COUNCIL MINUTES
COUNCIL MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in regular session at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, in the City Council Chamber, Raleigh Municipal Building, 222 W. Hargett Street, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present.
Mayor Meeker, Presiding
Mr. West
Mr. Craven
Mr. Crowder
Mr. Isley
Ms. Kekas
Mr. Stephenson
Ms. Taliaferro
Mayor Meeker called the meeting to order and invocation was rendered by Reverend Doctor Dumas A. Harshaw, Jr., First Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Taliaferro. The following items were discussed with action taken as shown.
RECONGITION OF SPECIAL AWARDS
PROCLAMATION – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK – PROCLAIMED
Mayor Meeker read a proclamation proclaiming the week of April 17 through 23 as Community Development week in the City of Raleigh. The proclamation was accepted by Community Development Director Grant who expressed appreciation to Council for their support of the Community Development program, recognized her hardworking staff and expressed appreciation for a job well done.
PROCLAMATION – DRINKING WATER WEEK – PROCLAIMED
Mayor Meeker read a proclamation proclaiming the week of May 7-13, 2006 as Drinking Water Week in the City of Raleigh. The proclamation was accepted by Andy Brogden and John Garland who expressed appreciation and the recognition work of the people who are dedicated to provide good drinking water to the City of Raleigh.
PROCLAMATION – NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK – PROCLAIMED - UNSUNG HERO RECIPIENTS – RECOGNIZED
Mayor Meeker read a proclamation proclaiming National Volunteer Week of the City of Raleigh. Mayor Meeker also recognized the 2005 Foster Grandparent Unsung Hero Recipient James Hawkins and 2005 Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Unsung Hero Recipient Audrey Kelly. In accepting the recognition, Mr. Hawkins and Ms. Kelly talked about their work and expressed appreciation to all involved.
HALL OF FAME – 2006 CONDUCTEES – ANNOUNCED
Parker Call, Chairperson of the Selection Committee of the Raleigh Hall of Fame recognized Hall of Fame Board Members present. Ms. Call announced the following:
The mission of the Raleigh Hall of Fame is to honor individuals and non-profit organizations that have made lasting contributions to Raleigh’s proud history. The Selection Commission reviewed 65 nominations which were carefully scored on the basis of contributions to the City, effectiveness, leadership, and length of service. We are pleased to announce these inductees who will be recognized at a special event on September21, 2006.
Judge George Bason for his commitment to juvenile justice and treatment for severely disturbed children.
Miriam Preston Block for her role in restructuring the City Council to a district system and for strong commitment to the preservation of neighborhoods.
William H. (Polly) Deitrick for shaping the architectural character of Raleigh and for founding the city’s historic preservation movement.
Dr. Billy Dunlap for establishing Hospice of Wake County and serving as a tireless fundraiser and volunteer for the last 26 years.
Dr. Albert Edwards for providing spiritual leadership far beyond his First Presbyterian congregation and for his commitment to civic causes throughout Raleigh.
Albert Earle Finley, a successful businessman, for his establishment of the A. E. Finley Foundation which has a 50-year history of philanthropic support in Raleigh.
Senator Jesse Helms for creating a two-party political system in Raleigh and for the unwavering courage of his convictions.
Vallie Henderson for her life-long commitment to keeping Raleigh beautiful through neighborhood garden clubs and for the preservation of Oakwood as a local historic district.
Elwynna and Joseph Holt, Sr. for their courageous battle to integrate the Raleigh school system in the late 1950’s.
Charles Irving, Sr. and his daughter, Vivian Irving as advocates for social justice and community leaders in the Civil Rights movements for most of the 20th century.
The Junior League of Raleigh for 75 years of improving our community through the effective training of women and providing volunteer and financial support to numerous non-profit agencies across the city.
The League of Women Voters for 58 years of encouraging the informed and active participation of all citizens in government and politics.
Samuel A. Ashe, founder of the News & Observer
Kemp Battle, Raleigh historian and President of UNC following the Civil War
A. G. Bauer, architect whose work includes The Executive Mansion, The Labor Building, and the Crocker-Capehart House
Thomas Briggs, supplier of building materials during Reconstruction for some of Raleigh’s grandest buildings and homes in Raleigh’s first suburb, Oakwood
Dorothea Dix, advocate for the mentally ill who successfully lobbied the NC legislature for a mental hospital
Andrew Johnson, 17th president of the United States
Lunsford Lane, a former slave who bought his freedom and became a successful business man and leading abolitionist
Gen. John Logan, a Union officer who kept Raleigh from being burned in the final days of the Civil War
George Washington Mordecai, businessman, president of the State Bank of NC, prominent civic leader
Berry O’Kelly, first postmaster of the Method community, co-founder of Mechanics & Farmers Bank, and philanthropist who supported endeavors for African Americans
William Peace, a businessman and philanthropist who donated 8 acres of land and $10,000 to establish Peace Institute
Leonidas Polk, founder of the Progressive Farmer, started the state’s Agriculture Department and led the Watauga Club whose purpose was to persuade the legislature to establish an agricultural college (now NC State)
Richard Stanhope Pullen, who donated the land for NC State University and the establishment of Pullen Park. He was also responsible for Raleigh’s first tree planting campaign.
Rev. Aldert Smedes, president of Raleigh’s oldest school, St. Mary’s. Through his efforts, St. Mary’s was one of the few schools to remain open throughout the Civil War
Rufus S. Tucker, first president of the Raleigh Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Call pointed out the induction will be on September 21 Meymendi Hall and encouraged all to attend.
WATER CONSERVATION – COMMENTS RECEIVED
Mayor Meeker explained despite the periodic showers we have received in the area, the drought situation is still very serious. Falls Lake is only 75 percent full. He encouraged everyone to use water very wisely, to not water their grass and lawns except in extenuating circumstances and encouraged all to be very careful with our limited water supply.
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED AS AMENDED
Mayor Meeker presented the consent agenda indicating all items are considered to be routine and maybe enacted by one motion. If a Council member requests discussion on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. The vote on the Consent Agenda will be a roll call vote. He stated he had received a request from Ms. Taliaferro to withdraw the Design Consultant for Raleigh Signal System; a request from the City Manager to withdraw the traffic item relating to Fox Run Subdivision; and a request from Mr. Craven to withdraw the Encroachment Request at 15 E. Martin Street. Without objection, those items were withdrawn from the consent agenda. Ms. Taliaferro moved Administration’s recommendations on the remaining items on the consent agenda be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Kekas 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.
CERTIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY – VARIOUS – CITY MANAGER AUTHOIRZED TO SIGN
Agencies serving special populations, such as the homeless and disabled, which apply for HUD funds through grant programs, must submit a certification of consistency with the goals of the City of Raleigh’s Five Year Consolidated Plan.
The City is requested to provide twelve certificates of consistency with the City’s Consolidated Plan for four nonprofit agencies and Wake County Human Services, which are applying to HUD for funds through the Wake Continuum of Care SuperNOFA application. The applications request a total of $1,572,041 (not including Shelter + Care renewal) in funding for current projects. Special populations, such as the homeless and disabled, are priority one needs. The grant applications and Certifications of Consistency are due to HUD by May 25, 2006.
New Housing Projects:
a. Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes, Inc. (CASA). Using approximately $586,000 of Continuum of Care awards, CASA will purchase one of six buildings at Salisbury Apartments located at 1300 Brookside. The building will be demolished to provide new construction of a 10-unit, one-bedroom apartment building for persons chronically homeless and with a disability. This project is located in a Scattered Site Plan priority two area of the City and will serve persons at 30% or below the area median income. Tenants will pay 30% of their income towards rent.
b. Haven House, Inc. Using approximately $98,000 of Continuum of Care awards, establish transitional housing for teens and young adults in the Haven House Pregnant and Parenting Program.
c. Passage Home, Inc. Using approximately $324,000 of Continuum of Care awards, establish Ruth’s House II, a Housing Expansion Program that works with recently homeless families to provide lease vouchers to secure permanent housing. Families will find their own apartment units throughout Raleigh, and Ruth’s House II will provide the rental subsidy.
Renewal Projects:
d. Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes, Inc. (CASA). Using approximately $100,000 of Continuum of Care awards, renew the project requesting funding for Aurora House, which provides permanent housing and supportive services to adults who are homeless and have a mental illness and/or co-occurring substance addiction.
e. Haven House, Inc. Using approximately $32,700 of Continuum of Care awards, renew the Scattered Sites Program to provide transitional housing and supportive services for homeless young adults throughout the Raleigh and Wake County area.
Renewal Housing and Services Projects:
f. Passage Home, Inc. Using approximately $190,800 of Continuum of Care awards, renew the Hopes and Dreams Transitional Housing Program, which teaches life skills and budgeting so homeless families can become permanently housed and with a decent quality of life.
g. PLM Families Together (formerly Pan Lutheran Ministries). Using approximately $51,000 of Continuum of Care awards, renew the Poole Road Transitional Housing Program, which provides transitional housing and supportive services for nine formerly homeless families at a time. The program teaches budgeting and life skills to the families so they can become self-sufficient with regard to permanent housing.
h. PLM Families Together (formerly Pan Lutheran Ministries). Using approximately $31,000 of Continuum of Care awards, renew the Families Together Plus program, which supplies transitional housing and supportive services for six homeless families at a time. The program, located on Polly Street and Plainview Road, teaches budgeting and life skills to the families so they can become self-sufficient with regard to permanent housing.
Renewal Service Projects:
i. Wake County Human Services/Shelter Plus Care (Merged Renewal). Using approximately $800,000 (not counted in $1.5 million cap) of Continuum of Care awards, renew the Shelter Plus Care project that services formerly homeless adults with severe mental illness and/or chronic substance abuse problems by providing tenant based rental assistance.
j. Wake County Human Services/Homeless Management Information System. Using approximately $78,000 of Continuum of Care awards, renew the maintenance and support of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). HMIS provides unduplicated counting of homeless persons and full case management software to City and County nonprofit agencies involved in homeless services.
k. Wake County Human Services/Psychiatric Outreach. Using approximately $144,000 in Continuum of Care awards, renew the psychiatric services outreach program run at Cornerstone, which is the one-stop homeless support center located on Snow Avenue.
l. Wake County Human Services/Homeless Veterans Services Officer. Using approximately $47,800 of Continuum of Care awards, renew funding to provide a veterans service officer at the South Wilmington Street men’s homeless shelter (SWSC). The Homeless Veterans Services Officer addresses the unique needs of homeless veterans who seek services from the SWSC.
Recommendation: Community Development Department staff has reviewed the requests for certifications of consistency from the above agencies/programs and determined that they are consistent with the City of Raleigh’s adopted Five-Year Consolidated Plan, which classifies Special Populations, such as homeless persons and persons with disabilities, as a first priority. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign approval of the Certifications of Consistency with the City’s Consolidated Plan. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
SEWER AR 1300 – JOHNSDALE ROAD – CONFIRMING RESOLUTION ADOPTED
This item was referred from the April 4, 2006 Council meeting for report based on property owner concerns resulting from a Public Hearing to confirm assessment roll 1300. Staff has been in contact with the property owner; a report was in the agenda packet.
Recommendation: Confirm assessments for assessment roll 1300 as adopted on Resolution No. 2006-822. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Resolution 863.
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY INSPECTION FEES – EXTENDED TO MERGED SYSTEM
The City currently has a water and sewer utility inspection fee associated with all new construction which is collected by Central Engineering for inspections they perform within Raleigh City limits and ETJ. The Public Utilities Department is currently performing these services in the merged utility systems without charging a fee for this service. It is staff’s recommendation that Raleigh charge a fee which reflects the current City of Raleigh inspection fee, $0.60 per foot, for these services in the merged utilities and that this fee be collected at the time of approval of construction plans by Raleigh. This fee will be collected by the plan review staff of the Public Utilities Department and will be adjusted in the future to match any adjustments made in the Raleigh base service area.
Recommendation: Approve the water and sewer utility inspection fees. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
PARADE – BRENTWOOD ELEMENTARY SPRING CARINIVAL – VARIOUS STREET CLOSINGS APPROVED
Tonya Grant, representing the Brentwood Elementary School PTA, would like to hold a parade on Saturday, May 6, 2006 from 9:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions noted on the report in the agenda packet. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
STREET CLOSING – VARIOUS STREETS FOR VARIOUS EVENTS – APPORVED CONDITIONALLY
The agenda presented the following requests for temporary street closings for various events.
500 Block of Branch Street between Garner Road and South East Street
Cathey Ector, representing the South East Raleigh Weed and Seed, would like to hold a community day on Saturday, April 29, 2006 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Blake Street between Martin and Davie, Parham Street between Martin and Wolfe, Wolfe Street between Blount and Blake
Virginia Davis, representing York Properties and the City Market, would like to hold a World Beer Festival on Saturday, April 29, 2006 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
500 Block of West Johnson Street between Glenwood Avenue and North West Street
Kevin Summers, representing Bogart’s Grill and Hi5, would like to hold an outdoor event with a band on Friday, May 5, 2006 from 12:00 p.m. to Saturday, May 6, 2006 at 4:00 a.m. He also requests waiver of all City Ordinances concerning the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on City property and waiver of the amplified noise ordinance.
700 Block of Silver Leaf Place
Sandra Black, representing the Cedar Hills Community Watch, requests a street closure on Saturday, May 6, 2006 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. for a community watch day.
100 Block of East Cabarrus Street between Wilmington Street and Blount Street
Pat Dickenson, representing the Lincoln Theater, would like to change the date of an outdoor musical event which the Council previously approved from Saturday, September 16, 2006 to Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. to Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 2:00 a.m. He also requests waiver of all City Ordinances concerning the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on City property and waiver of the amplified noise ordinance.
Recommendation: Approval of the request subject to conditions noted on the reports in the agenda packets. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS – NAVAHO DRIVE – RESOLUTION OF INTENT SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 6, 2006 – ADOPTED
The Public Works Department recommends a City Council initiated Street Improvement Project be developed for the east end of Navaho Drive. This 650 foot long section of Navaho Drive runs generally east-west parallel to the I-440 right of way. It is bounded on the south side by the I-440 right of way and on the north side by vacant industrial property. The street is unique in that it was likely constructed to State standards by the NCDOT when I-440 was constructed to provide access to several commercial properties adjacent to I-440. This section of the street has no curb and gutter and the pavement is extremely deteriorated. With NCDOT owning 50% of the frontage, a petition process for the project is unlikely to be successful.
There are several commercial properties that do not front on the street but derive their sole access via a common private drive at the end of this street. The street was not built to carry the heavy loads of the commercial vehicles using the street and has severely deteriorated. The proposed project would remove and replace the existing pavement section with a pavement section that is more appropriate for the commercial traffic. It is not proposed to bring the street up to City standards with curb and gutter. The estimated cost for the project is $85,000. Funds are available in the Annual Paving accounts 525-8383-79001-975. Because the improvements include only reconstruction of the existing ribbon pavement, it is recommended that assessments be applied at the rate of $32.00 per front foot.
Recommendation: Initiate the street improvement project and schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, June 6, 2006 to authorize the project and the assessments. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Resolution 864.
TC-8-06 – ADOPTION OF 2006 NC BUILDING CODE – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED FOR MAY 16, 2006
The City of Raleigh enforces the North Carolina Building Code within its jurisdiction. The 2006 edition of the North Carolina Building Code was recently adopted by the North Carolina Building Code Council. The new code goes into effect July 1, 2006. In order to conform, an ordinance, TC-8-06, should be considered to update adopted Building Codes contained in Part 10 Chapter 6 of the Raleigh City Code.
Recommendation: Authorize a public hearing on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 to consider a text change, TC-8-06, for the adoption of the 2006 NC Building Code including all subsequent amendments. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
EASEMENT – ASHLAND DRIVE/OBERLIN ROAD – DEED OF CORRECTION - AUTHORIZED
Withers & Ravenel contacted City staff concerning a 2.733-acre parcel located on the west side of Oberlin Road, immediately south of the Ashland Drive intersection. They are requesting, on behalf of the property owner, that the City execute a quitclaim and release instrument to remove a cloud on the title to the parcel, resulting from an erroneous recorded map notation. On a map prepared by Cooper and Associates, dated January 30, 2006 and recorded in Map Book 2006, Page 411, a 20-foot public sanitary sewer easement is shown crossing the southwest corner of the parcel. The easement shown on this recorded map is in error.
Recommendation: Approve the request. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
PERSONNEL – STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS IN PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT – APPROVED
The Personnel Department requests to change a part-time permanent Personnel Specialist position (grade 30) in the Benefits Division to full-time permanent due to the increased workload demands of a continually expanding employee benefits program and to respond more effectively to the customer service needs of over 3,000 permanent City employees. Funding for this change is available in the department’s existing budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
The Personnel Department also requests to upgrade a vacant Staff Support Specialist position (grade 23) at the City Employee Health Center to the multi-faceted position of Occupational Health Specialist (grade 33) to address the increased volume of services provided at the health center; to provide additional outreach services, programs, and training in the field; and to enhance the City’s industrial hygiene programs. Funding for the upgrade is available in the department’s existing budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
Recommendation: Approve. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
PERSONNEL – POSITION RECLASSIFICATION IN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT – APPROVED
The Public Works Department currently has a vacant Senior Engineering Inspector (Pay Grade 32) in the Design/Construction Division. It is requested that the position be reclassified to Engineering Technician (Pay Grade 32) and remain in the Design/Construction Division. The reclassification involves a title change only (no change in pay grade) to reflect the new duties for the position which will better serve the department’s needs. The position will provide technical support for the engineering and higher level technical staff in the use of the department’s CADD software applications. There is no fiscal impact to this action.
Recommendation: Approve reclassification/title change of this position. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
PERSONNEL – PUBLIC UTILITIES STAFF ADDITIONS – APPROVED – BUDGET AMENDMENT AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED
The subject request is for amendment to the Public Utilities Department Operating Expense Budget to provide for a total of 34 additional City Staff positions, a total 15 vehicles (i.e. primarily pick-up trucks) are necessary for the proposed staff positions and a total of $747,670, in funding for the vehicles and associated tools, equipment and computer hardware and software, operating expenses such as electrical, chemicals, small equipment, etc. (see attached budget amendment list). Of the 34 proposed total staff positions, 33 staff positions are within the Public Utilities Department itself in various divisions and one (1) staff position in the Finance Department’s Utility Billing Division. All the vehicles proposed are for Public Utilities. Knightdale is funding $284,000 of the vehicle and equipment cost through the merger reimbursement. Eleven (11) of the proposed staff positions are existing staff positions transferring from Knightdale Public Utilities to Raleigh, as a result of the water/sewer system merger effective May 1, 2006. Nine (9) of the 11 existing positions will be assigned to the Water System Maintenance Division, one (1) to the Construction Division and the other to Utility Billing as noted above.
Ten (10) of the proposed 23 additional staff positions are for the Water Plant Division, six (6) of which are treatment plant operator positions to move to 24/7 operation of the G.G. Hill Plant (Wake Forest service area) in order to maximize production at this water plant during the drought conditions expected to continue this summer and to start training these staff for proper experience for the operation of the new D.E. Benton Water Treatment Plant once it is completed in 2009. The other four (4) staff positions in this division include two (2) maintenance mechanics to maintain remote facilities (booster pump stations and elevated tanks), one (1) additional lab analyst for additional water quality testing and one (1) water quality technician for distribution system flushing for Knightdale, Wendell and Zebulon.
The other 13 proposed staff positions are split between the Wastewater Treatment Plant Division (2 maintenance mechanics for remote facilities (pump stations) for Knightdale), the Construction Division (2 inspectors and a 3-person CCTV sewer inspection crew for Wake Forest and Knightdale), the Meters Division (2 meter mechanics in Wake Forest and Knightdale and 1 meter reader for Knightdale, Wendell and Zebulon) and the Administration Division (1 administrative assistant, 1 engineering technician and 1 WQ technician (Knightdale, Wendell and Zebulon).
In order to maintain the same level of service to the combined “Greater Raleigh water and sewer customer base”, it is necessary that we add the proposed staff positions, vehicles and equipment to the current fiscal year operating expense budget. Many of these positions would have been requested as part of the FY 2007 budget request, but we need to proceed now in recruiting and filling the staff positions in order to be prepared for the Knightdale water and sewer system merger effective on May 1 and the Wendell and Zebulon water and sewer system mergers proposed to be effective on October 1. Water and sewer revenues collected to date and projected to the end of fiscal year 2006 including Wake Forest Contingency Funding and additional fund balance transfer plus the Knightdale fund balance transfer indicate a positive overall fund balance even with the mandatory water use restrictions over the past 5 months, when compared to the approved Public Utilities Department Operating Expenditure Budget for FY 2006. In order to prevent any additional continuation cost of these staff positions and vehicle O&M in the proposed FY 2007 and 2008 budget requests, we have either eliminated or significantly reduced the contingency accounts that were originally proposed for the Wake Forest and Knightdale service areas.
Funding for the salaries for all of the existing Knightdale merger positions and proposed staff positions for the remainder of the current fiscal year is available due to position vacancies that have occurred during the current budget year. Funding for vehicles and equipment is also available within the previously approved FY 2006 Public Utilities Operating Expense Budget, although some fund transfers will be necessary in order to have the appropriate amounts of funding in the appropriate expenditure accounts for vehicles and equipment. These other fund transfers can be handled administratively.
Recommendation: Public Utilities and City Management recommend City Council approval of the subject Public Utilities Department Operating Budget amendment and fund transfers. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 997TF43.
ENCROACHMENT – 222 GLENWOOD AVENUE – APPROVED CONDITIONALLY
A request has been received from 222 Glenwood Investments, LLC to encroach on City right-of-way for the purpose of installing various planters, landscaping, electrical outlets, lighting and concrete sidewalk. A report was in the agenda packet.
Recommendation: Approve the encroachment subject to conditions outlined in Resolution 1996-153: a) The Owner shall obtain a “Right-of-Way” permit from the Inspections Department prior to installation; b) The Owner shall contact “NC One Call Center” 48 hours prior to excavation and shall remain 10’ from existing utilities; and, c) The ADA Ramps shall conform to City of Raleigh Specifications. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
BUDGET AMENDMENTS – PARKS AND RECREATION, POLICE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
The agenda presented the following budget amendments:
Parks and Recreation - $10,000.00 – to increase revenues and expenditures to accommodate greater interest and participation in recreation programs at Tarboro Road Center.
Police - $916.00 – to budget increase income earned on grant funds for additional grant purchases in accordance with Federal grant guidelines.
Police - $20,000 – to budget accounts for the Alcohol & Substance Abuse Education and Prevention program grant awarded by the Wake County Board of Alcohol Control. This grant will be utilized by the Raleigh Police Department and Wake County Sheriff’s Department in the Wake County Public School System to develop an educational program on the dangers of alcohol and substance abuse for counselors and students in the middle and high schools.
Public Utilities - $5,825.00 – to provide funds from sponsorships received for WaterFest 2006.
The agenda outlined the revenue and expenditure accounts involved in the recommended budget amendments. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 997TF43.
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS – CONTRACT TWO PROJECTS/CHANGE ORDER #7 – CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY – APPROVED – FUNDS TRANSFERRED
This change order is for a net increase of $122,921.82 and time extension of five calendar days.
Reason:
For additional costs for construction of a new bulk reuse water loading station at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant, construction of a new liquid sludge loading station for the Terragators and tanker trucks, modifications to the dewatered sludge loading station, and additional storm drainage improvements at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
History:
Original contract amount $19,772,040.00
Previous net changes (ADD) $699,835.94
New contract amount $20,594,797.76
Budgetary accounts to be amended:
Transferred From:
349-9309-79001-975 Brier Creek Pump Station Impv $122,921.82
Transferred To:
349-9247-79202-975 NRWWTP Solids Handling Impv $122,921.82
Recommendation: Approve the change order in the amount of $122,921.82, time extension of five calendar days, and the budgetary transfer. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 997TF43.
TRANSFERS – VARIOUS ACCOUNTS – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
The agenda presented recommended transfers in the Departments of Community Development and Public Utilities. The agenda outlined the code accounts involved in the various transfers and the reasons for the transfers.
Recommendation: Approval of the transfers as outlined. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 997TF43.
BID – BRIER CREEK PUMP STATION GENERATOR INSTALLATION PROJECT – AWARDED TO BARNES AND POWELL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Pursuant to advertisement as required by law, bids were received and publicly opened on March 30, 2006 for the Brier Creek Pump Station Generator Installation Project, with Barnes and Powell Electrical Co., Inc., submitting the low bid in the amount of $431,000. Barnes and Powell Electrical Co., Inc., submitted a 3% MWBE participation plan.
Recommendation: Approve the low bid of Barnes and Powell Electrical Co., Inc., in the amount of $431,000 (transfer to be handled administratively). Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes.
Transferred From:
349-9309-79001-975 Brier Creek Pump Station Impv $431,000.00
Transferred To:
349-9309-79202-975 Brier Creek Pump Station Impv $431,000.00
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT – SECONDARY CLARIFIER AND AIR PIPING PAINTING PROJECT – BID AWARDED TO CAROLINA MANAGEMENT TEAM – FUNDS TRANSFERRED
Three informal proposals were received for repair and painting of the secondary clarifier and air piping at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant with Carolina Management Team submitting the low proposal in the amount of $297,545. Carolina Management Team submitted a 0% MWBE participation plan.
Recommendation: Approve the low proposal of Carolina Management Team in the amount of $297,545 and the budgetary transfer. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 997TF43.
Transferred From:
349-9298-79001-975 Odor Control-Major Lift Stations $282,649.77
349-9409-79001-975 NRWWTP Secondary Clarifier Impv 14,895.23
$297,545.00
Transferred To:
349-9409-79202-975 NRWWTP Secondary Clarifier Impv $297,545.00
TRAFFIC – TEXT CHANGE RELATING TO STANDING TIME LIMIT PARKING/PARKING METER ZONES – APPROVED – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
It is recommended that code changes be implemented in the parking regulations that will address proposals for unlimited parking on the street on Saturdays and changing the enforcement hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the Central Business District. If approved, Code Section 11-2174 and 11-2206 will be changed as stated in the above referenced recommendations.
The changes to the code have been approved by the City Attorney’s office and are in the agenda packet.
Recommendation: Approve as recommended. Upheld on Consent Agenda Taliaferro/Kekas – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 998.
END OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
SIGNAL SYSTEM – CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR DESIGN – APPROVED\
Based on a comprehensive review of proposals for design of the Raleigh Signal System, it is recommended that HNTB North Carolina, PC be selected as the most qualified design consultant and that a negotiated contract be pursued.
As documented in the memo in the agenda packet, four vendors submitted proposals. The proposals were evaluated by a team comprised of the Transportation Operations Division and NCDOT.
Recommendation: Authorize negotiation of a contract with HNTB Engineering consultants to design the Raleigh Signal System.
Ms. Taliaferro stated she wanted to move approval of this item but did not want it to go by without recognizing this accomplishment. She stated we have been working very hard to move ahead with this item and she is pleased to see the recommendation. She moved approval. Her motion was seconded by Mayor Meeker. Ms. Taliaferro expressed appreciation to the City staff, State DOT and others for their work on making this possible. Mayor Meeker pointed out the Wake County Mayors Association is the group that pushed so hard to get this funding in line not necessarily NCDOT. Ms. Taliaferro stated she expressed appreciation to NCDOT as they did sit in on the panel that helped select the consultant. 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.
ENCROACHMENT – 15 EAST MARTIN STREET AND POLICY FOR ENCROACHMENTS – REFERRED TO LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
This is a request from Terence E. McEnally, III, to encroach on City right-of-way for the purpose of installing a 3 foot by 5 foot Mexican flag attached to a 6 foot pole hanging from the building at 15 East Martin Street encroaching 15 feet above the sidewalk right-of-way. Council members received a report in their agenda packet.
Mr. Craven stated he had withdrawn this from the Consent Agenda as he sees from the backup material we’re talking about a request to fly a foreign flag on City right-of-way for advertising purposes. He feels we should look at this issue and look at establishing a policy for this type request. Mayor Meeker stated without objection the item would be referred to the Law and Public Safety Committee.
TRAFFIC – FOX RUN SUBDIVISION – WITHDRAWN
The agenda had recommendations relating to no parking zone/residential permits in the Fox Run Subdivision. City Manager Allen stated he had withdrawn this from the Consent Agenda as additional work needs to be done. He stated there is the possibility of another petition coming forth; therefore, he would request that the item be withdrawn from the agenda with the understanding it would come back to the Council at a later date. Without objection the item was withdrawn from the agenda and no action taken.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED AS AMENDED
Mayor Meeker presented the Planning Commission Consent Agenda indicating it would be handled in the same manner as the regular consent agenda. The vote on the Planning Commission Consent Agenda will be a roll call vote. Mayor Meeker stated he had received a request from Mr. Crowder and Mr. Stephenson to withdraw rezoning Z-19-06 and a request from Ms. Kekas, Mr. Isley, Mr. West, Ms. Taliaferro and Mr. Stephenson to withdraw TC-7-06. Without objection those two items were withdrawn from the Planning Commission Consent Agenda. Mr. Crowder moved the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the remaining items on the Consent Agenda be upheld. His motion was seconded by Ms. Taliaferro 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 Planning Commission Consent Agenda were as follows.
REZONING Z-8-06 – HILLSBOROUGH STREET – DENIED
This request is to rezone approximately 6.87 acres, currently zoned Residential-10 and Residential-4. The proposal is to rezone the property to Residential-10 Conditional Use and Shopping Center Conditional Use.
CR-10965 from the Planning Commission finds that this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends denial. Planning Commission’s recommendation upheld on Consent Agenda Crowder/Taliaferro – 8 ayes.
TC-4-06 – FLOOD HAZARD AREA FUTURE CONDITIONS – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be updating the Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of Raleigh. As part of this update, a new flood zone will be created. This text change proposes to add this new zone, “Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area” to the City of Raleigh’s flood ordinance.
CR-10967 from the Planning Commission recommends that this text change be approved. Planning Commission’s recommendation upheld on Consent Agenda Crowder/Taliaferro – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 999TC282.
TC-5-06 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT – APPROVED – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
This text change proposes to reinstate a residential high density standard for properties located along the Fayetteville Street corridor which was rendered invalid when Fayetteville Street Mall was converted from public open space to a public street.
CR-10968 from the Planning Commission recommends that this text change be approved. Planning Commission’s recommendation upheld on Consent Agenda Crowder/Taliaferro – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 1TC283.
END OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA
REZONING Z-19-06 – ST. MARY’S STREET – REFERRED TO THE COMPRHEENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE
This request is to rezone approximately 1.08 acres, currently zoned Residential Business with Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The proposal is to rezone the property to Office and Institution-2 Conditional Use with Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
CR-10966 from the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that this request be approved in accordance with conditions dated April 11, 2006.
Planning Commission Chairman Everett explained the request, the Planning Commission’s discussion and recommendation. He went over the findings and facts upon which the recommendation was based. Mr. Crowder stated he would like to take a closer look at this item and would request that it be referred to Comprehensive Planning Committee. Mayor Meeker stated without objection Rezoning Z-19-06 would be referred to Comprehensive Planning Committee.
TC-7-06 – FACILITY FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT RATES – APPROVED ON FIRST READING; TO BE PLACED ON MAY 2 AGENDA FOR SECOND READING
This text change proposes to amend the City Code to consider changes to the Facility Fee regulations, increases in the Thoroughfare/Collector Street and Open Space Facility Fee Schedules imposed on new construction, increases to reimbursement rates for thoroughfare and open space dedications and improvements and the initiation of a per annum increase based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, to be effective 60 days following adoption.
CR-10969 from the Planning Commission recommends that this text change be denied. Planning Commission Chairman Everett pointed out there was a lot of discussion about this item in Planning Commission. The Planning Commission looked at the Duncan Report, talked about reimbursement methodology, overall budget impact, impact on affordable housing, etc. He pointed out Planning Commission’s unanimous vote to deny the text change maybe a little misleading. He stated they had several motions. There was a motion to approve and a motion to defer with a request for additional information from staff to come back at the next meeting. However, it was determined that several Planning Commission members would not be present at the next meeting and they wanted to have input so discussion followed and the Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal.
Mayor Meeker suggested that the Council get a motion on the table and then he would go around the Council table and let each one provide input on the motion. Mr. Stephenson pointed out he understands the Planning Commission understood there are a variety of issues that have not been resolved. There has been criticism of the Duncan Report and the methodology used the allegation the report is flawed and he feels we need to resolve some of the outstanding issues prior to taking action on TC-7-06; therefore, he would move that TC-7-06 be referred to Committee of the Whole so that the Council can get a better understanding of different points of view and get some of the issues resolved. His motion was seconded by Mayor Meeker.
Mr. Isley objected to the process outlined by the Mayor pointing out he feels the Council should be able to discuss what they want to and the Mayor shouldn’t direct what type discussion would be held. Mayor Meeker stated he was just trying to get a motion on the floor and get comments from all Council members on that motion and then additional motions or discussion could be held. Ms. Taliaferro suggested seeing if it is the will of the Council to send this item to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Crowder spoke in support of the item going to Committee pointing out there are a lot of issues to be discussed and Planning Commission Chairman Everett outlined only a few of those including impact on the budget, impact on affordable housing, infrastructure needs, etc.
Mr. West pointed out he has a lot of concern about all of the discussions and time this issues has taken. He stated if the Council had spent as much time promoting and trying to look at the total revenue stream he feels that would be a much better approach. We have taken a single item and discussed it beyond its context.
He feels we would much better off to discuss the total revenue stream rather than spending the hours and hours on the impact fee. We have taken a single item and discussed it beyond its context.
Mayor Meeker stated he does not feel TC-7 is adequate as there are a number of things Council needs to look at and study further including the reimbursement issue. He pointed out we have $11 million that needs to be reimbursed and that should be addressed in a three or four period but this proposal would not do that. He stated the second concern is his feeling that we should have a variable fee so that the very small single family home and the large single family home do not have to pay the same impact fees. He feels there should be some affordable housing exemption and referred to an entity such as DHIC which builds affordable housing should have some equity as fees should not be the same as the million dollar house. He pointed out we are fortunate that we have growth but along with growth comes park and road needs and we have to meet those needs. He pointed out the current fee hasn’t been adjusted in 17 years. Developers pay about 10 percent of the needed fees. TC-7-06 would have the developers paying about 17 percent. He stated if we had a variable figure we could have one third of the needs paid for by the developer but that is not the case now. He stated there is a compromise that would allow this to be more equitable. He stated he feels very strongly about this, has talked to citizens throughout the City and they want the fees to be more equitable and he feels the compromise proposal would be more equitable.
Ms. Taliaferro pointed out she thought the Council had asked staff to come back with a recommendation as to how to pay off the outstanding reimbursables. She asked the Manager to check on that pointing out she thought that came up at the same time the Council decided to go to public hearing with TC-7.
Mr. Stephenson agreed with the Mayor’s comments as he feels there are many outstanding questions and we should lay those questions to rest before we make a decision on TC-7. He feels there are some really major issues regarding reimbursements that should be addressed. He stated he feels this is a very regressive proposal in terms of fees. There is no proration or exemption to address the affordable housing issue and referred Council members to a chart entitled, “Raleigh Impact Comparison.” The chart showed the current fee, TC-7-06, a compromise and the allowable fees. He stated he cannot vote to continue to take money away from the taxpayers to subsidize growth on the edge.
Mr. Craven questioned the basis of the charts and questioned who prepared the charts with Mayor Meeker pointing out the charts were prepared by Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Craven questioned where the numbers come from, questioned if the chart includes fee-in-lieu of road, sidewalk or other infrastructure improvements that developers make. He stated he feels the chart does not show the true picture. A dialogue took place between Mr. Craven and Mr. Stephenson as to the authenticity of the numbers on the chart, where they came from, how they were determined or proposed. Mr. Craven expressed concern about all of the exaggerated or misunderstanding about the facts. He stated he could not vote for the motion on the table. The motion on the table which was to refer TC-7-06 to Committee of the Whole with a request for information from staff was put to a vote with results as follows: Ayes-3 (Meeker, Crowder, Stephenson); Noes-5 (Isley, Kekas, West, Taliaferro, Craven). The Mayor ruled the motion defeated on a 3-5 vote.
Ms. Taliaferro moved approval of TC-7-06 as it went to public hearing. Her motion was seconded by Mr. West.
Mr. Stephenson made a substitute motion to deny TC-7-06 and consider the compromise he presented. The substitute motion was seconded by Mayor Meeker. Ms. Kekas pointed out the fees have not been adjusted since 1988 and she feels we have to start somewhere in adjusting the fees. The substitute motion was put to a vote with results as follows: Ayes-3 (Meeker, Stephenson, Crowder); Noes-5 (Isley, Kekas, West, Taliaferro and Craven). The Mayor ruled the motion defeated on a 3-5 vote.
Mr. Isley stated he appreciates people acknowledging that the Duncan report maybe flawed. He stated we haven’t raised the fees in a number of years but he has concerns about raising the fees to the limit proposed by some. He spoke against impact fees in general and his fear that increasing the impact fees too much would prevent people from being able to buy a house, move to the area or whatever. He stated; however, he could support raising the fees a reasonable amount.
Mr. Crowder stated he could not support TC-7-06 and he feels with some more discussion we could come up with a fair and equitable solution. He feels we should look at things such as incentives for affordable housing and other issues along those lines.
Mr. West talked about all of the discussion which has gone on about impact fees, his concern that the Council has not talked about the total revenue stream, the feeling that discussions have been based on certain agendas and the feeling the proposal on the table is beginning. He called on the Council to be cautious. He talked about unintended consequences, the fact that he had done his own research but hadn’t developed charts, the Mike Walden report on impact fees, what the Duncan report did and did not take into consideration and his support for TC-7-06.
Mayor Meeker pointed out he had stated his position in the beginning and that still stands. He stated the proposal on the table will cost taxpayers over $5 million a year and he does not feel that is fair. He talked about the amount of the infrastructure that is being paid for by the citizens, the fact that the fees would be paid by the developers not the citizens, the homebuilders being opposed as they are the ones that will have to pay the increased fees, what the Duncan report said would be allowable and what TC-7-06 would be. He doesn’t feel TC-7-06 is being fair to the citizens.
Ms. Taliaferro pointed out TC-7-06 is actually a compromise. The discussion started out as to whether the fees were going to be raised at all. She stated the Council cannot make up for the 20 years that the previous City Councils chose not to make increases and some of the people sitting at the table today were on some of those Councils. She stated she too is very concerned about affordable housing and she feels Mr. Stephenson’s proposal would adversely affect people. She stated if we are not careful we can keep people out of homeownership if the fees are raised too much. She stated included in TC-7 is a proposal to automatically adjust the impact fees so that Councils in the future would not be going through this exercise.
Mr. Stephenson talked about the issue of affordability. He spoke in opposition to a flat fee which causes the least expensive home to pay more percentage wise than the higher cost home. He talked about the millions of tax dollars going to build the infrastructure or development and taking away from parks and other services. He stated if we continue this trend we will be faced with cutting services or increasing taxes and he does not feel we should continue to subsidize growth on the edge. He feels TC-7-06 is dangerous and he feels it will have a negative impact on our total economy.
Mr. Craven he takes great deference to Mr. Stephenson’s understanding of the impact on the economy. He stated the people on the edge, as characterized by Mr. Stephenson, have been subsidizing downtown Raleigh for decades. He stated impact fees are to pay for the impact a development causes on our thoroughfares and open space. It is not related to the size of a home, political correctness, location, etc. The motion to approve TC-7-06 as it went to public hearing was put to a vote with results as follows: Ayes-5 (Isley, Kekas, West, Taliaferro, Craven); Noes-3 (Meeker, Crowder, Stephenson). The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 5-3 vote pointing out since the ordinance received only 5 votes it will be placed on the May 2 agenda for a second and final reading. See Ordinance 2TC284.
Planning Director Silver pointed out the Duncan report included a number of other recommendations. He explained how Duncan and Associates were chosen pointing out they followed the scope of work according to the contract and they used a proven methodology that has been used all over the Country. He stated there were a series of other recommendations he feels are good and he hopes the Council doesn’t take the insinuations that the Duncan report was flawed and let it cloud their judgment on the other issues that are coming forth.
Mayor Meeker suggested after final action is taken on TC-7-06 that the Planning Director and the City Manager should bring forth other recommendations from the Duncan report for Council consideration.
REZONING Z-25-06 – BARRINGTON DRIVE – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
This request is to rezone approximately 5.79 acres, currently zoned Residential-4. The proposal is to rezone the property to Residential-6 Conditional Use.
CR-10957 from the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that this request be approved in accordance with conditions dated April 4, 2006. Planning Commission Chairman Everett explained the request, discussion and recommendation. Ms. Taliaferro moved the Planning Commission’s recommendation be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Isley 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 3ZC586.
REZONING Z-53-05 – JONES FRANKLIN ROAD – REFERRED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE
This request is to rezone approximately 1.96 acres, currently zoned Residential-4 with Special Highway Overlay District-2. The proposal is to rezone the property to Office and Institution-1 Conditional Use with Special Highway Overlay District-2.
CR-10970 from the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that this request be approved in accordance with conditions dated April 4, 2006. Planning Commission Chairman Everett explained the request, Planning Commission’s discussion and recommendation. Mr. Crowder pointed out this is in his district and is on a thoroughfare and he would like to take a closer look at the request in Comprehensive Planning Committee. Ms. Taliaferro stated she had heard from some people in Mr. Crowder’s district relative to the manner in which this property has been maintained in the past and she would like for the Committee to look at that. Without objection the item was referred to the Comprehensive Planning Committee.
REZONING Z-17-06 – AVENT FERRY ROAD – REFERRED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE
This request is to rezone approximately 1.70 acres, currently zoned Residential-10 and Conservation Management. The proposal is to rezone the property to Office and Institution-1 Conditional Use and Conservation Management.
CR-109571 from the Planning Commission finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that this request be approved in accordance with conditions dated April 11, 2006. Planning Commission Chairman Everett explained the request, read the Planning Commission’s finding and reasons and the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval. Mr. Crowder pointed out this item is in his district and the City is in the process of doing an update of the Small Area Plan and he would like to look at the existing plan and what is proposed and what is going on in this area pointing out a development is taking place behind this property. Without objection the item was referred to the Comprehensive Planning Committee.
SPECIAL ITEMS
PODS REGULATIONS – REFERRED TO THE LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
It was pointed out during the April 4, 2006, Council meeting, Mr. Isley requested information relative to the regulation of the placement of Pod’s or similar type temporary storage units. It was directed that the item be placed on this agenda to receive a report from Administration.
Council members received the following report in their agenda packet.
PODS and other portable storage units are treated as accessory structures by the zoning code. These units are brought to a residence or business on a fiat bed truck and un-loaded on the property. In most cases the units are only on site for a short period of time. They are used as temporary storage or moving containers. There are several companies that offer this mobile storage service.
The zoning code does not specifically address these units but they do meet the definition in the ordinance for accessory structures and uses. As such, section 10- 2075(e) of the code states that accessory buildings and storage sheds shall be located in the rear yard. Our office has received several complaints since these units came to the Raleigh area. In most cases the complaint centered on the location of the units which is often in the front yard or driveway. We have worked with each property owner and asked that if the units where going to be on site for more than 20 days (temporary use) that they be moved to the rear yard. No permits are required.
Mr. Isley pointed out there seems to be concern relative to whether these are temporary or permanent type facilities. The problem he heard about was a large shipping container. He stated he would like to look at this issue a little further. After brief discussion on the appropriate Committee, the item was referred to Law and Public Safety Committee.
LEGISLATION – LAND FOR TOMORROW RESOLUTION – REFERED TO THE CITY ATTORTNEY FOR A REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL
During the April 4, 2006 Council meeting, Mr. Crowder presented a proposed Land for Tomorrow resolution. This is a resolution which urges the 2006 General Assembly to enact legislation authorizing a bond referendum to increase conservation spending in North Carolina by $200 million per year. It was directed that the item be placed on this agenda for further consideration.
Mr. Crowder indicated this is a proposed resolution which would go to the State encouraging ideas that would help save open space in North Carolina. He stated he understands we are losing over a 100 acres per day in certain areas and in Wake County alone we are losing 28 acres of open space per day. He moved that the City Council endorse this resolution as requested by Triangle J. His motion was seconded by Mayor Meeker.
Mr. Craven pointed out he is in favor of the intent of the resolution as outlined in Paragraph 1 and the last paragraph as it sends a great message; however, he feels we need to work on some of the “whereases” pointing out he is afraid that some of the numbers may need to be studied, some of the “whereases” do not apply to municipalities and he also fears the same sort of funding problems that we have had with the gasoline tax in that the money would be distributed everywhere and Wake County may not get its share. He stated for example some of the “whereases” maybe true in the mountains or the costal areas such as the “important tourism industry can only survive with natural beauty, clean water and scenic vistas” but we have the Neuse River Basin provisions. Mr. Craven again stated he has no real objection to the adoption of the resolution but does have some concerns and asked that the resolution be sent to the City Attorney to clean up the language and add some emphasis relating to urban areas and equitable distribution of the funds throughout the State. Mr. Crowder withdrew his motion and without objection the item was referred to the City Attorney to bring it back early next month for further consideration.
MAYVIEW GREEN – REPORT – APPROVED FUNDS APPROPRIATED
During the April 4, 2006 Council meeting, Mr. Crowder asked that an item be placed on this agenda to look at the funding and process utilized for Mayview Green Park area.
On October 4, 2005 the City Council charged the Parks and Recreation Department to work with neighborhood citizens and a design team and come back with a proposal to look at play opportunities at Mayview Green.
Council members received the following report in their agenda packet.
City Council’s charge from their October 4, 2005 meeting was for Parks and Recreation staff to “work with a design team maybe set up a charrette opportunity for the neighborhood so that they could come back with a formal proposal” (See attached excerpt). As a result, Parks and Recreation Staff, along with representatives of the Urban Design Center and DesignBox, held a public charrette to brainstorm about possible improvements to the ½ acre city-owned property currently classified as open space and known to the neighborhood as Mayview Green. The Charrette was held on the evening of December 8, 2005. Thirty-five to 40 individuals were present including a dozen or so children and teenagers. As indicated by the sign-in sheet for the evening, only one immediate neighbor of the park was in attendance. Those present were organized into 5 groups. Aly Khalifa and his team from DesignBox facilitated brainstorming and drawing activities. The 5 resulting concept drawings and corresponding text were displayed on the City’s website after that event.
A second meeting was held on January 10th to review the concepts and develop a program statement. Prior to the meeting both staff and Lisa Meeks were contacted by neighbors who had concerns about any improvements occurring at the site. Therefore, the January 10th meeting included time for those individuals to air their concerns. About 30 people showed up for this second meeting, of which about 4 or so were adjacent property owners. Numerous individuals spoke out in support of minimal improvements at this site stating that the site was already unique and that there were several other parks nearby. Staff then facilitated a discussion that identified common desires and goals for the site. They were found to include:
• Preserving the Large trees
• Keeping the open area intact
• Adding some minimal landscaping
• Improving the turf
• More clearly defining the mulched area under the trees from the grassy area.
• New trash receptacles
• Better arrangement of seating to allow more than two to sit and converse
• Mutt mitt dispenser for pet clean up
Staff and residents also agreed that any play apparatus, in particular, a climbing rock, could be considered in the future plans at Isabella Cannon Park. The design phase for that renovation project is budgeted in the FY06-07 as part of the 2003 Bond. A playground renovation at Jaycee Park will also be considered in the department’s budget.
Given that this property is classified as open space, it has been under the typical maintenance regime for that type of facility and as such has not included overseeding and aerating. Staff concluded that this exercise indicated a mandate from the community to establish a more intense maintenance regime for this property and as such more intensive turf maintenance has already begun.
Staff, with the assistance of Dennis Glazener of Bell/Glazener Design Group, developed a site concept addressing the concerns mentioned above. This plan was posted on the web as of March 20th. Residents were notified of the plan via mail, email and newsletter. All comments received as of 4/5/06 have been favorable. The costs associated with turf improvements will be rolled into the existing operating budget. There are currently no funds budgeted for the remainder of the improvements which totals $5,330. However, there are potential funds available via two sources offered by the City. Both of these require applications to be submitted by a community citizen.
1. Park & Greenway Improvement Program administered by the Parks and Recreation department offers $2,500 (Applications are due in May).
2. Neighborhood Improvement Program administered through the Community Services Department offers up to $5,000. (Applications for this program are accepted the last Friday of every month.)
Staff has encouraged community representatives to seek this funding. The Park & Greenway Improvement Program would require an Adopt-A-Park agreement with residents. As part of that agreement, the community could be involved in the installation of the site amenities and landscaping and staff would ask someone in the neighborhood to be responsible for refilling the mutt mitt dispenser.
Mr. Crowder commended the community, Dennis Glazener and the Park staff for their involvement in this issue. He feels it came together well. We had an area that needed sprucing up, we had a need for active/passive use and the group developed that and developed a budget, therefore, he would recommend that the City Council appropriate $5,000 from City Council Contingency for funding of this project so that they could move forward. He stated there has been a tremendous amount of volunteer hours contributed to this project and it will greatly enhance the area. His motion was seconded by Mayor Meeker 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 997TF43.
COUNCIL CHAMBER – NAMING PROPOSAL FOR MIRIAM P. BLOCK – MUNICIPAL BUILDING LOBBY ART GALLERY NAMED IN HER HONOR
Mayor Meeker asked that this item be held until later in the meeting at which time Ms. Block‘s daughters could be present.
Later in the meeting it was pointed out during the April 4, 2006, Council meeting, a public hearing was held to consider a proposal to name the City Council Chamber in honor of former council member Miriam P. Block. Following the hearing it was directed that the item be placed on this agenda for consideration.
Mr. Crowder moved that the City Council name the Municipal Building Council Lobby Art Gallery in honor of Miriam P. Block. His motion was seconded by Mayor Meeker. In response to questioning, Mayor Meeker pointed out we are talking about the space in front of the City Council Chamber. The City would place some type plaque similar to what has been placed outside the building in honor of former Mayor Avery C. Upchurch to designate that area in honor of Ms. Block. 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 8-0 vote.
ANNEXATION – CITY INITIATED – VARIOUS AREAS – RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ADOPTED
During the April 4, 2006 Council meeting, pursuant to all provisions of the General Statutes, public hearings were held to consider the City-initiated annexation of the following areas. No objections were raised at the public hearings; therefore, it was directed that the following locations be placed on this agenda for further consideration.
a. Louisburg/New Hope Road intersection properties
b. Country Pines
c. Durant Road Parts 1 & 2
d. Strickland Road Right-of-way Parts 1 & 2
e. Poole Road Right-of-way Parts 1 & 2
f. Six Forks Road Right-of-way
A hearing was also held on an area known as Bentley Woods, Phase 1 which was referred to the Comprehensive Planning Committee for further discussion.
If the Council wishes to proceed on the annexation of areas a-f, it would be appropriate to adopt resolutions amending the applicable annexation reports, including rural fire department contracts and utility extension requests, adopt ordinances annexing the areas effective June 30, 2006 and a resolution placing these areas in the appropriate electoral districts.
Ms. Taliaferro moved adoption of resolutions amending the reports relating to Louisburg/New Hope Road, Country Pines, Durant Road Parts 1 & 2, Poole Road Right-of-way Parts 1 & 2, adoption of ordinances annexing areas A-F effective June 30, 2006 and adoption of a resolution placing the properties in the appropriate electoral districts. Her 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 Resolutions 865, 866, 867, 868, 869 and Ordinances 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
UNFIT BUILDING – 1415 POOLE ROAD – NO ACTION TAKE TO DECLARE PROPERTY UNFIT – ENFORCEMENT HELD PENDING ADDITIONAL WORK
During the November 15, 2005 Council meeting, a public hearing was held to consider adopting an ordinance declaring property at 1415 Poole Road unfit. Representatives of the W.A. Curtis heirs appeared at the meeting explaining problems they had relative to getting a clear title to the property as well as their work to get the property listed on the National Register. The item was placed on the February 21, 2006 agenda to receive a report. At the February 21 meeting, the Council referred the item to the Historic Districts Commission and delayed enforcement and directed that the item be placed on this agenda for further consideration. The Council received the following report from the Historic Districts Commission.
At its February 21, 2006 meeting, City Council referred this matter to the Raleigh Historic Districts Commission (RHDC). The commission and staff have explored preservation options and engaged in dialogue with Ms. Nelson, representing the W. A. Curtis Heirs, and her attorney. The RHDC’s opinion regarding the architectural and historic significance of this property and the desirability of securing its preservation if at all possible is contained in its previous communications to the City Council.
Observations:
▪ The RDHC is convinced of the commitment of Ms. Nelson to see through to completion the repair and preservation of this property. Her plan for obtaining clear title to the property and restoring it is sound.
▪ The legal requirements for “Petition for Partition” (title-clearing procedure) are specific and time-consuming. The full course of the procedure can take 150-180 days, or possibly longer in some difficult cases. It cannot be known at this time how long this case will take. Restoration cannot begin until Ms. Nelson is in firm control of the property; loan closing cannot take place until title is clear.
▪ Restoration is feasible. The house itself is structurally sound and has been properly mothballed for preservation purposes. There is no water infiltration into the interior. The interior is secure from unauthorized entry.
▪ The porch is in a state of disrepair and presents a hazard to unauthorized persons that might enter upon it. The porch floor has holes in it, and sections of the porch railing are missing. Temporary bracing to support the porch roof, while weathered, remains sound; however these supports are subject to collapse if unauthorized persons were to apply sufficient lateral force to them.
Recommendations:
▪ Delay Enforcement: That City Council continues to delay enforcement of the ordinance and refer the item back to administration for monitoring of progress. The title issues with this property cannot be solved quickly, and restoration of the property will take time.
▪ Regular Reports: That Ms. Nelson make regular reports to the Inspections Department every 60-days documenting progress toward the goal of restoring the property, outlining specific actions taken during the report period and documenting any outcomes from those or previous actions.
▪ Monitoring: That the Inspections Department monitor the property and the reports and if in its judgment progress is not being made, that the item be returned to City Council for direction.
▪ Secure the Porch: That a chain link fence to prevent unauthorized access be erected in a height and location satisfactory to the Inspections Department to secure the porch and its supports, that “no trespassing” signs be place on the fence and property, and that the Police Department be authorized by Ms. Nelson to monitor and enter the property for the purposes of enforcing its no trespassing status. Note that this procedure was used by a previous City Council upon the recommendation of the RHDC to secure Pilot Mill when it was declared unsafe. The building remained standing and that extra time provided the opportunity to find new ownership, resulting in today’s success of that National Register and Raleigh Historic Landmark.
▪ Historic Designation: That the RHDC utilize funds in its current budget to initiate historic designation of the property by preparing National Register and Raleigh Historic Landmark nomination forms. Designation will recognize the significance of the property and make available rehabilitation tax credits and property tax deferral benefits that will supplement the owner’s investment in the restoration of the property.
▪ CDBG Funding: That to the extent possible within current program design and funding allocations, the Community Development Department be encouraged to explore possible CDBG funding assistance to this project. One example might be low or no interest construction loans that would be repaid when permanent financing is put in place at the conclusion of the restoration project, providing short-term gap financing that would assist the property owner during a time frame when there is no opportunity for economic return on the property. The commission notes that historic preservation is an allowable program category for the expenditure of CDBG funding, including grants, and any restraints upon using these funds for this project are the result of current city policy and program design.
The RHDC is appreciative of the City Council’s consideration in exploring options that might result in the restoration of this architecturally and historically significant house and its serving as a symbol and stimulus for further investment in this historic area of Raleigh.
City Manager Allen pointed out staff had worked with the Historic Districts Commission and agreed this is a good plan to help save the historic house. Mr. West stated he had spoken with Ms. Nelson and her daughter and they maybe requesting assistance from the Historic Districts Commission to work with Community Development to get some gap financing. Mr. West moved approval of the 6 recommendations as outlined pointing out if work stops Administration should bring the issue back to the Council for additional action. His motion was seconded by Ms. Taliaferro and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
HOMELESSNESS – RALEIGH/WAKE TEN-YEAR ACTION PLAN TO END AND PREVENT HOMELESSNESS – REFERRED TO BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The Leadership Council for the Raleigh/Wake 10-Year Action Plan to End and Prevent Homelessness would like to make a brief presentation of program review, progress during the past year and several program and budget items for consideration. The Leadership Council is scheduled to make a similar presentation to Wake County Commissioners on Monday April 17.
Kevin Cain, Co-chair of the 10-Year Plan Leadership Council, stated he was providing an update on the progress during the past year and several program and budget items for consideration. He explained this work started in 2003 and 2005 is the first year of the plan. He told of the meetings, forums, etc., that have been or are scheduled and presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining participation, vision, goals, implementation, touching on the various teams and groups that are working, first-year highlights, research and data, action and strategies. He talked about the priority programs and budget proposals for FY 2006-07 and went over the action items or implementation items needed including the City of Raleigh adopting a resolution relative to comprehensive affordable housing program policy directive and appointment of an affordable housing commission and hiring or designating an affordable housing planner to support the effort. He talked about circles of support, coordination, fostering cooperative efforts, cost that would need to be provided by the City, work of the support circles, etc.
Mr. West expressed appreciation to those involved in the Leadership Council pointing out they have come up with a well designed plan. He talked about a meeting held recently which included representatives of various groups that have been involved in affordable housing. He talked about possible disconnects in providing affordable housing, the issue of who or what groups are providing for what levels of income, the Raleigh Housing Authority’s role and changes that are taking place between the Raleigh Housing Authority and the Community Development Program as to areas or income groups served. He talked about a housing workshop which was held several years ago, the need to look at the broader picture of providing affordable housing and the need to dovetail all the information together. He stated he sees a need to make sure all of the existing groups are working together and in concert to look at the broader needs, look at affordable housing for the City as a whole. He also talked about critical decision points and stated it maybe that we would want to get a report from the City Manager about the dollars we have in the housing bond and how they are going to be distributed and then discuss all of this Budget Work Session.
Mayor Meeker pointed out the 10-year plan does have some budget implications; therefore, he would suggest that the item be referred to the Budget and Economic Development Committee which could have their recommendation ready by early June and it could be dovetailed into budget discussions. Ms. Taliaferro suggested receiving the Manager’s report and scheduling the 10-year Ending Homeless Plan after the full City Council had received the report. It was agreed to follow that course of action.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT – CITY SITE ONE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING – VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN
City Manager Allen presented the following information.
Three proposals were received to a City-issued Request for Proposals in June 2005 for development of this property. After analysis only one development proposal was deemed responsive. City Council authorized continuing discussions with this developer, TMC Development Group, LLC. These discussions have resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the development of this approximately 1.8 acre site between Fayetteville and Wilmington Street. Below are the salient features of the MOU:
• The developer proposes a project including 661,000 square feet of mixed-use office, retail and residential, with an underground parking deck containing 636 public and 58 private parking spaces. Two towers are proposed, 20 and 14 stories in height, with ground-floor retail fronting Fayetteville and Wilmington Streets and a through-block enclosed atrium area open to the public. This is the largest mixed-use development to date in downtown (20% larger than the Convention Center) and is estimated to cost approximately $130 million to construct.
• In addition to 154 residential condominiums and 284,000 square feet of Class A office space, the project will include 50,000 square feet of restaurant, retail and potentially a movie theatre.
• The developers are a local consortium of East-West Partners, Craig Davis Properties, Beacon Street Development and White Oak Properties, using a local contractor, Clancy and Theys.
• The developer proposes to purchase the land from the City for appraised value, approximately $5.2 Million, or approximately $70 per square foot, subject to a current updated appraisal done within 6 months of closing.
• The developer proposes to construct the underground parking deck, connect it to the City’s underground deck and lease the parking back to the City on a long-term basis to operate as a single deck.
• The City agrees to an up-front single lease payment similar to the Progress Energy parking deck model.
• The City agrees to make available within a reasonable radius 1200 parking spaces for monthly leases at market rates to support the office tenants. Parking for residential tenants is provided within the structures as private parking, paid for by the developer.
• The developer will provide a permanent access to Wilmington Street from the City underground parking deck under Fayetteville Street.
• Following on the existing commitment to the Marriott, the City agrees to construct Fayetteville Street from the City Center plaza south to Lenoir Street. Other ground-level improvements, including streetscapes on Wilmington Street and Lenoir Street, and Fayetteville Street sidewalk improvements not constructed by the City, will be constructed by the developer.
• The developer has agreed to a design review process based on a clear set of urban design guidelines included in the MOU developed in concert with the Planning Director and the Urban Design Center.
• The developer has agreed to apply restrictive covenants to the property that give the City discretion over any future redevelopment of the site.
• The developer has requested the assistance of the Arts Commission in identifying privately-financed public art objects for utilization on this site.
• The developer is putting up a $750,000 guarantee toward meeting their milestone schedule, which calls for the opening of the project at the end of 2008.
• The developer has proposed that this land transfer be accomplished through a private sale taking place under State of NC economic development statutes.
It is anticipated that substantial cost and schedule savings may be achieved if the excavation contractor for the City parking deck excavates the entire site to Wilmington Street, with the cost of this work to be paid for by the developer by either factoring the cost into the purchase price for the land or reducing the lease cost to the City for the underground parking on Site #1.
The final parking arrangement and the level of private use to be incorporated in the parking structure is subject to refinements in the parking fund model that will be finalized in the development agreement when brought forward. The MOU includes flexibility to consider both taxable and tax-free financing of the parking.
Recommendations:
1) Accept MOU and authorize staff to complete a development agreement based on this MOU, and bring the development agreement back to City Council for approval according to the proposed milestone calendar.
2) Set a public hearing on May 16 to consider a private sale under State of NC economic development statutes.
3) Authorize staff to work toward an agreement to excavate the entire site to Wilmington Street and incorporate the cost transfer to the developer for this work into the development agreement.
4) Authorize staff to continue to refine the parking arrangement based on a final proportion of private use in the parking deck, with language in the development agreement to be approved by the City Attorney and the City’s Bond Counsel.
5) Authorize the Planning Director to continue to work with the developer and their designers to refine the building and streetscape design in the site plan approval process.
City Manager Allen highlighted the memo, expressed appreciation to Assistant City Manager Howe and Roland Gammon and others who worked so hard to get us to this point. He explained the next step would be a development agreement as outlined. He went over the information.
Roland Gammon, White Oak Properties, explained how the development team came together, projects they have done in the past and are working on presently. He expressed appreciation to the present and previous City Councils for the work they have done and investments they have made in downtown which allows projects such as this to happen. He pointed out he has enjoyed his relationship and work with the City Manager, Mr. Howell, Dan Douglas, Planning Director Silver and others.
Mr. Gammon presented photographs showing the project with a night time view pointing it will be a 24/7 building. He explained the project is projected to cost $130 million dollars. It will create some 1,000 construction jobs. He talked about the number of employees it would support. It would be a headquarters destination. He explained the amount of retail and square footage. He stated hopefully the retail will include a cinema and fitness and health club. Mr. Gammon pointed out this is the largest private project in the history of downtown Raleigh.
Neal Gray pointed out he had worked with TMC Development Group over the last 10 months. He presented renderings of the proposed project from the various street faces. He talked about the amount of retail, parking, two towers, what would be housed in each tower. He went over the various elevations, highlighting the renderings received by Council.
Mr. Crowder stated there has been talk about a movie theater and questioned if the developers would commit to providing a movie theater and if so how the parking would be addressed and how the parking would deal with car lights. Mr. Gammon stated the group desperately wants to have a theater. He stated any theater would be a loss leader as it would be at a competitive disadvantage as far as parking is concerned. He stated he could not commit to a theater but would commit to doing everything in his power to get a theater but could not make a commitment.
Mr. Gray talked about the parking and how they plan to pull the rail above the headlight level to deal with the lights and utilizing an elevated parking structure. Mr. Crowder stated the massing looks good and there was brief discussion about the various elevations from the streets.
Mr. Stephenson commended all for the work thus far pointing out, however, he does not want us to get into a situation like we did with the downtown hotel where the City was presented with a great design in the beginning and then the design changed. He stated the elements of the memorandum of understanding do not seem to have strong connections that he feels will get the City a good design. Mr. Gammon pointed out a lot of the work will have to be fleshed out in the design document. The design has not been done. In response to questioning, City Manager Allen pointed out the staff had pushed the development team to get to this point and they haven’t pushed back. He stated the drawings that are being presented to the Council will be attached to the memorandum of understanding and the development agreement will flesh out some of the details with Mr. Stephenson stated as he understands there will be references in the document to tie in the renderings being presented today.
Ms. Taliaferro pointed out that is why we have a development agreement and site plan approval. She stated if they are looking at having corporate headquarters there maybe some design changes that would be necessary from what is being seen today. She pointed out the development agreement should address parking issues and we need to make sure there is designed public spaces for hourly use.
Mayor Meeker moved approval of Items A-E as outlined by the Manager. His motion was seconded by Ms. Taliaferro and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
ONE EXCHANGE PLAZA – LEASE ASSIGNMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT – VARIOUS ACTIONS APPROVED
Mr. Isley stated he needs to be excused from participation on this item as he has been previously excused. He has done some financial work for some of the parties involved. Mr. Isley was excused and left the table.
The City and Raleigh Restaurant Group, LLC have agreed on a Lease Agreement for the One Exchange Plaza (OEP) Building Restaurant as authorized by Council on January 3, 2006 with the exception of one provision of the Lease. 1.) Language for insertion into the assignment and subletting section is being presented for review and approval by Council. 2.) At the January 3, 2006 Council meeting, staff reported to Council that the Restaurant Group had expressed interest in working out an arrangement with the City to allow outdoor dining at the Restaurant and that staff would be bringing this matter back to the Council at a later date. A proposed License Agreement with the Restaurant Group has been drafted by the City Attorney’s Office for approval by the City Council pertaining to outdoor dining in areas of One Exchange Plaza adjacent to the leased restaurant space. The agreement calls for improvements (at the tenant’s expense) to be made to Exchange Plaza space immediately adjacent to the restaurant in conformity with established City design and management practices.
Recommendation:
a. Approve lease document wording for the assignment and subletting provision in the lease agreement with Raleigh Restaurant Group, LLC.
b. Authorize the City Manager to execute the License Agreement with Raleigh Restaurant Group, LLC, a copy of which is in the agenda packet.
City Manager Allen explained the issue.
Mr. Crowder questioned if they are talking about encumbering the plaza space between the two buildings or if the outdoor dining would be on Fayetteville Street. City Manager Allen pointed out they are talking about in the plaza but it would not unduly encumber the street. Mayor Meeker moved approval as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. West.
Mr. Craven stated as he understands this is the same agreement just a little more detailed than was approved a month or so ago in which the City is subsidizing a restaurant. He feels it is bad business, bad policy and goes against what he feels is good government. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Crowder and Mr. Craven who voted in the negative (Isley excused). The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 5-2 vote.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF APPEARANCE COMMISSION
COMMUNITY APPEARANCE SURVEY – INITIAL RESULTS – INFORMATION RECEIVED
As part of its 2005 Work Program, the Appearance Commission, with the assistance of the North Carolina State University Center for Urban Affairs & Community Services (CUACS), conducted a telephone survey of Raleigh residents in late 2005 to gather citizen views on various appearance issues. This initiative is the first phase of a three-part research effort, which will also include a series of focus group discussions and online visual preference survey.
Chad Meadows pointed out a total of 730 residents were interviewed in the telephone survey. The residents were selected at random but care was given to ensure that respondents from each of the City’s zip code areas were included which would allow the Appearance Commission to infer the opinions of the City as a whole. He pointed out Council members had received a copy of the survey instrument and explained the Commission was assisted by the North Carolina State University Center for Urban Affairs and Community Services. He went over the findings relating to community appearance being a matter of high importance, the City is making progress in addressing appearance related issues, however, respondents believe more could be done, the feeling that the City standards for landscaping and building designs are having a positive affect on Raleigh’s appearance but additional efforts are needed and gave examples. He stated there was clear consensus on many issues; however, there were a few topics in which the respondent’s opinions were split such as where buildings of 20 stories or taller should be allowed, limitation on size of new homes, height of signs along roadways and public art in development. He explained how the survey was conducted. He stated they plan to further explore the following issues:
• Visual quality along primary roadways into the City,
• Better gauge of public opinion regarding the visual aspects of downtown;
• Initiatives to address litter and graffiti in a timely manner;
• Improvements to landscaping and screening standards;
• Better buffering of residential areas from nonresidential uses; and,
• Methods to increase tree cover along streets.
Mr. Meadows pointed out the next steps in the survey process would include the preparation of a cross tabulated summary report allowing comparison of citizen opinions from different portions of the City, completion of the seven focus group discussions aimed at deeper examination of over arching appearance issues and survey questions for which there was no strong consensus of opinion and the administration of an on-line visual preference survey designed to gauge public opinion on a variety of design and appearance issues. He stated they would like to continue with their work.
Mr. West stated it was a very good report pointing out Mr. Meadows did mention demographics, geographical areas, etc. He questioned if this was a totally random sample or if other demographics were used. Mr. Meadows explained how the survey was conducted so that they could infer the results and they basically used zip code information. Mr. West questioned if socioeconomic levels were a factor that entered into the demographics. Mr. Meadows pointed out that was not included as they chose not to go that way as they were afraid it would confuse the results. Mr. West pointed out he understands that but pointed out if you do not involve all socioeconomic levels there may be a different result.
Ms. Kekas questioned how the focus groups would be organized with Mr. Meadows stating he does not know at this point but if the Council has some input that would be great. He stated basically they had talked about seven different populations such as RCAC, design community, development community, government community, etc. He stated as they did their survey they asked people if they would be willing to participate in a focus group. He stated if Council has any suggestions as to how the focus groups should be formed they would appreciate hearing that. Ms. Kekas stated she would like to see a cross section of our City not necessarily the same people we see on other committees that is not necessarily pull from our standing committees but look at a cross section of the City. It was pointed out the Council will get the additional information on the cross tabulated summary. No further action was taken.
APPEARANCE COMMISSION – 2005 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2006-07 WORK PROGRAM – REFERRED TO BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Chad Meadows, Chair of the Raleigh Appearance Commission, pointed out Council members received their annual report in the agenda packet. He highlighted the report.
Mr. Meadows pointed out Council members received the following proposed work program.
The proposed 2006-07 Work Program represents the goals of the commission for the coming year. Activities reflect the dynamic make-up and interests of the commission members, and are a logical extension of the 2005 work program. The proposed 2006-07 Work Program includes four primary elements:
1. Expanded collaboration and partnerships.
2. Continued work on aspects related to the 2005 Community Appearance Survey.
3. Efforts aimed at further evolution of the Commission’s role in site plan and rezoning case review.
4. Continued service as directed by the City Council.
1. Collaboration and Partnerships
The commission hopes to establish more meaningful interaction with the Planning Commission, particularly regarding issues of design quality. Steps toward greater collaboration have already commenced through a joint meeting held in March (2006) between both commissions and key staff members regarding the current site plan and conditional rezoning case review procedures. Based on this meeting and our previous experience, we suggest that the City Council consider establishing an ex-officio (non-voting) membership on the Planning Commission for an Appearance Commission member. This individual would be able to serve as conduit of information and coordination between the two bodies.
Recent discussions on plan and zoning review procedures have also revealed opportunities for broader collaboration with City staff. The commission has initiated a series of staff-led training sessions on design and appearance-related aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Guidelines, and City Code of Ordinances as part of the Commission’s regular meetings. The objectives for these training sessions are three-fold: one, to establish a better-informed commission; two, to help identify aspects of these documents that are in need of refinement; and three, to foster a greater climate of collaboration. We believe that this training is of paramount importance as a means to promote quality development and design. We request that the City Council endorse continued training and collaboration as a means of simplifying and streamlining the City’s review of site plans, and elevating the discussion between applicants and the City during the site plan review process beyond minimal code requirements toward higher standards of design quality and urban form.
In addition, the Appearance Commission would like to sponsor and coordinate a design tour of Charlotte and several communities in north Mecklenburg County (e.g., Davidson, Huntersville, Cornelius, and Mooresville) for interested City board and commission members. The purpose for this trip is to survey the best practices and design solutions being employed by these communities. The commission would work with staff members in these communities to set up tours and presentations to be conducted sometime in the latter part of 2006 or early 2007.
2. Community Appearance Survey
The Community Appearance Survey, now in progress, will provide detailed information regarding public opinion on various appearance issues, and as such, we expect the results of these efforts to inform the commission’s work program for several years to come.
The commission has prepared a summary report of the unweighted responses to the Phase One effort, and is ready to proceed with the remaining elements of the project, specifically the preparation of a detailed region-specific report of telephone survey results, the focus group interviews, and the on-line visual preference survey. The commission believes each of these elements are of equal importance, and all are necessary as a means of developing a complete understanding of public opinion on appearance-related issues.
Over the next fiscal year, the commission intends to take the reporting on the 2005 random telephone survey one step further with the preparation and publication of a detailed region-specific summary report of the random telephone survey results. The survey included a series of demographic questions such as respondent age, home ownership characteristics, and location within the City (by zip code). This information was collected to allow the cross tabulation of survey results by location in the City (north, south, east, west). This data has been weighted by CUACS to allow the commission to make statistically significant inferences about the opinions of one region versus another. This will assist in helping to determine intra-city priorities for appearance-related initiatives.
In regard to the focus groups, it is the commission’s intent to conduct discussions with a variety of constituencies (RCAC members, representatives of the development community, environmental advocates, self-selected citizens identified during the survey, the design community, business interests, and downtown advocates). In addition to a deeper exploration of some of the results of the telephone survey (such as why the Downtown was consistently indicated as one of the best and worst-looking portions of the City), we intend to have a dialogue with these groups on larger appearance issues such as:
▪ How does Raleigh’s appearance compare with other comparable cities?
▪ What are the most pressing appearance and quality of life issues facing the City?
▪ How much of a priority are design and appearance issues in relation to the other challenges facing the City?
▪ Where are the best opportunities for improving the City’s image and appearance?
These efforts will result in a summary report prepared with assistance from the Center for Urban Affairs and Community Services (the consultant hired by the commission to complete the survey tasks) and the potential for a citywide symposium of ideas on appearance as a part of next year’s work program.
Another component of the survey includes the development and execution of a self-selected on-line visual preference survey on the City’s web page portal. This is the visual portion of the survey effort, and is aimed at getting a better sense of the public’s opinion regarding the visual aspects of many of the issues addressed in the survey like utility screening, building to the street, building heights, as well as public opinion on various design concepts such as vertically-oriented mixed-use, context-sensitive infill development, unity of development, franchise architecture, and other issues. The survey will ask respondents to score the images they see, and the summary of these scores should give a clearer picture of the preferred design features and patterns. This information will be presented to the Council along with a series of recommendations for pursuing possible regulatory changes needed to support the preferred alternatives (with the understanding that further follow-through would be subject to the availability of staff and budgetary resources).
3. Role in Site Plan and Zoning Case Review
The commission proposes to continue exploring operational improvements such as those described above (training sessions, better coordination, focused involvement on zoning cases, increased attention to issues of design quality and urban form, etc.). Beginning in 2007, we also propose to prepare a summary of emerging appearance issues and trends from the previous fiscal year for City Council’s consideration, as observed in the commission’s review activities, dialogue with staff, and interaction with other City bodies. These notes may provide the basis for possible text amendments and other suggestions for elevating the visual quality of new development.
4. Continuing Service
In tandem with these initiatives will be the commission’s on-going work toward the betterment of Raleigh’s appearance: review of site plans, plan-based zoning cases, and text changes, follow-up with staff and others on current appearance studies, and opportunities for education and outreach. Of note among the latter will be presentation of the 2006 Sir Walter Raleigh Awards, and building public awareness concerning the city’s lighting ordinance, as the end of the grandfathering period in residential areas approaches in May 2007. As always, the commission also welcomes the chance to provide on-call study and recommendation at the request of City Council.
I
In closing, we thank you again for the opportunity to serve the City. We believe that few things are as important to Raleigh’s future as the visual quality of our built environment, and our collective commitment to making Raleigh a better place to live. We have noticed the trends across the state and the nation regarding an increased focus on design and design quality, and we look forward to embracing these trends fully here in Raleigh. We remain committed to our charge of assisting you with the implementation of appearance and quality of life initiatives, and we hope that you will call upon us whenever our advice or expertise is needed.
Mr. Meadows highlighted the report. Mr. Crowder pointed out there are some budget issues and maybe this item should be referred to Budget and Economic Development Committee. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Meadows and the Appearance Commission in general for their work and efforts.
In response to questioning, Mr. Meadows pointed out the ordinance establishing the Appearance Commission calls for a majority of the members being design professionals. He called on the Council to think of that when making appointments. Mr. West stated he understands the need for design professionals on the Appearance Commission but questioned if we need some nondesign professionals to have balance. Mr. Meadows pointed out that is correct for a majority of the members to be design related professionals they would need 8 out of 15 members with some type design background and presently there are only 4 or 5. The comments were received and the item referred to Budget and Economic Development Committee.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION – HUMAN SERVICE GRANTS – RECEIVED – REFERRED TO BUDGET SESSIONS
Eugene Weeks, Chairperson of the Human Relations Commission, pointed out Council members received in their agenda packet the Human Service agencies funding recommendations for 2006-07. He stated they are recommending funding of $500,000 for 32 Human Service organizations pointing out they received 43 applications. He explained the makeup of the 10 member Grants Committee pointing out each of the applicant/programs were interviewed individually over a 4 day period. He stated of the 32 agencies funded in 2005-06 24 requested an increase in funding, 6 agencies requested the same level and 1 agency did not request funding. He stated the Committee is recommending a decrease in funding for 18 agencies, 9 were kept at their previous funding levels and 4 new agencies were recommended for funding. He went over the criteria utilized in making the recommendations including the agency being headquartered in the City of Raleigh, serving City of Raleigh residents, etc.
Mr. Weeks stated their discussion led to several recommendations including requesting the City Council to review the current funding guidelines and determine whether the current guidelines regarding long-term dependency on the program are sufficient pointing out the Council has established clear guidelines that establish the target groups and requirement for funding agencies, however, there is really no established review process. The Grants Committee received input from representatives from both Wake County, Human Services and Triangle United Way on specifics that were used in their grants review process and feel the City should develop a clear review process. The third recommendation is that the Council increase the funding allocations of the present $500,000 due to increase in nonprofit funding requests.
The Council expressed appreciation to the Committee and referred the recommendation to Budget Work Session.
REQUEST AND PETITIONS OF CITIZENS
PUBLIC SAFETY – REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES – RECEIVED; LOITERING ISSUE – REFERRED TO LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Dorothy Sanders presented the following prepared statement.
I reside at 908 S. State St, and I am here representing the citizens of the Central and South Central CAC’s. Our neighborhoods are some of the oldest neighborhoods in the City. We pay our assessed ad valorem taxes without hesitation. We are extremely proud of our homes and the City of Raleigh, especially our very professional Police Department. We have historically solved our own problems; however, our safety is an issue that we cannot solve on our own. Therefore, we are asking for your help. We believe strongly that increasing the visibility of police officers in our neighborhoods is needed.
My house has been burglarized twice in the past year. That is nothing compared to the rapes, shootings, and at least four murders, I know of during that same period. In February, the Central and South Central CAC’s held a joint forum with the Raleigh Police Department to look at ways to deal with our problems. Numerous ideas and recommendations were made such as the need for more community partnerships, residential responsibility for reporting and preventing crime, and the need for improvements to our court system. Also mentioned was the need for additional officers.
In March, District 24 began a month-long operation called the Camden Street Initiative that concentrated efforts on the area between Swain St, Tarboro Rd, New Bern Ave, and Lenoir St. In just the first two weeks, there were:
• 11 quality of life and ABC violations
• 16 trespassing violations
• 15 misdemeanor and 3 felony warrants served
• 28 traffic violations
• 410 rounds of ammunition seized
• 17 felony arrests – 16 drug-related
• 2 hit and run arrests
• 8 gang contact sheets
• and numerous other violations.
As part of this effort, 330 residents were contacted. According to their responses, “most indicated higher police visibility.” More police officers out of their cars and on the street are often mentioned as a need from our CAC members. The police have mentioned that police on foot or bicycle is inefficient since they cannot easily speed across the district to respond to emergencies. We do not dispute this nor claim to be experts in policing. Since the districts are so large, we can see how taking police out of their cars might not make sense.
That is why we are asking you Mr. Allen and the Chief for additional resources. We propose adding 3 to 4 police officers dedicated to designated areas of high crime and vulnerability. The CAC’s along with the police department can work together to identify these areas. We recommend that this be considered as a pilot program for one year. Since we already have significant baseline data, we can use this to measure the success of this program. We believe having the officers walking and biking will generate the following results:
1. more citizen involvement in reporting criminal activity;
2. greater goodwill and collaboration between the police department and residents; and
3. Decrease in open-air drug sales, prostitution, and other crime that is often witnessed more by residents than officers.
In addition to the request for more officers, we would like for the Law & Public Safety Committee help us by address loitering. This issue is of significant concern to the CAC’s and is responsible for driving desirable small businesses out of our community not to mention making residents feel unsafe. We recognize this is a very delicate subject however, we understand other cities have dealt with the issue effectively.
These are our hot-button issues – our Dorothy Dix Park, our impact fees, our Fayetteville Street Renaissance.
Mayor Meeker stated the City Manager and police can make their request/recommendations at budget time. Mr. Crowder pointed out the police are doing their work putting criminals away but then they are let out by other agencies. Mr. Crowder told of a situation where he understands a man was let out of jail because of a lack of room. He stated the City needs to lobby and work on the system.
Mr. West pointed out the City Attorney attended a recent South CAC meeting and the issue of loitering was discussed. City Attorney McCormick indicated maybe the Law and Public Safety Committee could study that issue further with Mr. West agreeing pointing out we keep talking about neighborhood quality and we have to have some type structure to use to help the neighborhoods. He stated we have neighborhood quality teams in some areas and he feels we must do more to help organize neighborhoods to help themselves. Without further discussion the loitering issue was referred to Law and Public Safety Committee.
PROP APPEAL – 8109 PERRY CREEK ROAD – GRANTED – PROPERTY OWNER NOT TO BE PLACED IN PROP PROGRAM
Kyle Sutherland was at the meeting to appeal the Inspections Director’s finding that the property at 8109 Perry Creek Road be placed in the PROP program. He stated he had provided Council members with a detailed letter about his appeal pointing out it was a simple misunderstanding and very regrettable. He stated he is a general contractor and a property owner and his livelihood and business depends on providing safe housing and increasing property values in the City. He stated the fine has been paid and he is simply appealing to the City to forego further action that requires his small business to pay $1,000 for a nonintentional violation. He stated he has several properties a number of them have Section 8 tenants. They have yearly inspections and they do everything they can to comply with the Raleigh Housing Authority guidelines, etc. He stated the tenant was notified to move a refrigerator and that was during an eviction process. He stated he went to the property and the tenant and the refrigerator were gone so he assumed the tenant took it.
Inspections Director Strickland pointed out this is public nuisance situation. The property owner was given 10 days to clear the nuisance and then the City abated the nuisance. Mr. Sutherland pointed out he understands that and doesn’t disagree with the City’s work on the PROP program. In response to questioning from Mr. Craven, Mr. Sutherland indicated the grounds for eviction was nonpavement of rent. The women stopped payment on her check and moved out and he assumed she took the refrigerator with her. Ms. Taliaferro stated as she understands Mr. Sutherland has no problem with paying the fees for the City abating the public nuisance. The request is that he not be put in the PROP program with it being pointed out that is correct. Ms. Taliaferro pointed out one of the things the Council was concerned about when it was establishing the PROP program was vindictive tenants getting their landlord in a problem. Ms. Taliaferro moved that the property be exempt from the program. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Isley.
Mr. Crowder pointed out he thought 10 days was enough time for the property owner should have abated the nuisance. The landlord relied on the tenant but the tenant did not follow through. He stated he does not feel this is a case of a vindictive tenant as the property owner should keep a closer check on the property. Brief discussion took place on the time line of the notification, eviction notices, the tenant moving out, etc., after which the motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Crowder who voted in the negative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-2 vote, therefore, Mr. Sutherland would not be placed in the PROP program.
STORMWATER CONTROL AND WATER COURSE BUFFER REGULATIONS – REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR LOT 7, MILLBROOK PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE SECTIONS 1 AND 2 – APPROVED
Council members received the following information on this request in their agenda packet.
Representatives for Dr. Stacy and Mike Gray are requesting that Lot 7 of Millbrook Professional Village be exempt from the Stormwater Regulations found in Part 10 Chapter 9 of Raleigh City Code. This lot was originally created in February 13th, 1975 as part of an approved subdivision. At the time of subdivision, Raleigh did not have its current stormwater regulations in place. On January 27th, 2006, a recombination was approved for Lots 6 and 7. Prior to the recombination, Lot 6 was over the 0.5 acres and Lot 7 was under 0.5 acres. After the recombination, both lots were now under 0.5 acres. There is an exemption within the stormwater regulations, exempting lots less than 0.5 acres recording prior to May 1st, 2001. With the recombination, both lots 6 and 7 were now subject to stormwater regulations whereas prior to the recombination only Lot 6 was subject to the recombination.
After this most recent recombination, Lot 7 came in for development. It is under 0.5 acres but because of the recording date being after May 1st, 2001, the site is subject to stormwater regulations for quality and quantity control. The representatives for the Grays are asking for an exemption based on the following:
• Before and after the recombination, Lot 7 was under 0.5 acres. Lot 7 did not gain an exemption because of the recombination; it in fact lost its exemption.
• The Grays plan to treat stormwater on Lot 7 for stormwater quality, but have no room for stormwater quantity treatment.
• The increase in stormwater quantity is negligible.
• The Grays are not asking for an exemption for Lot 6, development on that lot will treat its stormwater for quality and quantity.
City Stormwater staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval. This approval is based on the fact that Lot 7 would not have been required to design for any stormwater treatment prior to the recombination, but is now proposing to treat for stormwater quality control. Also, Lot 6 is not included in this variance and will be subject to all stormwater regulations.
City Manager Allen pointed out staff recommends approval. Mr. Isley moved staff’s recommendation for approval of the variance as outlined be upheld. His motion was seconded by Ms. Taliaferro and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
PROP APPEAL – 907 METHOD ROAD – NO ACTION TAKEN
Yong Joo Shin and an interpreter were at the meeting to appeal the Inspections Director’s determination that rental property at 907 Method Road is subject to obtaining a Probationary Rental Occupancy Permit (PROP). The interpreter indicated Mr. Shin has owned the property since 1992. He explained the situation and pointed out Mr. Shin did not intend to violate any rules he was trying to abide by all laws and regulations.
Inspections Director Strickland pointed out this a 12-unit apartment building. Last year they had two public nuisances and one minimum housing violation and that put them in the PROP program. The interpreter pointed out Mr. Shin will continue his efforts to follow the rules. In response to questioning, Inspections Director Strickland pointed out there have been three public nuisances which would put them in the PROP program. The various public nuisances consisted of building materials not suitable for construction, auto parts, debris, breeding grounds, appliances in the front yard, etc. Ms. Taliaferro questioned if Mr. Shin has attended the landlord training session so he would become better qualified to manage the property with it being pointed out if he is put in the PROP program he would be required to attend. No action was taken to relieve Mr. Shin’s appeal to stay out of the PROP program.
MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING
UNFIT DWELLING – 922 SOUTH BLOODWORTH STREET – HEARING – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance prohibiting occupancy of the unfit dwelling at 922 South Bloodworth Street until repaired to comply with the requirements of the Housing Code and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10-6130 of the Raleigh City Code. The property is in the name of Maggie L. Jones, Heirs, c/o Robert Sanders and is known as Tax ID 0037311. The Mayor opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Taliaferro moved adoption of an ordinance declaring 922 South Bloodworth Street unfit. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Crowder and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 10.
UNFIT BULDING DEMOLITION CHARGES – 406-406 ½ HILL STREET – HEARING – RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CHARGES ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider adoption of a resolution confirming the charges in the amount of $9,010.00 for demolition of the unfit building at 406-406 ½ Hill Street as a lien against the property. The property is in the name of Cecil Nello Coble, Jr. and is known as Tax ID 0013704. The Mayor opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Taliaferro moved adoption of a resolution confirming the charges as outlined. Her motion was seconded by Mayor Meeker 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 871.
PUBLIC NUISANCE COST CONFIRMATION – 3225 PINECREST DRIVE – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider adoption of a resolution confirming charges in the amount of $250.00 for the abatement of public nuisances at 3225 Pinecrest Drive as a lien against the property. The property is in the name of Arnold Glen Barwick, Jr., and is known as Tax ID 0023983. The Mayor opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Taliaferro moved adoption of a resolution confirming the charges as outlined. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Kekas and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted. See Resolution 871.
STREET NAME CHANGE–1-06 – SOUTH PEARTREE LANE TO DONALD ROSS DRIVE – HEARING – REFERRED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE
This was a hearing to consider changing the name of a portion of South Peartree Lane to Donald Ross Drive. The hearing is pursuant to petition, resolution of intent, advertisement and notification as required by law (SNC-1-06). The Mayor opened the hearing.
Willie Hood, representing the Raleigh Country Club, pointed out this is a request to change the name of a portion of South Peartree Lane to Donald Ross Drive. He stated there has been confusion because of the North and South Peachtree Lane and their duplicate numbers. He stated they are requesting that a portion of South Peartree Lane be named for Donald Ross a world renowned golf course designer. Mr. Ross lived in North Carolina over 40 years and designed the course and was in Raleigh. He stated in his honor they would like to change the name of the street.
Christian Anastasiadis, General Manager of Raleigh Country Club, pointed out this was the last course designed by Mr. Ross. He designed some 46 golf courses in North Carolina alone. He stated there used to be only one Peartree Lane but now there is a North and South Peartree Lane and it does cause problems. He stated changing the street name would honor the golf history in the area. He stated they have discussed this proposal with 49 of the property owners and at least 23 are in favor, 1 is against and the rest had no response. He expressed appreciation to everyone for their efforts in helping make the Raleigh Country Club what it should be.
Catherleen Thomas, 308 South Peartree, pointed out she has lived at that location since 1976. She is opposed to the street name change. She is also speaking on behalf of the property owners of 115, 119 and 405 South Peartree. She stated she is very proud of the progress and the improvements being made by the Raleigh Country Club. They are keeping up the property since the new owner took over and they are proud of what is going on in that location. She stated, however, she is opposed to the street name change as it would be an imposition on the part of the other property owners. She stated it is expensive to go through the process of changing your address, etc. She pointed out none of the people in the community are members of the Raleigh Country Club and she does not see how changing the street name will enhance the area at all. She just feels it will cause problems for everyone including cab companies trying to find addresses in the area, cost to the City to redraw maps, etc. She stated she had not heard of any confusion between North and South Peartree Lane and called on the Council to leave the name of the street as South Peartree Lane.
Mr. West questioned if the South CAC took a vote on this issue.
Larry Bass, St. Joseph Church, 630 South Peartree, pointed out they own 614, 620, 624 and 630 South Peartree. He applauded the Raleigh Country Club improvements. They have been a very good neighbor but pointed out he feels changing the name of the street will cause problems for the church. He told of their connection to Rome, talked about the type of correspondence they receive from Rome and problems that could cause if the mail did not get forwarded and was returned addressee unknown. He stated he personally visited with the local post office and the management assured them that they would have problems forwarding all of the mail particularly as time passes and substitute mail carriers come on line. He stated his theory is if it is not broken don’t fix it. He feels the street name is fine. He stated, however, he understands the Country Club wanting to honor the designer of the course and questioned if it would be possible to name the road that leads up to the Country the John Ross Drive in recognition of the designer.
The general manager of the Raleigh Country Club indicated they are aware of administrative inconvenience and they would be willing to help support financially the change of address forms, etc. No one else asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed and the matter was referred without objection to the Comprehensive Planning Committee.
EASEMENT EXCHANGE – WESTERN BOULEVARD/BLUE RIDGE ROAD – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider exchanging sanitary sewer easements in the vicinity of Western Boulevard and Blue Ridge Road. The hearing is pursuant to resolution of intent. The Mayor opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. City Manager Allen pointed out staff has no objection. Mr. Isley moved adoption of a resolution authorizing the exchange. His motion was seconded by Ms. Taliaferro and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 8-0 vote. See Resolution 872.
EASEMENT SALE – GLENWOOD PLACE/WOMAN’S CLUB DRIVE – HEARING – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider selling a sanitary sewer easement in the vicinity of Glenwood Place/Woman’s Club Drive pursuant to resolution of intent and advertisement as required by law. The Mayor opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. City Manager Allen pointed out Administration has no objection. Mr. Isley moved adoption of a resolution authorizing the sale as outlined. His motion was seconded by Ms. Taliaferro 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 873.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE
REZONING Z-6-06 – EAST WHITAKER MILL ROAD CONDITIONAL USE – DENIED
Mr. Crowder stated he would like to be excused from participation in this item because of a request made of him to support the case. City Attorney McCormick explained the reasons a Council member could be excused with Mr. Crowder pointing out that may apply. Mayor Meeker moved that Mr. Crowder be excused from participation. His motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted.
Ms. Taliaferro stated she is pleased that the Committee upholding a long standing agreement of the community on this issue. Ms. Kekas moved the Comprehensive Planning Committee’s recommendation for denial be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Crowder who was excused from participation. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.
REZONING Z-63-04 – APPLETON DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE – APPROVED WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS
Chairperson Crowder reported the Comprehensive Planning Committee recommends upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of Z-63-04 as outlined in CR-10941 with amended conditions dated April 4, 2006. On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Crowder moved the recommendation be upheld. His motion was seconded by Ms. Kekas 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 3ZC586.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE REVIEW – PROPOSED AMENDMENT – TO BE PLACED ON MAY 2 AGENDA
Mr. Isley pointed out the Law and Public Safety Committee looked at some proposed amendments to the Entertainment Ordinance and had recommended adding the language to the ordinance to give the City authority to address certain things that are taking place in parking lots and to make sure the City has some way to enforce the ordinance.
Attorney William Potter, representing the Supper Club and a number of other business which maybe affected by this proposal objected to adoption of the amendment as there was no opportunity for the Supper Club or any other businesses to provide input. He suggested the item be sent back to Committee where people would be given an opportunity to be heard. He stated the chairman’s explanation of this change was much simplified and explained discussions that had taken place on this type proposal when the current entertainment ordinance was adopted. He stated with this proposed amendment anyone incident whether inside or in a parking lot of an establishment can cause suspension of the live entertainment permit for a 12-month period. He stated he thought there was 90 plus businesses in the City that have this type permit and he had been told by many of those that they would like to have an opportunity to speak before this proposed amendment is enacted. There are a number of reasons and concerns. He stated to his knowledge this particular language was not discussed in an open meeting and he doesn’t feel it has anything to do with the State Public Nuisance Law. He stated for the City to be able to come in and take away a particular business license based on a single incident in his opinion is a little too strict. He feels that almost all clubs will have had at least a single incident and again requested that the item be referred back to Committee to give everyone an opportunity to speak. He stated the Supper Club employs over 100 people and suspension of their license would cause a great hardship.
Mayor Meeker questioned if this type ordinance would require a public hearing and expressed concern about the single incident being the basis for taking away a license. He stated maybe it could be a serious of incidents or similar events.
Mr. Isley pointed out all meetings of the Committee are open to the public. Ms. Taliaferro pointed out there has been quite a bit of press concerning this issue and pointed out when the entertainment ordinance was reviewed last year this language was proposed by the City Attorney at that point but the Council did not choose to adopt it. Mr. Crowder spoke in support of the proposal pointing out it is just like the PROP ordinance; businesses should be responsible for activities at their location.
Brief discussion took place relative to discussion of this proposal a year ago, the extensive discussion that took place on adoption of the entertainment ordinance after which Mayor Meeker pointed out he wants a strict ordinance but expressed concern about a simple violation closing down a business. He suggested holding the item for two weeks place it on the next Council agenda for further discussion.
Lou Mashakakis pointed out he has four stores in the Raleigh area and they have amplified entertainment permits, however, 60 percent of their revenue comes from food so they do not consider themselves nightclubs. He expressed concern about the proposed ordinance pointing out they have no control over what happens in their parking lot. They have off-duty police working as well as bouncers and he has given them the direction that there would be zero tolerance. He stated there are drug arrests in the parking lot. They have to hire off-duty police officers 7 days a week. He stated everyone will have an incident in their parking lot no matter how much they try to control what goes on and to close a business down after one incident is a little harsh.
Tiffany Montgomery, Supper Club, stated at the Supper Club they have a zero tolerance policy, metal detectors, etc. She stated they have had no violations, no problems but the news media is saying they have a lot of incidents, a lot of calls, etc. She stated there was a report about one call at 9:48 a.m. and they are not even at that time. She talked about the work they do to have a good business, told about incidents that they have experienced, work they do to enforce parking, policing the parking lot to pickup trash, debris, etc., pointing out they go beyond what is required of them. She stated they cannot necessarily control what goes on in the large parking lot. She talked about the amount of security they have and security they provide in the neighborhood.
Cheyenne McDougal, Supper Club, pointed out no one had come to her and voiced any complaints. She welcomed anyone to come directly and talk with her.
It was agreed that the item would be placed on the May 2, 2006 agenda for further consideration.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
STORMWATER UTILITY FEE – LARGE INSTITUTIONS – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH NCSU – APPROVED
Chairperson Taliaferro reported the Public Works Committee recommends amendments to the “City of Raleigh Stormwater Utility Credit and Adjustment Manual” to allow NPDES MS4 permit fee credits of 35 percent and inspection requirements to allow inspections by Chief Executive Officers.
The Committee recommends approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Raleigh and North Carolina State University which would allow increasing the current maximum NPDES MS4 permit fee credit allowed to 35 percent, changes the inspection requirement for facilities that qualify for a detention credit from an annual inspection certified by a professional engineer to an annual certification by the owner or Chief Executive Officer that the detention facility is in place and in proper working order and that an inspection and certification by a professional engineer will be required every 3 years. With these changes, NC State University has agreed to pay fees from the date of Stormwater Utility inception (March 2004) with the proposed NPDES credit of 35 percent and the detention credit for properties draining into Lake Raleigh. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding was in the agenda packet.
On behalf of the Committee, Ms. Taliaferro moved the recommendation be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and 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.
ALLEYWAY MAINTENANCE – ITEM TO BE ADDED TO LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Chairperson Taliaferro reported the Public Works Committee recommends adding to the City’s Legislative Initiative Program changes to NCGS 160-299(c) relating to the manner and procedure for street or alley closing. On behalf of the Committee, Ms. Taliaferro moved the recommendation be upheld. Her 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.
TC-2-06 – GROUP HOUSING EMERGENCY ACCESS – APPROVED – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
Chairperson Taliaferro reported the Public Works Committee recommends upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of TC-2-06 as outlined in CR10960 in order to eliminate the existing conflicts between the Zoning Code and Building Code regarding emergency access. A copy of the CR was in the agenda packet. On behalf of the Committee, Ms. Taliaferro moved the recommendation be upheld. She pointed out we expect many of these text changes to come through as we move towards to the International Fire Code. The 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 Ordinance 11TC285.
REPORT OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
REZONING Z-10-06 – FRENCH DRIVE - TO BE PLACED ON MAY 2, 2006 AGENDA
Mr. Craven indicated some time back rezoning Z-10-06 – French Drive was presented to the Council. He stated the Council deferred action to see if the parties could work out the road network situation and it looks as if that is not going to occur. He suggested that the rezoning case be placed on May 2, 2006 agenda for consideration. The Clerk was directed to place the item on the May 2, 2006 agenda.
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA – ITEMS ADDED
Mayor Meeker pointed out he had provided Council members a memorandum relative to the joint MPO Transportation Funding Initiative Task Force. He stated they met on Friday, March 31 to discuss the region’s transportation needs and formulated a unified legislative agenda as follows:
The Joint Transportation Funding Initiative Task Force, representing the greater Triangle region, has identified a unified legislative agenda that is consistent with the State of North Carolina’s Blue Ribbon Commission on transportation needs. Based on the funding needs in the Triangle and other funding initiatives in North Carolina the emphasis items in order of priority are:
1. Permanently end the transfer of Highway Trust Fund reserve (over $250 million per year) to the North Carolina General Fund.
2. Modernize the equity formula to address congestion related needs.
3. Create transportation and infrastructure local revenue option authority.
4. Ensure that any toll revenue generated in a region stays in that region.
Mayor Meeker questioned if the Council wanted to deal with a proposal to endorse the initiative or wanted to wait until the next meeting. No Council member objected to taking it up at the meeting. Mayor Meeker moved endorsement of the initiatives and adding them to the legislative agenda. 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.
FUEL EFFICIENCY – CITY ORGANIZATION – REFERRED TO BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mayor Meeker pointed out the big oil companies are doing it to us again in that the price of gasoline is souring. He suggested referring the issue of fuel efficiency in the City organization to the Budget and Economic Development Committee so the Committee could look at ways or suggestions to deal with the issue. Without discussion the item was referred to Committee.
HANDICAPPED PARKING – COMMENTS RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION
Mayor Meeker stated he and other Council members had met with the Downtown Raleigh Alliance relative to the Mayor’s Committee recommendations relating to handicapped parking. They concur in the recommendation to establish a citizen patrol. He suggested referring that to Administration for further action. He stated the citizen patrol could determine if the handicapped stickers were in deed legal, warranted, etc. He stated also maybe we could look at reducing or providing incentives for handicapped parkers to park in our parking decks rather then on the street. He asked that the item be referred to Administration.
EXPLORIS/PLAYSPACE – FUNDING – REFERRED TO BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mayor Meeker pointed out the County recently funded a study relating to the possible merger of Exploris and Playspace. He asked that the issue of funding for this issue be referred to Budget and Economic Development Committee. Without objection the item was so referred.
PEACH ROAD – COMMENTS RECEIVED
Mr. West talked about a property owner on Peach Road who would like to partner with the City in programs to improve that area. The gentleman owns a number of rental properties on Peach Road and he is very appreciative of the Inspections Department’s work and asked that someone from Administration work with the property owner on other initiatives that maybe undertaken.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – COMMENTS RECEIVED
Mr. West asked about the City’s appointment policy as it relates to alternates. It was agreed that the City Clerk would talk with Mr. West about the process.
ARCHELOGICAL DIGS – COMMENTS RECEIVED
Mr. Crowder explained the City recently funded an archeological dig at the site of the first Wake County Courthouse site proceeding development in that area and he understands they are finding some artifacts including a root cellar, etc. He expressed appreciation to the City Council for supporting that effort.
PUBLIC NUISANCE – WOODSDALE/JONES FRANKLIN – REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Crowder asked Administration to look at a situation at the corner of Woodsdale and Jones Franklin Road where evidently a house has been moved, trees torn down, debris is everywhere. He asked Administration to check the situation. The item was referred to Administration.
LITTER – PROBLEMS/SOLUTIONS – REFERRED TO BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Crowder talked about recent newspaper articles and concerns about litter in our area. He stated the Council must start thinking about how we are going to address it pointing out he would like to come with a way or disincentives that would keep people from littering. The item was referred to Budget and Economic Development Committee.
GREENWAY – HORTON STREET – INFORMATION REQUESTED
Ms. Kekas asked about the time frame for completing the parking area at the end of Horton Street which accesses the greenway. City Manager Allen stated he thought it would be completed within the next year or so.
APPOINTMENTS
APPOINTMENTS – VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN
The City Clerk reported the following results of a ballot vote:
Appearance Commission - One Vacancy - Jeff Snell – 5 (West, Craven, Kekas, Taliaferro, Isley); Paul Shannon – 2 (Crowder, Stephenson).
Convention Center Commission - Five Vacancies - Don Walston, Geoff Elting, Lou Mitchell – 8 (All Council members); John Odom – 7 (West, Craven, Kekas, Taliaferro, Isley, Crowder, Stephenson); Mort Congleton – 7 (Meeker, West, Craven, Kekas, Taliaferro, Isley, Crowder); Jason Bennett – 2 (Meeker, Stephenson).
Mordecai Historic Park Advisory Committee - Nine Vacancies - Cyrus Stacey has been nominated. The following nominations were made by Mr. Crowder: Janet Cowell, Sam Mordecai, Sara Williamson and Tom Alexander.
Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board - Three Vacancies – Greg Barley, Doris Burke and Shoshana Serxner have been nominated. Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Crowder nominated Kevin Brice and Joseph Huberman.
The appointment of Jeff Snell to the Appearance Commission, reappointment of Don Walston, Geoff Elting, John Odom and Lou Mitchell and appointment of Mort Congleton to the Convention Center Commission was announced. The other items will be carried over until the next meeting.
NOMINATIONS
APPEARANCE COMMISSION – NOMINATION MADE
The term of Jim Tarantino is expiring. He does not wish to be considered for reappointment. Mr. Isley nominated John Holtz. The item will be carried over to the next meeting.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
PRAYER AT COUNCIL MEETINGS – ACLU SUGGESTIONS – REFERRED TO LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
City Attorney McCormick indicated the City Clerk’s office has received a letter from the ACLU relative to questions about prayers at Council meetings. Without discussion the item was referred to Law and Public Safety Committee.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY CLERK
MINUTES – APRIL 4, 2006 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Council members received in their agenda packet copies of the minutes of the April 4, 2006 Council meeting. Mayor Meeker moved approval as presented. His motion was seconded by Ms. Taliaferro and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Mayor Meeker announced the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Gail G. Smith
City Clerk
041806/dm
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- 2 9 06 kan nc house republicans
- 2015 05 may newsletter
- minutes st andrew presbytery
- ccstewart upei serenitystreetnews
- the fbi cointelpro white hate and the decline of ku klux
- city of raleigh city council minutes 9 7 04
- council minutes
- raleigh city council minutes 09 02 2014
- what do i do the role of the board director ncawdb
Related searches
- western provincial council sri lanka
- supreme council of education qatar
- abu dhabi education council calendar
- abu dhabi education council website
- supreme council qatar
- american finance council scam
- abu dhabi education council registration
- city council finance
- city council chairs
- purpose of city council committees
- nyc council committee chairs
- abu dhabi education council address