another example is the assumption that all our Mixed-Use categories will truly be Mixed-Use. As written in the draft document. All Neighborhood, Community and Regional Mixed-Use categories could end up being one story strip retail development per the code. I honestly do not believe this is what the public wanted when developing these categories during the Comp Plan Update. I know that was not my intent. The UDO is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission and it is critical that our citizens express their concerns to them prior to their forwarding their recommendations to the City Council. Thanks and have a great weekend folks! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Betsy Kane Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:46 AM To: Thomas Crowder Cc: Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance Subject: Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thomas, Thanks so very much for staying on top of the backyard accessory dwelling unit issue. As I believe you know, I am writing a law review article on this topic, specifically in relation to the current state of the law in North Carolina flowing from the Hill case which prevents regulation of these units by the condition that one unit on the property be occupied by the owner. Lynn Coleman (then-Assistant City Attorney for Wilmington, who litigated this issue on behalf of the city before the N.C. Court of Appeals) and I have talked about this issue, and she stated to me that after their ordinance provision regarding owner-occupancy was struck down by the Court of Appeals, the result was that entire districts soon afterward became double-rental conversions (not one, but two rental problems on each lot), with resulting problems for those neighborhoods. I write and amend zoning ordinances for communities in North Carolina, and I believe accessory dwellings are a wonderful goal and have worked well in other states without this hampering problem of jurisprudence -- -- However, because of the legal situation in North Carolina, I have been advising my towns and cities here NOT to allow accessory dwelling units at the present time until the current state of the law is reviewed and amended. (In my legal opinion, the decision by the COA rests on tenuous propositions and was improvident; however, the City of Wilmington chose not to appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court, therefore, the principle does stand at the present time.) The issues that you have raised are serious and legitimate. Thank you for looking after this. I am hopeful that our mayor and otehr councilors will support these concerns, especially given the great effort and care of many neighborhoods in dealing with the issues created by excessive rental presence. Betsy Kane On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Crowder <tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com> wrote: Thank you Christine for your response. Was everyone also aware that due to recent court rulings, accessory apartments and backyard accessory cottages CANNOT be restricted to owner occupied properties, as Raleigh has done in the past. In other words, rental investment property owners share the same entitlement as an owner occupied property. Any landlord can add an accessory apartment attached to the house or add a backyard cottage apartment in the rear yard of a single-family rental property and rent both structures out. Also, did you discuss another key change in the new code? Accessory apartments are no longer a percentage of the base single-family unit like in the current code (I believe it is limited to 25% of the house and cannot have a kitchen)? Under the proposed UDO these apartments can be up to 700 SF. While it is true the 700 SF unit cannot exceed the area of the main house, depending on the house size it can occupy up to 99% of the house; i.e., a 1410 SF house (many post WWII ranches range in size from 1300-1500SF). Therefore a duplex in reality can be created on many R-4 zoned properties. In each of these provisions up to 6 unrelated persons can live on the same parcel (4 in the main house and 2 in the accessory apartment or backyard cottage). Unfortunately we have a long history of not enforcing unit density violations. The Zoning Department consistently states that they cannot limit the number of overnight guest (as long as they do not have a dedicated bed, clothes stored in closets and they have a license with another home address listed); regardless of the number of days they reside at the house. Therefore properties with an accessory apartment or backyard cottage unit could have as many as 12 unrelated persons living on an R-4 zoned parcel or more. That can also mean 12 cars or more needing a space to park. This would not be unrealistic in many parts of our city, particularly around our major universities. In many of these areas we have 6-8 people living in a single-family house with 6-8 cars parked out front. I do not believe a vast majority of the public understands these provisions or the potential negative impacts to our at-risk lower wealth and middle income communities. While the concept in principle may be noble by allowing "granny" flats, small units for young starter families and professionals, etc., the opportunity for abuse is significant. I agree with my former council colleague Mr. Tommy Craven, who at the UDO public hearing stated this provision of the new code could become a major problem for our city. When presenting this option to the public, lets please make sure they fully understand ALL examples that can take place under this proposed entitlement and other ones like the Mixed-Use Categories. I hope the Planning Commission and Council looks very careful and this provision and reconsider how and if this provision should be included in a new ordinance. Thanks again for helping educate the public on the provisions of the proposed UDO. BTW Linda...thank you and your Glenwood CAC members so much for delving into the specifics of the proposed UDO. It is difficult for most lay persons to understand the content, or the ramifications of this document. I do want to say there is many great improvements in this proposed document verses our current code; however issues like this matter need major tweaking or removal before it is approved. Have a great weekend! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: Darges, Christine [mailto:Christine.Darges@raleighnc.gov] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:16 AM To: linda(a)lindawatson.com Cc: Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner Subject: RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Linda, As your email came in a day before the RCAC presentation, I felt it would be better to respond to your email at the meeting where all present could benefit from the discussion. I included this in the presentation for this reason and believe the discussion was very productive as it prompted the group to ask several questions and resulted in a better understanding of the proposed housing option for everyone. It was very helpful and thank you for bringing this up. This morning, I culled through the approximately 175 Planning Commission recommended edits to the UDO draft and I did not see that they made the change from 5'-10' as I had thought, but recall it was in our staff notes. Looking into this further, I saw that this topic had not been raised during the public hearing, so was not incorporated into the public comment record; however, the staff had made a note to look into this further as the 5' setback for an accessory structure does not have the same impacts as a detached structure with a dwelling unit. With the Commission reviewing chapter by chapter in early March, they had finished with chapter 2 by the time staff identified it. This is why it was not an official comment presented and acted on with other chapter 2 comments. For the July 24th UDO review, the item is on our agenda and there will be a recommendation that the rear and side setback for backyard cottages be increased from 5'-10' as staff identified and you as well. Staff is currently preparing a draft of the final PC recommendations for web posting that the public will be able to access in the near future through the link below. Also through the link, you can access weekly reports for specific discussion items. Reports are normally available by end of day Friday. http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleig hCode.html Sincerely, Christine Customer Service Survey <http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> Christine Darges Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov <http://www.raleighnc.gov/> Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov ________________________________ From: watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linda Watson Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 8:34 AM To: Darges, Christine Cc: Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner Subject: Re: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Dear Christine and all, I'm surprised and disappointed to not have received a single response to this email. I'm even more surprised but also grateful to have learned in your presentation at the RCAC last night that my main concern, the setback for backyard cottages, has been addressed. No one who received my original email told me about the change and I cannot find that information on the city website. (I'm adding RCAC Chair Mark Turner to the copy list today to help him understand my questions and comments last night.) You questioned the version of the UDO I was using, which describes a 5-foot setback for the cottages. I used chapter 2 of the UDO shown in the upper right-hand corner of the city's UDO page <http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRalei ghCode.html> . I just checked the staff-report comments on that page related to chapter 2 and the backyard cottages and see only comments followed by statements that the staff does not recommend any changes. You mentioned that a document will be coming out in a few weeks with the updates that you used in your presentation. I regret wasting my time, my neighbors' time, the RCAC's time, and all your time trying to bring attention to this issue. I missed going to the Blue Ridge Corridor meeting because I was working on a dead issue. This is not the way to encourage citizen participation in the process. At our next CAC meeting, I hope that Doug Hill will tell us how we can be informed of the status on key issues without having to attend all the meetings. Should we get that information from the city website, from our planning representative Doug Hill, or from our RCAC representative Phil Poe? Phil and Mark, how should this work for the CACs? I hope this solution does not require that we take advantage of your offer to come downtown to have a planner walk us through our questions. A simple email response would be much faster and more sustainable. Sincerely yours, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Linda Watson <linda(a)lindawatson.com> wrote: Christine, I'm looking forward to your presentation for the RCAC tomorrow night. I'm hoping you'll address two topics that concern me and many neighbors I've spoken with in the Glenwood CAC. The first has to do with rules for the backyard cottages and the other has to do with the basic assumptions being made about how strict the UDO needs to be. 1) The current UDO draft allows free-standing accessory dwellings within 5 feet of the property line, which is 5 feet closer than primary residents in zones 1 through 4. Backyard cottages should only be allowed within the allowable envelop for the primary residence. I disagree with your statement that there isn't much difference between the currently allowed attached accessory apartments and a free-standing accessory dwelling. While I might be willing to have two students living in my backyard far away from my house in exchange tens of thousands of dollars of rent every year, I would not want to share a wall or floor with them. 2) The underlying assumption that undesirable building patterns should be allowed by the UDO if there isn't precedent for that sort of building. Both you in the note below and Doug Hill at our CAC meeting indicated that the UDO allowances for backyard cottages shouldn't be a concern because no one would build that way. Doug cited the expense of building a driveway to the cottage, but there is no requirement for a driveway, only for an additional parking space. I've posted several pictures on the Glenwood CAC Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Glenwood-CAC/154567751228362?sk=photos> showing formerly unthinkable building patterns that are transforming the Coley Forest neighborhood. The Facebook page also shows a map of how these cottages could transform my neighborhood and similar neighborhoods in the CAC, with those nearest to NCSU at most risk. If this assumption is being used for backyard cottages, then what other unacceptable building patterns will be allowed by the UDO but are being assumed to unlikely enough to not be an issue? As Western hero Virgil Cole says when quoting his favorite military theorist: This Clausewitz says you got to prepare for what your enemy can do, not what you think he might do Developers aren't our enemies, of course, but they have interests that may be different from the residents in an area. Developers are asking for clear rules to avoid future disputes. Let's show them what they can do without triggering a fuss. Ten years ago, I never would have dreamed that Glenwood Avenue inside the Beltline would be lined with big buildings, with more on the way. I hope that ten years from now I won't be looking out into my backyard at a double-row of rental housing between my house and those on Ridge Road, wistfully remembering the trees that used to be there. I urge you and the Planning Department to develop a UDO that assumes the worst and allows for the best. I hope you will address these topics tomorrow night. I've attended several sessions on the UDO, read two drafts, and spent considerable amount of time on this topic without getting a response that makes me feel that these concerns are unfounded. Sincerely yours, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Darges, Christine <Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov> wrote: Linda, There are many facets to this discussion. As stated previously in my response to you this morning about these additional dwelling units as backyard cottages, the requirements that accompany them will not allow every property to add a dwelling unit. In reality it results in a very low percentage of properties. We have a regulation today that allows them as attached units, with height and size requirements, so there isn't much difference being proposed, only that they can be detached. In Raleigh we have very few accessory dwelling units for various reasons, such as cost, need or other. As far as the height of these structures goes, all structures such as sheds, homes, accessory buildings for all uses are required to meet height requirements, so these structures will not be treated differently. Regarding stormwater, the use of existing infrastructure and addition of impervious surface can be looked at in different ways, on a lot by lot basis on as a whole. The downtown area is almost 100% impervious, but the additional height allows the efficient use of infrastructure. To compare that with a sprawling model where impervious on a lot by lot basis may be lower, the reality is that you are using more infrastructure to serve the same amount of development. Stormwater can be captured in underground devices in an urban setting or above ground in suburban setting, with the same result. We appreciate your comments and thank you for taking the time to submit them. Christine Customer Service Survey <http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> Christine Darges Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov <http://www.raleighnc.gov/> Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov ________________________________ From: watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linda Watson Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:18 PM To: Darges, Christine Cc: Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas Subject: Concern re: increasing density resulting in neighborhood upheaval Christine, Much of the Glenwood CAC area is show in the Comprehensive Plan as being Low-Density Residential, which would allow it to go easily from R-4 to R-6. When combined with the proposed UDO definitions of Accessory Cottage, which can house two people unrelated to the people in the main house, our neighborhood could: * Go from having four dwellings per acre to twelve * Go from single-family homes to duplexes * Increase the required parking spaces per acre from eight to eighteen I moved into this beautiful, mature neighborhood in part because the houses are nestled in the trees. With these changes, additional stress will be placed on our aging infrastructure, many trees will be cut down, and green areas will be replaced with built structures or paving. These changes will increase water run-off problems and speed global warming. Please also note that all the drawings in the UDO show flat land, but Raleigh is hilly. A structure built up slope seems taller than its measurements indicate. And I share former City Councilor Joye Kekas's concern: I am concerned about the UDO giving too much authority to staff in designing our City. This relieves the Planning Commission and Council from making decisions. We elect Council for these decisions and they should be making them on a case by case basis. I agree some things should go to staff, but not major ones that redesign our City. If we pass the UDO and it has unexpected consequences or times change dramatically, we will not be able to change course by electing new leaders. Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC "E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official." -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com <mailto:ddna%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com <mailto:ddna%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com <mailto:ddna%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en

13 years, 4 months

Re: [RCAC] [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO

by Betsy Kane

All, I appreciate the many contributions by all the participants in this discussion. Linda, a most creative and observant comment by you! Couple of points I'd make: 1) The city IS considering the accessory dwelling unit provision in the code. It's not that the city is not considering or has not considered them for the UDO. It's the context we're having to operate in that makes them problematic. The problem is that current state law prevents cities from imposing the very condition that makes these "cottages" so palatable, cute, desirable, appealing, supportive of the resident-owner's own income stream (making their own house more affordable), supportive of an elderly resident's need to have an able-bodied younger adult on the premises for chores or occasional help, etc. The state of current North Carolina law simply prohibits the most important condition for ensuring that all these good effects would be realized, and for preventing the known bad effects of absentee landlord properties -- on-site owner occupancy. It's not the City's fault or illiberality in its views toward these units -- it's that the state's second-highest court forbade our ability to apply the appropriate regulation and best practice, *gutting our ability to administer the concept correctly. It's a lovely concept; it works well when administered correctly; we are prohibited from applying it correctly*. The court did this based on probably faulty analysis (in my considered view), and contrary to what many other cities are able to do in other states where this is used -- but the law is what it is until successfully appealed, and there is little chance that it will be any time soon. The city's policy decision may have to be that these units simply cannot be relied on to support the city's goals for quality neighborhoods, given our current inability to regulate them according to the best known practice. 2) I would point out that the ADU allowance would in effect result in many more duplexes. Duplexes are problematic in that they combine *multi-rental* sites with *absentee-landlord* problems. Apartments -- although they are multiple rental units on one site -- are usually at least somewhat professionally managed by a company either on or off-site. And single-family houses that get rented out by a small investor are at least *capable* of attracting a quality household tenant, such as a responsible person or a couple-three responsible people, or a family. But it is harder to attract responsible people and families to live in one side of a duplex or on the same site as another rental property, for the simple reason that they too are affected by the rental of the other side. Thus it is that duplexes end up embodying some of our worst rental problems. They combine the ills of part-time absentee landlording with the double the level of rental presence on a single site. And it's the increase in rental presence that (at a certain point) overwhelms a neighborhood. I have nothing against renting; I was, until last month, a responsible renter for over twenty long years, and all my best friends are renters, etc. etc. (insert whatever class credentials you need to see here; I've got plenty more "street" where that came from). It's rental *overwhelm* that threatens neighborhood quality of life. Doubling rentals through ADU potential will result in rental overwhelm for many neighborhoods currently struggling to stay amenable to buyers -- -- Including some of the *most-challenged neighborhoods*, where existing owner-occupants with limited income are struggling to ensure that their life's biggest investment retains a decent value as an owner-occupied house! In finally buying a house of my own, I relied greatly on the presence of some, but not TOO many, rental properties on and around my block. (I relied also on Raleigh's PROP ordinance or I would not have invested in a housee where I did.) I also agree with the point made by the observer who commented that the name 'backyard cottages' is too fraught with cutesy. We should discuss and evaluate them using a more objective term. Betsy Kane On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Linda Watson <linda(a)lindawatson.com> wrote: > Vincent, > > You wrote: > > To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its >> the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. >> > > I'm afraid that Raleigh, known for its beautiful, green neighborhoods, > will allow extensive building that will diminish the quality of life in > established neighborhoods. Accessory dwellings, which can be added to the > front of existing homes, and backyard "cottages" can turn single-family > neighborhoods into duplex and rental neighborhoods. Even the best scenarios > bring problems, as you can see from the examples below. The worst ones are > horrific. I support and have personally benefited from affordable housing, > but don't believe we have to sacrifice single-family neighborhoods to > provide it. > > Here's what I'm afraid of: > > - *Slumlords*, yes, doing just what you and others have described: > cramming in shoddily constructed and poorly maintained accessory dwellings > and backyard "cottages" (or backyard shotgun shacks). > - *Unemployed relatives or friends* who build accessory cottages > themselves using scrap material. Building an accessory cottage gives Cousin > Fred a way to feel useful and eventually gets him off the couch. (See U.S. > poverty rate on track to rise to highest rate since 1960s<http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2213598/us-poverty-on-track-to-rise-…>in today's > *N&O*). > - *Tiny-house enthusiasts* who say Viva la Tiny House Revolution<http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/blogs/tumbleweed/5912793-viva-la-tiny-revol…>. > See some clever examples in Tiny House Design<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/>and one on Method Road. These house can be built built out of shipping > containers<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2012/07/22/shipping-container-cabin-concept-…>and using odd > DIY materials<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2012/07/21/derek-deek-diedricksen-exposes-di…>. > Long and narrow designs<http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2011/09/23/coastal-cottage-tiny-house-framin…>can be placed parallel to the lot lines, meeting the requirement of 35' > building separation while blocking the sun and view for the neighbors. With > so many design graduates and creative-class members here, backyard cottages > could become the McMansions of the 2010s. > - *Parents of students* who will see an even better economic reason to > buy a smallish house for their kids and their friends to live in while in > college. They could build an accessory cottage for their darlings and rent > out the main house or vice versa. After the kids graduate, the rental > income could be good enough and the local property values now bad enough > that the complex stays rental instead of being flipped back to > owner-occupied. > - *Savvy friends who decide to try co-housing or landlords* who want > to increase their income by doing this. These landlords could include > people who inherit 1960s brick ranches near universities, hospitals, malls, > or other suburban activity centers. > - *Affluent homeowners* investing in a well-designed and maintained > cottages that are occupied first by young-adult children, then by their > grannies, then by renters, and finally by live-in servants and caretakers. > - *Employers* have new opportunities to offer living quarters in lieu > of wages and to increase their employees' dependence. Think not-so-migrant > workers. > - *Human traffickers<http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2212782/local-groups-seek-stronger-a…>or > pimps <http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/101354/>* could use > accessory apartments and backyard cottages to expand or distance themselves > from their unsavory occupations. > > For all these possibilities: > > - Smaller dwellings lead to more outdoor living, says the article Think > Small<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/realestate/greathomes/16tiny.html?_r=1>in the > *New York Times*. >> >> To compensate for the lack of interior space, the couple cook, >> entertain and, for the most part, live outdoors. “We live in our view >> rather than look at it,” > > This may be lovely in your neighbors are reading Thoreau, but not when > they are showing Fight Club III in their backyard theater<http://backyardtheater.com/>. > > - Dwellings may first be occupied by the allowed two people and their > pets, then also by their sweethearts, friends, children, and their pets. At > what point do you want to be the landlord that evicts a growing family or > the neighbor that calls the housing inspector? > - Additional housing means increased water run off due to additional > hardscape. It can significantly change the views from nearby backyards and > isolate the remaining trees in nearby lots, increasing the possibility of > storm damage. > - UDO section 2.4.2.C says that backyard cottages "typically include" > a kitchen and bathroom, but does not require that they do. Imagine the > cottage residents going back and forth to the main house to use the > facilities or cooking outdoors. > - No matter how lovely or high-minded the first use is, the building > remains after Granny or Sonny moves on or the original owners sell. How > will the next owner use the building? > > Given the proposed semi-judicial way of approving building plans, we must > treat the UDO is like a prenuptial agreement: a way to protect ourselves > from the worst possibilities in a situation where we are hoping for the > best. > > > Linda Watson > Chair, Glenwood CAC > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Thomas Crowder < > tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com> wrote: > >> Vince:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So I thought I would >> follow-up my pervious e-mail with some pictures of the “typical” quality >> you see from rental investor improvements in SW Raleigh. They are just a >> few examples in of single-family properties; before and after investors >> made the “improvements”. Granted these are R-10 zoned properties; however >> you get a feel for what these investors see as appropriate for our >> neighborhoods. BTW, the majority of these landlords live outside Raleigh >> and even out of state.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The first is 1916 Greenleaf, once a wooded affordable single-family >> neighborhood street with beautiful ranches, now almost 100% rental:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Photograph Date: 1/8/2003 >> (AFTER) >> Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE)***** >> >> [image: >> http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/20030108/C8113125.JPG] >> [image: >> http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/WAKE1229/00650700.JPG] >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Next is 3800 Greenleaf (the new roof was due to a fire in 2003), another >> beautiful ranch home:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Photograph Date: 2/1/2004 (AFTER) >> Photograph >> Date: 1/8/2003 >> (AFTER) >> Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE)***** >> >> [image: >> http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/20040201/A1112203.jpg] >> [image: >> http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/20030108/C8113216.JPG] >> [image: >> http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/photos/mvideo/WAKE1229/0073DE00.JPG] >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Unfortunately I could not pull up photos for 2809 Avent Ferry Road on >> I-Maps, but I highly recommend you ride by the next time you are in the >> area. There other examples on Buck Jones Road and Bashford Road.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Hopefully these photos better illustrate the legitimate concerns folks >> and I have regarding the future of our affordable neighborhoods in SW >> Raleigh and throughout the city. Betsy, I believe this may illustrate one >> reason why you are advising your municipal clients not to allow such >> entitlements.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Also, please remember Rooming Houses were deemed at one time a great way >> to provide affordable housing in Raleigh.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Have a great week folks!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thomas G Crowder**** >> >> Raleigh City Councilor | District D**** >> >> 222 West Hargett Street**** >> >> Post Office Box 590**** >> >> Raleigh, North Carolina 27602**** >> >> O 919.996.3040**** >> >> H 919.852.1297**** >> >> ** ** >> >> "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011***** >> >> *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!** >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf >> Of *Thomas Crowder >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:30 PM >> *To:* vincent(a)vincentwhitehurst.com >> *Cc:* karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, >> Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, >> Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, >> Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; >> gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff >> *Subject:* RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address >> backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Vince:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> You are correct, if the backyard cottages could be limited to owner >> occupied structures, then it would not be such a problem and a desirable >> income stream for families. The challenges surface when rental investors >> divide an existing single-family unit into two units and the density now >> expands from four unrelated persons to six unrelated persons or more than >> likely more than six. As stated previously, the current four unrelated >> limit is never enforced due to the difficulties of proving who is a tenant >> and who is a guest. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I’m all for design standards, but the legislature currently has a study >> group looking at preventing local government from enacting them on >> properties zoned R-5 and below. So I would not count on any rental >> investors constructing high quality accessory units…backyard cottage or >> internal to the single-family structures. It is pure economics. If you >> can buy a home and quarter to 1/3 of an acre lot for under $150,000 (which >> plenty exist in SW Raleigh) you can easily divide it into or add another >> 700 square feet structure in the rear yard and rent it out to 6 >> individuals. Rents around the university can go as high as $500 per room, >> per month. Furthermore one of our largest problem landlords has been >> Vernon J Vernon. He constructed the beautiful “blue” multi-family units on >> Avent Ferry Road, which was once a single-family home lot. We also have >> fine examples of single-family homes converted (added onto) into >> multi-family structures on R10 and higher lots, some constructed by Vernon >> and Donna Preiss. I’ll be have to take you on a tour sometime.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> As for Cameron Park, I am sure the residents that bought their homes in >> the 1970’s will tell you it was not affluent. Homes could be purchased for >> around $30,000.00. There were a large number of rooming houses (more than >> four unrelated tenants living in the homes) in Cameron Park and a high >> percentage of rental properties. It was these residents led by Al Adams >> that pushed to down zone Cameron Park for that very reason. Any >> grandfathered accessory units today are owner occupied; however even with >> one of the highest single-family property values in the city, you still >> have problem landlords in the neighborhood. I’m sure Christie Terrell >> would be happy to elaborate further.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The best strategy to add mixed-income units and control sprawl is through >> the development of our mixed-use centers throughout the city, which are >> accessible to transit and hopefully pedestrian and bike friendly, with the >> right design standards of course.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thomas G Crowder**** >> >> Raleigh City Councilor | District D**** >> >> 222 West Hargett Street**** >> >> Post Office Box 590**** >> >> Raleigh, North Carolina 27602**** >> >> O 919.996.3040**** >> >> H 919.852.1297**** >> >> ** ** >> >> "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011***** >> >> *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!** >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf >> Of *Vincent Whitehurst >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:15 PM >> *To:* Thomas Crowder >> *Cc:* karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, >> Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, >> Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, >> Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; >> gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff >> *Subject:* Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address >> backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO**** >> >> ** ** >> >> All,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its >> the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. What I've always seen >> happen is they purchase a property and don't spend a dime on it. I can't >> imagine them spending any money at all to create backyard dwellings. It >> seems counterintuitive to the idea of being a slumlord.**** >> >> Also, we have PROP laws, zoning, building codes, and ordinances that >> should address most issues. New building has many quality requirements that >> you can rarely enforce on existing buildings. I don't like the idea of >> penalizing all the advantages of what backyard cottages could offer by only >> looking at the worst case scenario. Why not look at the best case scenario? >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Maybe we need some design standards for materials on these dwellings. We >> could also have some sort of "overlay' requirements for at-risk areas we >> think need more protection such as the areas Thomas is mentioning. If a >> home is the only investment some people have, then they can increase their >> investment by building an apartment that could help with rent, such as many >> properties in Cameron Park, one of the city's more affluent areas, already >> have. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I think we have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. If we want to >> start combating sprawl, we need to look for ways to up-zone properties to >> allow higher uses. We have to do this IN THE BELTLINE and outside the >> beltline. Backyard cottages are an opportunity for smart, small scale >> infill. I think we need to look at the big picture on issues like this.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> Just my two cents.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Vincent Whitehurst, Architect**** >> >> 919-821-3355**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Thomas Crowder wrote:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Karen:**** >> >> **** >> >> As always, thank you for your thoughts, as we often agree on such >> matters; however this is one where we must agree to disagree. **** >> >> **** >> >> I concur that the affordable housing community should always have a seat >> at the table during these discussions. You know I have been a vocal >> advocate for supporting “affordable housing” but through the creation of >> mixed-income communities, particularly within mixed-use centers throughout >> our entire city, where jobs are within walking distance and which are >> adequately served by transit. I will continue to support a mix of housing >> opportunities for ALL income levels, as “affordable” is a relative term. >> What is affordable to you, may not be affordable to me, etc.**** >> >> **** >> >> But the rub is that historically (and currently) this does not exist. >> “Affordable” housing is only constructed in communities that currently is >> or historically has been “affordable” such as areas within Northeast, >> Southeast and Southwest Raleigh. That is why the City created a scattered >> housing policy for subsidized “affordable” housing decades ago. Our >> affordable rental housing providers were only focusing on areas where the >> land was less costly, within already “affordable communities. Debbie Moose >> notes in another string, the concerns she has about this matter. She lives >> in one of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city and the most >> affordable Zip Code within Wake County as quoted by Michelle Grant with >> Community Development. Due to the affordability of neighborhoods like Ms. >> Moose’s, rental investors (absentee landlords) are able to purchase >> single-family properties and covert them to rental units that are quite >> profitable. It is just simple math: less upfront investment + low >> overhead (maintenance investment) cost = maximized profit. Unfortunately, >> one residual impact is these properties are not often well maintained, the >> appearance of the neighborhood declines, the quality of life in these >> neighborhoods degrades and home values stymieing. **** >> >> **** >> >> Why is this a problem? Homeowners like Debbie who live in these >> neighborhoods are not only personally invested in their community, their >> home in many cases is their primary or the only financial investment they >> have. The majority of their net worth is tied up in their home and they >> are not heavily invested in other real estate portfolios, or the stock >> market. Their home is it. The majority of the time this is not the case >> for the rental investors, who do not reside within these neighborhoods and >> who as a rule live in more affluent areas of the city. Historically, a >> majority of these rental investors do not maintain their rental investments >> to the same level of their homes. To add insult to injury, I often see >> many of them before the city council objecting to public nuisance or zoning >> violation fines, requesting the council abate them in the name of them >> providing “affordable housing”. It is the very reason so many at-risk >> communities lobbied the city to create the PROP and landlord registry. It >> was lower and moderate income communities who were out front supporting >> this legislation in order to protect the quality of life in their >> neighborhoods and to protect their home investment. Furthermore, middle >> and upper income residents do not historically live in, or move to areas >> where there home investment will not appreciate, or where they believe >> their quality of life will more likely diminish. Who can blame them, no >> one does and would not if they could afford to. And while it is illegal to >> steer, residential real estate advisors do not promote these communities to >> middle and upper income citizens. Therefore it is an endless spiral where >> we segregate our lower and moderate wealth citizens, that we all know is >> broken but will not fully accept.**** >> >> **** >> >> Why do we know such a cycle is broken? It is through another well >> intended concept, the urban renewal efforts of the 1960’s/1970’s, that we >> now recognized segregating and warehousing our lower wealth citizens is not >> the answer to assisting them move towards a path of building wealth and >> self-sufficiency, nor creating healthy sustainable communities. >> Acknowledging our mistake lead to the creation of the Hope VI program. >> Through the Hope VI program we are now turning these complexes into well >> planed, well constructed communities for a mix of income levels. >> Segregating our neighborhoods based on socio-economics is no different, nor >> less damaging than segregating our schools. When we do not integrate a mix >> of incomes and segregate our moderate and even more so, our low wealth >> citizens into large geographic areas of the city, we deny them the >> opportunity to close access to both, entry level and higher paying job and >> force them to drive long distances or multiple transit transfers. >> Furthermore, we deny them close proximity to retail and other health and >> professional services. This is because income demographic data that every >> business references drives their decision on where they locate, or not >> locate. One only has to drive through the city to see where the majority >> of such services are concentrated, at least those services furnished by the >> private sector. **** >> >> **** >> >> While we are in principal working towards the same goal, I must >> respectfully disagree that allowing back yard “cottages” and duplex >> conversions in already “affordable” or at-risk communities is the answer; >> particularly when the city does not have the legislative nor legal >> authority to insure such communities are not exploited. As Phil Poe noted >> in another string, we do not need to create opportunities for unenforceable >> conditions. The net result of allowing this entitlement will be worse >> density zoning violations that will not be (and currently are not being) >> enforced, parking overburdens; etc, and you can bet these will not take >> place in our more affluent communities. Low wealth communities and >> communities with a high student population are where they will be >> constructed and the majority of them will not be on owner occupied >> properties. While one city planner stated these were consequences he was >> willing to accept in exchange for the opportunity for more affordable >> housing, the consequences are far too egregious and too high a price to pay >> in the long run for me, others and I hope ultimately you too Karen.**** >> >> **** >> >> If we (the city) truly wish to solve our “affordable housing” dilemma, >> then we must either earnestly work towards obtaining exclusionary zoning >> authority, or be willing to otherwise financially invest in the creation of >> mixed-income communities throughout our entire city. **** >> >> **** >> >> Thomas G Crowder**** >> >> Raleigh City Councilor | District D**** >> >> 222 West Hargett Street**** >> >> Post Office Box 590**** >> >> Raleigh, North Carolina 27602**** >> >> O 919.996.3040**** >> >> H 919.852.1297**** >> >> **** >> >> "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011***** >> >> *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!** >> *** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com<ddna(a)googlegroups.com> >> ] *On Behalf Of *Karen Rindge >> *Sent:* Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:15 PM >> *To:* Thomas Crowder; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com >> *Cc:* 'Darges, Christine'; linda(a)lindawatson.com; 'McFarlane, Nancy'; >> 'Philip W. Poe'; 'Hill, Doug'; 'Joyce Kekas'; 'Crane, Travis'; 'Hallam, >> Greg'; 'RussStephenson'; 'Gaylord, Bonner'; 'Mark Turner'; 'District D >> Neighborhood Alliance'; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff >> *Subject:* RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address >> backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO**** >> >> **** >> >> Thomas,**** >> >> **** >> >> Considering that accessory dwellings are about the only thing in the UDO >> that would provide some new affordable housing in Raleigh, I suggest we >> weigh this carefully. We’ll be glad to talk further about this issue. I >> do think the affordable housing community should be consulted on this too. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *Karen***** >> >> **** >> >> Karen Rindge**** >> >> Executive Director, WakeUP Wake County**** >> >> Karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org**** >> >> 919-828-3833**** >> >> www.wakeupwakecounty.org**** >> >> <image001.jpg> <http://www.facebook.com/wakeupwakecounty> <image002.png><https://twitter.com/#%21/wakeupwake> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com<ddna(a)googlegroups.com> >> ] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Crowder >> *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 10:09 AM >> *To:* oldurbanist(a)gmail.com >> *Cc:* Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip >> W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; >> RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood >> Alliance >> *Subject:* RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address >> backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO**** >> >> **** >> >> Thank you Betsy for your comments. I too believe, as you noted that >> this is a noble goal, if restricted to owner occupied homes and other >> limitations imposed; however as you also noted, the city is currently >> unable to make such a restriction. They are in fact serious and legitimate >> reasons to exclude this provision. **** >> >> **** >> >> However the best way for the Mayor and Council to understand the severe >> negative ramifications of these two proposed entitlements is for the public >> to be educated on what can be allowed under any circumstance and then speak >> out. While I, or any one councilor may bring this concern forward and >> articulate how serious the unintended consequences are, much greater weight >> comes from hearing such concerns from our citizens.**** >> >> **** >> >> That is why it is very important for the public to fully understand from >> staff the “good” and the unintended “bad” and “ugly” opportunities, which >> lie in the proposed new code. Another example is the assumption that all >> our Mixed-Use categories will truly be Mixed-Use. As written in the draft >> document. All Neighborhood, Community and Regional Mixed-Use categories >> could end up being one story strip retail development per the code. I >> honestly do not believe this is what the public wanted when developing >> these categories during the Comp Plan Update. I know that was not my >> intent.**** >> >> **** >> >> The UDO is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission and it is >> critical that our citizens express their concerns to them prior to their >> forwarding their recommendations to the City Council.**** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks and have a great weekend folks!**** >> >> **** >> >> Thomas G Crowder**** >> >> Raleigh City Councilor | District D**** >> >> 222 West Hargett Street**** >> >> Post Office Box 590**** >> >> Raleigh, North Carolina 27602**** >> >> O 919.996.3040**** >> >> H 919.852.1297**** >> >> **** >> >> "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011***** >> >> *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!** >> *** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf >> Of *Betsy Kane >> *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 9:46 AM >> *To:* Thomas Crowder >> *Cc:* Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip >> W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; >> RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood >> Alliance >> *Subject:* Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address >> backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO**** >> >> **** >> >> Thomas, **** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks so very much for staying on top of the backyard accessory dwelling >> unit issue. As I believe you know, I am writing a law review article on >> this topic, specifically in relation to the current state of the law in >> North Carolina flowing from the *Hill* case which prevents regulation of >> these units by the condition that one unit on the property be occupied by >> the owner. **** >> >> **** >> >> Lynn Coleman (then-Assistant City Attorney for Wilmington, who litigated >> this issue on behalf of the city before the N.C. Court of Appeals) and I >> have talked about this issue, and she stated to me that *after their >> ordinance provision regarding owner-occupancy was struck down by the Court >> of Appeals, the result was that entire districts soon afterward became >> double-rental conversions *(not one, but two rental problems on each >> lot), with resulting problems for those neighborhoods. **** >> >> **** >> >> I write and amend zoning ordinances for communities in North Carolina, >> and I believe accessory dwellings are a wonderful goal and have worked well >> in other states without this hampering problem of jurisprudence -- **** >> >> **** >> >> -- *However*, because of the legal situation in North Carolina, I have >> been advising my towns and cities here NOT to allow accessory dwelling >> units at the present time until the current state of the law is reviewed >> and amended. **** >> >> **** >> >> (In my legal opinion, the decision by the COA rests on tenuous >> propositions and was improvident; however, the City of Wilmington chose not >> to appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court, therefore, the principle does stand at >> the present time.)**** >> >> **** >> >> The issues that you have raised are serious and legitimate. Thank you >> for looking after this.**** >> >> **** >> >> I am hopeful that our mayor and otehr councilors will support these >> concerns, especially given the great effort and care of many neighborhoods >> in dealing with the issues created by excessive rental presence. **** >> >> **** >> >> Betsy Kane **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Crowder < >> tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com> wrote:**** >> >> Thank you Christine for your response.**** >> >> **** >> >> Was everyone also aware that due to recent court rulings, accessory >> apartments and backyard accessory cottages *CANNOT* be restricted to >> owner occupied properties, as Raleigh has done in the past. In other >> words, rental investment property owners share the same entitlement as an >> owner occupied property. Any landlord can add an accessory apartment >> attached to the house or add a backyard cottage apartment in the rear yard >> of a single-family rental property and rent both structures out. **** >> >> **** >> >> Also, did you discuss another key change in the new code? Accessory >> apartments are no longer a percentage of the base single-family unit like >> in the current code (I believe it is limited to 25% of the house and cannot >> have a kitchen)? Under the proposed UDO these apartments can be up to 700 >> SF. While it is true the 700 SF unit cannot exceed the area of the main >> house, depending on the house size it can occupy up to 99% of the house; >> i.e., a 1410 SF house (many post WWII ranches range in size from >> 1300-1500SF). Therefore a duplex in reality can be created on many R-4 >> zoned properties.**** >> >> **** >> >> In each of these provisions up to 6 unrelated persons can live on the >> same parcel (4 in the main house and 2 in the accessory apartment or >> backyard cottage). Unfortunately we have a long history of not enforcing >> unit density violations. The Zoning Department consistently states that >> they cannot limit the number of overnight guest (as long as they do not >> have a dedicated bed, clothes stored in closets and they have a license >> with another home address listed); regardless of the number of days they >> reside at the house. Therefore properties with an accessory apartment or >> backyard cottage unit could have as many as 12 unrelated persons living on >> an R-4 zoned parcel or more. That can also mean 12 cars or more needing a >> space to park. This would not be unrealistic in many parts of our city, >> particularly around our major universities. In many of these areas we have >> 6-8 people living in a single-family house with 6-8 cars parked out front. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> I do not believe a vast majority of the public understands these >> provisions or the potential negative impacts to our at-risk lower wealth >> and middle income communities. While the concept in principle may be noble >> by allowing “granny” flats, small units for young starter families and >> professionals, etc., the opportunity for abuse is significant. I agree >> with my former council colleague Mr. Tommy Craven, who at the UDO public >> hearing stated this provision of the new code could become a major problem >> for our city.**** >> >> **** >> >> When presenting this option to the public, lets please make sure they >> fully understand *ALL* examples that can take place under this proposed >> entitlement and other ones like the Mixed-Use Categories. I hope the >> Planning Commission and Council looks very careful and this provision and >> reconsider how and if this provision should be included in a new ordinance. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks again for helping educate the public on the provisions of the >> proposed UDO.**** >> >> **** >> >> BTW Linda…thank you and your Glenwood CAC members so much for delving >> into the specifics of the proposed UDO. It is difficult for most lay >> persons to understand the content, or the ramifications of this document. >> I do want to say there is many great improvements in this proposed document >> verses our current code; however issues like this matter need major >> tweaking or removal before it is approved.**** >> >> **** >> >> Have a great weekend!**** >> >> **** >> >> Thomas G Crowder**** >> >> Raleigh City Councilor | District D**** >> >> 222 West Hargett Street**** >> >> Post Office Box 590**** >> >> Raleigh, North Carolina 27602**** >> >> O 919.996.3040**** >> >> H 919.852.1297**** >> >> **** >> >> "Best City in America"* * *Businessweek.com, 2011***** >> >> *Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You!** >> *** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Darges, Christine [mailto:Christine.Darges@raleighnc.gov] >> *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 12:16 AM >> *To:* linda(a)lindawatson.com >> *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, >> Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner >> *Subject:* RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, >> underlying assumption for UDO**** >> >> **** >> >> Linda,**** >> >> **** >> >> As your email came in a day before the RCAC presentation, I felt it would >> be better to respond to your email at the meeting where all present could >> benefit from the discussion. I included this in the presentation for this >> reason and believe the discussion was very productive as it prompted the >> group to ask several questions and resulted in a better understanding of >> the proposed housing option for everyone. It was very helpful and thank you >> for bringing this up.**** >> >> **** >> >> This morning, I culled through the approximately 175 Planning Commission >> recommended edits to the UDO draft and I did not see that they made the >> change from 5’-10’ as I had thought, but recall it was in our staff notes. >> Looking into this further, I saw that this topic had not been raised >> during the public hearing, so was not incorporated into the public comment >> record; however, the staff had made a note to look into this further as the >> 5’ setback for an accessory structure does not have the same impacts as a >> detached structure with a dwelling unit. With the Commission reviewing >> chapter by chapter in early March, they had finished with chapter 2 by the >> time staff identified it. This is why it was not an official comment >> presented and acted on with other chapter 2 comments.**** >> >> **** >> >> For the July 24th UDO review, the item is on our agenda and there will >> be a recommendation that the rear and side setback for backyard cottages be >> increased from 5’-10’ as staff identified and you as well. **** >> >> **** >> >> Staff is currently preparing a draft of the final PC recommendations for >> web posting that the public will be able to access in the near future >> through the link below. Also through the link, you can access weekly >> reports for specific discussion items. Reports are normally available by >> end of day Friday.**** >> >> **** >> >> >> http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleighCo… >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Sincerely,**** >> >> Christine **** >> >> **** >> >> Customer Service Survey<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> >> **** >> >> * ***** >> >> *Christine Darges***** >> >> Planning Manager**** >> >> Current Planning Services**** >> >> Raleigh Department of City Planning**** >> >> **** >> >> City of Raleigh**** >> >> One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300**** >> >> PO Box 590**** >> >> Raleigh, NC 27602-0590**** >> >> 919-516-2634 phone**** >> >> 919-516-2682 fax**** >> >> www.raleighnc.gov**** >> >> Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov**** >> >> **** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Linda >> Watson >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2012 8:34 AM >> *To:* Darges, Christine >> *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, >> Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner >> *Subject:* Re: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, >> underlying assumption for UDO**** >> >> **** >> >> Dear Christine and all, >> >> I'm surprised and disappointed to not have received a single response to >> this email. I'm even more surprised but also grateful to have learned in >> your presentation at the RCAC last night that my main concern, the setback >> for backyard cottages, has been addressed. >> >> *No one who received my original email told me about the change and I >> cannot find that information on the city website.* (I'm adding RCAC >> Chair Mark Turner to the copy list today to help him understand my >> questions and comments last night.) >> >> You questioned the version of the UDO I was using, which describes a >> 5-foot setback for the cottages. I used chapter 2 of the UDO shown in the >> upper right-hand corner of the city's UDO page<http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleighCo…>. >> I just checked the staff-report comments on that page related to chapter 2 >> and the backyard cottages and see only comments followed by statements that >> the staff does not recommend any changes. You mentioned that a document >> will be coming out in a few weeks with the updates that you used in your >> presentation. >> >> I regret wasting my time, my neighbors' time, the RCAC's time, and all >> your time trying to bring attention to this issue. I missed going to the >> Blue Ridge Corridor meeting because I was working on a dead issue. This is >> not the way to encourage citizen participation in the process. >> >> *At our next CAC meeting, I hope that Doug Hill will tell us how we can >> be informed of the status on key issues without having to attend all the >> meetings.* Should we get that information from the city website, from >> our planning representative Doug Hill, or from our RCAC representative Phil >> Poe? *Phil and Mark, how should this work for the CACs?* >> >> I hope this solution does not require that we take advantage of your >> offer to come downtown to have a planner walk us through our questions. A >> simple email response would be much faster and more sustainable. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> Linda Watson >> Chair, Glenwood CAC**** >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Linda Watson <linda(a)lindawatson.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> Christine, >> >> I'm looking forward to your presentation for the RCAC tomorrow night. I'm >> hoping you'll address two topics that concern me and many neighbors I've >> spoken with in the Glenwood CAC. The first has to do with rules for the >> backyard cottages and the other has to do with the basic assumptions being >> made about how strict the UDO needs to be. >> >> 1) The current UDO draft allows free-standing accessory dwellings within >> 5 feet of the property line, which is 5 feet closer than primary residents >> in zones 1 through 4. *Backyard cottages should only be allowed within >> the allowable envelop for the primary residence. * >> >> I disagree with your statement that there isn't much difference between >> the currently allowed attached accessory apartments and a free-standing >> accessory dwelling. While I might be willing to have two students living in >> my backyard far away from my house in exchange tens of thousands of dollars >> of rent every year, I would not want to share a wall or floor with them. >> >> 2) *The underlying assumption that undesirable building patterns should >> be allowed by the UDO if there isn't precedent for that sort of building. >> * Both you in the note below and Doug Hill at our CAC meeting indicated >> that the UDO allowances for backyard cottages shouldn't be a concern >> because no one would build that way. Doug cited the expense of building a >> driveway to the cottage, but there is no requirement for a driveway, only >> for an additional parking space. I've posted several pictures on the >> Glenwood CAC Facebook page<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Glenwood-CAC/154567751228362?sk=photos> >> showing formerly unthinkable building patterns that are transforming >> the Coley Forest neighborhood. The Facebook page also shows a map of how >> these cottages could transform my neighborhood and similar neighborhoods in >> the CAC, with those nearest to NCSU at most risk. >> >> If this assumption is being used for backyard cottages, then what other >> unacceptable building patterns will be allowed by the UDO but are being >> assumed to unlikely enough to not be an issue? >> >> As Western hero Virgil Cole says when quoting his favorite military >> theorist:**** >> >> *This Clausewitz says you got to prepare for what your enemy can do, not >> what you think he might do***** >> >> >> Developers aren't our enemies, of course, but they have interests that >> may be different from the residents in an area. Developers are asking for >> clear rules to avoid future disputes. Let's show them what they *can* do >> without triggering a fuss. >> >> Ten years ago, I never would have dreamed that Glenwood Avenue inside the >> Beltline would be lined with big buildings, with more on the way. I hope >> that ten years from now I won't be looking out into my backyard at a >> double-row of rental housing between my house and those on Ridge Road, >> wistfully remembering the trees that used to be there. >> >> I urge you and the Planning Department to develop a UDO that assumes the >> worst and allows for the best. >> >> I hope you will address these topics tomorrow night. I've attended >> several sessions on the UDO, read two drafts, and spent considerable amount >> of time on this topic without getting a response that makes me feel that >> these concerns are unfounded. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> Linda Watson >> Chair, Glenwood CAC**** >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Darges, Christine < >> Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov> wrote:**** >> >> Linda,**** >> >> **** >> >> There are many facets to this discussion. As stated previously in my >> response to you this morning about these additional dwelling units as >> backyard cottages, the requirements that accompany them will not allow >> every property to add a dwelling unit. In reality it results in a very low >> percentage of properties. We have a regulation today that allows them as >> attached units, with height and size requirements, so there isn’t much >> difference being proposed, only that they can be detached. In Raleigh we >> have very few accessory dwelling units for various reasons, such as cost, >> need or other.**** >> >> **** >> >> As far as the height of these structures goes, all structures such as >> sheds, homes, accessory buildings for all uses are required to meet height >> requirements, so these structures will not be treated differently. >> Regarding stormwater, the use of existing infrastructure and addition of >> impervious surface can be looked at in different ways, on a lot by lot >> basis on as a whole. The downtown area is almost 100% impervious, but the >> additional height allows the efficient use of infrastructure. To compare >> that with a sprawling model where impervious on a lot by lot basis may be >> lower, the reality is that you are using more infrastructure to serve the >> same amount of development. Stormwater can be captured in underground >> devices in an urban setting or above ground in suburban setting, with the >> same result. **** >> >> **** >> >> We appreciate your comments and thank you for taking the time to submit >> them.**** >> >> **** >> >> Christine**** >> >> **** >> >> Customer Service Survey<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey> >> **** >> >> * ***** >> >> *Christine Darges***** >> >> Planning Manager**** >> >> Current Planning Services**** >> >> Raleigh Department of City Planning**** >> >> **** >> >> City of Raleigh**** >> >> One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300**** >> >> PO Box 590**** >> >> Raleigh, NC 27602-0590**** >> >> 919-516-2634 phone**** >> >> 919-516-2682 fax**** >> >> www.raleighnc.gov**** >> >> Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov**** >> >> **** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Linda >> Watson >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:18 PM >> *To:* Darges, Christine >> *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas >> *Subject:* Concern re: increasing density resulting in neighborhood >> upheaval**** >> >> **** >> >> Christine, >> >> Much of the Glenwood CAC area is show in the Comprehensive Plan as being >> Low-Density Residential, which would allow it to go easily from R-4 to R-6. >> >> >> When combined with the proposed UDO definitions of Accessory Cottage, >> which can house two people unrelated to the people in the main house, our >> neighborhood could:**** >> >> - Go from having four dwellings per acre to twelve**** >> - Go from single-family homes to duplexes**** >> - Increase the required parking spaces per acre from eight to eighteen >> **** >> >> I moved into this beautiful, mature neighborhood in part because the >> houses are nestled in the trees. With these changes, additional stress will >> be placed on our aging infrastructure, many trees will be cut down, and >> green areas will be replaced with built structures or paving. These changes >> will increase water run-off problems and speed global warming. Please also >> note that all the drawings in the UDO show flat land, but Raleigh is hilly. >> A structure built up slope seems taller than its measurements indicate. >> >> And I share former City Councilor Joye Kekas's concern:**** >> >> I am concerned about the UDO giving too much authority to staff in >> designing our City. This relieves the Planning Commission and Council ** >> ** >> >> from making decisions. We elect Council for these decisions and they >> should be making them on a case by case basis. I agree some things >> should go to staff, but not major ones that redesign our City.**** >> >> >> If we pass the UDO and it has unexpected consequences or times change >> dramatically, we will not be able to change course by electing new leaders. >> >> Sincerely, >> Linda Watson >> Chair, Glenwood CAC**** >> >> >> “E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the >> North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by >> an authorized City or Law Enforcement official.”**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. >> To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en**** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. >> To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en**** >> >> -- >> DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. >> To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en**** >> >> -- >> DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. >> To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. >> To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. >> To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en**** >> >> -- >> DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. >> To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en?hl=en**** >> > >

13 years, 4 months

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

RCAC July 2012