Raleigh City Council Minutes - 03/03/2015… · Web view2015/03/03 · The project will install...

COUNCIL MINUTES

The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in regular session at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present.

Mayor Nancy McFarlane, PresidingMayor Pro Tem John OdomCouncilor Mary-Ann BaldwinCouncilor Kay C. CrowderCouncilor Bonner GaylordCouncilor Wayne K. MaioranoCouncilor Russ StephensonCouncilor Eugene Weeks

Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order. Invocation was rendered by Tom Harris, Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilor Weeks.

The following items were discussed with action taken as shown.

RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL AWARDS

PROCLAMATION – GIRL SCOUT WEEK – PROCLAIMED

Mayor McFarlane read a proclamation proclaiming March 10-15, 2015 as Girl Scout Week in the City of Raleigh. The proclamation was accepted by Tracy Sternberg, Chief Development Officer for the area Girl Scouts. In accepting the proclamation, they expressed appreciation and presented the Council with a bag of girl scout cookies.

PROCLAMATION – MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS WEEK – PROCLAIMED

Mayor McFarlane read a proclamation proclaiming March 2-8, 2015 as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week in the City of Raleigh. The proclamation was accepted by Melanie Hager from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

PROCLAMATION – ELIZABETH GRIMES-DROESSLER DAY - PROCLAIMED

Mayor McFarlane read a proclamation proclaiming March 4, 2015 as Elizabeth Grimes-Droessler Day of the City of Raleigh. The proclamation talked about all of the work she has done including being Senior Administrator for Arts Education with the Wake County Public School System. She accepted the proclamation making statements about her love for the work and appreciation for the City of Raleigh’s commitment to our youth and appreciation to a community that values arts and young people.

March 3, 2015Page 2

PROCLAMATIONS – BLACK HISTORY MONTH – PROCLAIMED

Mayor McFarlane pointed out there are three proclamations proclaiming February as Black History Month in the City of Raleigh. She stated two would be accepted by Octavia Rainey one behalf of the Carolinian and the other for North Central CAC. The third would be accepted by Reverend Ronald Ivey on behalf of St. Paul, A.M.E Church. In accepting the proclamation for the Carolinian, Ms. Rainey pointed out it is the 75th anniversary of the Carolinian and invited all to attend an event in that honor. Reverend Ivy expressed appreciation for the proclamation pointing out St. Paul A.M.E is so happy to continue to serve as Raleigh’s ambassador.

AGENCY GRANTEE PRESENTATION

AGENCY GRANTEE PRESENTATION – TRIANGLE FAMILY SERVICES – INFORMATION RECEIVED

Russ Jones and Alice Lutz representing Triangle Family Services were at the meeting to provide information on their agency. Mr. Jones pointed out their agency concentrates on family safety, family stability and mental health. He explained the work they do in each of those categories, talked about the number of families they serve; 88% which live at or below the poverty level. He explained how their agency responds to the three areas pointing out family’s experiencing crisis seek their services to help provide critical financial, mental health and abuse intervention services. They offer service regardless of the client’s spoken language explaining they provide bilingual services and utilize accessible language to meet full translation of client needs and use different communication devices to help communicate with those with various impairments, disabilities, or language barriers.

Chief Executive Officer Lutz gave some examples of services rendered and the impact of their services on the families. She stated the City’s financial investment in families in crisis through their agency has helped change lives.

Mr. Jones indicated in the City of Raleigh consolidated plans for 2015 -2020 the Triangle Family Services continue to fit squarely with partners with the City of Raleigh and offering solutions. He pointed out 81.8 percent of their clients are from Wake County and a high concentration within the City of Raleigh with 13.7% of the 81% being from zip code 27610. He expressed appreciation to the City for continuing to support building a stronger community by strengthening the family through Triangle Family Services. They expressed appreciation to the Council particularly Councilor Baldwin for her participation.

CONSENT AGENDA

CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED AS AMENDED

Mayor McFarlane presented the consent agenda indicating all items are considered to be routine and may be enacted by one motion. If a Councilor requests discussion on an item, the item will

March 3, 2015Page 3

be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. She explained the vote on the consent agenda will be a roll call vote. Mayor McFarlane stated she had received the following requests to withdraw items from the Consent Agenda: SafeLight Traffic Camera System (Gaylord); Professional Services Contract – Halifax Community Center (Weeks); Duke Energy Center for Performing Arts Professional Services (Stephenson); Public Affairs – Title Change (Baldwin). Without objection those items were withdrawn from the consent agenda. Mr. Weeks moved approval of the consent agenda as amended. His motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. The items on the consent agenda were as follows.

WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS – REFINANCING – APPROVED

At a February 16, 2015 meeting, the City Council adopted a bond order authorizing the issue of revenue refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed $111,000,000 to refinance outstanding S2006A and S2006B revenue bonds which carry a higher interest rate than currently available in the market. Since the bond order was adopted, interest rates have changed in an area of the financial markets where a portion of the bonds would be sold.

Staff has determined that adding a “forward delivery purchase arrangement” as an additional option for selling the bonds may potentially give the City a higher level of savings. To adjust the previously adopted bond order, it is necessary for Council to adopt a second resolution authorizing staff, in consultation with the City’s financial and legal advisors, to determine prior to the sale date which of the available purchase options would produce the most favorable refinancing results to the City. All previous findings and authorizations made in the adopted bond order carry over to this adjustment, and will provide staff with the authority to execute documents necessary to sell and complete the refinancing. A copy of the proposed resolution was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Adopt the resolution and authorize staff to execute appropriate documents. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes. See Resolution 62.

SIDEWALK PETITIONS – OXFORD ROAD, YADKIN DRIVE, WILMINGTON DRIVE AND RAMBLEWOOD DRIVE – PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 7, 2015

The following sidewalk petitions have been received and signed by a majority (50% + one) of the adjacent property owners as required by the Residential Sidewalk Petition Policy.

1. Oxford Road from Reaves Drive to Overbrook Drive for an approximate distance of 2,900 linear feet. Staff recommends installation of 5-foot-wide sidewalk placed directly behind the curb along the west side of the street along the City park. The petition received a 68% sufficiency percentage with 15 out of 22 property owner signatures “in favor” of the proposed sidewalk installation. The estimated cost of construction is $677,281.

2. Yadkin Drive from Rampart Street to Inglewood Lane for an approximate distance of 412 linear feet. Staff recommends installation of 6-foot-wide sidewalk placed 2.5 feet

March 3, 2015Page 4

behind the curb along the east side of the street. The petition received a 57% sufficiency percentage with 4 out of 7 property owner signatures “in favor” of the proposed sidewalk installation. The estimated cost of construction is $94,000.

3. Wimbleton Drive from Shelley Road to Manchester Drive for an approximate distance of 430 linear feet. Staff recommends installation of 6-foot-wide sidewalk placed 2.5 feet behind the curb along the southwest side of the street. The petition received an 80% sufficiency percentage with 4 out of 5 property owner signatures “in favor” of the proposed sidewalk installation. The estimated cost of construction is $113,508.

4. Ramblewood Drive from Lassiter Mill Road to the existing sidewalk at Allister Drive for an approximate distance of 1,720 linear feet. Staff recommends installation of 6-foot-wide sidewalk placed 3.5 feet behind the curb along the south side of the street. The petition received a 62% sufficiency percentage with 13 out of 21 property owner signatures “in favor” of the proposed sidewalk installation. The estimated cost of construction is $167,710.

Funding is appropriated in the capital budget for design and construction.Recommendation: Schedule public hearings for April 7, 2015, to consider approving petitions and authorizing the projects. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes.

NETWORK PRINTER AND SCANNING EQUIPMENT – LEASE AGREEMENT – EXTENSION – APPROVED

Ricoh (formerly IKON Office Solutions) provides centralized equipment leasing, maintenance, and repair services for networked printers and scanning equipment across the organization. Terms of the current contract were from March 2011 through March 2015, and the service contract automatically renews every three months after the term date until terminated by the City.

Staff will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to competitively select a vendor for these services, and anticipates vendor selection and a contract to be in place by August 31, 2015. Contract extensions for both service and lease agreements through August 31, 2015 are recommended; the total amount of monthly charges will not exceed $460,000.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute an extension to the existing lease agreement. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ANAEROBIC DIGESTER – CONTRACTS WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL/HAZEN AND SAWYER – APPROVED

The Public Utilities Department received proposals from four engineering firms to provide consulting engineering services for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)

March 3, 2015Page 5

Anaerobic Digester project. The project includes the addition of sludge screening and grit equipment, thickening, pre dewatering, imported feedstock (i.e. fats and grease receiving), thermal hydrolysis, digestion, digester gas containment and treatment, power generation fueled by digester gas, sidestream treatment, and final dewatering improvements. The project was identified in the 2013 Biosolids Management Master Plan and funding is appropriated in the capital budget.

After reviewing the qualifications of each proposal and with consideration to the complexities of the project, it was determined that the best approach for the City was to split the project between two firms so that staff can utilize the expertise of each consulting firm. Brown and Caldwell was selected for sludge pretreatment, thermal hydrolysis, and digestion. Hazen and Sawyer was selected for imported feedstock, gas treatment, power generation, sidestream treatment, and final dewatering improvements. Staff has negotiated a preliminary engineering services contract with Brown and Caldwell in the amount of $1,296,370 and with Hazen and Sawyer in the amount of $1,291,244.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contracts. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes.

PUBLIC UTILITIES – ON CALL SERVICES – HAZEN AND SAWYER CONTRACT AMENDMENT APPROVED

The Public Utilities Department has 13 on-call engineering design services contracts. Original contract amounts were either based on past on-call design services agreements, or were established at a relatively low threshold to evaluate the performance of the firm. Based on Hazen and Sawyer’s responsive and excellent design consulting services, the volume of their design work has increased. This amendment will provide funds for an increase in task orders under the terms of the original contract. The design tasks necessary are associated with sewer collection, water distribution, and plant construction projects with estimated construction costs of less than $5,000,000.

Name of Project: 2013 On-call Amendment Number FourManaging Division: Public Utilities – Capital Improvements DivisionRequest Reason: Contract Amendment Approval (Contract

Amendment >$150,000)Cause of Contract Amendment: Consultant design services for various collection,

distribution, and plant construction projects and permitting.

Original CIP Project Budget: $9,000,000/annually (for water and sewer main replacement)

Vendor: Hazen and Sawyer, PCPrior Contract Activity: $550,000 (Council approval) – Original Contract

for on call engineeringContract Amendment Number One: $149,000 (Administrative)Contract Amendment Number Two: $300,000 (Council approval)

March 3, 2015Page 6

Contract Amendment Number Three: $149,000 (Administrative)Currently Encumbered: $1,148,000Amount of this Contract Amendment: $200,000Encumbered with this Approval: $1,348,000

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment in the amount of $200,000. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes.

PERSONNEL – EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION NEW POSITION – APPROVED

The following position was submitted to the Human Resources department for classification review:

ECC Systems Manager (code 3412; PG 39)

This new position will coordinate the deployment and testing of 911 technology systems during construction of the Critical Public Safety Facility (CPSF) as well as the design and implementation of a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. The FY15 budget impact of this request is estimated at $28,600; the fully annualized budget impact of this request is estimated at $85,700. Funding for the position is partially supported by funds from the North Carolina 911 Board.

Recommendation: Authorize the new position. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes.

TRANSFERS – VARIOUS – APPROVED

The agenda presented an interfund budget transfer which is necessary to utilize grant funding repayment of a portion of a State Clean Water Revolving Loan that is not principal-forgiven.

Staff expects to receive a grant payment in the amount of $103,860 from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund prior to May 2015 as reimbursement under a companion grant (CWMTF Project Number 2008-1019). A transfer to the stormwater operating fund is necessary for cash flow purposes.

Recommendation: Authorize a transfer in the amount of $103,860. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 400.

RESURFACING CONTRACT PW2015-2 – AWARDED TO FRED SMITH COMPANY

On February 12, 2015, formal bids were received and publicly opened from contractors to resurface streets throughout the City. A total of four bids were received for this project.

March 3, 2015Page 7

The incremental tax rate effective July 1, 2014 provides for an additional $5.2 million in resurfacing funds, which correlates to an additional 21 miles of road resurfacing throughout the City as a result of the addition revenue.

The lowest bid was submitted by Fred Smith Company in the amount of $6,773,811. Small Disadvantaged Minority and Women Owned Business (SDMWOB) participation is 27.5%. Funding is appropriated in the capital budget.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Fred Smith Company in the amount of $ 6,773,811. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes.

E.M. JOHNSON WATER TREATMENT PLAN SODIUM PERMANGANATE FACILITY – BID TENTATIVELY AWARDED TO DEVERE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC

Four construction bids were received on December 17, 2014 for the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant Sodium Permanganate Facility project. This capital improvement project consists of the construction of a new bulk chemical storage and feed facility housed in a spill containment building. The work includes all associated piping, valves, chemical feed pumps, electrical, instrumentation, HVAC and all other related items necessary to render the facility complete and operational.

DeVere Construction Company, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive bid in the total amount of $2,929,780 with an 11.7% SDMWOB (8.6% Minority & 3.1% Women) participation plan. This project has been approved for funding by the Federal Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 0% Loan Program.

This contract is being funded by the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program and administered by NCDENR, Division of Water Infrastructure. The loan requires the governing body of the applicant to adopt a resolution of tentative award, contingent upon the approval of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Name of Project: Sodium Permanganate Facility Managing Division: Public Utilities – Capital Improvements DivisionApproval request: Construction Contract Bid Award ResolutionReason for Council Review: Tentative Bid Award and ContractOriginal CIP Budget: $4.1 million (Total Project Budget)Construction Bid Award: $2,929,780Vendor: DeVere Construction Company, Inc.Prior contract activity: N/AEncumbered with this approval: $2,929,780

Recommendation: Adopt the resolution of tentative award and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with DeVere Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,929,780 pending approval by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

March 3, 2015Page 8

Upheld on consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes. See Resolution 63.

RICHLAND CREEK SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS/DURHAM ROAD WATER LINE RELOCATION – BID AWARDED TO PARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC

Seven construction bids were received February 3, 2015 for the Richland Creek Sanitary Sewer Improvements and Durham Road water line relocation project. This project will replace the existing Richland Creek Sanitary Sewer line in the Wake Forest service area from Falls of Neuse Road to the Durham Road area for future flow capacities to the year 2035. Additional components of the project will replace the Richland Creek Sewer Siphon crossing the Neuse River to increase flow capacities and water line replacements on Durham Road.

The project will install approximately 30,688 linear feet of sewer lines and 1,830 linear feet of water lines. Park Construction of N.C., Inc. (Morrisville, NC) had the low base bid in the amount $9,379,314. The bid also had alternates with a recommended additional amount totaling to $74,657. SDMWOB participation is 16.4%. Funding is appropriated in the capital budget.

Name of Project: Richland Creek Sanitary Sewer Improvements and Durham Rd. Water Line Relocation

Managing Division: Public Utilities – Capital Improvements DivisionApproval request: Bid AwardReason for Council review: Formal Bid AwardOriginal CIP Budget: $10,000,000Construction Bid Award: $9,453,970Vendor: Park Construction of North Carolina, Inc.Prior contract activity: N/AEncumbered with this approval: $9,453,970

Recommendation: Award the bid to Park Construction of North Carolina, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $9,453,970 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Upheld on consent Agenda Weeks/Gaylord – 8 ayes.

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

SAFELIGHT TRAFFIC CAMERA SYSTEMS – XEROX STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED

On October 15, 2013, Council approved an agreement with Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc. to operate the SafeLight Photo Enforcement Program. A provision in this agreement requires Xerox to obtain prior approval before any work can be subcontracted.

March 3, 2015Page 9

Xerox is proposing to subcontract some of the IT infrastructure services related to the program. This does not modify the agreement between the City and Xerox. The City Attorney has reviewed this request; additional information was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the appropriate documents. Mr. Gaylord stated he has withdrawn this from the consent agenda in order to vote no as he has consistently on this item. Ms. Baldwin moved approval. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who voted in the negative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-1 vote.

HALIFAX COMMUNITY CENTER – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH CLARK NEXSEN, INC – RATIFICATION – APPROVED

Clark Nexsen, Inc. has been under contract to provide consulting services for design and construction administration of the Halifax Park and Community Center redevelopment project. The project was substantially completed and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued May 19, 2014. Construction administration obligations continued due to additional requests from the general contractor related to design and construction details and procedures. The additional scope of work resulting from the general contractor inquiries was unforeseen; staff continued working with the contractor and the consultant while negotiating additional scope and fees. Liquidated damages have been assessed to the construction contract and are currently being processed. The contract with Clark Nexsen Inc. expired effective April 7, 2014.

Compensation for performance by Clark Nexsen, Inc. in the absence of a written contract for the period April 7, 2014, to August 14, 2014 is in the amount of $16,661. Funding is available in the project budget.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary instruments to establish terms and provide compensation in the amount of $16,661 for past performance related to the extension of construction administration services.

Mr. Weeks stated he had withdrawn this from the consent agenda asking for clarification with it being pointed out this is some additional work which resulted outside of the original contract. It doesn’t increase the cost of the project as funds from liquidated damages will cover the additional cost. It is basically a cleanup item on the contract. Mr. Weeks moved approval. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

DUKE ENERGY CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS – KLING STUBBINS, INC – AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 – APPROVED

Design is approximately 95% complete and construction documents are being prepared for bidding for interior improvements to the Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts (DECPA). Interior finish improvements will include lighting, carpet replacement, renovation of bathroom areas, and painting. A contract amendment in the amount of $121,500 is requested to complete

March 3, 2015Page 10

the design to the bathrooms on the main floor and the balcony areas of Raleigh Memorial Auditorium; mechanical work associated with the improvements; and other miscellaneous capital maintenance items. Funding is appropriated in the capital budget.

Name of Project: Interior Improvements to the Performing Arts CenterManaging Division: Public Works – Construction ManagementRequest Reason: Contract Amendment Approval (Contract Amendments

>$150,000)Cause of Contract Amendment: Additional scope of work for design and construction

administration of interior improvements in the Raleigh Memorial Auditorium area including the restrooms on the main floor and balcony areas.

Vendor: Kling Stubbins, Inc.Prior Contract Activity: Original contract - (11/7/2013) - Conceptual design of

improvements to the DECPA - $147,400Amendment 1 - (6/13/2014) - Final design and construction documents for improvements to the DECPA - $350,805Amendment 2 - (10/17/14) Perform ADA study for the DECPA - $55,545

Currently Encumbered: $553,750Contract Amendment: $121,500Encumbered with this Approval: $675,250

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment.

Mr. Stephenson stated he had asked that this be withdrawn from the consent agenda. He pointed out this is very important project and would like some clarification as it indicates the design is 95% complete but the amendment is a 22% increase in cost. City Manager Hall indicated staff did have a full presentation prepared however because of the delay of the previous meeting and the number of items on this agenda it was decided not to make a presentation but staff is prepared if Council needs a full presentation.

Hazel Cockram, Convention Center, indicated they had been able to find some savings on the HVAC contract and they are utilizing those savings to add some restroom facility improvements. It was pointed out it is basically adding back some items through the savings found throughout the project. Mr. Stephenson moved approved. His motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS TITLE CHANGE – APPROVED; POLICY REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY

The agenda presented the following personnel changes.


The following position was submitted to the Human Resources department for consideration of a title change:

Public Affairs Director (position no. 1083, code 000469, PG 45) to Communications Director (code 000469, PG 45)

Recommendation: Authorize the position title change.

Ms. Baldwin stated she withdrew this item from the Consent Agenda questioning why a simple title change has to come before the City Council. She questioned if this is ordinance, policy or exactly why the item has to come to Council. City Attorney McCormick indicated as far as the title change is concerned there is a way that it can be arranged that it doesn’t have to come to City Council. He stated typically it is tied to a budget change so technically it is a budget amendment which needs to come before the City Council. He stated a new position usually involves a substantial budget change and Council has to approve budget amendments and the City Council has always wanted to see these. He stated the Council could establish certain thresholds and allow the City Manager to approve below those thresholds with Ms. Baldwin pointing out she feels it is time to do that and questioned how to best proceed. City Attorney McCormick indicated he could work with the City Manager to put something together to come back before the City Council.

Mr. Gaylord stated it is interesting to him to learn that the changes are happening and why. Ms. Baldwin pointed out it was recommended in a recent report with Mr. Gaylord pointing out he understands but it is helpful to know it is happening with Mr. Odom agreeing. Mr. Odom stated he likes the old system and he feels it is working well and unless the change would save tremendous amount of time or money he is not sure why we should change it. The Mayor pointed out an example is since the last City Council meeting was canceled, it delayed this title change for two weeks and the staff could go out and advertise the position. Ms. Baldwin stated she is interested in the title change and she does not feel there is a need to have to wait to approve the title changes. Discussion as to the purpose behind the items coming to Council and possible alternatives followed. Ms. Baldwin moved that the City Manager and the City Attorney come back with a recommendation as to how the Council might address this issue. Her motion was seconded by Mayor McFarlane.

Mr. Odom stated he feels this is a pretty big change and he likes the system the way it is and he would look forward to see what the City Manager has to say. He stated to base a change on a two-week delay on one issue does not seem productive. He stated he likes to see when changes are being made so that the Council knows it before hand. He does not understand the need and does not want to have to dig out the information. Ms. Baldwin pointed out the changes could be provided in the City Manager’s report. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Ms. Crowder and Mr. Odom who voted in the negative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-2 vote.

Later in the meeting Ms. Baldwin pointed out we need to clarify that the title change of Public Affairs Director to Communications Director was approved and so moved. Her motion was


seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR – COMMENTS RECEIVED

Planning Commission Chair Steve Schuster asked for a point of personal privilege to make comments.

Mr. Schuster stated we are getting frequent rezoning requests which often pit our citizens in opposition to our adopted comprehensive plan. Given our significant growth that we are experiencing, these issues are coming to head and Z-1-14 is probably the poster child example for this. Our Comprehensive Plan is calling for a denser city and there is support for that until that density is next to my house and then we are finding there is great resistance. Its difficult for the Planning Commission to explain to our citizens that our role is to look at every rezoning request against our comprehensive plan, our future land use map and in the border public’s best interest. The problem comes in is when a neighborhood feels that increase traffic it can’t be a public best interest because it affects them. What we are trying to do is to bring to you our recommendation based on those adopted plans. We don’t have the authority to offer our opinion as to whether we agree with that or not it’s simply is it in conformance with these plans that we all have adopted. We recognize that your job at times is to deviate from those and I suspect you will be seeing that more often. Planning Commission is looking forward to having the remapping done so it can turn our attention back to the updating of the comprehensive plan. Those adjacencies between uses especially when they have got infill sites against residential seem to be a lot of where that resistance is happening. We will take that seriously and we are delivering to you a number of cases today that I’m sure you will have an active public hearing on Z-1-14 being probably the most active.

REZONING Z-1-14 – FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD – TO BE PLACED ON MARCH 17, 2015 AGENDA

This is a request to rezone 13.12 acres from Buffer Commercial Conditional Use, R-4 with Planned Development Overlay and Urban Watershed Protection Overlay District to Neighborhood Mixed Use Conditional Use w/Urban Watershed Protection Overlay District.

CR-11607 from the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request. A public hearing could occur as early as April 7, 2015, but no later than May 19, 2015.

Planner Ken Bowers pointed out it is his understanding the City has not received signed conditions for Z-1-14 so the Council will have to defer scheduling the public hearing for another two weeks.

Ms. Crowder pointed out the Council was under the impression that the new conditions had been delivered and signed but she understands one signature is lacking. She questioned if there is a


possibility to ask for a traffic study based on the new conditions without having conditions signed by all involved. Planning Director Bowers pointed out that would be possible. He stated if the Council defers scheduling the public hearing until the next meeting and have the sign conditions on hand they could still meet the schedule. Mr. Maiorano questioned if the Council is prohibited from setting the public hearing because the conditions have not been signed by all the parties. Planning Director Bowers indicated if the Council sets the public hearing today, it would have to be with the existing conditions not the new conditions. Mr. Odom questioned how long it would take for the traffic study. Ms. Crowder had described. Mr. Maiorano stated it seemed reasonable that the study could be completed in time for the public hearing if it were set at the next meeting. In response to questions about the traffic study Mayor McFarlane read the following as presented by Ms. Crowder.

Proposed Z-1-14 TIA Requirements

1. The TIA will assume that 40% of the land will be preserved a trees per UDO 9.1.9 for all scenarios and will not be developed.

2. The TIA will determine trips (hourly and daily) for weekdays and weekends (i.e. Monday through Sunday) for all scenarios.

3. The TIA will consider for the proposed zoning the following conditions: 58K total retail (consisting of 29K Specialty Grocery plus 29K general retail) and the maximum residential build out that could accompany the 58K again assuming that 40% of the available land is trees per UDO 9.1.9.

4. The TIA will determine trips (hourly and daily for seven days a week) for build out as offices under the current zoning again assuming that 40% of the land will be trees per UDO 9.1.9.

5. The TIA will consider a scenario with all entrances on Dunn Road only.

6. The TIA will consider a scenario with entrances on Dunn Road, one entrance on Whittington and no entrances on Falls of Neuse.

7. The TIA will consider all directions of the following intersections for which staff believes that the proposed rezoning will have significant LOS impacts; Dunn/Falls of Neuse, Whittington/Falls of Neuse, Raven Ridge/Falls of Neuse, Coolmore/Falls of Neuse, Kings Grant/Falls of Neuse, October/Falls of Neuse, Dunn entrances to site, and the Whittington entrance to site.

By consensus, the Council agreed to request the traffic study as outlined and placed the item on the next agenda to consider setting the public hearing date.


REZONING Z-22-14 – CREEDMOOR ROAD – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 7, 2015

This is a request to rezone approximately 6.7 acres of land from Office and Institution-1 conditional use to OX-3 conditional use. The property is located on the west side of Creedmoor Road south of Brennan Drive and north of Morgan’s Way.

CR-11608 from the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request. A public hearing could occur as early as April 7, 2015 but no later than May 19, 2015. Mr. Stephenson moved that the Council schedule a public hearing on April 7, 2015 to consider Z-22-14. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REZONING Z-23-14/MP-1-14 – MAYWOOD AVENUE – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 7, 2015

This is a request to rezone property and establish a master plan for development. The property is located on the south side of Maywood Avenue just west of Caraleigh Mills. The property is approximately 17 acres and is currently zoned Industrial-2 and R-10 conditional use with Special Highway Overlay District 2. The property would be rezoned to Planned Development; the overlay district would remain. The master plan would allow for residential development of the property.

CR-11609 from the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request, which will be delivered to the City Council on February 17, 2015. A public hearing could occur as early as April 7, 2015.

Mr. Maiorano stated he had talked with the City Attorney about this case and based on that conversation he would ask to be excused from participation in this item. Ms. Baldwin moved Mr. Maiorano be excused from participation in Z-23-14. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. Mr. Maiorano left the table.

Ms. Baldwin moved that the City Council authorize a public hearing on Z-23-14/MP-1-14 for April 7, 2015. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Maiorano who was excused from participation in this matter. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

UDO – COMMENTS RECEIVED

Mr. Stephenson pointed out the City Council had an extensive discussion on the UDO yesterday. He expressed appreciation on the way everyone has stepped up and done hard work on the UDO. He stated there was also discussion about a number of issues that came out of the comprehensive plan. He stated as we work towards implementing we are at the point of road texting some. He stated there will be many where there is a lot of detailed discussion and issues that will have to


be worked out and Z-1-14 is one of those cases. He stated for example the issue of access has been taken out of the hands of the City Council and that makes it difficult for the City Council to deal with and know the impact of some of these cases on the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated he feels we will see more and more infill development and some of the elements that have been taken out of the hands of the City Council may have to be drawn back in. The comments were received.

TC-1(A)-14 – VEHICULAR SIGNAGE – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 7, 2015

This is a request to alter both the Part 10 zoning code and the Unified Development Ordinance. The amendment would introduce regulations for vehicular signage. The regulations were reviewed by a special signage task force and a joint Planning Commission/Appearance Commission task force.

CR-11610 from the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request. The City Council may schedule this text change for public hearing on April 7, 2015. A public hearing must occur prior to May 19, 2015.

Mr. Odom moved that the Council schedule a public hearing to consider TC-1(A)-14 on April 7, 2015. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

TC-1(B)-14 – WINDOW SIGNAGE – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED FOR APRIL 7, 2015

This is a request to alter both the Part 10 Zoning Code and the Unified Development Ordinance. The amendment would introduce regulations for window signs in the Part 10 Code and modify window signage regulations in the UDO. The regulations were reviewed by a special signage task force and a joint task force of the Planning and Appearance commissions.

CR-11611 from the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request. The City Council may schedule this text change for public hearing on April 7, 2015. A public hearing must occur prior to May 19, 2015. Mr. Odom moved that the Council schedule TC-1(B)-14 for public hearing on April 7, 2015. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

TC-1(C)-14 – OTHER SIGNAGE – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 7, 2015

This is a request to alter the Unified Development Ordinance. The amendment would modify signage regulations related to changeable copy signs and the amount of colors allowed for a common signage plan. The regulations were reviewed by a special signage task force and a joint Planning Commission/Appearance Commission task force.


CR-11612 from the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request. The City Council may schedule this text change for public hearing on April 7, 2015. A public hearing must occur prior to May 19, 2015. Mr. Odom moved that the Council schedule TC-1(C)-14 for the April 7, 2015 Council meeting. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REZONING Z-38-14 – HILLSBOROUGH STREET – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 5, 2015

This is a request to rezone property from Business with Downtown Overlay District (BUS w/ DOD) to Downtown Mixed Use-20 stories-Shopfront (DX-20-SH).

CR-11613 from the Planning Commission finds the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. City Council may now schedule this rezoning request for Public Hearing on April 7, 2015. A public hearing must occur prior to May 19, 2015. Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council schedule T-38–14 for public hearing on May 5, 2015. Discussion took place with it being pointed out it could be scheduled as early as April 7, with Ms. Baldwin pointing out the first meeting in May would be preferable. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REZONING Z-39-14 – HILLSBOROUGH STREET – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 5, 2015

This is a request to rezone property from Business with Downtown Overlay District (BUS w/ DOD) to Downtown Mixed Use-20 stories-Shopfront (DX-20-SH).

CR-11614 from the Planning Commission finds the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. City Council may now schedule this rezoning request for Public Hearing on April 7, 2015. A public hearing must occur prior to May 19, 2015.

Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council schedule a public hearing on Z-39-14 on May 5, 2015. Her motion seconded by Mr. Odom and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

SPECIAL ITEMS

REZONING Z-35-13 – HILLSBOROUGH STREET – DENIED

During the February 3, 2015 Council meeting, a hearing was held to consider a request by REDA Properties, LLC, Leland/Gonzalez, LLC, and Annemarie Alexander to rezone approximately 2.18 acres on Hillsborough Street, north side, between Furches and Montgomery Streets from Office and Institution-1 with Special Residential Parking Overlay District (O&I-1 w/SRPOD) to


Neighborhood Mixed Use – 5 Stories – Urban Limited – Conditional Use w/Special Residential Parking Overlay District (NX-5-UL-CU w/SRPOD).

The hearing was closed, and it was directed that the item be placed on this agenda to allow the two sides an opportunity to negotiate concerns and /or possible amended conditions. No amendments to the case were submitted before the deadline for the February 17, 2015 City Council agenda.

By Code, amendments could be made (up to 30 days after the Public Hearing). Amendments submitted by Thursday, March 5, 2015, could be considered at the March 17, 2015 Council meeting.

Council may take action to approve, deny or refer the rezoning case to committee.

Attorney Mack Paul, representing the applicant, talked about the history of this case and discussions with the neighborhood pointing out the neighborhood felt that 4 stories should be the maximum height and the application requested five. He stated they came close to coming to an agreement and talked about the different discussions. He stated however, they could not bridge the gap between 5-stories and 4-stories. He stated the petitioner has come up with a new partner FMW which has done some other development along Hillsborough Street. He stated given the fact that the Council had already had the public hearing and have new conditions he feels it would be preferable if they withdrew the application but they cannot do that; therefore, they are asking that the Council deny the application they would file for a waiver of the two year waiting period and if approved they would request a new zoning. He talked about the transitions and the other discussions that had taken place throughout this process. Mr. Odom moved that Z-35-13 be denied. His motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

Ms. Baldwin expressed appreciation to the neighbors in the way they approached this issue and stated she is happy that this is moving forward with a new developer. Mr. Stephenson expressed appreciation to both sides in this issue pointing out everyone has been very cooperative and pointed out this zoning case and location is on the leading edge of the new process and he looks forward to productive conversations moving forward.

WATERSHED PROTECTION FEE INCREASE – HELD UNTIL BUDGET WORK SESSION

At the City Council work session February 16, 2015, Council deferred action on a previously recommended rate increase to the Watershed Protection Fee to allow time to review the record. Staff has prepared a summary document of events and relevant information for consideration.

Recommendation: Direct staff to communicate that the proposed watershed protection fee increase is suitable for budgeting and customer notification purposes.


Ms. Baldwin indicated she would like to hold this for a budget note during the budget hearings in June. She stated everyone is for clean water and water quality but she is not sure where we are from a budget standpoint. City Manager Hall stated if the Council desires that approach, Staff would work on some type phased transition to fit into budget cycle. Ms. Baldwin moved approval of the delay to budget consideration. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT – WORK PLAN – APPROVED

Over the past several years, staff and the Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC) have reported to City Council and received comments and direction about managing stormwater runoff using principles of Green Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development (LID) for improving the health of our streams. In February 2013, the SMAC reported to Council with recommendations for introducing LID practices into the management of stormwater on City properties, including parks and streets, and for enabling and supporting private owners and developers the voluntarily wish to utilize LID practices to manage stormwater on private property. Council referred the matter to staff to assess resource needs for implementation.

Staff procured the services of a consultant (Tetra Tech) to assist with planning and assessing needs; convened a staff task force and a stakeholder group to help establish priorities and provide input: and prepared a plan for near-term actions to advance the use GI and LID principles. Included with the agenda packet is an overview memo and a document titled “Advancing Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development in Raleigh: Overview of the Process and Work Plan for Next Steps” (February 2015) for use and reference by Council.

Recommendation: Receive the documents and authorize staff to implement the work items described in the work plan.

City Manager Hall introduced the item pointing out a lot of work and a lot of people have been involved in this issue including staff, consultants and stakeholders.

Stormwater Manager Blair Hinkle talked about the stakeholders group. Mr. Hinkle talked about what the work plan is not pointing out it is a framework that will help the City incorporate green infrastructure and low impact development in any area of the city. He introduced Kevin Boyer who presented the following statement:

Today we are presenting to Council our Work Plan for Advancing Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development, or GI and LID, in Raleigh. This work plan is in response to Council’s request of staff to assess resource needs for implementing recommendations from the Stormwater Management Advisory Commission. In addition to the GI/LID Work Plan document, Council’s agenda packet provides an overview document that describes GI and LID and the process staff and our consultant, Tetra Tech, used in


developing the Work Plan, including input sessions attended by 30 outside stakeholders, some attending today.

The Work Plan describes seven work items for the City to begin formally and intentionally accelerating the City’s use of GI and LID. Six of the work items were selected by a staff Task Force, and a seventh item was added based on input from stakeholders.

A useful way to understand differences between conventional stormwater management and using GI/LID is to consider what becomes of rain after it falls on the land. Changing the land changes how water travels through the landscape. Developing land adds hard surfaces, called impervious surfaces because water cannot pass through, so the water either runs off or evaporates.

When it rains in a natural, undisturbed environment, about half of the rainwater soaks into the ground, 40% evaporates or is taken up by plants, and only about 10% runs off the surface. At 10 to 20% impervious (such as a rural town), runoff doubles, and the amount of water infiltrating is reduced.

At 35 to 50% impervious (such as a suburban area), runoff triples. At 75 to 100% impervious land cover (such as downtowns or commercial areas) the majority of rainfall becomes runoff, and infiltration is less than 1/3 of what it was before development.GI and LID are fairly new approaches for managing stormwater runoff, and many cities are using them along with conventional methods to get the best of both. GI and LID are used mainly to benefit the health of streams and lakes, but they also reduce local flooding, to a degree.

Stormwater management used to be just about drainage and routing runoff to the nearest pipe, ditch, or stream as quickly as possible. This approach alone gives little regard to possible downstream impacts – out of sight, someone else’s problem. But we know intuitively and from experience that, with land development comes more impervious surfaces, which increase stormwater runoff, water pollution, and flooding. Also, more streambank erosion, loss of aquatic life, and drying up of streams.

Most of Raleigh was developed before permanent stormwater controls of any kind were required. And, while stormwater controls required for new development do reduce peak rates of runoff and also capture pollutants, many of our streams and lakes are degraded, despite existing stormwater controls, and don’t seem to be getting better.

Concern about degrading streams is why many cities are starting to add GI/LID practices to their tool boxes for managing stormwater. Stated simply, LID is “An approach that reduces stormwater runoff volume, by promoting infiltration and evaportranspiration, taking advantage of existing natural features, and installing new features that mimic nature.” The idea is that, even with development, try to make the fates of rainwater look


more like the graph on the right than the one on the left. That is, less runoff, despite the impervious surfaces.

The basic concept of using LID practices is to reduce the volume of stormwater that runs off developed land. Because the volume that does not run off would have carried pollutants with it, what’s called the “pollutant load” to the stream, is reduced. As a North Carolina stormwater regulator puts it, “Why treat stormwater if you can eliminate it?”

LID applies mostly for rainfalls of an inch and a half or less. In Raleigh, over 90% of our rain events are less than 1 ½”, and over 90% of all rainfall comes from events of 1 1/2” or less. LID practices that capture runoff from these smaller, but more frequent rains also capture most of the pollutants in what is called the “first flush,” the dirtiest runoff from that first inch or so of rain.

New regulations or code are not necessarily needed for the City to implement LID. Rather, its use can be encourage by adjusting City practices and code, and possibly by introducing new incentives, so that LID works with conventional stormwater management and improves the overall performance of private and public stormwater systems.

Now I’d like to touch on each of the 7 work items recommended in the GI/LID Work Plan. The 1st is review of City ordinances and policies as they pertain to using LID. This work item was added to the Work Plan on the recommendation of several citizen stakeholders who commented on a draft work plan.

This item will identify and evaluate aspects of City practices that tend to discourage use of LID by the private sector and by the city, and will propose changes to City code for removing or reducing the barriers. Our consultant will facilitate a staff work group, and citizens stakeholders will be asked to comment on the group’s work. A successful outcome will mean fewer barriers and clear expectations for developers and designers. Our consultant estimate as fee of $54,000 to support this work, and a duration of 8 months.

The 2nd work item is developing street typologies that incorporate LID practices. Some current street types, such as those required in water supply watersheds, use LID practices such as grass swales instead of curb and gutter. Other street types might also be modified to use LID practices, without compromising maintenance or safety, as some City staff have expressed concern. The consultant will facilitate a staff work group for this item. The fee estimate is $33,000, and this duration would be 6 months.

The 3rd work item is selecting a tool for helping staff and designers evaluate costs of using LID in specific site designs. The consultant will review, demonstrate, and test available cost-effectiveness tools with staff and advise staff on selecting a tool that best meets the City’s needs. The consultant also will prepare a white paper about how triple


bottom line benefits (ecological, social, an economic) can be achieved using LID. The consultant estimates a $34,000 fee and a duration of 4 months.

The 4th work item is preparing fact sheets and construction checklists for LID practices. The staff Task Force felt these fact sheets tailored to Raleigh’s setting and City requirements, should be used for outreach and pre-site plan meetings with developers and their designers. Our consultant will facilitate a staff work group for this item. A consultant fee of $44,000 and a duration of 6 months are estimated.

The 5th item is preparing a framework for the City’s inspection and maintenance of LID devices, which tend to be smaller in size, larger in number, and more dispersed than conventional devices. The framework would serve the city’s tracking of status and costs and facilitate preparing reports for administration and permit compliance. A consultant fee of $54,000 and a duration of 9 months are estimated.

The 6th item is identifying opportunities to retrofit LID devices on City properties, which the City has been doing for over 10 years. Staff wants to accelerate the rate of installing these devices and to have a more systematic process. This work item will identify best opportunities for LID retrofits and also explore whether a larger scale strategic plan for LID implementation on developed private properties would be desirable. Our consultant estimates a fee of $54,000 and a duration of 6 months.

The 7th item is evaluating whether and how to use incentives to encourage private land owners to use LID. Many cities are using incentives to encourage use of LID, wanting to reduce stormwater runoff volume where most practical and wanting to avoid requiring use of LID. Incentives could be monetary, or be trade-offs with other site-development requirements such as parking or setbacks. Staff and the consultant will convene a citizen stakeholder group to provide input. A consultant fee of $73,000 and a duration of 6 months are estimated.

The total consultant fee estimate for all 7 work items is $346,000. By conducting the work items in parallel, all the items could be completed 10 months from our consultant’s start of work.

Staff also reviewed the GI/LID work plan for consistency with the City’s 2030 comprehensive Plan and the Draft Strategic Plan. Both GI and LID are prominent in the 2030 Comp Plan. Here are some excerpts from Element C, Environmental Protection:

- LID is defined- Keeping rainfall on site mimicking a natural setting…- Improving health of rivers and creeks…- Green infrastructure should not be compromised…- And, the City is in a position to champion.

And, several policy statements that touch on. . .


- Protecting green infrastructure.- Using low impact systems for parking- And promoting LID techniques

The Draft Strategic Plan of course is less specific, and many aspects of the GI/LID work plan are consistent with the Plan’s focus area of Growth & Natural Resources, such as…

- Improve processes for regulations and reviews, policies, and incentives- Conserve natural resources- Sustainability and partnerships for infrastructure projects- And, building on the work of the staff GI/LID Task Force

Staff would very much appreciate Council’s comments, support, and direction about moving forward with the GI/LID Work Plan. With Council’s approval, staff’s next steps will be moving forward on most or all of the work items, beginning with negotiating consulting services, and continuing to engage with staff and stakeholders. Implementing LID on City projects will serve as a model to developers and other property owners that innovative approaches to managing stormwater can be cost-effective, functional, and attractive. Council’s action will prove clear direction to staff to develop consistent practices for advancing the use of LID and will send a message of commitment to our stakeholders. We appreciate your attention and will be glad to answer any questions.

Mayor McFarlane stated when the Council initiated this discussion she thought every one was talking about some type prototype project using GI or LID development. She questioned if there has been any discussion about that. Mr. Maiorano pointed out there is a lot of hard work by many people getting us to this point. He stated however we have lost a lot of time. This is not a model concept there are lessons to be learned. He questioned if there has been any traction or testing of potential projects that have utilized some of the concepts. Stormwater Manager Hinkle pointed out there have been some mainly on public projects. There are examples of GI or LID development out there such as wetland restoration, retention basins, etc., and talked about examples at Fred Fletcher Park and Pullen Park and Pullen Road. Ms. Baldwin pointed out she thought the Council was looking for a comprehensive project or commercial development. Mr. Maiorano pointed out we as a city has had an opportunity to do a model project but chose not too. He stated he feels if the City is really serious about this being important work and building blocks he would question what the next steps would be.

Stormwater Manager Hinkle pointed out he feels the last work item would lead us in that direction pointing out it has been on the City’s radar for some time. He talked about moving quickly in that direction. Mr. Maiorano talked about going to the next level and may be reaching out to the public and say bring us two or three projects and let us see if it is something that can be accomplished. We could partner with the private community. Mayor McFarlane stated she thought we had already had that conversation with Mr. Maiorano pointing out it has been being discussed since 2013.


Ms. Crowder talked about utilizing swales and other devices such as that and she fears that people who want sidewalks would be eliminated from the process and questioned how would we address that as people in the neighborhoods want sidewalks to walk to schools, parks, etc. Stormwater Manager Hinkle pointed out he feels that is part of the first work plan. He stated one of the first things we would do is to develop a cross department team to sit down, look at the areas of inconsistencies and challenges and try to come up with a way to address those. Mr. Maiorano pointed out this is a critical part of our stormwater management program and it should not be done in a vacuum. We should have representatives from planning, streetscape development, public works all that is a coordinated effort to think about how to implement in an effective way in neighborhoods and commercial developments with Mr. Hinkle again indicated that is the first part of the work plan.

Mr. Gaylord indicated it seems that the Council is expressing the need to move quickly and questioned how or what the Council can do to make sure it moves forward and asked is it something that could be considered in the next budget.

City Manager Hall pointed out part of the consideration that the work plan is proposing is for the City to be very deliberate and look at what the cost of doing some of these things would be. He stated the City Council is talking about doing some test cases, getting partners to do test cases to see the impact but pointed out we don’t have a real scope of the budget impact of any of this. He pointed out some of the previous presentations talked about project maintenance and the need to project the maintenance and how that would impact our stormwater funds. He stated that is an approach to look at but would not give us any real answers in this years’ budget. He stated we start with a schedule that is a little longer than would give us information in this budget year. Stormwater Manager Hinkle stated he would not be comfortable in trying to suppress the schedule any more. City Manager Hall pointed out the suggestions of trying to find a partner to develop some of these projects without making it applicable to any particular area he feels would be good. Mayor McFarlane reiterated again this isn’t applicable to the watershed this is not a format for development in the watershed with Mr. Hinkle pointing out that is correct, it could be applicable anywhere in the city. We are not trying to change anything, this is for the entire city and the standards would be applicable everywhere. How to go about getting partners for test or sample cases were talked about with the hope that one of the partners would come forth with a test case. Ms. Crowder questioned if the Union Station development could be one of the test case with Mr. Hinkle pointing out that may have significant budget implications. Mr. Odom questioned how we would get the word out to developers or whoever that we want partners and we want a project to come forth. Mr. Hinkle talked about the work, stakeholders groups, community discussions, etc. Mr. Odom stated as he understands this is a 10 month schedule. He questioned however, if someone comes along in the first two months and say they wanted to go forth with a project would we hold it up until the end of the 10 months or would we let them proceed with Mr. Hinkle pointing out if an opportunity like that presented itself he is sure the city would take advantage of that opportunity. Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks. Mr. Maiorano pointed out what we are talking about here is developing a functional feasible framework that will be the policy. He stated we all know that putting it into practice will provide policy issues. In response to questions, Mr. Hinkle again indicated it would be applicable anywhere it is not an increased level of standard. It is something that could be


utilized throughout the City. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

DOWNTOWN ACTIVITIES UPDATE – INFORMATION RECEIVED

During the January 20, 2015 meeting the City Council heard comments from Greg Hatem (Empire Properties) regarding vibrancy in downtown Raleigh. Staff was directed to prepare a plan evaluating the various elements involved in the growth and increased activity downtown. A presentation will be provided by staff outlining efforts currently underway and proposed next steps to address the issue.

Recommendation: Receive as information.

City Manager Hall pointed out the purpose of today’s meeting is to provide some responses to the variety of issues and the City’s ongoing efforts to address some of these issues. He asked the Council to think about this in a broad prospective pointing out downtown is a robust area and it is a complicated situation. There is a different relationship with the community, etc. It is not something the City can handle by itself. It needs to be examined in a holistic way.

Assistant City Manager Marchell Adams David talked about an activity assessment of downtown Raleigh. She pointed out the City is very fortunate with its growth and activities but with that comes some challenges. Utilizing a Powerpoint, she presented photographs showing examples of an active downtown both day and night. She pointed out the key areas of the night time activity assessment were as follows:

1. AMPLIFIED ENTERTAINMENT2. MOBILITY MANAGEMENT3. PUBLIC SAFETY4. PUBLIC HEALTH5. PUBLIC WORKS6. PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC SPACES

1. AMPLIFIED ENTERTAINMENT

Sept. 2013 – The issue as raised to Council Nov. 2013 – Evidentiary Hearing held for Outdoor Amplified Permits

(Glenwood South) May 2014 – Council authorized 1-yr pilot Entertainment District

(issuance of HDEP instead of OAEP) Oct./Nov. 2014 – Hospitality District Ordinance Adopted – Effective

Dec. 1, 2014These actions addressed the noise issue in Glenwood South


Dec. 2014 – Current: Entertainment Establishments on Fayetteville Street have submitted

amplified entertainment permit applications Fayetteville Street residents and businesses raise issues about noise levels

on Fayetteville Street

2. MOBILITY MANAGEMENT

Pedestrian and traffic congestion Major issue after 11 p.m. Taxi cab line-up severely blocks traffic Overcrowding of sidewalks blocking pedestrian access seriously challenged

during late hours Threat to public health, safety, and welfare

3. PUBLIC SAFETY

Challenging for public safety enforcement by RPD staff Difficult to position safety personnel and/or equipment under heavily

congested environment

4. PUBLIC HEALTH

Public health threat Waste and debris pose financial and public health burden for staff and citizens

5. PUBLIC WORKS

Trash and garbage on street pose visual and public health challenges

6. PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC SPACES

Private use of sidewalks helps create vibrancy Key Challenge: violation of pedestrian and ADA access requirements Ambient noise and overcrowding of sidewalks

OUTDOOR DINING ISSUES

5 foot pedestrian clearance not maintained along active streets Alcohol spill-over to sidewalks Overcrowding of sidewalks and streets outside establishments Curbside vs. Building side seating conflicts Special events overlap (ABC permits) Outdoor dining hours of operation too long


Alignment with NC DOT outdoor dining regulations along State owned roads

PUSHCART VENDING

Clarification of distance separation between carts Competing products difficult to enforce Product types difficult to monitor Signage limitations difficult to enforce Redefine cart operation area Hours of operation too long

Assistant City Manager Adams David in response to questioning pointed out we have 25 outdoor dining permits, 9 are on Fayetteville Street. She talked about the pedestrian and traffic congestion and work to make sure that what we are doing is consistent with NCDOT regulations because of the number of state streets in the area. She stated most of the clubs and restaurants stay open until 2:00 a.m. Push carts are allowed between 6:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.

Major Council, Raleigh Police Department, talked about the following:

Current Enforcement Efforts Scope of Enforcement Activities Limitations of Comprehensive Enforcement Increased Awareness between Duty Officers & Off-Duty Officers Education, Communication & Training for Business Owners through Permitting

Processes

Major Council talked about utilization of volunteer compliance, talked about officers being on the street working with the property owners, the level of response, talked about the challenges of enforcement, talked about work between the police department, the property owners, the push cart vendors, public, etc. He talked about the increase awareness and cooperation of off-duty and on-duty officers, the education, communication and training for all involved, pointing out downtown is a different place than in the past and how everyone is working hard and are being proactive and not waiting for problems to occur. He talked about the level of enforcement and how areas of high concentration of businesses involved in alcohol sales calls for the need of different type enforcement activities an how RPD tries to work in a way to not be disruptive. Major Council talked about the challenges they have in areas of high concentration of establishments which have outdoor dining an alcohol sales particularly in egress areas. At the same time they are carrying out daily activities. He talked about how they are working with various groups and agencies to address the various activities and concerns, planning ahead to address concerns. He talked about the need for owners to take responsibility, and how they are working together on a routine basis and during special events. He talked about the police departments efforts and how they are working together with all to address concern and how they are excited that this conversation is occurring.


Economic Development Director James Sauls talked about the economic impact in downtown citing increased and diversified investment. Need to capitalize on belief that downtown is a designation and coordinated economic development/recruitment efforts using downtown as a catalyst. He provided information on the growth between July – December FY13-14 and July thru December FY14-15 citing a 67% growth in permits. He talked about the impact of office development such as Citrix and Charter Square, cited the number of residential units that have been added or being added in the downtown area Edison Apartments – 223 units; L Building – 83 units, Skyhouse – 320 units; Lincoln – 224 units. He went over information about the additional retail in the area indicating 44 new street level business opened recently over half of which were retail establishments which is a net gain of 37 new businesses or a 23% increase from 2012. Brief discussion related to clarification of numbers followed.

The group talked about ongoing efforts as follows and the next steps.

ON-GOING EFFORTS

Complex set of enforcement issues that overlap Multi-prong approach to resolution Collaboration under way between several city departments on addressing specific issues Goal: Achieve a balance in activity, livability, vitality, mix of uses, and creating a place

to live, work and play

NEXT STEPS

Continue ongoing Policy Studies within various city departments PUPS citywide handbook section draft; Council review anticipated in May Complete Transportation/Taxi Study; Council review anticipated in April/May All stakeholders work together to make our downtown vibrant for all

Mayor McFarlane questioned when the Council is going to get a report on the hospitality district along Glenwood. Ms. Baldwin pointed out if we wait to get the report back in the June/July period it will cover when the weather is better and people are outside and it may give us a handle on whether the districts are working. She stated the Law and Public Safety Committee spent a year or so working on the hospitality districts along with various staff including Major Council. She stated the city staff has worked very hard and she feels it would be best to wait on further action until we get a report on the hospitality district in June we have actual data.

Mayor McFarlane and other Council members expressed appreciation for the work on this issue. Ms. Baldwin commended all involved and talked about the need to have more employees cleaning streets earlier particularly on weekends pointing out some of the bars or restaurants are hiring people to work on clean up and she feels it all should be coordinated with the DRA staff.

Mr. Stephenson expressed appreciation to all that were involved in the development of the hospitality district process and talked about his hope that it is working and may be can be applied to other areas of the city. He stated however a somewhat different question was brought to the


Council by Greg Hatem about the downtown area. He pointed out as he understands the hospitality district process implies we can have many bars and restaurants as long as they are well behaved. He questioned however if there is some point that there may be too many and talked about neighborhoods wanting services and other type retail and questioned if a unlimited supply of neighborhood, bars, and restaurants is what we want. He stated there is possibly a difference between desires of Glenwood South and Fayetteville Street. He talked about residents along Fayetteville Street talking about the need for different type retail not just bars and restaurants, a boarder range of retails.

Mr. Maiorano pointed out we are enjoying the benefits of our growth and success and talked about the need to have steps taken to address or management those issues. He stated to him it boils down to our vision. What do we want our city to become, what do we see for our city. We are working on a 10 year plan for the city and these issues cannot be separated. We have to look at what we have, what we want, how we can manage and get the vision we see for our city accomplished so the economic development that we see occurring is bolstered not hindered by some of the activities we are seeing.

Ms. Baldwin pointed out one of the challenges we are facing is about residential density. She stated the more density you have, the more the market changes and questioned whether there have been discussions about what is in our economic development tool box that would help incentivized the type of business we want. She stated a question she feels needs to be addressed is do we have the tools in our economic development tool box that we need. Mr. Stephenson talked about the need to address that but pointed out until the Council decides on what vision it wants for the City it will be difficult to dip into any tool box.

Assistant City Manager Adams Davis indicated when staff comes back she thinks one of the things they will be recommending is how to find that happy median. She talked about their work with the various groups, open dialogue and how they will formulate recommendations.

Councilor Crowder questioned what this Council needs to put in place to help staff in crafting the vision that the Council is looking for. Councilor Baldwin pointed out she feels there is a missing piece. She talked about the fact that DRA and the City of Raleigh has just completed or are completing a 10 year vision plan for downtown. Greg Hatem bought together another group about the vibrancy in downtown and she feels we will get all of those reports within the next six weeks or so. She pointed out some 1200 people have participated in that vision work and that is something that has been left off the table. She stated we need to have the results of all of that work, see the data and see if it is the vision the Council wants for the downtown area.

RALEIGH UNION STATION UPDATE – VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN

The Raleigh Union Station project is a joint initiative of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division (NCDOT) and the City of Raleigh. The project is partially funded through the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. As recipient of two TIGER grants, the City has two Cooperative Agreements with the USDOT outlining the scope of work, deliverables, and levels of funding for each grant. As joint


applicants on the TIGER 12 grant, the City has a Municipal Agreement with NCDOT outlining project deliverable responsibilities, funding, and reimbursement requirements for the TIGER 12 scope of work.

At the Council Work Session on January 20, 2015, staff presented the preliminary results of a value engineering process. A funding gap up to $16,150,000 was identified. Further analysis of project design components and utility infrastructure has led to a final recommendation of a plan with a projected funding gap of $12,000,000 to $13,000,000. With the current City commitment of $6,000,000 (planning phase and the TIGER 13 match), the City’s contribution to the project will total $18,000,000 to $19,000,000.

The recommended plan includes: most aesthetic elements, the maximum square footage for retail space to support the operation of the facility; a reduction in scope for some project elements, including the platform, platform canopy, and “Stormwater Garden”; and a series of bid alternates within the projected cost to allow the project to move forward in the increasingly active bidding environment.

Should Council approve the recommended scope and budget, the total project budget would be increased from $67.75M to $79.8M with an additional $1M held in reserve. Of this project total, $45M is the total proposed cost for primarily non-rail construction to be administered by the City. Additional contracts for related professional services would be brought forward as necessary within this project budget.

The proposed total Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) budget numbers are as follows:

CMAR Construction Estimate (12/29/14 with adjustments) $44,076,720Owner’s Contingency (1.5%) $661,150Total Proposed GMP Contract $44,737,870

Purpose: City staff proposes using two funding sources to supplement this project budget. First, the City has capacity from fiscal year ending 2014 to issue two-thirds general obligation bonds in the amount of $5,050,000. The Union Station project has eligible construction elements for the two-thirds bonds.

Second, staff proposes transferring up to $7,950,000 from the completed Falls of Neuse Road improvement project to the Union Station project. When this road widening and realignment project was begun, the city anticipated a 20% state match. Ultimately, the state contributed 50% matching funds, saving the city significant funds.

The two revenue sources will not exceed $13,000,000. Of this total, up to $12,000,000 will be applied to project elements and $1,000,000 will be held in reserve.

Additionally, staff proposes a series of recommendations to facilitate implementation of the recommended plan, including amendments to existing agreements with project partners.


Recommendation: Approve the following actions related to project scope, budget actions, and amendments to contractual or governmental agreement:

(1) Authorize staff to direct the Design Team, as contracted through NCDOT, to complete Construction Documents reflecting the recommended plan and a series of bid-alternates.

(2) Authorize staff to prepare future Council actions authorizing $5,050,000 in two-thirds bonds for eligible construction at Union Station. Authorize staff to transfer up to $7,950,000 from the completed Falls of Neuse Road improvement project.

(3) The City currently has a contract with Clancy & Theys/Skanska, A Joint Venture, for preconstruction services. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Clancy & Theys/Skanska, A Joint Venture, for a total GMP in an amount not to exceed $44,737,870 to construct the recommended plan. If bids do not allow execution of the total project plan within the project reserve, staff will return to Council to receive further direction on the need to pursue any of the bid alternates.

(4) Authorize the City Manager to execute amendments to the TIGER 12 and TIGER 13 Cooperative Agreements’ Scopes of Work upon receipt as needed to reflect the new funding level approved by Council to achieve the project as described.

(5) Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Municipal Agreement with NCDOT upon receipt to address changes in funding totals and reimbursement requirements to reflect the new funding level approved by Council to achieve the project as described.

City Manager Hall pointed out staff has a presentation available if the Council so chooses. He stated the Council has before it a copy of the PowerPoint presentation as well as information on the 5 scenarios. He pointed out it is up to Council as to whether they want to have the full presentation.

City Manager Hall indicated this is a very critical project. He pointed out on January 20, the staff gave the Council an update and provided some options. Staff took the feedback and worked with several of our partners to address the alternative scenarios, looked at the project scope, continued to work with our partners and developed Scenario 4.1. He expressed appreciation to our partners including TTA, Duke Energy, the contractor and designer who helped work through and address the funding issues. He talked about Scenario 4.1. explaining the modifications between Scenario 4 and 5 require an additional $12M and $1M additional contingency or $13M. He talked about the revenue sources as outlined above. He pointed out the agenda has multiple recommendations which includes some of the elements which would be deferred but could be brought back in if funding becomes available. He stated this does not mean that staff will not continue to work on the project, budget, on project scope, current market conditions, etc. He stated this is basically a budget exercise and staff will continue to pursue opportunities. He stated we will be working on a business plan and will bring back recommendations.


Planner Reberta Fox went through Scenario 4.1 highlighting the fact that this scenario meets the project goals, maintains many elements as in the full build option, maintains most aesthetic elements, reduces the scope for some elements, recommends a series of add alternates within the bid documents to anticipate and mitigate possible cost escalation and went through changes. She explained best practices, unfunded items, revised funding, project scope, building design and recommendations.

Mr. Gaylord pointed out this proposal does meet the project goals and however leaves off some of the wish list but leaves opportunities open to add back maintains flexibility, keeps operational and maintenance cost down, gives us what we are looking for, gives a revenue stream that keeps taxpayer expense down, and talked about his excitement about the plans and the opportunities the facility will provide the city and its visitors. He moved approval of the recommendations of staff and expressed appreciation to staff for getting the numbers down, etc. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks.

Mr. Odom had questions about how this would be paid for with Ms. Fox explaining funding would include unused monies from the completed Falls of Neuse project and two-thirds bond which together will fund the total amount of $13M.

Mr. Odom talked about the statement he made at the work session as to how this would be paid back over a quick period of time. He stated we have seem the development of property that has already been bought in the area immediately adjacent to this property and the graphics that we have seen of a building that might be built there, and talked about tax revenue we getting today and would get from one project if Council allows the developer the builder to be build what is being proposed there.

Mr. Odom stated there is another piece of property 4 or 5 blocks down that is on the market today for $6M. He stated as we look at this particular area we will want to allow density in terms of height and he wants to make sure that every body thinks about that as the Council acts on this proposal because we are going to want tall buildings in this one particularly area so we can generate enough funds to pay for this. It looks like to him it will be less than 9 or 10 years that we would over come that $12M and then put money back in the back and be on the positive sides or in the black. He stated he is not all wound up on transit like a lot of people are but thinks we need it maybe more bus systems but he does not know about the train systems but this is an opportunity to actually pay for itself and actually increase our budget if all goes well. It looks like some things are already going and so therefore he would support the motion.

The motion as stated was put to a roll call vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 400 TF 246.


WEATHER UPDATE – RECEIVED

City Manager Hall pointed out Council members received a report at the table on the winter weather events. He stated he wanted to recognize the hard work of our city employees and community’s response during the recent weather events. He pointed out our Public Works employees spent 3,135 man hours spreading more than 50 tons of salt; staff responded to some 180 calls for fallen trees and branches during the second storm. He stated that snow, was expected but the power outages, downed trees, etc. caught everyone by surprise. He pointed out during the events there was an increase of almost 30% in 911 calls for police, fire, emergency medical, etc. The Police Department responded to an increase in vehicle accidents or assist motorist calls however it was not as significant as one might have expected. He stated the most creative approach was probably the process of the various departments pitching in to help Solid Waste Services. That included employees from Public Works, Public Utilities, Parks and Recreation and Cultural Resources. He stated when we saw a need to try to get ahead of the second storm a call went out for help and we received strong response from many other departments who volunteered to help with the solid waste pick up. In addition, Wake County agreed to keep the transfer stations open later which allowed the opportunity for completing routes. He stated we are doing some various things to keep with solid waste pick ups which are outlined on the website including additional pick ups, waiver of fee for storm related pick ups and relaxing some of our rules and regulations. He stated in addition the Fire Department as usual pitched in to provide places of refuse, a cup of coffee, food for city workers who needed a hot meal, a place to warm up, etc. The Public Utilities Department had two water treatment plants and 40 pump stations operating on standby generators because of power outage or power quality issues. He stated during a recent work session, Public Utilities staff talked about the need for additional generator backup provisions pointing out it is difficult to spend the money ahead of time but you get results in the future. He talked about support from various departments who helped out with the people out on the street. There were many people and he would like to say he is very proud of everyone’s offer.

Mayor McFarlane expressed appreciation to everyone involved and commended all for a job well done.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD

URBAN FORESTRY AND CITY TREE MANUAL – UPDATES APPROVED

Council authorized review of the Urban Forestry section of the city code as well as an update of the City Tree Manual. The review process included the opportunity for input from citizens, numerous stakeholders, and the City Attorney. The purposes of the changes are to improve clarity and ease of use while building consistency with other City requirements and cross reference the existing Unified Development Ordinance and Street Design manual. The Board has reviewed and proposed updates to the city code and the City Tree Manual; following presentation of the recommendations during the November 5, 2014 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to engage the Technical Resource Group (TRG) for additional review.


The code and manual have been reviewed by the Landscape Subcommittee of the Technical Resource Group.

Recommendation: Authorize the recommended changes to the Municipal Code and City Tree Manual Updates as included in the agenda packet.

Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Director Sauer indicated staff is available to answer questions. Mayor McFarlane asked if this covers trees in the primary or secondary watershed with it being pointed out that is handled through the UDO. It was pointed out this basically covers public rights of way. Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks. In response to questioning from Mr. Gaylord, Mr. Manor pointed out the proposal has been posted on the website, there has been correspondence, notifications, etc., with development group, other city departments, etc. to gain input. Mr. Gaylord questioned if the Planning Commission or Appearance Commission has provide comments with it being pointed out that has been accomplished. The motion as stated was put to a roll call vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 401.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF RALEIGH HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

HISTORIC LANDMARK – LEWIS JOYNER HOUSE, 304 EAST JONES STREET – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

One property was the subject of a joint hearing on January 6, 2015, to receive public comment on the historic landmark report and proposed Raleigh Historic Landmark designation: Lewis-Joyner House, 304 East Jones Street.

Council referred the matter to the Raleigh Historic Development Commission to consider public hearing comments. The commission reconvened January 20, 2015 following the public hearing to review recommendations of the Department of Cultural Resources and the public hearing comments. The commission voted unanimously to make a final determination that the property meets the criteria for historic designation. A proposed ordinance was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Adopt the ordinance designating the property a Raleigh Historic Landmark.

Tania Tully, Planning Department, was available to answer questions. Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 402.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES AND MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD

On September 20, 2012, the Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board were established to advise the City Council regarding historic assets which tell the story of Raleigh past, present, and future. Historic assets, sites, and programs are managed by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department; the mission of the board is to promote, coordinate, and strengthen advocacy and advancement of the historic program to further the cultural development of the City.

Recommendation: Approve the annual work plan.

Council members received the following report in their agenda packet.

HISTORIC RESOURCES AND MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD2015 Work Plan

Formation of the Board

On September 2Q, ?012, City Council created the Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board (HRMAB) to advise the Council about City assets which tell Raleigh's story, past, present and future. These institutions, sites and programs are managed by the City of Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department in the Historic Resources and Museum Program (HRM Program). The assets are:

Borden Building! Fred Fletcher Amphitheater and Stone Circle at Fletcher Park Chavis Park AmusementsCOR Museum (formerly the Raleigh City Museum) Latta House and University SiteMordecai Historic Park Pope House Museum Pullen Park Amusements Raleigh Trolley Program (2)Tucker House

HRMAB Mission

The mission of the Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board, hereinafter referred to as the HRMAB, shall be to promote, coordinate, and strengthen the advocacy and advancement of public programs within the Historic Resources and Museum Program to further the cultural development of the City.


HRMAB Vision Statement

The vision of the HRMAB is to be a leader in advocacy and advancement of programming, preservation, communication and public involvement associated with Raleigh's Historic Sites, Museums, and historical collections, recognizing these are essential contributors to the economy and quality of life of Raleigh and its citizens. Further, this Advisory Board is to advance public programs, encourage efficient operations, and support staff in efforts to provide all Raleigh citizens and visitors diverse opportunities for cultural engagement, education and stewardship, understanding always that the story of Raleigh is the story of American democracy. The success of the Board will be measured by the quantity and quality of public engagement in our facilities and programs.

Board Organization and Work Plan

The Board is organized into two standing and three ad-hoc committees.

The standing Nominations Committee recommends board nominees to Council as vacancies occur and/or terms expire. In 2015, the committee will:

Develop and maintain a list of possible nominees to the HRMAB. Assess upcoming vacancies and propose approved Board nominees to the

Council. Identify and propose a slate of officers annually at the October meeting

The standing Executive Committee is focused on board development and management, supporting staff in strategic planning, and providing advice and analysis of program challenges and opportunities. In 2015, the committee will:

Advise and assist staff in development· of HRM Strategic Plan Develop and report the HRMAB work plan to City Council and assist staff in

creating the HRM Program Annual Report. Assist staff with Board retreats or planning sessions. Support staff in identifying resource, program and heritage tourism needs and

gaps.

The ad-hoc Collections Committee assists staff in identifying objects for accession and deaccession working within the framework of the HRM Collection Policy. In 2015, the committee will:

Hold regular meetings to make recommendations for accessions and de-accessions.

Assist staff in development of Collection Plan, including accession/deaccession priorities, conservation plan, and artifact storage.


The ad-hoc Program Committee works with staff to promote and enhance the HRM Volunteer Program. The committee also works with staff to promote and sustain public programs. In 2015, the committee will:

Work with staff to promote and enhance the HRM Volunteer Program. Advise and assist staff in developing and implementing public programs.

The ad-hoc Communications Committee works with staff to increase awareness of HRM sites and programs. The Committee also works to establish liaisons with other boards and commissions, as well as other organizations in the city and county involved in preserving the historic and cultural heritage of Raleigh. In 2015, the committee will:

Assist staff in developing and implementing design, style, and communication guidelines for HRM Program.

Continue to develop relationships with staff, other City boards and commissions, as well as other public and private boards, commissions or interest groups.

Continue to assess the Capital City Trail program.

Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin, Barbara Freedman, Board Chair was available to answer questions and provide a report if needed. Mayor McFarlane expressed appreciation to Ms. Freedman and the entire group for all of their work. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

DHIC – ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR EMERSON GLEN (CAMDEN GLEN) - APPROVED

Mayor McFarlane reported the Budget and Economic Development Committee recommends upholding the staff recommendation to modify the loan to Camden Glen, LLC as follows: (1) increasing existing loan amount from $750,000 to $1,150,000; and (2) reducing the interest rate from 2% to 1%. It is understood Federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds are available and will be transferred administratively upon approval of the loan modification.

On behalf of the committee, Mayor McFarlane moved the recommendation be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks. Mr. Odom stated this is unusual and questioned the discussion. Housing and Neighborhoods Director Larry Jarvis pointed out a significant time passed between the award and the work. He pointed out how cost have increased and how they are making up the differences needed. The motion as stated was put to a roll call vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.


SEWER EASEMENT – 3400 WHITE OAK ROAD – DECLARED SURPLUS AND OFFERED FOR SALE

Mayor McFarlane reported the Budget and Economic Development Committee recommends upholding the staff recommendation to declare as surplus and authorize the sale of approximately 0.18 acres or 7,868 ± square feet of sanitary sewer easement interest located at 3400 White Oak Road to St. David’s School for an amount up to $6,000, with the understanding the sale is subject to the negotiated offer and upset bid process, with the winning bidder paying all accrued advertising costs.

Mayor McFarlane moved the recommendation be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE

UDO/2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNS – REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Chairman Stephenson reported the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommends that the City Council refer to the Planning Commission for remap analysis to a zoning district other than NX the following Buffer Commercial (BC) parcels located near neighborhoods or environmentally sensitive areas, unless one or more of the following conditions exist that would limit general use (by-right) NX development with high neighborhood or environmental impacts:

small lot size overlay zoning conditional uses

Parcels Address Reason

1 – 2 5108 Oak Park Road Existing office near church and neighborhood5201 Oak Park Road

3 - 5 3344 Hillsborough Street Existing offices near neighborhood3334 Hillsborough Street3321 Trillium Whorl Court

6 - 10 3326 Trillium Whorl Court Existing residential near neighborhood3324 Trillium Whorl Court3324 Hillsborough Street3322 Trillium Whorl Court3320 Trillium Whorl Court

15 - 22 729 West Morgan Street Existing office near neighborhood727 West Morgan Street


725 West Morgan Street723 West Morgan Street721 West Morgan Street719 West Morgan Street717 West Morgan Street715 West Morgan Street

25 - 29 400 Bragg Street Near existing neighborhood402 Bragg Street1201 South Bloodworth Street404 Bragg Street406 Bragg Street

30 - 31 1455 Garner Road Near existing residential1453 Garner Road

32 522 East Edenton Street Near neighborhood

44 4200 Lake Ridge Drive Office use near neighborhood

45 - 46 1540 Dunn Road Near neighborhood1500 Dunn Road

48 - 49 9721 Fonville Road Near environmentally sensitive area9733 Fonville Road

Mr. Stephenson indicated during the March 2 UDO work session, he described a couple of these and explained what is being suggested. Mr. Stephenson moved the recommendation be upheld. His motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder.

Mr. Stephenson explained the recommendations and the discussions which took place in the Comprehensive Planning Committee. He talked about the first two items on the list and the surrounding development and pointed out the Committee is simply suggesting that the Council ask the Planning Commission to look at these locations and determine if NX zoning in close proximity to uses that are not retail is what we really want. It’s basically questioning the correct location of NX zoning.

Mr. Maiorano talked about the issues surrounding this recommendation. He stated there have been issues and concerns raised and he is trying to understand the recommendation. He stated the Planning Commission is an independent body and as Planning Commission Chair Schuster earlier in the meeting pointed out they have an objective matrix through which they have to look at in making recommendations and that is based on policies the City Council has established. He stated he is concerned about the way this recommendation is framed and it seems that it is more or less directing the Planning Commission to remap to some district other than NX. He pointed out he has concerns about the wording and he would be more comfortable if we just ask the Planning Commission to look at these properties and analyze them under the existing framework


and to recommend how these properties should be zoned rather than send the message to them to suggest something other than what is proposed.

Discussion took place on the feeling the motion was specifically to that point that is, ask the Planning Commission for their advice. Mr. Maiorano stated he just wants to make sure that we send the message to the Planning Commission in the context of asking them to examine it not send a directive to make a change.

Mr. Maiorano stated his other concern is how the property owners get notified and how they engage in this process. He stated it looks as if the Committee is asking to take an action against certain private property on which the City has already gone through a fairly significant examination and to place certain proposals on the property and now we are talking about changing and questioned how the property owners would be involved. Mr. Stephenson pointed out every parcel that is going to be remapped will be the subject a major public hearing Z-27-14 so at some point every one will be notified. Discussion took place on the process and what the recommendation of the Comprehensive Planning Committee actually says. How the property owners are going to be involved, the process that the City has been going through and Mr. Maiorano’s concern that this recommendation seems to be singling out a subset of properties and asking for some action to be taken that is different from the information that is already out for the public to respond to. These people have been told that their property will fit into one zoning classification and now we are singling out and talking about changing and he feels the property owners should be notified and given a chance to respond.

Why these particular properties are being discussed, transitions, where the list comes from and discussions that have taken place were discussed at length. The possibility of simply changing the wording on the recommendation and adding wording that the property owners would be notified was talked about. What the recommendation says with Council members and the City Attorney weighing in on their interpretation of the motion was talked about.

Mr. Maiorano stated he simply does not like the language of the recommendation and he would like for it to be changed. How to proceed, whether this would be down zoning and how these cases got before the Committee was talked about at length. In response to questioning from Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Stephenson pointed out David Cox came before the Council and indicated that the group he represents does not feel that NX is the correct zoning in this type transition area and it was decided that the committee would look at buffer/commercial zoning which is a zoning district that will be done away with to determine if what is proposed is appropriate. Mr. Stephenson stated in the remapping the buffer/commercial property is every where from very low end residential all the way to very dense areas and there was concerned as to whether going to NX was appropriate in some of these locations. It was pointed out there were a number of locations to start with and each was considered individually. There were a lot of different situations and since the buffer/commercial zoning will not exist any longer it was decided to look at all of the buffer/commercial and what is being proposed and the list as submitted were the locations singled out to think about further.


Ms. Baldwin stated she understands that but was trying to understand exactly where this comes from with it being pointed out it was brought forward as a request and petition of citizens by David Cox. Ms. Baldwin questioned if the owners of the properties asked that it be bought forward with it being pointed out that the item bought to the Council was whether in the remapping of buffer/commercial if NX is the proper zoning. After discussion on how the list was developed, where it came from and what is being proposed, Ms. Baldwin made a substitute motion to send this list to Planning Commission for review and analysis and that the owners of the property be notified. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT – EXPANSION POLICY – APPROVED; EXPANSION OF HILLSBOROUGH STREET MUNICIPAL SERVICES DISTRICT – PROCESS TO BE STARTED

Chairperson Baldwin reported the Law and Public Safety Committee recommends approving changes to the Municipal Service District expansion policy as outlined in a staff memorandum dated February 20, 2015. A copy of the memorandum was included with the agenda packet. On behalf of the Committee, Ms. Baldwin moved the recommendation be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and after brief discussion put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

Chairperson Baldwin reported the Law and Public Safety Committee also recommends taking the necessary steps (report, notification, and public hearing) to expand the Hillsborough Street Municipal Service District to include all ancillary lots and properties in the Cameron Village area; however, the Committee also recommends denying expansion of the district along Morgan Street. A map of the proposed boundary was included with the agenda packet. On behalf of the Committee, Ms. Baldwin moved the recommendation be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom. In response to questions, Ms. Baldwin pointed out this is basically to start the process for a public hearing to consider a change to the Hillsborough Street Municipal Service district boundaries.

Ms. Crowder indicated some of the concerns she has is that the Committee has reached out to include parcels that are currently zoned R-6 even though they are being used as parking lots as well as the Fire Station on Oberlin Road. This proposal would put it inside the boundary and she is not sure while the City would want to do that as there is no revenue to come from the fire station property. There is also a rental house that lies between two residential houses on the Oberlin side and she is not sure why the proposal reached out to grab the one rental house. In addition there is the question about including the alleyway behind the Hillsborough Street frontage. There is concern on the part of some if the boundary includes that it would eliminate the ability to use that as a transition to the neighborhood.


Mayor McFarlane indicated the motion made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Odom is to set the public hearing questioning if a date was included in the motion. The City Clerk pointed out staff would have to come back as there is a lot of work to do such as developing the report, notification, etc. Staff would come back with a recommended public hearing date if the motion is approved.

Ms. Crowder indicated her request would be to remove the lots she talked about from the Municipal Service District expansion proposal. She stated the Fire Station is a community asset and if Council has no objection she feels that we could amend the boundary. The other concerns relate to the parking lots. Mr. Odom stated he does not feel comfortable pulling items out today. The issue is going to public hearing and at that point the Council could remove items, etc. There may be other changes that need to be made. It was pointed out Ms. Crowder’s concerns could be a part of the record and any changes could be considered at the public hearing with various council members agreeing with Ms. Crowder’s points of concern. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

NO REPORT

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING – MARCH 10, 2015 – CANCELED

Chairperson Weeks reported the Public Works Committee meeting scheduled for March 10, 2015 has been canceled.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE

NO REPORT

TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE – MARCH 10, 2015 - CANCELED

Chairperson Gaylord reported the Technology and Communication Committee meeting scheduled for March 10, 2015 has been canceled.

REPORT OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

FLEX METRO 3D MODELING – STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION

Mr. Gaylord indicated he had talked with Mr. Maiorano and other Council members and Assistant City Manager Haywood about Flex Metro 3D Modeling. He asked that staff look at the utilization, opportunities and cost involved and provide a report back to Council. At that


time, Council could decide whether to pursue the issue or refer it to a committee for further discussion.

LOHMANN MARKET – CITREX – REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Gaylord indicated he and Ms. Baldwin had received emails relative to the Cintrex Lohmann Market. He stated there seems to be some problem with Ms. Baldwin pointing out she thinks it is a permitting issue. Administration was asked to look into the issue.

OPERATION COMING HOME – PERMIT FEES APPROPRIATED – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

Mr. Odom passed out information to Council members concerning Operation Coming Home. He stated the information indicates the Homebuilders Association of Raleigh – Wake County is undertaking the construction of another home for a veteran as a part of Operation Coming Home project. He stated this home will be constructed at 8017 Hartham Park Avenue which is in District B. He pointed out the approximate building size used to calculate the permit fees is 2,971 square feet and asked the Council to consider reimbursing the permit fees in an amount up to $8,300. He recommends that this comes from City Council contingency. Ms. Baldwin moved approval. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was excused from the meeting. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Ordinance 400 TF 246.

BALLOON FEST – MEMORIAL DAY – REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Odom indicated on Memorial Day at group is planning a balloon fest at Spring Forest Park. He pointed out Ann Franklin and others are putting together this event and he is very pleased to see it happening in Raleigh and District B particularly. He asked that the Parks Department and/or Administration contact the group to see if there is anything the City can provide to make this a successful event. The item was referred to Administration.

CACS – COMMENTS RECEIVED – INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED

Mr. Odom pointed out he had received a complaint relative to someone in CAC being very rude and speaking rudely to a representative of a nonprofit who showed up to present a project. He stated a group went to a CAC to present a project and have complained about the inappropriate way they felt they were treated. He stated he feels we should make sure that all people receive respect from CACs and their chairs, etc.

Mr. Maiorano questioned what authority the City has over the CACs. He stated we should expect all to demonstrate an appropriate level of professionalism and decorum and that should be expected of all of our CACs members and/or leaders.

City Manager Hall pointed out staff can provide a report on what happened in this particular incident. He stated however he is not clear on the level of authority the City Council and/or staff


has over the way the CACs operate or function. He pointed out the typical staff role is to provide support at the CAC meetings.

City Attorney McCormick indicated the City Council really has no authority over how the individual chairs run their CAC meetings. Mr. Maiorano questioned if the City provides any documents, training, guidance, etc. on how to operate. He stated if we do not that may be something we should consider at. He pointed out the CACs are an important point of communications between the citizens and the City and we need to make sure they operate as efficiently and as effectively as possible. He pointed out may be staff should try to provide some guidance and/or assistance to the CACs in their operating procedures. Mr. Weeks questioned if the RCAC has any control. City Attorney McCormick indicated the RCAC is an umbrella organization. He pointed out the City Council has let the CACs operate the way they see fit as the needs, desires, issues, etc. are different in different areas of the city. He stated he does not know if the Community Services Department provides any guidance, training, etc.

Mr. Maiorano suggested letting staff take a look at the procedures and provide some recommendation. He pointed out the CACs are an effective tool and may be we could look at the structure, discipline, how they operate, etc. City Manager Hall pointed out staff can look at the issue pointing out however there are a lot of multiple questions such as how they are run, governed, procedures, staff support, etc. Mr. Maiorano stated he is in no way looking at a way to control the CACs he is looking at for a way to help them. Ms. Baldwin pointed out the CACs were set up as a place for citizens to go and be heard and if citizens are not feeling that their voices are heard with respect then the CACs are not operating as they should.

Brief discussion took place with it being pointed out no one is looking at trying to change or direct how the CACs operate but there should be respect for everyone’s voice. The comments were referred to Administration for a report/recommendation.

SPEED BUMPS – NORTHBROOK DRIVE – DIRECTION GIVEN

Mr. Maiorano indicated he had asked staff to evaluate a speed hump located on Northbrook Drive. He stated Council received a report back relative to the speed hump and the installation of a four-way stop at Northbrook and Pamlico. He stated because of the installation of the 4-way stop, the speed hump near 505 Northbrook is inconsistent with our policy as it is too close to the stop signs. He stated staff held a public hearing and invited the neighbors and he did not remember anyone in attendance in opposition to the removal. He stated because of the inconsistency with our policy, he would move that the speed hump at 505 Northbrook be removed during construction of the new ones being installed on another section of Northbrook. He stated once the crews are activated to install the ones on other sections of Northbrook it would not be that costly to remove the speed hump near 505 Northbrook. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin. The Mayor questioned the cost, how many people signed the petition and discussions that had taken place. Mr. Maiorano pointed out it is a safety and traffic management issue and it seems to make sense to remove the speed hump as the Council had approved the installation of the four-way stop. He talked about the problems and concerns about the speed hump. The motion as stated was put to a vote and passed with all members voting in


the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was excused from the meeting. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

CORRIDOR OR SMALL AREA PLAN – AVENT FERRY ROAD AREA – REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION

Councilor Crowder questioned the process of getting a project or budget note to proceed with a corridor study for Avent Ferry Road or small area plan for the Mission Valley area which would include Avent Ferry Road. Mr. Maiorano questioned if we could do that in concert with NCSU that is partner with them because of their presence in that area. Councilor Crowder indicated they would definitely be a stakeholder with Ms. Baldwin indicating may be we can get some financial support. City Manager Hall suggested staff be authorized to take the request and provide a follow-up memo before going to a budget note. He stated staff could give Council a report on our current options, list of projects, etc. and then the Council could decide how to proceed. Ms. Baldwin indicated during this analysis she would suggest that staff have contact with NCSU to see if there is any opportunity for financial participation. Without objection, it was agreed to follow that course of action.

APPOINTMENTS

APPOINTMENTS – VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN

The City Clerk reported the following results of the ballot vote:

Appearance Commission – One Vacancy – Candace Andre – (Gaylord, Maiorano, McFarlane, Baldwin; Andre Johnson – 4 (Odom, Stephenson, Weeks, Crowder). Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Gaylord nominated Neil Gray.

Environmental Awards Jury – 4 vacancies. The agenda listed the following six representatives from various appointed bodies.

Environmental Advisory Board – Larry Larson Appearance Commission - Tika Hicks Parks, Recreation, and Greenway Advisory Board - Clodagh Lyons-Bastian Planning Commission - Adam Terando Stormwater Management Advisory Commission - Vanesssa Fleischmann Watershed Advisory Commission - Richard Rogers

The City Clerk indicated Ms. Baldwin had nominated Ralph Thompson and Mr. Weeks had nominated Rogelio Sullivan. The City Clerk asked that the Council consider confirming the 8 persons because of the schedule for the jury selection process. Ms. Baldwin moved approval of moving ahead with the 8 persons. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed with all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who as absent and excused.


Fair Housing Hearing Board – One Vacancy – No Nominees

Planning Commission – One Vacancy – Tika Johnson Hicks – 8 (All Council members)

Raleigh Sister Cities – Three Vacancies – Robyn Coward – 8 (All Council members)

Raleigh Transit Authority – One Vacancy – John Pucher (McFarlane). Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Crowder nominated Michael Stephenson.

Substance Abuse Advisory Commission – One Vacancy – No nominees

The City Clerk announced the appointment of Tika Hicks to the Planning Commission and Robyn Coward to Raleigh Sister Cities and the appointment/confirmation of the Environmental Awards Jury. The other items will be carried over until the next meeting.

NOMINATIONS

CONVENTION CENTER COMMISSION – REAPPOINTMENTS MADE

The terms of James E. Hobbs and David Rose are expiring in March. Both are eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Attendance records were included in the agenda packet. Ms. Baldwin moved that nominations be closed and the two reappointed by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 7-0 vote (Gaylord absent and excused).

PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD – JENNIFER HAVERSTAD – REAPPOINTMENT – NOMINATIONS MADE

The City Clerk reported the terms of Scott Reston and Jennifer Haverstad are expiring. Mr. Reston is not eligible for reappointment as he will have served six years. Ms. Haverstad is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved that the rules be suspended and Ms. Haverstad appointed by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed with all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

Ms. Crowder nominated Christopher Dillon. Mr. Weeks nominated Jonathan Carr. During the night portion of the meeting Mr. Weeks withdrew the name of Mr. Carr and nominated Reginald McClain. The item will be carried over to the next meeting.


PLANNING COMMISSION – VACANCY ANNOUNCED

The term of Quince D. Fleming is expiring. He is not eligible for reappointment as he will have served six years. No nominations were made.

TRANSIT AUTHORITY – REAPPOINTMENTS MADE

The terms of Craig Ralph and Jason Horne are expiring in March. Both are eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Attendance records were included in the agenda packet. Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council suspend the rules and reappointment Mr. Ralph and Mr. Horne by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused.

TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY – MARY ANN BALDWIN REAPPOINTED

The term of Mary Ann Baldwin is expiring. She is eligible for reappointment and is willing to be considered for reappointment. Mr. Weeks moved Ms. Baldwin be reappointed. His motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The City Clerk requested permission to establish Ms. Baldwin’s term to get on the correct rotation basis with the Council agreeing.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY CLERK

TAXES – RESOLUTION ADOPTED

Council members received in the agenda packet a proposed resolution adjusting, rebating, or refunding penalties, exemptions, and relieving interest for late listing of property for ad valorem taxes. Adoption is recommended. Mr. Odom moved approval as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed with all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Resolution 64.

MINUTES – VARIOUS – APPROVED

Council members received in their agenda packet copies of the minutes of the February 3, 2015 Council meeting and the January 29, 30, 2015 Council Retreat. Approval is recommended. Mr. Odom moved approval as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused from the meeting. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.


CLOSED SESSION

CLOSED SESSION – HELD

Mayor McFarlane pointed out a motion is in order to enter closed session pursuant to NCGS143-318.11(a)(3) for the purpose of consulting with the City Attorney regarding a potential settlement of a workers compensation claim and legal issues involved in acquiring the future Dix property site. Ms. Baldwin moved approval as read. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused from the meeting. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote and the Council went into closed session at 4:00 p.m.

The Council reconvened in open session at 5:10 p.m. Mayor McFarlane indicated the Council in closed session directed staff how to proceed on a workers compensation case and the legal issues involved in acquiring the future Dix Park site.

Adjournment. There being no further business, Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting recessed at 5:11 p.m. to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m.

Gail G. SmithCity Clerk

jt/CC03-03-15


The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in reconvened session at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, with all Council members present.

The following item were discussed with action taken as shown.

JOINT HEARING WITH THE RALEIGH HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

HISTORIC LANDMARK – 800 AND 816 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET – HEARING – REFERRED TO THE RALEIGH HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

This was a hearing to receive public comment on two Raleigh Historic Development Commission proposed Historic Landmarks.

Leonard Medical Hospital, 800 South Wilmington Street Leonard Medical School, 816 South Wilmington Street

Following the hearing the matter should be referred to the Raleigh Historic Development Commission to consider recommendations of the State of North Carolina and any additional information received during the public hearing.

Raleigh Historic Development Commission members present included Fred Belledin, Jenny Harper, Rachel Rumsey, Kiernan McGorty, Elizabeth Caliendo, Don Davis, Flora Wadelington and Janette Coleridge Taylor.

The Mayor opened the hearing.

Tania Tully pointed out all requirements of the North Carolina General Statutes and City Code preceding the scheduling of this public hearing had been complied with. The Raleigh Historic Development Commission reviewed the reports on December 16, 2014 and found they meet the criteria for designation. The reports were referred by the City Council to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and copies of the State’s comments were included in City Council Members agenda packet.

Ms. Tully pointed out the Leonard Medical Hospital, 800 South Wilmington Street, was built in 1912 with alterations around 1920 and 1968. She stated the hospital is a nice example of Italian Renaissance and includes a 2-story, hip-roofed Italian Renaissance revival building on a raised basement that stands in the southwest corner of the Shaw University Campus. It is historically and culturally significant for its contribution both to the education of black physicians at Shaw University and for its role in improving healthcare for Raleigh’s black community during the segregated period of Raleigh’s history. It is an example of the work of Gaston Alonzo Edwards, North Carolina’s first professional registered African American Architect and a designer associated with a number of key institutional buildings associated with the African American


community in Raleigh as it fought against the racism and indignities of the Jim Crow laws in the early 20th century.

Ms. Tully indicated the Lenard Medical School, 816 South Wilmington Street, was built in 1881 and had a number of alterations throughout the years. She stated it is a nice example of the Romanesque Revival style brick building with two distinctive towers framing the narrow 3-bay façade that stands in the southwest corner of Shaw University Campus. It has special historic and cultural significance for its connection to the medical education provided by Shaw University to African Americans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The obvious primary benefits were increased access to healthcare experienced by the black community resulting from the training of black doctors and contributing to creating a black professional class and group of community leaders who were politically active in the fight against discriminatory Jim Crow laws.

Ms. Tully stated at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Raleigh Historic Development Commission will make final review of these materials and any public comments and will make a final recommendation regarding the designation ordinances to the City Council at the April 7 meeting. No one else asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed and the matter is referred to the Raleigh Historic Development Commission.

REQUEST AND PETITION OF CITIZENS

UNFIT BUILDING – 905 EAST EDENTON STREET – 90-DAY EXTENSION GRANTED

Jared Burnette, 1507 Ashley Downs, Apex, was at the meeting to request an extension of time in order to complete repairs at 905 East Edenton Street. Mr. Burnette indicated the contractor was held up due to the weather and he hopes he can finish it quicker but would request a 90-day extension.

Inspector Ashley Glover explained Mr. Burnette was before the Council on May 20 at which time the Council approved a 90-day extension. He stated he has no problem with the request for extension as long as it is completed within that time. Mr. Odom moved approval of the 90-day extension with the understanding the demolition would take place at the end of 90 days if the work is not completed satisfactory. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

UNFIT BUILDING – 2410 GLASCOCK STREET – REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA

David Mazanek, Safeguard Properties, representing M & T Bank, had requested permission to ask for additional time in order to complete repairs to property located at 2410 Glascock Street. Mr. Mazanek was not at the meeting therefore the item was removed with no action taken.


CONDEMNATION RESOLUTION – 3727 SWIFT DRIVE – REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY

Brent and Elizabeth Eller, 3727 Swift Drive, would like to request that Council reconsider the resolution of condemnation approved on January 20 and refer the project design for the Simmons Branch Culvert Improvements to the Public Works Committee.

Attorney Ellis Boyle pointed out they are just asking for an opportunity for the Ellers to talk with the appropriate committee about a short extension and/or reconsideration of the condemnation resolution.

Stormwater Engineer Veronica High pointed out this project has been in the works as a part of our CIP since 2001. She explained the history including a survey of the residents, Council approved series of projects, a significant portion which are complete. She stated the Simmons Branch and White Oak Lake are the last to be implemented for the systematic approach that the Council had developed. She talked about working with the residents and pointed out she has personally met with the Ellers in their home and several times through public meetings. She stated that staff recommends that the City Council continue to support the earlier decisions and discussions. She stated the condemnation and acquiring of this property would allow the City to install the culvert. She stated the condemnation relates to temporary and permanent easement. In response to questioning, Ms. High pointed out we are talking about a 20 foot wide easement and 24 different properties were involved and thus far we have easements from 22.

City Attorney McCormick suggested that the Council not repeal the condemnation resolution. He stated it would be several weeks before the City would file a suit pursuant to the resolution and that would give the property owners time to further discuss the issue with staff.

Mr. Maiorano indicated we are talking about the taking of property and the property owners are asking for an opportunity to have discussion with the City Council. He questioned if giving more time would prejudice or harm the project. In response from questioning from Mr. Gaylord, Ms. High pointed out the staff has made several attempts to discuss the project and the scope; however the Ellers have indicated they are not interested in additional conversation with staff. Ms. Crowder questioned if we are close to settling with the other outstanding easement owner with Ms. High pointing out we are very close.

Attorney Boyle indicated his clients say they want to be reasonable however they do not feel they have been heard. He stated he thinks it would be beneficial to have the item discussed by Council or a committee and hopefully resolve the issue and avoid any potential legal issues in the future.

Ms. Crowder pointed out this project has been going on since 2001. She stated she has seen a survey sheet which talks about flooding on the Ellers property wherein Ms. Ellers had requested a solution. She stated as she understands there has been numerous attempts to talk with the Ellers, the people on the street had 6 different options to consider and they picked the best one; however the Ellers have not wanted to talk about it.


Various Council members questioned who the Ellers wanted to talk with and what they wanted to talk about with Ms. Crowder talking about the history of trying to get this project completed. Ms. High talked about the different options the residents had looked at and efforts to work with the property owners.

Ms. Baldwin pointed out when this first came up she had asked that it go to committee but the Council did not support that and she is not hearing a motion today. Ms. Crowder pointed out residents along this street are dealing with flooding and collapsing and there have been many opportunities to discuss this and she opposes delaying it any further. Mr. Maiorano stated there is clearly a lot of history and the Ellers now have an attorney which can help provide them with some guidance and he feels they should be given that chance. He suggested that staff and the Ellers engage in direct conversation in the next two weeks to see if it can be worked out and if not, there can be further discussions.

FAYETTEVILLE STREET – VARIOUS CONCERNS – COMMENTS RECEIVED

Will Marks, 301 Fayetteville Street, indicated he is a part of a coalition of downtown businesses and residents who are requesting a moratorium on outdoor amplified entertainment permits being issued on Fayetteville Street. He stated last week they delivered to City Council a hard copy of their petition which was signed by 259 individuals.

He told of the various people they represent including business owners, residents, authors, deal makers, dentist, empty nesters, real estate brokers, students, developers, various professionals, etc., and explained who some of those are pointing out they represent residents from The Plaza, The Hudson, Sir Walter Apartments, art gallery, law offices, banks, real estate developers, museum, etc. He stated in addition the Central CAC voted unanimously to endorse their petition. He talked about their love for the city and the Fayetteville Street district pointing out for many Fayetteville Street and other downtown streets are their front yard. It is where they socialize, eat, drink, spend money. They are the backbone and the regulars of the area. He stated they are concerned about some of the aspects which they feel are detrimental to the quality of life such as outdoor amplified entertainment by some of the bars and restaurants. He stated outdoor music is a marketing tool which often facilitates and even encourages the movement and the expansion of the interior weekend, late night party scene out into the public space that many times results in rowdy public behavior, unfriendly street side encounters and excessive morning after garbage which raises concerns for the health and well being of the citizens of their neighborhood. He stated some times speakers and open windows and doors provide congenial background music but they have witnessed that all too often the noise level and outdoor rowdy behavior goes well beyond that. He stated the petition clearly shows a majority of all of the residents at both the Plaza and Hudson want to maintain the Fayetteville Street district as an OAE free zone. He stated there are currently no valid outdoor amplified entertainment permits on Fayetteville Street and asked the City Council to maintain that status. The comments were received.


Mike Bradley, 319 Fayetteville Street, a presenting the Hudson Condominiums stated he moved to Park Devereau some six years ago. He stated his doctor and other service providers were on Fayetteville Street and he moved to the Hudson and became the unpaid superintendent of that building. He talked about everyone’s love for living in the downtown area and talked about people who live, eat, drink, entertain, everything in their area. He stated however their concern is that they would like to see it be a little bit quieter. People like to get up, take walks, walk their dogs in the early morning without distraction and enjoy their front porch. They would just like the opportunity to enjoy it a little more in a quieter atmosphere.

Joel Schroeder pointed out he and his husband relocated from Chicago to Raleigh in 2014. He talked about spending their first weekend in the Hudson hearing noise and vibrations from establishments below them. It continued every Friday and Saturday night and got worse. After looking at the noise ordinance, they called the police and who said they would return on Saturday with a device to measure the noise. When they returned they brought the device to measure the noise but instead of measuring the noise level at the property line, they came into his bedroom to measure. He questioned why this was being done and they said the police told them it was too noisy on the street. He stated some of the bars have applied for an outdoor entertainment permit and he cannot imagine why we need to add more noise on Fayetteville Street. He stated the City has a noise ordinance that is not enforced and now we are considering adding more noise. He talked about people wanting to dine, shop and the concern about adding more noise. He pointed out once an outdoor amplified entertainment permit is granted, it is hard to revoke. He questioned if we need more noise on Fayetteville or do we want a more sophisticated shopping, interesting dinning, more museums and other tourist attractions. Everyone needs to live and work harmoniously with their neighbors and he feels adding more noise to the existing problem is not the answer.

Mayor McFarlane thanked the three for coming and providing remarks. She stated the Council received a report on downtown vibrancy earlier in the meeting and the City has laid out a good plan for staff. She expressed appreciation to all for their patience. Ms. Baldwin stated it would be helpful if the Assistant City Manager would attend the next Fayetteville Street meeting and make the presentation with the City Manager pointing out he felt that would be appropriate.

SKATEBOARD, ROLLER SKATING AND INLINE SKATING – PROHIBITION REQUEST – REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY

Dennis Lane, Raleigh Police Memorial Foundation, was at the meeting to request the Council to adopt an ordinance to prohibit skateboarding, roller skating and inline skating on property of the Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex including the Raleigh Police Memorial. Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks.

Mayor McFarlane questioned how an ordinance would change the behavior with Mr. Lane pointing out efforts they have taken such as cameras, devices, etc. An ordinance would make it illegal on the police memorial and the entire Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex. He stated representatives of McLaurin Parking had also voiced concern about the parking deck as well. He stated the Foundation is getting ready to turn the memorial over to the City.


Ms. Baldwin questioned if such an ordinance is adopted what the penalties would be and how that would impact a violator’s future. Mr. Lane pointed out they have determined that most of the violators are over 16, two that were 22 and 27 years old. City Attorney McCormick indicated it would be a misdemeanor. The Council can set a maximum fine if it so desires; however we normally use the maximum fine allowed by law which is $500. He stated there is no jail time associated. If it is a minor it would not show up on their record. It would show up on non minors record but it would be the same as a littering violation. After brief discussion, the motion for approval was put to a vote and passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. City Attorney McCormick indicated he will draft an ordinance and bring it back to the City Council for consideration.

TEXT CHANGE – CROWN SIGNS – NO ACTION

Mack Paul, Morningstar Law Group, had requested permission to submit a text amendment application to amend UDO section 7.3.13.b “Crown signs.”

Mr. Gaylord asked to be excused from participation as Mr. Paul is representing his employer. Mr. Odom moved that Mr. Gaylord be excused from participation in this item. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted.

Mr. Maiorano stated he too needs to be excused from participation in this item because of his employers association with the applicant. Mr. Odom moved that Mr. Maiorano be excused from participation in this item. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote and Mr. Gaylord and Mr. Maiorano left the table. Attorney Mack Paul indicated we have mid-size buildings throughout the area and on mid-size building outside of the downtown it is harder to see and talked about problems of taking advantage of utilization of ground signs. He explained the proposed text amendment seeks to allow a crown sign for a builder greater than 75 feet in height in addition to a permitted wall sign. The proposed text amendment would limit the amount of additional wall sign area to not more than 3.60 square feet of sign area per building side for each foot of building height above 75 feet up to a maximum of 450 square feet. It was stated the current provisions concerning buildings in excess of 200 feet in height would continue to apply. He talked about mid rise buildings and the sliding scale approach.

Mr. Odom pointed out this would affect the entire city and the Council should be very careful. Ms. Crowder expressed concern about the sliding scale and talked about quality of life. The difference in crown signs and wall signs was talked about with Mr. Paul pointing out a crown sign would give additional signage if the building is over a certain height. Ms. Baldwin talked about the need to have some visuals, why a building would have to be over 75 feet to take advantage of a crown sign. Attorney Paul talked about the definition of a high rise building. What we are talking about, what the height would be, what the variations are and the need to have visuals to understand the impact was talked about. Attorney Paul pointed out the only change is that the square footage would be based on height. Ms. Crowder talked about visual


pollution with Mr. Odom suggesting that the item be referred to Law and Public Safety Committee and so moved. The motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which resulted as follows: ayes – 4 (Odom, Baldwin, Stephenson, Weeks); Noes – 2 – (Crowder, McFarlane). Maiorano and Gaylord excused from participation. The Mayor ruled the motion defeated on a 4-2 vote.

MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING

UNFIT DWELLING – 3512 LYTHAM PLACE – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

This was a hearing to consider adopting an ordinance, pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.6.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance Code for the City of Raleigh, to prohibit occupancy of the unfit dwelling at 3512 Lytham Place, Peggy Holder, Glen Faison, heirs, until repaired in compliance with requirements of the housing code. The property is known as Tax ID #0164667. The Mayor opened the hearing, no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Stephenson moved approval as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 403.

UNFIT DWELLING DEMOLITION – VARIOUS LOCATIONS – HEARING – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

This was a hearing to adopt an ordinance, pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.6.8D of the Unified Development Ordinance, to authorize the demolition of the unfit buildings listed below if repairs necessary to render the dwellings fit for human habitation are not completed within ninety (90) days:

LOCATION PROPERTY OWNERTAX ID

NUMBERVACATED

AND CLOSED207 Heck Street Deborah and Robert

Harbin0040979 490 days

The Mayor opened the hearing. Mr. Harbin indicated it is his intent to demolish the building. No one else asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Stephenson moved adoption of the ordinance as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 404.

PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT CHARGES – HEARING TO CONSIDER CONFIRMATION OF CHARGES – VARIOUS LOCATIONS - RESOLUTION ADOPTED

This was a hearing to adopt a resolution to confirm as a lien against the property listed below the charges for the abatement of public nuisances.


LOCATION PROPERTY OWNERTAX ID

NUMBERCOST OF

ABATEMENT5411 Allen Drive The Bank of New York

Mellon Trust Company0063101 $423

228 Bledsoe Avenue Wayne Roberts 0035637 $3476717 Candlewood Drive Gerald C. Folden 0045459 $3731422 Carnage Drive GMAC MTG 0024156 $2491001 Carolina Pines Avenue

Keith A. Murray 0063164 $323

12301 Corvus Road John and Mary Georgedakis

0293395 $375

853 Cross Link Road Charles, Jr. and Sharon Archard

0182003 $347

459 Dacian Road Rebecca W. Moore 0063716 $5733449 Dutchman Road Dutchman Creek

Homeowners Association, Inc.

0344614 $347

6213 Garrett Road Laurence George Mitchell 0024311 $523507 Hocutts Lane Bredell M. Evans Sr.

Heirs c/o Loretta E. Thomas, Executor

0159333 $423

1420 Moring Street John Gilbert Reaves, Jr. 0059135 $5253909 Old Coach Road Mortgage Investors

Corporation c/o Corporate Creative Network, Inc.

0196974 $249

257 Pecan Road Margret Walker Reaves, Ronald Wayne Reaves Heirs

0049617 $403

5209 Rembert Drive James A. and Pamela J. Smith

0042681 $353

4717 River Boat Landing Court

Michael G. Rhodes 0226976 $323

1108 Upchurch Street Clifton Richard Smith 0064582 $323

The Mayor opened the hearing on each location. No one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was close. Mr. Odom moved adoption of a resolution confirming charges as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Resolution 65.

EASEMENT EXCHANGE – RESERVE AT BROOKHAVEN – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED

This was a hearing to consider a request from Ponderosa Group, LLC to exchange an existing 20-foot wide sanitary sewer easement for a new 30-foot wide sanitary sewer easement located on


the proposed Reserve at Brookhaven located at Battleford and Ponderosa Roads in Raleigh, The exchange is in order to allow better development of the property. The exchange would be according to terms outlined in Resolution 2015-56, which was included in the agenda packet.

Following the hearing, the Council may take action to approve, deny or refer the request to committee.

The Mayor opened the hearing no one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved adoption of a resolution authorizing the exchange as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Resolution 66.

ANNEXATION – RESERVE AT BROOKHAVEN – HEARING – ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION ADOPTED

This was a hearing to consider the petitioned annexation of property known as The Reserve at Brookhaven. Following the hearing, if the council wishes to proceed, it would be appropriate to adopt an ordinance annexing the property effective immediately and a resolution placing the property in Electoral District E.

The Mayor opened the hearing no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved adoption of an ordinance annexing the properties effective immediately and a resolution placing the property in the City Council electoral District E. His motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor the motion adopted. See Ordinance 405 and Resolution 67.

UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT – AUSTIN CREEK – HELD OPEN UNTIL APRIL 7, 2015

This was a hearing to consider a request from Tryon, LLC to enter into a utility extension agreement to extend gravity sanitary sewer main along Austin Creek to provide gravity sewer service to the drainage basin on the north side of Wait Avenue including Triangle, LLC development.

Following the hearing, the Council may take action to approve the utility extension agreement. Public Utilities Director Robert Massengill suggested that the Council hold this hearing open as negotiations are still ongoing. He asked that the hearing be held over until April 7. No one was at the meeting to be heard. Mr. Odom moved that the hearing be continued until April 7, 2015. His motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.


UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT – PINECREST ROAD – HELD OVER UNTIL APRIL 7, 2015

This was a hearing to consider a request from Ray and Jean Cheely to enter into a utility extension agreement to extend gravity sanitary sewer main to serve a proposed development on their property located at 7520 Pinecrest Road.

Following the hearing, the Council may take action to approve the utility extension agreement.

Public Utilities Director Massengill indicated negotiations are still ongoing therefore he would suggest that this hearing be held over until April 7, 2015.

Dale Rowe pointed out he feels an agreement has been reached, the document has been prepared and signed by two of the owners. He stated he was unaware of any further negotiations. Mr. Massengill stated he thinks every thing has been worked out but he has not seen the document. If we hold the public hearing open, they can request cancelation later. Without objection, it was agreed to hold the hearing open until April 7, 2015.

STREET CLOSING 1-2015 – BURTON AVENUE – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

This was a hearing to consider the permanent closing of Burton Avenue, located north of Buck Jones Road terminating at property known as 117 Oakdale Drive. The hearing is pursuant to petition, advertisement, and notification as required by law and would be according to Resolution Number 2015-57.

Following the hearing, the Council may take action to adopt a resolution authorizing the closing with the following conditions: (1) to reserve a 20-foot-wide sewer easement and any proposed easements needed associated with the Buck Jones widening project; (2) the City will execute a temporary access easement deed from Buck Jones Road to the Owens property with the width of the easement to be determined after surveying of an existing right-of-way; and (3) all owners agree to sign the new recombination map.

Transportation Manager Eric Lamb pointed out this is a city initiated closure. He stated the street had been approved for closing several years ago; however, consent of all of the adjacent property owners and recordation of the map had not occurred. The Mayor opened the hearing.


Tim Owens, 228 Buck Jones Road, indicated he lives at the end of the street under consideration to be closed. He stated he has not received a map to show him how this will work, expressed concern about parking on his easement and problems he may have in getting around cars parked on the easement.


He stated he knows this is in connection with the Buck Jones widening project and they need room for parking, etc. He is just concerned that he not be denied access or have parking block his easement.

City Real Estate Agent Susan Mullins indicated the City has not clarified the details and the closure so that everyone can develop the plan and the easement. They have not worked with Mr. Owens on all of the details but they will make sure he is in agreement. Various Council members questioned how we could talk about closing a street that impacts one of the owners and that owner does not know the details. The fact that this is not a City maintained street, it is a public right-of-way, parking will be moved to the side of some of the properties when the Buck Jones Road widening takes place. Ms. Mullins pointed out one of the conditions of the closing would be that Mr. Owens would be provided access. Mr. Owens stated he is concerned about his driveway being blocked with Mr. Gaylord pointing out you cannot landlock a property there will always be access. Mr. Owens stated he is not worried about being cut off he is worried about people parking in the driveway or on the access easement preventing him from getting to his property. He stated once all of the parking has moved to the side he feels that it may overflow and block access with Ms. Mullins pointing out all of that can be worked out. Mr. Gaylord stated if it becomes a problem Mr. Owens can come back to the City Council with Mr. Owens stating he just wanted it a part of the record and he is good with that suggestion. The hearing was closed. Mr. Gaylord moved approval of the closure as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Resolution 68.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM – CROSS LINK ROAD SOUTH – HEARING – HELD

This is a public design review meeting for the traffic calming on Cross Link Road South. The project has gone through the process outlined in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, which includes an introductory meeting to explain the program; submittal of petition of support signed by at least 75% properties listed; a public workshop; a design review; and the marking of proposed traffic calming treatments on Cross Link Road from Dandridge Drive to Garner Road:

Mr. Meyers pointed out in September 2012, this was ranked #2 priority project of the Council. He explained the timeline including date of submission of petition, information sessions, neighborhood meetings, when the street was marked with the proposal, etc. He went through the project which includes 6 traffic calming treatments 4 at intersections and 2 at mid block. He talked about the construction of sidewalk on the south side of Dandridge Drive to Garner Road, additional bike lanes on both sides, etc. He pointed out there has been very little feedback communicated to staff. One concern relates to Cross Link Mini Market and the impact on their property. Staff feels the delivery and access needs will be accommodated. It was pointed out this will result in the elimination of all on street parking on Cross Link Road south of Dandridge Drive. Mr. Myers went through the proposed intersection by intersection.


Mr. Weeks pointed out he attended two or three of the community presentations. He stated the concern he heard related to the mini roundabout at the intersection of CrossLink and Dandridge. He stated in addition at the last South CAC meeting a number of people indicated they had only received one letter with Mr. Myers explaining the notification process he used.


Kandra Gardner stated she lives on Cross Link Road and owns property in Cross Link Trace. She expressed concern about the impact on the people in that area of the Dandridge intersection. He talked about the steep incline at Cross Link Road pointing out after it was marked she tried to maneuver it and she is not sure it will work. She talked about the location of the Wake County Public School bus stop and questioned if the bus stop will be moved or exactly how the bus stop will work with the roundabout. She talked about the transit stop at the market which is utilized very heavily. She expressed concerns about location and use of school bus stops. CAT stops, emergency equipment, etc. He stated she owns two properties and her sister who is with her have concerns. She stated they did not receive the first letter of notification they received the second letter. She talked about the number of homes plus the number of people who showed up at the meeting pointing out she feels the lack of notice is a problem. She stated most people she has talked to including school officials, police officers, etc. are shocked and surprised at the proposal. She pointed out this is a major street and talked about the impact on the resident’s quality of life. She stated she did not know if Wake County has weighed in. She asked if the Council could postpone this until we could clarify some of the questions she has.

Discussion took place on who utilizes the bus stops, whether it is the CAT system or the school system with Mr. Meyer pointed out they are CAT stops but are also utilized by Wake County School buses. He stated he has not had any communication with Wake County Public School system. Ms. Baldwin asked about safety as it relates to bus stops at roundabouts and what is there now. The difference was talked about, as was concern about some one crossing the busy street to board a bus. Mr. Myers talked about how the proposal will slow the traffic down and hopefully correct the present unsafe situation. Options that were considered, impact of roundabouts the possibility of 4 way stops to truly stop and calm traffic were discussed. Mr. Myers pointed out our traffic people had said that a 4-way stop was evaluated but this location did not qualify. He stated the speed limit is 35 mph but he does not think the street is signed. He expressed concern that people did not receive the notification explaining the use of a City vendor to provide postcard delivery but he would look into and try to determine what happened with the first mailing.

Michelle Garner, 2028 Dandridge Drive, pointed out the Wake County Public School bus stops have been there for at least 12 years. She expressed concern about the proposed roundabout as she feels that would put the buses stopping in the middle of the round about. She talked about the nearby community center, safety of kids crossing the street to get to the location and questioned if a large tractor trailer vehicle, school bus or emergency vehicle could make the turn with Mr. Myers pointing out the way it is designed the large vehicles will drive over the curb as if it were a speed hump.


Mr. Weeks stated given the information about the lack of notification and the questions he would like to hold this and let staff people notify the people in the area and meet with them again. Ms. Baldwin asked about sending it to Public Works Committee for vetting after which it was agreed to hold the item and get on the South CAC agenda and meet with the people again. The timing and the need to notify people to give them time to make plans to attend the meeting was talked about. The problem of the lack of notification, type of post cards used, how to make sure notification is proper and the difference of receipt of notification in the first and second mailing was talked about. No one else asked to be heard, therefore the Mayor closed the hearing and asked that staff meet with the people again possible at the CAC and report back.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM – CURRITUCK DRIVE – HEARING – REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

A public design review meeting for the Currituck Drive Traffic Management Program has been held. The proposal as gone through the process outlined the neighborhood traffic management program which includes an introductory meeting to explain the program, submittal of petition of support signed by at least 75% of properties, a public work shop, a design review and the marking of the proposed traffic calming treatments. This has occurred on Currituck Drive from Lassiter Mill Road to Tyrrell Road.

Planner Jason Myers explained the project which was #2 in the FY14 project priority adopted by the City Council. He went through the time line of the informational session giving dates, locations, etc. through the remarking of the street. He explained the project which includes traffic calming treatments including six at intersections, three at mid block, crosswalks, and sidewalk construction. He gave information on the input pointing out there has been a lot of civility, not necessary agreement in this discussion. The Mayor opened the hearing.

Jennifer Blue Smith, 1109 Currituck, spoke in support pointing out she has young children who play outside and because of her worry about the speeding of cars on the street, she forbids them from playing in the front yard and spoke in support of the proposal.

John Growney, 608 Currituck Drive, stated speeding is a problem however he is not sure the proposal as presented will slow it down. He suggested this is an expensive proposal and asked about utilizing speed humps. He talked about the development occurring in the area which requires a lot of traffic including traffic trailers and expressed concern about landscaped medians which will be expensive to maintain and his fear that the landscape medians won’t last. He expressed concern about parking that may be lost.

Wilson Freeze, 605 Currituck, stated speeding is an issue and he is in favor of the proposal.

Louis Belo, 1001 Tyrrell, stated he did not receive any notice but saw the street markings. He talked about the number of traffic accidents and called on the Council to move forward with the proposal.


Dave Bridgman, 717 Currituck Drive, talked about the increased traffic, dangerous speeding, cars being hit and the proposal which he enthusiastically supports.

Josh Swindell, 4201 Yadkin Drive, questioned the necessity of the section of the sidewalk between the intersection of Yadkin and Currituck to Tyrrell Road. He also questioned the grade and the topography, the impact on his property which will cause the need for retention walls and access to his driveway more difficult. He talked about the mature trees that will be lost but spoke in support of the project with the exception of the portion of sidewalk he mentioned. Mr. Myers stated it may be possible to put the sidewalk behind the trees and concern about losing trees.

Kelly Monroe, 1013 Currituck Drive, talked about her involvement in this project since the beginning. She talked about people’s concern about the safety of the street and their opposition to speed humps. The City came up with this proposal and people agreed but now they decided they would rather have speed humps. She stated speeding will only get worse as the area grows and asked the Council to vote in support of whatever makes Currituck Drive safer.

Colleen Yopp, 1213 Kershaw Drive, stated her family purchased their home from their in-laws who told them to be careful as cars speed up and down the street. She expressed concern about the speeding cars and the safety of the children.

Paul Frontiero, 4512 Bartlett Drive, stated he feels the existing situation is safe. He stated it is his understanding this street scored 88 points on the safety test. He talked about the various speed measurements which were taken, the possibility of utilizing a light or signage, and people driving to the park rather than walking. There are bicycle routes but very seldom does one see people riding their bikes because it is hilly. He questioned the need.

David Askew, 800 Macon Place, stated they need some traffic calming measures but objected to Sections A, E and F and proposed speed tables and 25 mph speed limit signs. He expressed concern about the proposal particularly the mediums and talked about the possibility of having one of the speed trailers placed on the street from time to time.

Neal Harrington, 4830 North Hills Drive, pointed out a number of the houses or property owners were not invited to join in with the petition, that is, the houses that are very close to the end of Currituck Drive and they will be impacted heavily but were not invited to participate.

Dana McCall, 905 Davidson Street, talked about the roundabout shown as Item G looking to be impassable. She stated she has lived in this area over 15 years and does not see a problem. It is a city street, not a play ground. She asked about doing a phased project, that is, install sidewalks and then do a recheck to see if there is still a perception of a speeding problem.

Ed Sinnema, 1312 Currituck Drive, stated he feels it is really just a perception problem. He talked about the topography of Currituck which does not lend itself to this design. He stated any surveys or petitions should come from the neighborhood and not street by street. He suggested installing speed tables at EC Brooks School and see if that makes a difference.


Keith Satisky, 1404 Kershaw Drive, stated he received a letter about a meeting tonight but does not remember receiving any previously. He stated he appreciates the perception that there is a speeding problem but is a little concern about the reaction. He stated what is being proposed appears to be an obstacle course, but feels sidewalks would be a good idea. He stated presently cars parked on Currituck and if these traffic calming measures are installed, he feels there will be access problems. He asked the Council to discuss this further and look for more cost effective solutions.

In response to questions from the Mayor, Mr. Meyers pointed out the only parking that would be removed would be in the vicinity of the traffic calming treatments but he does not know how many spaces however, there is not a lot of parking in the area.

The City Clerk presented a letter from Shore McCall, 905 Davidson Street, which expressed concern about the proposal, potential dangers concern about proposed traffic circle and how to maneuver that circle, suggested scaling back on the proposal by eliminating the traffic circle at Macon Place, leaving the stop signs on Macon Place, add or extend the sidewalks on both sides of Currituck and keep one or two other traffic calming treatments but not the entire proposal.

No one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed.

The Mayor questioned if traffic tables or pedestrian tables had been considered with Mr. Myers pointing out a lot of people said they did not want speed humps. He stated this street is not a speed hump type project. He talked about the average speed being in the 85 percentile or approximately 38.9 miles per hour up to 44 miles per hour. He talked about the crash rate and severity index pointing out over the past five years there have been some 40 crashes and crashes were deemed preventable by traffic calming measures. He pointed out the cost of the total project is some $450,000 with sidewalks being approximately $150,000 of that. Mr. Odom questioned if we could only do the sidewalk portion with Mr. Myers pointing out that would be possible.

Mr. Maiorano stated he lives in this area and has been traveling Currituck for over 14 years, there is a speeding problem, something needs to be done and sidewalks are a desperate need. He suggested sending this to Public Works Committee to look at the elements, get feedback from staff and evaluate what is appropriate to ensure safety and at the same time being sensitive to the comments that were raised. Ms. Baldwin pointed out $450,000 is not a lot of money when you consider accident problems, etc. She asked that the Committee put safety first. Mr. Maiorano talked about the topography in the area and how the street lends itself to speeding. Various Council members weighed in on the need comments, development occurring in the area, and the need to do something. Without further discussion, the item was referred to Public Works Committee for discussion.


TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM – TOWN AND COUNTY ROAD – REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Planner Jason Myers indicated this is a public design review meeting for traffic calming proposals for down and country road which runs between Leadmine Road and Millbrook Road. He explained the process that has been followed to date, pointed out the project ranked #6 in the project priority adopted by the Council in 2013. He went over the time frame pointing out there are 6 traffic calming treatments five of which would be at intersections and one at mid block. He explained block by block the proposal.

Mr. Maiorano questioned the lack of curb, gutter and sidewalk pointing out the street is having a lot of high level residential development. Mr. Myers stated the City policy is to not install the curb and gutter unless property owners are assessed.

In response to questioning, Mr. Myers stated the street is approximately 3,150 feet. He stated this is a little different from other neighborhood streets, the project is trying to help slow the traffic to a 35 mph zone. Mr. Maiorano pointed out he would think most of this traffic is not from the street itself but cut through. Mr. Myers pointed out there were 28 properties which signed the petition. There is the average daily traffic is 3,100 cars. There are no traffic signals on the street.

Mr. Mayor opened the hearing.

Joe Star, 2236 Misskelley, stated traffic in the area is bad and they would love to have sidewalks and other improvements but he understands sidewalks are not an option at this point. He talked about the petition process and pointed out what is proposed is the best offer they have seen and asked the Council to move forward that is, don’t hold out for the hope of sidewalks. He stated development is increasing in the area and most of the traffic is cut through traffic. He indicated they thought speed bumps would be an option but there was a lot of opposition.

Mike Futrell, 2237 Misskelley, pointed out when they moved to the area it was in Wake County. He talked about the development that is occurring in the area including Harris Teeter, Marriott, developments on North Hills Drive, etc. He stated he understands the average speed is 55 to 57 mph and something needs to be done.

Forrest Rogers, 2200 Misskelley, talked about the cut through traffic, trash left on the road sides, accidents including knocked over mail boxes, etc. He stated something needs to happen as it is difficult to get out of the area onto Lead Mine Road.

Myra Caffarey, 5110 Town and Country Road, stated she has small children but she does not let them play in the front yard. She stated it is even dangerous to try to put the trash out at the street or get the mail. She stated when she tries to get in or out of her driveway, people blow their horns and shout profanity at her. She stated as she understands the traffic travels at 50 miles per hour plus and there is upward of 5,000 cars a day. She stated what is being proposed is a great solution as are speed humps. She asked the Council to move forward with this project.


Robert Wehbie, 2508 Kingsley Road, stated something has to be done. The road is in bad shape as are the ditches. He stated they would like to see curb and gutter and improvement of the road but at this point they would just like to see this moved forward.

John Wright, 2233 MissKelly Drive, spoke in support of the proposal adding that sidewalks would be great but they would like to see this proposal moved forward.

John Hamilton, 4301 Edgehill Court, talked about the amount of traffic, number of homes on Town and Country Road, impact on adjacent streets, and the number of people that will be impacted but were not invited. He asked if the Fire Department had been involved and was told they had but the letter he received from the chief stated they knew nothing about it. He stated all of the people in the area should have been involved and required to sign the petition and questioned if the petition is valid.

Dicky Thompson, 2501 Kingsley Road, expressed concern about the proposed traffic circle. He stated there is no curb and gutter and asked if it is not unusual to have traffic circles on roads without curb and gutter. He talked about the markings on the road, conversations with fireman who were on the location recently who expressed concern. He talked about the ditches and the stormwater overflow now pointing out more impervious surface will just make that worse, travel speed into the traffic circles and while in the traffic circles. He asked that the traffic circle be removed from the plan. He stated it makes no sense to go forward with this proposal without installing curb and gutter and the people who live on Town and Country should pay their share if they feel so bent toward this project. He commended Mr. Meyers for his presentation and his help with the presentations.

No one else asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed.

The Mayor talked about the depth of the ditches and the drop off from the street, concern about no street lights and whether people could see the traffic circle. Mr. Myers pointed out street lights could be added. The traffic pattern from the side streets and the design and how the traffic pattern would work was talked about. Ms. Crowder questioned why speed humps were not applicable in this location. Mr. Myers pointed out they did mark some speed humps on the street and received a lot of negative feedback and the people from the broader area did not support speed humps while the people on the street felt that would be a good alternative.

Concern about the proposed traffic circle was talked about and how other calming measures would work without the traffic circle. Mr. Maiorano indicated he does not want to slow down the project but if there are alternatives that could be considered rather than the traffic circle, he would like to consider those. Mr. Myers pointed out a speed hump is an option.

Ms. Baldwin pointed out prior to the hearing, she was not in support of the proposal; however, after listening to the people she feels something is necessary. She agreed with Mr. Thompson that Mr. Myers has done a great job. She stated she supports moving forward but if the Council


wants to do some more work on that one intersection it could be brought back to Council. Mayor McFarlane asked about feedback from the fire chief.

Division Chief Rodney Mizell indicated he had talked to Fire Chief McGrath about this and the fire department would remain neutral. He stated it would be good to have direct access to every location in the City but if the city wants to move forward with this proposal, they can work with it. He stated the traffic circle would not cause any more issues than a stop sign or a stop light. He stated they did take a fire truck out and made pictures and determined they could get around the circle.

Mr. Maiorano suggested sending the item to Public Works Committee to discuss the intersection with Mr. Stephenson pointing out it would be good to see visuals. He stated he would like to see a four way yield intersection in a possible redesign. He stated he would like to see if improvements could be made so that larger vehicles would have an easier time and questioned if we should include sidewalks.

Mr. Gaylord stated he is comfortable with the design but would not mind having additional information. He stated there is a speeding problem, the fire department has looked at it, the engineering department has designed it, and he would move that the project go forward and let staff provide additional design information. His motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder.

Discussion took place about this rural road which is being used as an urban highway and whether this is the right approach and what further discussion would provide. Mr. Odom made a substitute motion to send the item to Public Works Committee. His motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano. The possible need to have curb and gutter before we can have a better solution was talked about. Mr. Weeks stated he did not understand what additional information is needed. After the various Council members voice their preference the motion to refer the item to Public Works Committee was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Crowder and Mr. Weeks. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 5-3 vote.

REZONING Z-35-14 – RALEIGH BEACH ROAD – HEARING – APPROVED

This was a hearing to consider a request from A.B. Coley to rezone approximately one acre from Residential 4 to Residential Mixed-Use – 3 Stories – Conditional Use (RX-3-CU). The property is located on Raleigh Beach Road northeast of its intersection with New Bern Avenue.

Following the closing of the hearing, the Council may take action to approve, deny or refer to committee.

The Mayor opened the hearing, no one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0. See Ordinance 406 ZC 707.


REZONING Z-16-14 – VARSITY DRIVE – HEARING HELD OPEN – TO BE PLACED ON THE MARCH 17 AGENDA

A hearing was opened during the February 3, 2015 Council meeting to consider a request by DOBS, Inc. to rezone approximately 2.8 acres on Varsity Drive, south side, and the western quadrant of its intersection with Avent Ferry Road from Shopping Center Conditional Use with Special Residential Parking Overlay District (SC CUD w/SRPOD) to Residential Mixed Use – 5 Story Maximum – Urban Limited Frontage – Conditional Use with Special Residential Parking Overlay District (RX-5-UL-CU w/SRPOD).

It was reported that the applicant had requested that the hearing be delayed in order provide an opportunity for the applicants and neighborhood to further discuss the issues/concerns. The Council agreed to delay the hearing until representatives of NC State University could be available for those discussions.

It would be appropriate to continue the hearing. Following the closing of the hearing the Council may take action to approve, deny, or refer to committee. Mr. Maiorano stated he had previously been excused from participation in this matter and left the table.

Attorney Lacy Reeves pointed out NCSU is a major stakeholder in this area and the hearing was continued to allow further discussion. He stated they have reached an agreement but the agreement has not been translated into revised conditions but every body is ready to move forth. He talked about the issues which related to classification of Varsity Drive and the architects have conceived a plan that is agreeable to NCSU with CAC and others. He talked about the location of the building, set backs from Varsity Drive, Avent Ferry Road, etc. He stated he was pleased and suggested that the public hearing be closed but hold the item until the signed conditions can be submitted. Brief discussion took place as to whether it would be good to close the hearing or to leave it open to provide for opportunity for additional conversation until the conditions are signed and submitted. After brief discussion, it was agreed to leave the hearing open and place it on the March 17 agenda.

TC-1-15 – PUBLISH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS – HEARING – APPROVED

This was a hearing to consider amending of sections of Part 10A, Unified Development Ordinance, to amend publish notice requirement for zoning map amendments that directly affect more than 50 properties owned by a total of at least 50 different property owners. The text change would also amend the name of the department and the department head in this section of the code so they will align with the forthcoming organizational realignments.

Following the closing of the hearing the Council may take action to approve, deny, or refer to committee. The Mayor opened the hearing, no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Baldwin moved approval as outlined. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 407 TC 363.


PAVING ASSESSMENT ROLLS – TRYON ROAD – HEARING TO CONSIDER CORRECTION – APPROVED

This was a hearing to consider adopting resolutions to correct Paving Assessment Roll 931A, Tryon Road; Sidewalk Assessment Roll 407A, Tryon Road; and Water Assessment Roll 1224A, Tryon Road. The correction is needed as the property has been subdivided and recorded. The correcting resolutions will reapportion assessments according to map entitled The Manor at Bailey’s Landing, Phase I.

The Mayor opened the hearing no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Baldwin moved approval of the correcting resolutions. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Resolution 69, 70 and 71.

PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE – NOMINATION MADE

Mr. Weeks stated earlier in the meeting, he had nominated Johnathon Carr to the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Committee. He stated he would like to withdraw that name and nominate Reginald McClain.

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE – MARCH 10, 2014 – CANCELED

Chairperson Stephenson reported the Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting scheduled for March 10, 2015 has been canceled.

Adjournment: There being no further business, Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Gail G. SmithCity Clerk

jt/CC03-03-15

Date post:	22-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	28 times
Download:	0 times