712 Tucker

[dukedoc9]

But no where in this draft report does it say reduce height or density. That is purely Crowder.

[c_harmons]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????

Subject: CamPk: Tucker Strret Project and Councilwoman Joyce Kekas

Date: Thu, March 30, 2006 11:00 am

To: <[email protected]>

To All-

The Crosland Co.-think Coker Project-intends to buid a 180 unit apt/condo in several buildings stretching from the corner of St. Mary's and Tucker along Tucker Street to Boylan Ave. There will be a parking deck approx. 5 stories high on the Johnson St side as well. This is the former Raleigh Office Supply property plus the building at St. Mary's and Tucker which will be demolished and replaced by a five story-50 foot high condo building at that corner. This building will front the Park Drive -St Mary's entrance to Cameron Park and is out of proportion to the surrouding structures along that part of St Mary's and across Tucker Street.

All attempts to reduce the size of the condo builing-an effort that has been ongoing for some three weeks or more-have failed. Crosland has been adament that this what they were going to build in spite of our request that a one story drop in height would make it less offensive and more in keeping with the surroundings. Thanks to Mayor Meeker the proposal was placed in the Comprehensive Planning Comm, made up of Thomas Crowder, Russ Stephenson, Thomas Craven and Mrs. Kekas. We have gotten support from both Crowder and Stephenson but none from the other two. Mrs. Kekas support for our modest request is essential.

There will be a final vote next Tuesday April 4th at 7:00 pm on the 2d floor of City Hall at the regularly scheduled Council Meeting. Four votes will give us an opportunity to influnce the part of the project that, in effect, creates a cliff looking down on that part of the Park and the final development of the Coker-like parking deck. A robust attendance at that coucil session would help a lot.

What needs to be done behorehand is more important-crucial-than that. An e-mail to Mrs. Kekas at

[email protected]: <mailto:[email protected]>

or a phone call to her at

890-3050

asking for her support will give weight to another meeting I am scheduling with her now.

Many of you attended a recetion for Mrs. Kekas at my house hosted by Gail Perry, May and Mark Bensen ,Nancy Johnson and Mike Lindsay and Joann Sumner and Bob Mosher. In turn, we supported her in the election that followed. Its fair to mention your attendance at that reception and the susequent support. We backed her vigorously and now we need her backing . Her vote will turn the tide.

Please call or e-mail and help to get us heard.

Lee

[bdp]

^^typical nimby BS...

[RALBOI]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????

Subject: CamPk: Tucker Strret Project and Councilwoman Joyce Kekas

Date: Thu, March 30, 2006 11:00 am

To: <[email protected]>

To All-

The Crosland Co.-think Coker Project-intends to buid a 180 unit apt/condo in several buildings stretching from the corner of St. Mary's and Tucker along Tucker Street to Boylan Ave. There will be a parking deck approx. 5 stories high on the Johnson St side as well. This is the former Raleigh Office Supply property plus the building at St. Mary's and Tucker which will be demolished and replaced by a five story-50 foot high condo building at that corner. This building will front the Park Drive -St Mary's entrance to Cameron Park and is out of proportion to the surrouding structures along that part of St Mary's and across Tucker Street.

All attempts to reduce the size of the condo builing-an effort that has been ongoing for some three weeks or more-have failed. Crosland has been adament that this what they were going to build in spite of our request that a one story drop in height would make it less offensive and more in keeping with the surroundings. Thanks to Mayor Meeker the proposal was placed in the Comprehensive Planning Comm, made up of Thomas Crowder, Russ Stephenson, Thomas Craven and Mrs. Kekas. We have gotten support from both Crowder and Stephenson but none from the other two. Mrs. Kekas support for our modest request is essential.

There will be a final vote next Tuesday April 4th at 7:00 pm on the 2d floor of City Hall at the regularly scheduled Council Meeting. Four votes will give us an opportunity to influnce the part of the project that, in effect, creates a cliff looking down on that part of the Park and the final development of the Coker-like parking deck. A robust attendance at that coucil session would help a lot.

What needs to be done behorehand is more important-crucial-than that. An e-mail to Mrs. Kekas at

[email protected]: <mailto:[email protected]>

or a phone call to her at

890-3050

asking for her support will give weight to another meeting I am scheduling with her now.

Many of you attended a recetion for Mrs. Kekas at my house hosted by Gail Perry, May and Mark Bensen ,Nancy Johnson and Mike Lindsay and Joann Sumner and Bob Mosher. In turn, we supported her in the election that followed. Its fair to mention your attendance at that reception and the susequent support. We backed her vigorously and now we need her backing . Her vote will turn the tide.

Please call or e-mail and help to get us heard.

Lee

How can we get these clowns out of these important positions that affect Raleigh's future, how can we start a dump CROWDER CAMPAIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[orulz]

Ooh wow, they're even invoking Coker... now we know they mean business! Maybe they can *** up this project just like they did with Coker, too.

But seriously. What's the huge difference between 4 and 5 stores?

[Damien]

Of the people I know in Cameron Park, this sounds about par for course for them. Most of them don't even bother making sure that whatever spews out of their mouth makes sense before they say it. All the people in that neighborhood that I know should be living in Wakefield. Wouldn't it be great if someone created a NIMBY zapper, kinda like a bug zapper.

[foodpainter]

You may complain about NIMBYs but if you'd invested your hard-earned cash into expensive Cameron Park real estate, why would you want some cheap-ass condos right outside your window? Think about it-these homeowners want nearby developments that are expensive, aesthetically pleasing, in keeping with the character with the neighborhood and guaranteed to increase property values- they're the ones who ultimately have to live with the consequences of the project.

Developers just want the money.

[citiboi27610]

The development isn't in their neighborhood, it next to it. I'm sorry but I can't sympathize with them. They live in the center of the city, on the edge of downtown. In the end the benefits of living in Cameron Park will outweight the effects of one development. Living downtown and the surrounding areas is about having acces to services, entertainment, people, etc that you don't have anywhere else. This is classic NIMBY talk. They want to benefit from new developements but don't want it too close.

All I can say is, change happens, 'DEAL WITH IT'.

[Damien]

Think about it-these homeowners want nearby developments that are expensive, aesthetically pleasing, in keeping with the character with the neighborhood and guaranteed to increase property values- they're the ones who ultimately have to live with the consequences of the project.

Developers just want the money.

So are you saying that the people who live in Cameron Park should dictate all development that goes on near their neighborhood? If you look at the big picture it doesn't matter what the people who live in one neighborhood thinks. It needs to be about what is good for the city, and this development is going to benefit the city by adding some much needed density. If they don't like new development coming near their neighborhood, then they should sell their property and move to somewhere that isn't near a booming downtown district.

[ChiefJoJo]

Think about it-these homeowners want nearby developments that are expensive, aesthetically pleasing, in keeping with the character with the neighborhood and guaranteed to increase property values- they're the ones who ultimately have to live with the consequences of the project.

Developers just want the money.

I understand what you are saying, but times change, and Raleigh--especially DT--is moving forward with increased densities in urban areas and this is a good project IMO that fits that mold of what we should want. I have seen the renderings and it looks fine to me, the city planning staff conditionally approved it, and Mayor Meeker and others have expressed a desire for cheaper living alternatives in DT/GlenSo, which this would be. I guess we should just forget about good urban infill and just keep building in open fields and farmland.

The argument that Cameron Park is making is that it's too tall on St Mary's. If that's true then they must not oppose the project altogether as you suggest, just the scale of it. I don't but it... it's 50 feet tall on that side, which is what the land use plan calls for in this area. Oh, and developers are driven by profits, but what's wrong with that? Nobody is going to redevelop this property if they can't make a profit.

Oh, BTW, I live in close proximity to this property and within the CAC, so I think my opinion counts for something.

[dmccall]

This sounds like the NIMBY's around Rowan and Pamlico who fought John Kane because of the Alexan design. Poor people's houses have shot up in value because IT IS NOW A MORE DESIREABLE PLACE TO LIVE.

The project not only isn't IN the neighborhood, but none of the neighborhood's houses even face St. Mary's St! The project is to the East, too, so it would only cast a shadow on half a dozen houses at, what, 6:00am? Build one near me. I hate the sun in the morning!

To be honest, while there are some great houses in Cameron Park and it neighborhood has a good overall feel, it isn't a neighborhood that I drag out-of-towners through because so many houses aren't kept especially well. The addition of this condo project will make living in that area even more desirable, and the resale values of these houses go up even more steeply.

Cameron Park is a neighborhood which overwhelmingly supported the mayor. It will be interesting to see how he acts about it.

[foodpainter]

Yeah, I kind of was just feeling a bit like a devil's advocate because in my 'hood Mordecai we just "stood up" at a city council meeting about a proposed townhome development here. We didn't want townhomes that were out of character with the single family homes most of us have and didn't want the added traffic of 60 residences on our narrow streets. I never thought I'd be a NIMBY, but I kind of became one. I guess the point is, you never know how the neighbors feel until you try and see it from their perspective.

[ChiefJoJo]

I spoke with Bob Geary tonight and he said 712 Tucker St was approved with 1 change pushed by Cameron Park. Crosland will remove the 3 units along the former 4th floor facing St Mary's St., so that side will have 3 stories, instead of 4. The structure will then step up to 4 floors as you move towards Boylan. Overall, I can't be too upset with this result. So it now has 176 units instead of 179. The intent of the project, to provide more housing options at a reasonable price point near GlenSO, is still there.

[avery]

I spoke with Bob Geary tonight and he said 712 Tucker St was approved with 1 change pushed by Cameron Park. Crosland will remove the 3 units along the former 4th floor facing St Mary's St., so that side will have 3 stories, instead of 4. The structure will then step up to 4 floors as you move towards Boylan. Overall, I can't be too upset with this result. So it now has 176 units instead of 179. The intent of the project, to provide more housing options at a reasonable price point near GlenSO, is still there.

If anything, the added expense will cause these units to potentially creep up slightly in price. I guess the other units will have to absorb the 3 units lost.

[Transplant]

I wouldn't think the loss of three units would be too big. The units that now front the set back could get a huge terrace, that would be a cool place to be...

[avery]

I wouldn't think the loss of three units would be too big. The units that now front the set back could get a huge terrace, that would be a cool place to be...

Probably not too much, I actually think it was a pretty good comprimise. I wonder if Cameron Park residents are satisfied with this?

[MR-2]

I've come up with a new term to describe the issue we're facing with the current round of residential infill: McCondos. They're just McMansions stacked on top of each other. This project is one of few that could help us buck that trend.

[ChiefJoJo]

I guess the other units will have to absorb the 3 units lost.

Yes, and the only bad thing is that they are top floor units, so they would have likely been the priciest units, wiht the most profit margin available. Lets say ~$250k per condo, that's ~$750k that Crosland must make up, everything else being equal.

[ncwebguy]

The third floor units fronting St. Marys are now "top floor" so most of the difference can be made up there, with the rest being spread thorught the rest of the project. How many units are on the third floor? All of the St. Mary's units are now more "exclusive" so they probably can go for more than originally projected.

[c_harmons]

Raleigh is such a joke....we allow 40 stories at Crabtree but don't want over 3 stories downtown if it the NIMBYs say no.

[bdp]

^^ haha good point. Raleigh is definitely a strange place... but not in the quirky cool way. It is strange in the disturbing what the hell are they thinking kind of way.

[citiboi27610]

It all has to do with the decision of the leaders. I believe that leaders should provide the vision for the city. That's why we voted for them. Our leaders shouldn't be so week as to let NIMBYs direct the progress of our city.

There's a major difference between democratic process, listening to citzens' opinions and letting them decide for the government.

In the case of the condos on Tucker St., I don't think a compromise needed to be made.

[DanRNC]

Looks like this got approved.

[ncwebguy]

The N&O "report" is here -- 712 Tucker approved by City Council.

Did this get passed at the 4/4 meeting? It does not say in the story. There was no recommendation from the comprehensive planning subcommittee according to the agenda posted to the city's website.

[ChiefJoJo]

Voted 7-1 (Crowder no vote) for the project last Tuesday.