Raleigh City Council Minutes - 01/06/2015
COUNCIL MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in regular session at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 6, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present.
Mayor Nancy McFarlane, Presiding
Mayor Pro Tem John Odom
Councilor Mary-Ann Baldwin
Councilor Kay C. Crowder
Councilor Bonner Gaylord
Councilor Wayne K. Maiorano
Councilor Russ Stephenson
Councilor Eugene Weeks
Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order. Invocation was rendered by Father Paul Christy of Holy Trinity Creek Orthodox Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilor Kay Crowder.
The following items were discussed with action taken as shown.
RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL AWARDS
CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT – PRESENTATION MADE
Mayor McFarlane presented a certificate to Priscilla J. Peace who was recently appointed to the Housing Appeals Board. Ms. Peace expressed appreciation for her appointment explaining she looks forward to working with the City in this capacity.
ARTS PROGRAM – 12TH ANNUAL NATIONAL EXHIBIT AND COMPETITION – WINNERS ANNOUNCED
The 12th Annual National Arts Program exhibition, at the Block Gallery features 110 works of art by City of Raleigh and Wake County employees and their families. The National Arts Program is designed to give all artists, at every skill level, an opportunity to exhibit their artwork in a professional manner. The exhibition is sponsored by the United Arts Council of Raleigh and Wake County and the City of Raleigh Arts Commission, in collaboration with The National Arts Program Foundation of Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Judges for this year’s exhibition were Linda Dallas, Commissioner with the City of Raleigh Arts Commission; City Manager Ruffin Hall; and County Manager Jim Hartmann. Today, we will be announcing our City of Raleigh winners, and giving out cash prizes paid for by the National Arts Program. Would the following individuals please come up to be recognized and accept your awards?
In the Amateur Category-
1st place Amateur - Jessica Savage, Relative of a City Employee with Public Affairs
2nd place – Richard Bailey, City Employee with Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources
3rd place- Deborah Mangrum, City Employee with Public Works
Honorable Mention- Kelly Ann Kinney, City Employee with the Police Department
In the Intermediate Category-
1st place Intermediate- Shannon O’Shea, relative of City employee in Public Utilities
2nd Place- David Burke, relative of City employee in Human Resources
In the Professional Category-
2nd place- Janie Johnson, City employee with Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources
3rd place- Autumn Cobeland, City employee with Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources
Honorable Mention- Kendal Draper, City employee with Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources
In the Youth Category-
2nd- Justin Silluzio (12 years old), relative of City employee in Police Department
3rd Place – Alan Burton (8 years old) relative of City employee with Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources
Honorable Mention- Dillon Leacock (11 years old), relative of City employee with Housing and Neighborhoods
In the Teen Category-
1st Tyler Mae Stempien (15 years old) relative of City employee in Public Utilities
2nd Haley McCay (16 years old) relative of City employee in Public Affairs
3rd Danielle Walden (14 years old) relative of City employee in Public Utilities
Honorable Mention- Jamie Turner, relative of City employee in the City Manager’s office
People’s Choice Award- Wilma Mitchell-Bethea, relative of City Employee in the Human Resources Department
Best in Show Award- Arianna Paine, Snow Leopard, Teen – Relative of a City Employee
AGENCY GRANTEE PRESENTATION – THE HEALING PLACE – RECEIVED
Barrett Joyner and Dennis Parnell, CEO of The Healing Place of Wake County, were present to talk about the work of The Healing Place. They presented a report highlighting Wake County population growth and homelessness for the period 2001 through 2013 pointing out Raleigh is in a growth mode and to keep up with downtown economic development and cost effectively provide solutions for the chronically homeless, The Healing Place plans to expand. They presented information which explained each night they provide shelter and long-term recovery program for some 180 homeless men and 80 homeless women who are addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs. The number has increased 14% since 2011. The information talked about the cost and effectiveness of the programs which are public/private partnership which saves funds on emergency services, law enforcement, health and welfare. They expressed appreciation for the City of Raleigh’s support to their program.
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED AS AMENDED
Mayor McFarlane presented the consent agenda indicating all items are considered to be routine and may be enacted by one motion. If a Councilor requests discussion on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. She explained the vote on the consent agenda will be a roll call vote. Mayor McFarlane stated she had received the following requests to withdraw items from the consent agenda: Hillsborough Street Revitalization Project Phase Two; Beaverwood Drive Drainage Petition; 2014 Parks Bond Referendum (Maiorano); Market Plaza and Exchange Plaza Improvements (Gaylord/Weeks); Floodplain Map Change – Mitchell Mill Road Widening (Stephenson). Mayor McFarlane stated Item 3.5 which is a utility extension agreement between the City of Raleigh and Tryon WF, LLC, item is missing the recommended public hearing date. She asked that the current agenda be amended to show that the recommended public hearing date is February 3, 2015. Without objection the consent agenda was amended as suggested. Mr. Weeks moved approval of the consent agenda as amended. His motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. The items on the consent agenda were as follows.
UTILITY RATES – TOWNHOMES WITH INTEGRAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
During a period from 2005 to 2007, certain townhome developments in Raleigh designed the plumbing for townhomes with integral sprinkler systems such that the fire sprinkler systems are supplied water through the domestic meter instead of a direct, unmetered connection as is the current standard. The meter size necessary to supply fire flow is larger than is needed for domestic use. As a result, approximately 150 customers are being billed significantly higher Administration and Infrastructure Replacement Charges than other townhome residents with the same usage patterns; this discrepancy is due to the basis for these charges being associated with meter size.
To resolve this unintended consequence, staff proposes to establish a new rate for townhomes with 1½” or 2” meters that were required by the North Carolina Residential Code to have fire sprinkler systems and that were plumbed such that the sprinkler systems are supplied water through the domestic meter service. The proposed new rate would charge this type of customer the same Water and Sewer Administrative Charge and Sewer Infrastructure Replacement Charge as a typical 5/8” metered residential customer, but would charge the Water Infrastructure Replacement Charge (IRC) based on the actual meter size (1½”or 2”). The intent of the higher Water IRC is to help recover the higher maintenance and replacement costs for the larger meter.
Recommendation: Approve the new rate structure. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 378.
RALEIGH HOUSING AUTHORITY- CERTIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY – EXECUTION AUTHORIZED
The Consolidated Plan incorporates efforts by the Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA) to establish long range goals to provide affordable housing to very low-income residents. Included in the plan was a description of RHA goals for capital improvements and policies that support the needs of residents. The RHA has approved the agency plan.
Staff has reviewed the request for certification and determined that it is consistent with the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. Included with the agenda packet is additional information regarding the RHA Agency Plan.
Recommendation: Authorize execution of the Certification of Consistency. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM – MINOR PROJECTS – PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2015
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) minor projects focus on the installation of speed humps on existing residential streets for the purpose of controlling vehicular speeds. It is recommended that a design review with public input be held for the five projects authorized with FY2013-14 funding. Projects on the list were approved by City Council in November 2013.
Each street has gone through the following process outlined in the NTMP policy: an introductory meeting to explain the program; submittal of a petition of support signed by at least 75% of the properties listed; a public workshop, preliminary design review and comment period; and a second public workshop to adopt final changes.
Listed below are the streets proposed for traffic calming treatment:
• Johnsdale Road (Litchford Road to Litchford Road)
• Northbrook Drive - Middle (Pamlico Drive to Six Forks Road)
• Dandridge Drive (Cross Link Road to Bunche Drive)
• Alleghany Drive (Alamance Drive to Transylvania Avenue)
• Clarks Fork Drive - East (Haines Creek Lane to Myakka Court)
Recommendation: Schedule public hearings for February 3, 2015. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM – MAJOR PROJECTS – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 3, 2015
Staff has completed draft designs for three neighborhood streetscape/traffic calming projects under the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). NTMP major projects involve the installation of medians, curb extensions and other pedestrian-oriented infrastructure designed to address traffic calming issues.
It is recommended that a design review with public input be scheduled for these projects, all of which were included in the project priority list previously adopted by the City Council for the program. Each project has met the requirements of the NTMP policy, which includes a completed petition of support signed by at least 75% of the properties along the street and two public workshops. The proposed neighborhood streetscape projects under consideration are:
• Cross Link Road - South, from Garner Road to Dandridge Drive,
• Currituck Drive, from Lassiter Mill Road to Tyrrell Road, and
• Town and Country Road, from Millbrook Road to Lead Mine Road.
Recommendation: Schedule public hearings for March 3, 2015. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT – TRYON WF, LLC – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2015
Tryson WF, LLC has obtained approval from the Town of Wake Forest for development of 131.5 acres for 415 single-family and townhome lots. Connection to the public water and sewer systems are required for the development. A public hearing is required in order to proceed with an agreement to extend utilities, in accordance with provisions outlined in Resolution (203)- 837. Additional background information was included with the agenda packet.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Clerk to schedule and advertise a public hearing for February 3, 2015 for consideration of a Utility Extension Agreement. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANTS – DESIGNATED AGENTS – APPROVED
The City periodically applies for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Grants to assist with acquisition of repetitive flood loss properties within the City jurisdiction. During the grant process, FEMA requires designation of an agent at the staff level that is authorized to file applications, execute assurances, and coordinate the submission of regular cost reports for active grants. The grant application(s) are for funding the acquisition of repetitive loss properties.
Recommendation: Authorize the designation of the Stormwater Program Manager and the Floodplain Administrator as staff level agents to act on behalf of the City. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes. See Resolution 50.
EASEMENT EXCHANGE – 9225 GLENWOOD AVENUE – FRED ANDERSON NISSAN – RESOLUTION OF INTENT ADOPTED
A request has been received to exchange an existing 30-foot-wide Sycamore Creek sanitary sewer pump station access easement of approximately 486 linear feet (approximately 15,537 square feet) valued at approximately $44,750. The new 30-foot-wide Sycamore Creek sanitary sewer pump station access easement is approximately 747 linear feet (approximately 22,462 square feet) valued at approximately $64,700 and located at 9225 Glenwood Avenue in Raleigh. The sanitary sewer pump station access easement exchange will allow better development of the property and the realignment has been reviewed by staff. Since the proposed sanitary sewer pump station access easement and exchange renders the City whole in its ability to provide on-going sewer service, as is the case with the existing alignment, no monetary consideration is recommended by staff as a condition of the exchange.
Recommendation: Authorize the easement exchange and direct the City Clerk to advertise. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes. See Resolution 44.
TRIANGLE HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY – INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION – MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is partnering with NCDOT, Triangle Transit, and the City of Durham to undertake a Triangle Household Travel Survey. Survey data will be used to support the improvement of regional travel demand forecasting models. Data collection will take place over two fiscal years and will be conducted by the Institute of Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) at North Carolina State University. The CAMPO share of the cost is $175,249, which has been appropriated in the budget as part of the approved Unified Planning Work Program.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
LYNN ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL/WILLIAMS PARK – JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM – AMENDMENT AUTHORIZED
A joint-use agreement exists for use of space at Williams Park and Lynn Road Elementary School. This is a 25-year agreement that permits the school system to use designated areas of Williams Park during the school day, with designated areas of Lynn Road Elementary available to the public outside of normal school hours. The City no longer requires access to certain leased areas addressed under the agreement. An amendment to existing provisions of the use agreement is warranted.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment to the joint use agreement. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
DEMOLITION/ASBESTOS ABATEMENT – MILNER INN AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES – CONTRACT WITH JANEZIC BUILDING GROUP, LLC – APPROVED
This contract will provide for asbestos abatement services, structure demolition and removal of the parking lot and access bridge that is located on the property.
Name of Project: FEMA grant HMGP-PJ-NC-1969-0008
Managing Division: Public Works - Stormwater
Request Reason: Execute Contract
Cause of Contract: FEMA Grant-demolition of repetitive loss structures located in the FEMA designated floodplain
Original CIP Project Budget: $180,876
Design Estimate: N/A
Vendor: Janezic Building Group, LLC
Prior Contract Activity: N/A
Budget Transfer: N/A
New Project Budget: $180,876
Currently Encumbered (% of estimate): 0%
Amount of this Contract: $180,876
Encumbered with this Approval: $180,876
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
E.M. JOHNSON WATER TREATMENT PLANT – CONTRACT WITH HAZEN AND SAWYER, PC – AUTHORIZED
The purpose of this contract is to provide additional professional engineering services during the construction phase which will include construction office administration and field observation and inspection services as required. The project is funded by the Federal Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Loan Program.
Explanation of Contract Purpose: Contract execution
Name of Project: E. M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant Sodium Permanganate Facility
Managing Division: Public Utilities – CIP
Approval request: Professional Services Contract
Reason for Council review: Professional Services Contract >$150,000
Original CIP Budget: $4.1 million (Total Project Budget)
Design Contract Amount: $431,400
Vendor: Hazen and Sawyer, PC
Prior contract activity: None
Previously encumbered: None
Encumbered with this approval: $431,400
Budget Transfer Required: Administrative
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION – CONTRACT WITH CITI, LLC – AUTHORIZED
A three year contract in the amount of $725,940 has been negotiated with CITI, LLC to provide SCADA system installation, programming, troubleshooting, and maintenance service for E.M Johnson Water Treatment Plant, Remote Pumping and Storage Facilities, and the D.E Benton Water Treatment Plant. Terms of the contract include the option to extend for two additional years based on vendor performance.
Explanation of Contract Purpose: Execute multi-year contract.
Name of Project: SCADA Professional Services Contract
Managing Division: Public Utilities – Water Treatment Plant division
Approval request: Contract Award
Reason for Council review: Contract >$150,000
Fiscal Year 15 Budget: $255,000
Annual Contract Amount: $241,980
Encumbered with this approval: $241,980
Vendor: CITI, LLC
Prior contract activity: N/A
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
EPLUS GROUP, INC. – LEASE SCHEDULES 154 AND 155 – MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE
The City utilizes a leasing company to provide technology equipment including desktop computers, laptops, projectors, and network equipment such as switches, routers, and servers. The Master Lease Agreement provides for new equipment to be leased via a series of quarterly lease schedules. Lease Schedule 154 in the amount of $539,358 is for a five-year term and Lease Schedule 155 in the amount of $624,348 is for a four-year term. The contract amounts individually exceed administrative approval thresholds.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute Lease Schedule 154 and Lease Schedule 155. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
PERSONNEL – VARIOUS POSITION RECLASSIFICATIONS – APPROVED
The following positions were submitted to the Human Resources Department for classification review. The process has been suspended to provide for an internal review and evaluation of the reclassification process, which resulted in a backlog of reclassification requests being brought forward at this time following internal vetting and review. The fiscal impact of the reclassifications will be addressed within existing salary and benefit appropriations. The following changes are recommended:
Budget & Management Services
Budget & Management Services Director (code 0439; position 1099) from PG 45 to PG 48
Senior Real Estate Specialist (code 0447; PG 36; position 1096) to Real Estate Operations & Portfolio Coordinator (code 0486; PG 38)
City Manager’s Office
Senior Staff Support Specialist (code 0004; PG 25; position 1068) to Administrative Assistant (code 0401; PG 31)
Administrative Assistant (code 0401; PG 31: position 1084) to Business Assistance Program Specialist (code 0393; PG 34)
Information Technology
Senior Database Administrator (code 0335; PG 38; position 1573) to Information Technology Analyst (code 0453; PG 42)
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources
Recreation Facilities & Program Supervisor I (code 2218; PG 30; position nos. 5152, 4088, 3174, 3167, 3144, 3146, 3143, 3169) to Recreation Facilities & Program Supervisor II (code 2219; PG 33)
Recreation Facilities & Program Supervisor II (code 2219; PG 33; position nos. 3176, 3175, 3156, 3157, 3152, 3151, 5866) to Recreation Facilities & Program Supervisor III (code 2229; PG 35)
Planning & Development
Web Content Manager (code 0326; PG 35; position 1263) to Senior Communications Specialist (code 0475; PG 36)
Building Plans Examiner Supervisor (code 4210; PG 36; position 1436) to Chief Residential Permit & Training Officer (code 4218; PG 38)
Public Affairs
Senior Public Affairs Specialist (code 0464; PG 34; position 1082) to Public Information Manager (code 3265; PG 37)
Public Works
Streets Safety Coordinator (code 4140; PG 31; position 2780) to Transportation Field Services Safety Coordinator (code 4140; PG 33)
Automotive Specialist (code 4628; PG 28; position 2758) to Garage Supervisor (code 4631; PG 32)
Stormwater Monitoring Technician (code 1040; PG 26; position 1223) to GIS Technician (code 0330; PG 30)
Convention and Performing Arts Center
Security Guard (code 3016; PG 23; position 4223) to Events Coordinator (code 0631; PG 32)
Recommendation: Approve the reclassifications. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
PERSONNEL – NEW POSITIONS IN PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES – APPROVED – FUNDS APPROPRIATED
The following new positions have been reviewed by the Human Resources Department and are requested for authorization.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources
Facility Operations Manager (code 002122; PG 34)
Maintenance Mechanic III (code 004417; PG 32)
Maintenance Mechanic I (code 004410; PG 30) (two positions)
The four (4) new positions respond to the opening of the Downtown Remote Operations Center. This 156,713 sq. ft. facility was designed and constructed to LEED designation, and consists of a campus that houses 13 buildings in support of operations for the Public Works and Parks departments. Construction of the facility is ahead of original projections and schedule, necessitating the need for staff at this time. This will allow staff assigned to the new facility to engage in fundamental testing, commissioning, and manufacturer training. Funding for the remainder of the fiscal year is appropriated for salary and operational needs of the positions; a transfer in the amount of $74,785 from various divisions is necessary.
Recommendation: Authorize four new positions and associated budget transfer in the amount of $74,785. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 379 TF 243.
ENCROACHMENT – 401 HILLSBOROUGH STREET – APPROVED CONDITIONALLY
A request has been received from HedgeHog Holdings to install two benches in the right-of-way of 401 Hillsborough Street. A report was in the agenda packet.
Recommendation: Approve the encroachment subject to completion of a liability agreement and documentation of proof of insurance by the applicant. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes.
BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND TRANSFERS – VARIOUS – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
The agenda presented the following recommended budget amendments and transfers.
A budget amendment is necessary to appropriate anticipated donation activities to the Police Department in support of the Youth and Family Services programs.
Recommendation: Authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $20,000. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.
On November 18, 2014, City Council authorized change order number eight for the Honeycutt Greenway construction project. At that time staff communicated that a final change order would be necessary to address ongoing unit-price quantity adjustments. The contractor has submitted final estimates and change order number nine, in the amount of $456,207, has been prepared to carry the project through completion. The change order will be executed administratively.
To provide funding for the final change order, a transfer is necessary in the amount of $225,000 which is available from residual balances in the following projects: Walnut Creek Greenway (complete) and the Senior Center project (complete).
Recommendation: Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $225,000. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.
Reorganization within the Water Distribution division has created continuous preventive maintenance programs with daily focus on hydrants, valves, leak detection, and other underground asset inspections. This has increased the number of work orders as well as necessary inventory to repair or replace assets in the distribution system. There is currently a 39% increase in monthly material costs due to the ongoing hydrant inspection and replacement program. A transfer of $550,000 is necessary to cover operational and maintenance expenditures within the water distribution programs for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Recommendation: Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $550,000. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.
Street cut activity has exceeded projections in the current fiscal year. The Street Maintenance division of the Public Works Department assesses for the cost of water and sewer street cut repairs associated with infrastructure maintenance and repair activity. A transfer of $583,650 is necessary to cover anticipated expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Recommendation: Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $583,650. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.
Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 379 TF 243.
TRAFFIC – NO TURN ON RED/GLASCOCK STREET AT WAKE FOREST ROAD – APPROVED – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
It is recommended that a “No Turn on Red” prohibition be made for westbound Glascock Street at Wake Forest Road. Vehicles attempting to make a right turn on red are unable to complete this maneuver safely due to limited sight distance.
Recommendation: Approve as recommended and authorize the appropriate changes in the traffic code was included in the agenda packet. Upheld on Consent Agenda Weeks/Odom – 8 ayes. See Ordinance 380.
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
FLOODPLAIN CHANGE – 1-2015 – MITCHELL MILL ROAD WIDENING – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED
The Mitchell Mill Road widening project was approved by Council following a public hearing December 2, 2014. As part of the project a flood map revision, FP-1-2015, will be required. The revision will affect the upstream reach of a Neuse River tributary; none of the changes impact existing structures.
Recommendation: Schedule a public hearing for February 3, 2015 to consider flood map revision FP-1-2015.
Mr. Stephenson pointed out in looking at the back up, it looks as if this will be an expansion of the floodplain zone in the area and he wanted to make sure all property owners are notified. Mr. Odom questioned if Mr. Stephenson is talking about notification in addition to the impacted property owners. Stormwater Engineer Ben Brown talked about the location of the proposed expansion pointing out there are no structures involved. It could expand over some property lines. In response to questioning from Mr. Odom, Mr. Stephenson stated it looks like a substantial change and he just wants to make sure all property owners are notified. Ms. Crowder pointed out there are currently flooding problems or issues in this area and she would like to make sure that they are not compounded with Mr. Brown talking about flooding issues relating to possible overtopping the streets, etc. Mr. Odom moved the recommendation be upheld. 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.
HILLSBOROUGH STREET REVITALIZATION PROJECT – PHASE TWO – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2015
Public meetings were held on March 18, 2014 and September 25, 2014 for the Hillsborough Street Revitalization Project, Phase Two, which is scoped from the Rosemary/Shepherd Street intersection to Gardner Street. The purpose of the project is to transform this major thoroughfare from a congested multi-lane undivided roadway section to a safer two-lane avenue and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment by improving pedestrian safety and convenience, enhancing motorist safety, and supporting revitalization efforts. The proposed improvements consist of a raised median, marked bike lanes, and wider sidewalks. The improvements also include proposed single-lane roundabouts at Rosemary/Shepherd Street, Dixie Trail/Friendly Drive, and Brooks Avenue. Dan Allen Drive will become a Right-in, Right-out with a westbound left turn lane. It is now appropriate to schedule a public hearing to consider final authorization of the project.
Recommendation: Schedule a public hearing for February 3, 2015 to consider the improvements.
Mr. Maiorano stated he withdrew this from the Consent Agenda and asked to be reminded of the cost of this project. Public Works Engineer Chris Johnson pointed out he thinks it is around $7M. Mr. Maiorano questioned if the staff has undertaken an evaluation as to whether the City has accomplished what they set out to do in Phase One. Mr. Johnson indicated they did look at the lessons learned in Phase One and did do some changes in cross sections particularly relating to bike lanes. He talked about the right-of-way in Phase Two compared to Phase One and where they have changed the cross sections including widening the bike lanes to help prevent dooring problems and how in some areas they may have smaller medians. In response to the additional questions from Mr. Maiorano, Mr. Johnson indicated the plans are based on the 1999 study. They haven’t made any changes, the study that is currently going on by Planning relating to Hillsborough Street and Cameron Village areas is basically a land use plan. Here we are talking about a specific road project within the right-of-way. Mr. Maiorano questioned whether it would be best to hold off on the Hillsborough Street Phase Two project until we get results from the Cameron Village\Hillsborough planning study. Office of Transportation Planner Director Eric Lamb indicated the Hillsborough Cameron Village plan is basically a land use plan. He stated there have been discussions with the Hillsborough Community Service Corporation and there was a meeting held just prior to Christmas to talk about that particular item. The Hillsborough CSC generally agreed that the City should go ahead with the Hillsborough Street public hearing, get that feed back then determine if there should be any delay or holding of the project.
Mr. Maiorano again indicated he understood there were some visioning exercises going on in the Cameron Village Neighborhood Plan and questioned if there is synergy or benefit for these plans to be joined together rather than moving forward on different tracks. Mr. Lamb pointed out if we hold off on the Hillsborough Street we would be loosing about a year based on construction projects, etc. Mr. Maiorano again questioned and voiced concern about moving ahead with Phase Two rather than making it a part of the on-going study.
Ms. Crowder pointed out she feels for the City Council as a government to be effective for the people we have to move forward. She stated the City has been working on this project since 1999. She stated the citizens, developers, and all concerned who are working on various projects along the area expect the City to move forward with the project that has been approved. She stated if the Council does not move forward with approved projects and letting citizens know that they can trust the government to do what it says it will do, she feels we would be losing creditability. She indicated there were representatives of the various businesses at the recent meeting such as a Kane representative and others who are working on projects said they felt the project needs to move forward. The people, developers, citizens, etc., have spent a lot of time working on this project, the City has spent 100s of thousands of dollars in design and she feels to stop and say lets wait another year causes concerns. She stated Cameron Village and Hillsborough Street have separate needs and moved that the Council go forward with the public hearing on February 3, 2015 to consider the improvements as recommended by staff. Ms. Baldwin pointed out there is precedent for the City Council to step back and consider projects; however she feels it would be a smart move to go forward with the public hearing, get comments before making further decisions. Mr. Odom seconded the motion to move forward with the public hearing and the motion was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
BEAVERWOOD DRIVE – DRAINAGE PETITION – STAFF AUTHORIZED TO PURCHASE 7313 BEAVERWOOD DRIVE
Council approved a stormwater drainage petition project on April 17, 2012 for 7313 and 7317 Beaverwood Drive, as recommended by Stormwater Management Advisory Commission. During the design phase of the project it was discovered that the foundation of the house at 7313 Beaverwood was compromised by a failing pipe. Construction bids were solicited; the low bid which exceeds $160,000 for repair work far exceeds initial cost estimates due to additional work required to stabilize the foundation. A property appraisal revealed that the property could be acquired at an estimated cost of $112,500.
The option to purchase was presented to Stormwater Management Advisory Commission on December 4, 2014 for comment; the Commission voted unanimously to recommend acquisition as the most reasonable path forward.
Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of 7313 Beaverwood Drive and the acquisition of a permanent public drainage easement over the pipe system on 7317 Beaverwood Drive. Mr. Maiorano pointed out he had withdrawn this from the consent agenda stating he wants to better understand what is being recommended and why. Chris Stanley, Public Works Department, explained the history of the project pointing out as the City was looking at the best way to alleviate the problems at 7313 Beaverwood Drive, it was found it is much cheaper to acquire the property for development of a permanent public drainage easement than it is to repair this situation. He explained the recommendation to acquire the property, demolish the building, and daylighting the channel pointing out there is a lot of metal pipe in the neighborhood and there may be additional problems and we could possibly use this property for an outlet area or staging, etc., on future corrections. Mr. Maiorano stated he understood and he appreciates the long term planning but questioned if there is a way to get the property back into private ownership; that is, fix the problem get it back in private ownership and hopefully recoup some of the cost involved. Mr. Stanley pointed out the cost to fix the problem is north of $160,000. We can acquire the property, demolish the building, day light the stream, and if you look at the whole situation that would be much more efficient in terms of water quality and this is the more economical approach. Mr. Maiorano moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Odom 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.
PARKS BOND REFERENDUM – 2014 – TRANSFER AUTHORIZED
A budget transfer is required in the amount of $100,000 to appropriate funding for expenses incurred from the 2014 Parks Bond referendum that are due to the Wake and Durham County Boards of Elections.
Recommendation: Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $100,000. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet. Mr. Maiorano questioned the involvement of the Durham County Board of Elections with it being pointed out a portion of City of Raleigh is in Durham County and they conducted the election for those people. Mr. Maiorano stated he thought that was the case but wanted to make sure and moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 379 TF 243.
MARKET PLAZA AND EXCHANGE PLAZA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – TO BE PLACED ON JANUARY 20 AGENDA AS A SPECIAL ITEM
On December 12, 2014 formal bids were opened to perform improvements to Market Plaza and Exchange Plaza; each plaza provides pedestrian access between Fayetteville and Wilmington streets. The project involves renovations and improvements to both plazas, which are in varying states of disrepair. Improvements include the installation of new concrete unit pavers, concrete paving, seat walls, planting, site lighting, storm water drainage, electrical service, water service, irrigation, screen enclosures, and shade structures.
A total of four bids were received. The lowest bid was submitted by Holt Brothers Construction, LLC in the amount of $1,129,897. Funding is appropriated in the capital budget and will be transferred administratively. SDMWOB participation is 100%.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Holt Brothers Construction, LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,129,897.
Ms. Baldwin stated she would like to be excused from participation because of her employer’s involvement. Mr. Maiorano moved Ms. Baldwin be excused from participation in this matter. His motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote and Ms. Baldwin left the table.
Mr. Gaylord indicated he had talked to Mr. Weeks about this item and despite Mr. Weeks' excitement about awarding a bid with 100% SDMWOB participation he would like to have some information on the public process, design, that is exactly how and why this project came about.
Grant Meacci, Urban Design Center, indicated this project started some three years ago through the Urban Design Center developing an early concept as a part of the work of the UDO. They started soliciting support for the project from the public. He stated they were able to identify some left over bond money from the Fayetteville Street Renaissance project and felt that money could be used for this project. He stated he understands that the renovation of the two plazas was a part of the original Fayetteville Street project but were taken out because of funding, etc. However the project ended up with some left over funding and it was felt that funding could be used for this purpose. He stated the concept went through a pretty extensive public process including four public meetings, stakeholder meetings, work with various business groups, input solicited by DRA, work with the owner of 227 building, etc. He stated renovation is somewhat a misnomer as this would be a complete redesign of the two plazas which are not currently very useful. He stated they worked with the event people, artists, etc., to create a flexible, simple, modern designed space for many uses pointing out they are basically pocket parks. He indicated the proposal utilizes high quality material, public art, flexible public spaces and provides opportunities for the owner of the 227 building as well as the Bristo and other uses particularly along Exchange Plaza.
Mr. Gaylord stated it sound very good but he and several other Council members had talked about the fact that the Council has not seen the design. He stated it would be good to see the design so that the Council could better understand the size of the spaces, uses of the spaces, etc.
Mayor McFarlane questioned if it would be problematic to hold this for two weeks. Mr. Meacci stated it would not be a problem to hold it two weeks but if it is held much longer than that it could delay the construction process to the point where it would get into the time frame that the surrounding businesses, etc., would like to utilize the space. He stated the design is on the website and that could be sent to Council.
Mr. Weeks pointed out Mr. Meacci talked about this being worked on for over 3 years with it being pointed out the Council had seen construction contracts, consultant contracts, etc, but probably have not seen the final design. Mr. Gaylord stated when the City is spending money outside someone’s establishment and it will benefit them, he is sure they will be deeply grateful no matter when it is completed. After brief discussion by general consensus, it was agreed to hold the item and place it on the January 20 agenda as a special item.
Ms. Baldwin returns to the table.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING Z-31-14 – HILLSBOROUGH STREET – TO BE PLACED ON JANUARY 20 AGENDA
This is a request to rezone property from Neighborhood Business and Office & Institution-1 with Pedestrian Business Overlay District and Special Residential Parking Overlay District (NB & O&I-1 w/ PBOD & SRPOD) to Community Mixed Use-5 stories-Urban Limited-Conditional Use with Special Residential Parking Overlay District (CX-5-UL-CU w/ SRPOD).
CR-11601 from the Planning Commission finds the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. City Council may now schedule this proposal for Public Hearing on February 3, 2015.
Planning Commission Chair Schuster pointed out the applicant has requested that this be held for two weeks as they would like to work through some issues. Planning Director Bowers pointed out it is his understanding that the applicant may wish to modify the case and talked about the various discussions. Mayor McFarlane moved that the Council hold this case for two weeks. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano and put to a vote which unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0.
REZONING Z-32-14 – EAST SIX FORKS ROAD – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2015
This is a request to rezone property from Office & Institutional -1 Conditional Use with Pedestrian Business Overlay District to Residential Mixed Use – 5 stories Urban Limited Conditional Use.
CR-11602 from the Planning Commission finds the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. City Council may now schedule this proposal for Public Hearing on February 3, 2015.
Mr. Maiorano pointed out he had discussed this case with the City Attorney and it is felt he needs to be excused from participation. Ms. Baldwin moved that Mr. Maiorano be excused from participation in this item. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. Mr. Maiorano left the table.
Ms. Baldwin moved approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks. Mr. Stephenson stated he had some questions and/or comments.
Mr. Stephenson talked about the streetscape plan that was previously approved for this area. Planning Director Bowers pointed out the aspects of the streetscape plan still apply however that would be a separate issue from the zoning case. Mr. Stephenson explained that the area to the north of this area is Drewey Hills and across the street there is a series of single-family subdivisions. He pointed out this is a tree lined green corridor and it seems like the green frontage would be more consistent with the single-family neighborhood. He talked about the green frontage, urban limited and the merits of each and the possibility of a change in the request. Planning Director Bowers indicated they have not analyzed to see if they would be equally consistent and whether the switch would be more or less restrictive. Mr. Stephenson talked about conversations he had with Associate City Attorney Botvinick relative to analysis to determine what is more or less restrictive. Mr. Bowers pointed out it is his understanding the green frontage would be less restrictive; therefore, if the Council wanted to go in that direction the case would have to be re-filed, etc.
Ms. Baldwin stated she would like to hear from the applicant if delaying this case would be a hardship. Mr. Stephenson talked about his concern and compatibility with the adjoining single-family neighborhoods and asked about sending this to Comprehensive Planning Committee for study.
Mr. Odom pointed out this is only a recommendation to send the item to public hearing. Whether the possible change being talked about by Councilor Stephenson is more or less restrictive and the impact that would have on changing conditions were talked about. Mr. Stephenson talked about his understanding of when conditions or elements of a case can be changed pointing out he thought the elements could be changed. No one representing the applicant was present. The Council agreed to hold the item until the evening meeting to give staff a chance to address the questions.
At the beginning of the evening meeting, Planning Director Bowers indicated he understands the questions are whether the case can be modified and whether a delay would cause a hardship on the applicant. He stated staff had contacted the applicant who indicated there would be a hardship and it is his understanding we are unable to add the language being talked about by Councilor Stephenson.
Mr. Maiorano left the table as he had been excused from participation on this item.
Planning Director Bowers stated the questions were whether or not there was an opportunity to modify the case to increase the setback and landscaping along Six Forks Road and whether or not there would be a hardship associated with the delaying the public hearing. The applicant and the applicant’s attorney have determined that there would be a hardship if the public hearing were delayed beyond the February 3 date. The second item is the applicant is going to commit to adding a condition to case that would be within the balance of what they consider physically feasible for the development of the property and the standards. The urban limit frontage is to try to provide as much setback and landscaping as is possible. He talked about the site restraints explaining the applicant has made a representation that they will be willing to condition the case to provide for additional setback and landscaping.
Mr. Stephenson stated he understood Attorney Reeves stated they will provide a condition requiring a minimum building setback of 20 feet along Six Forks Road.
Planning Director Bowers stated staff has a little bit of concern because of site restraints and the various limits of the code requirements.
The requirements of green frontage oversees urban limited, restraints, street lay out and possibility of split zoning were vetted between Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Bowers.
Ms. Baldwin requested Attorney Reeves to explain the proposal:
Lacy Reeves, 150 Fayetteville Street, stated they are willing to commit to a building setback of 20 feet but when he talked with Mr. Bowers he heard that could create problems as far as the application of the UDO. He stated he is confident if the public hearing is set for February 3 they can come up with language that meets everyone’s criteria.
Mr. Stephenson stated he understood the UDO would provide a predictable process but sounds like it is a little bit more complicated.
Ms. Baldwin restated her motion schedule Z-32-14 for public hearing on February 3, 2015, with the understanding that language will be developed for additional condition. The restarted motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and put to a vote with all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Maiorano who was excused from participation in the matter and Mr. Weeks who was excused from the meeting. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-0 vote.
REZONING Z-1-14 – FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD – REQUEST FOR EXTENSION – APPROVED
This is a request to rezone property from Buffer Commercial Conditional Use, R-4 with Planned Development Overlay and Urban Watershed Protection Overlay District to Neighborhood Mixed Use Conditional Use w/Urban Watershed Protection Overlay District.
CR-11603 from the Planning Commission is requesting a 60-day time extension to complete its review of this case. The Commission’s current time limit expires 1/5/15. A 60-day time extension will provide the applicants, neighbors, staff, and the Commission further opportunity to address remaining issues. The requested extension would end on 3/6/15.
Planning Commission Chair Schuster explained the Planning Commission is making the request for extension as the applicant had come back to staff with a new proposal and staff had asked for additional traffic studies and there has not been time to complete those. The Planning Commission felt since staff had asked for additional information they needed to give the applicant the right to provide that information before moving ahead. Mr. Stephenson questioned if staff has seen the general outline of the new proposal with Planning Director Bowers pointing out he is not sure if anything has been formally submitted at this time. He stated they have looked at some of the things or issues but he does not feel staff has seen the actual proposal. Mr. Stephenson questioned if Attorney Paul could provide information.
Attorney Paul stated they have substantially eliminated all of the surface parking in front of the grocery store. He stated they also continue to meet with DOT about access, etc., and they have looked at new scenarios and have done a tremendous amount of work on the traffic study, etc. Mr. Stephenson questioned if they are talking about making the square footage of the proposal smaller and if it is correct that they are talking about adding townhomes to this scheme. Attorney Paul indicated with the new plan there would be substantially more open space and the concept of townhouses was considered. The thought process of the latest plan, open space and the possibility of townhomes that could provide a transition to the surrounding neighborhoods was discussed. Mr. Stephenson stated it sounds to him as if the total square footage of the project and traffic impacts will be increasing not decreasing. Attorney Paul talked about surface parking, putting forth some changes, the possibility of townhouses and getting feedback on the possibility of townhomes, conversations or comments from staff about comprehensive plan policies and other concepts they are working with. Mayor McFarlane questioned if there had been any response from NCDOT on the access issues with it being pointed out they did not think so.
Mr. Stephenson pointed out there has been conversation going on about policy as zoning cases are coming along at the same time as the remapping. It is a very complicated situation and he questions whether staff has adopted a policy when there is an active zoning case at the same time the remapping is going on to skip over the remapping and let the zoning case go forward before the remapping. Planning Director Bowers pointed out that is not the case stating there is a proposal on the citywide remapping for this property and talked about the property and how it is shown in the remapping. He stated the intent of the remapping is to remove all of the legacy zoning from the zoning map. That means that even if a case is pending that has yet to be decided will be subject to remapping and that does not impact the pending rezoning. He explained the base district and how the process would work. He stated if a remapping decision or a zoning petition is decided prior to the adoption of the citywide remapping then clearly that site comes out of the citywide remapping process and whatever was voted on becomes the zoning on the property.
Mr. Stephenson pointed out this case has been in the process over a year and everyone he has talked to about this case feels there is little or no chance the applicant will reduce the scale and density of this project until it gets before Council and he thinks that is the case. He talked about the desire of some to hold this zoning case until the remapping of the site is complete and have them both on the table at one time. He stated the Planning Commission is very busy with rezoning cases, the remapping along with discussions on comprehensive planning amendments, UDO, text changes, etc. He stated he thinks it is time for this case to come before the City Council and let the Planning Commission focus on other issues and get the debate on this zoning case before the City Council. Mr. Stephenson moved that the Council bring this zoning case to the Council table and set a public hearing date and in the meantime the Council can get a clear position from NCDOT on the terms and conditions they would require for access to Falls of Neuse Road and the Council could determine what could be built on this property, find out if access is from Dunn Road only. He stated new and revised conditions can come forward. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder.
Mr. Maiorano indicated he generally tries to give the Planning Commission as much time as possible to ensure that the Council gets all of the available information on a case. He stated this particular matter has been ongoing for a long time. It has taken a tremendous amount of time, attention and energy of the City and it is a very important matter to the City, to the developer and the community. He feels it deserves the opportunity for full consideration but he has reservations and concerns about seeing it delayed. He stated he understands and appreciates Mr. Stephenson’s comments and while he feels it is appropriate for the Council to proceed as soon as possible to have this matter heard, he needs to understand the implications, understand what occurs when the Council does not have a recommendation from the Planning Commission and the time frame involved. Planning Director Bowers pointed out what the Council has in front of it is a request for a time extension. The Council can grant the request or deny the request. If the Council grants the time extension, the case stays in the Planning Commission and they would have up to 60 days to make a recommendation. If the Council denies the request for a time extension, the code says when the Planning Commission has failed to make a recommendation within the allotted time the case is immediately transferred back to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. In terms of the nature of this case it will be whatever the most recent version of conditions that were filed with the Planning Department. If the Council acts to deny the request, the case would be before the City Council and the Council could schedule a public hearing or put it in the committee or any of the usual things that the Council does with the zoning case. The process was talked about. In response to comments from Mr. Stephenson, Planning Director Bowers pointed out if the Council denies the request for extension the case is before the City Council and it would have 60 days to schedule the public hearing. The process and how to proceed was talked about with various Council members expressing a desire to have the opportunity to continue deliberating on the case, the need to have the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the fact that the Council would have the benefit of all of the analysis up to this point, etc.
Mr. Gaylord expressed the desire to move forward on this case as it has been a long process for all involved and he wants to move forward; however, the Planning Commission, an appointed board is making a recommendation for additional time. The Planning Commission does a great job, works very hard for absolutely nothing to make the City a better place and they are making a recommendation and a request for additional time and he would have a hard time turning his back on that. Discussion followed as to the process that has taken place to this point, whether it would help with the Planning Commission to have additional time, the feeling of some that compromise on the project will not occur until it gets before the City Council, the need for the Planning Commission to move on and focus its time and attention on other cases as this one has been being worked on well over a year.
Planning Commission Chair Schuster pointed out the Planning Commission, applicant, neighborhoods and the staff has spent a lot of time on this case. He stated the only reason it came to the Council today with a request for an extension of time rather than a final recommendation in that the applicant advised the Planning Commission that they had substantial changes in the plan and having had that conversation with staff, the staff had asked for more information so the Planning Commission did not feel comfortable bringing the Council a recommendation based on a changing plan and that is why they requested additional time. Mr. Schuster stated they respect the fact that their may not be enough changes to satisfy the issues but the sole reason the Planning Commission has not acted is because they were getting new information. He stated they have not seen the new information.
In response to questions, City Attorney McCormick indicated he is sure that the City Council has at some time in the past denied a Planning Commission request for an extension of time. He stated however this is the first case under the UDO in which a request for extension has been made. He stated the Council would not actually have to take any action today if it does not approve the extension as the case will automatically be before the Council. The Council could make a decision today or in two weeks as to when it wants to schedule the public hearing. City Attorney McCormick stated as far as he knows this is the first request for an extension under the new procedures. It was pointed out there had been multiple requests from the Planning Commission for extension of time some have been granted and some have not. Council members all talked about their desire to make a decision, move on but concern that they have a request from an appointed body that does a lot of work and has invested a lot of time asking for an extension. Planning Commission Chair Schuster stated the Planning Commission would always prefer to bring a recommendation.
Mr. Odom made a substitute motion that the Council grant the extension as requested by the Planning Commission. His substitute motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks. Mr. Maiorano questioned if there is any alternative such as grant an extension of one or two weeks with City Attorney McCormick indicating no. Mr. Maiorano stated it is important for the Council to hear from the Planning Commission. He thinks they serve a valuable role and have spent a tremendous amount of energy and resources on this case; however he feels Mr. Stephenson makes some very good and valid points. He stated rules are not rigid and we must take things on a case by case basis and he feels this is one of those circumstances. The substitute motion to approve the Planning Commission’s request and recommendation was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Maiorano who voted in the negative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-2 vote.
SPECIAL ITEMS
REZONING Z-35-13 – HILLSBOROUGH STREET – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2015
During the November 18, 2014 Council meeting, the Planning Commission made the following recommendation:
This is a request to rezone property from O&I-1 w/SRPOD to NX-5-UL-CU w/SRPOD.
CR-11598 from the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, considering it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. The City Council may now schedule this item for Public Hearing on December 2nd.
During the meeting, Council Member Stephenson pointed out the applicant and the neighborhood had requested the item be held to allow more time for conversation before going to public hearing. After the discussion, it was agreed to hold the item at the table to receive additional information if needed.
During the December 2, 2014 Council meeting, staff reported that additional conditions had been received, but not in time to authorize a public hearing. Council can take action to schedule the item for public hearing on January 20, 2015, if so desired.
Mayor McFarlane stated she understands the applicant has requested that the public hearing be authorized for February 3, 2015 and moved approval of the recommendation with that amendment. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
BUDGET WORK SESSION SCHEDULE – AMENDED
On the December 2, 2014 Consent Agenda, Council authorized the following dates and times for budget work sessions:
City Council Budget Work Sessions:
February 26, 2015, 1:00 p.m.
March 19, 2015, 1:00 p.m.
April 2, 2015, 1:00 p.m.
Conflicts with the February 26 work session have subsequently been identified. It would be preferable for Council to identify either Monday, February 9 or Thursday, February 12, at 1:00 p.m., for rescheduling of the budget work session.
City Manager Hall explained the item. Bring discussion took place on various Council members work schedules. It was agreed to change the February 26, 2015 date to February 16, 2015. The rest of the schedule would remain the same.
OBERLIN ROAD STREETSCAPE PLAN – APPROVED – DIRECTION GIVEN
In February 2013, the City Council adopted a prioritized list of 36 candidate streetscape projects. Oberlin Road ranked second on that list behind the Hillsborough Street Phase II project that is currently undergoing final design. Staff initiated public outreach sessions for the Oberlin Road Streetscape Plan during the spring and summer of 2013, and gathered input from residents, property owners, and local merchants on a number of alternatives.
The final proposed streetscape design includes a 14-foot concrete sidewalk with brick accents, including pedestrian-scale lighting, street trees, benches, litter receptacles, and bike racks. The plan serves two functions. First, the plan will serve as an adopted streetscape plan and guide improvements as set forth in Article 8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance for any new development along the street and will replace streetscape plans previously for adopted for the study area.
Second, the plan serves as a scoping document for development of a City-initiated capital project to implement the goals of the plan. Improvements proposed in this plan include:
• Improving the sidewalks along Oberlin Road, building many of elements in the aforementioned streetscape design;
• Constructing over 1100 feet of neighborhood sidewalk on connecting streets;
• Burying utility lines wherever possible between Clark Avenue and Bedford Avenue;
• Installing mast arms at two signalized intersections; and,
• Point treatments to improve pedestrian safety and promote a safer and more walkable corridor.
The current cost estimate for both phases is $2.79 million, which includes design services, right-of-way and easement acquisition, construction, and contingencies. The estimated cost exceeds current allocations for streetscape improvements; the adopted Capital Improvement Program includes $1.7 million for capital streetscape projects from the 2013 Transportation Bond. The portions of this cost estimate related to utility improvements are rough estimates which can only be refined through more detailed engineering design.
To implement the capital project portion of the streetscape plan, staff recommends dividing the work into two stages in order to make small, meaningful improvements more rapidly and to manage uncertainties with implementing the more extensive investments:
1) Phase I consists of streetscape improvements south of Clark Avenue, improved pedestrian network connectivity through sidewalks on side streets, and spot treatments for pedestrian safety at three locations. The right-of-way and construction of this phase is estimated to cost $482,000. Staff anticipates funding this phase in the next capital improvement plan.
2) Phase II consists of utility improvements and streetscape improvements north of Clark Avenue. The right of way and construction costs for this phase are roughly estimated to be $1.73 million. This cost estimated will be substantially refined by the project design. The right-of-way and construction of Phase II can be funded in a future capital improvement program.
In order to reduce uncertainty, the design work for both phases is proposed to be coordinated simultaneously under a single contract estimated to cost $580,000. Funding for the remaining aspects of both project phases will be developed as part of the current and future annual capital improvement program processes.
Recommendation: Adopt the streetscape plan and direct staff to initiate the design process. Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $580,000 from existing streetscape appropriations; accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.
Jason Myers, Office of Transportation Planning, explained an adopted streetscape plan guides improvements of future development and replaces existing streetscape plans. It will be a two phase implementation as a capital improvement project. He went through information on the plan framework and talked about supporting improvements including neighborhood sidewalk connections, safety treatments in various areas, varying the electrical utilities from Clark to Bedford at the utility company’s cost, He stated the streetscape design would be very similar to what is now built at 401 Oberlin. He talked about the streetscape construction including locations of a full 14 foot streetscape, tree wells, paved verge, 6 foot verge and connecting missing sidewalks to improve connections. He went over Phase I explaining where the sidewalk connections, streetscape construction, etc., would occur pointing out the location of each treatment. Phase II relates to utility improvements throughout. He pointed out Phase I includes streetscape improvements south of Clark Avenue, neighborhood sidewalk connections, spot safety treatments at a total cost of some $626,000 (right-of-way and construction - $482,000 with design cost of $145,000). Phase II consist of streetscape improvements north of Clark Avenue, utility improvements, etc., of a total cost of $2.2M (right-of-way and construction – $1.7M with a $435,000 design cost). Staff recommends proceeding with the design of both phases simultaneously.
Mr. Myers pointed out the recommendation includes adopting the streetscape plan as a regulatory document, authorizes staff to initiate design of the project with the understanding the two phases will be constructed as the design is completed and funding allows.
Councilor Crowder talked about future transit that might be proposed in the area. She stated it seems that Clark is the cutoff between the two phrases and questioned if there is a possibility of moving the boundaries of the phases to that Clark doesn’t end up being the dividing point. Mr. Myers talked about the how the phrasing is set pointing out there would be no changes recommended at the Clark intersection with the exception of pedestrian crossing. We are not talking about any road changes just sidewalk.
Councilor Stephenson talked about the proposal to improve the situation and making it easier for people to cross safely and be legal when they cross. He talked about the citizens expectations. Ms. Baldwin talked about Ms. Crowder’s question and questioned if this impacts the future of transit in any way. Mr. Myers indicated it does not. It supports transit in the broadest sense and it doesn’t do anything to impact or inhibit transit. Brief discussion took place concerning wording about roundabouts, whether this would negatively impact or remove the roundabouts. Councilor Baldwin moved approval. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Ms. Crowder who voted in the negative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-1 vote. See ordinance 379 TF 243.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD
GREENWAY DESIGN GUIDE – APPROVED
To ensure the Capital Area Greenway System continues to be a safe and accessible multi-use trail system providing recreation and transportation opportunities, while balancing the preservation of thousands of acres of natural areas, development of greenway guidelines has been completed. At the December 11, 2014 meeting, the board voted unanimously to recommend the Capital Area Greenway Planning and Design Guide document. Staff will provide a brief presentation to highlight aspects of the design guide.
Recommendation: Adopt the design guide.
Kimberly Siran, Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board, indicated that group met about 9 months on this issue. It had joint meetings with other groups and it is recommended for approval.
Todd Milam, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, talked about the Capital Area Greenway Planning and Design Guide’s purpose, development, guidance, standards specifications and review and approval process. He talked about the amount of greenways in the city pointing out the goals of the plan is to guide the planning and design of greenway corridors, trails, associated facilities and amenities, provide substandards, specifications and best management practice and is to be used by City staff and consultants during all phrases of greenway development. He talked about gathering the information, joint review which included Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board, Greenways and Urban Trees Committee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission. He went over the public review which included news letters, press releases, social media, etc. He explained the executive summary and chapter one which defines greenways and trails, goals and purpose, system history, current conditions, benefits, public participation and input, principles of greenway design and various publications. Chapter 2 includes the greenway classification and user types which includes cross city, greenway trails, greenway collector trails, neighborhood greenway trails and greenway connectors and briefly described each by giving the definition, user types, potential conflicts and guidance of each.
Britt Storck, Alta Planning, went over Chapter 3 which includes design standards and guide lines touching on design consideration, facilities, management features, intersection amenities, signage and user recreation as well as touching on the approval process.
Ms. Baldwin pointed out she saw mention of water fountains and pointed out many people have their pets with them on greenway trails and questioned if there would be watering stations available for pets with it being pointed out that is included.
Ms. Baldwin explained there had been a lot of discussions before the City Council relative to possible conflicts between walkers, bike riders, people using leases, etc., and questioned how that is addressed.
Chuck Flink, Greenways, Inc. indicated multi use of greenways always presents problems and challenges. He stated this was considered and you start with the design, go to expanded width, additional pavement markers, and talked about the operation and maintenance programs. In response to questions from Ms. Baldwin Mr. Flink talked about timing for design, etc. pointing out it takes less time to upgrade existing greenways than to design new ones with Mr. Milam pointing typically it takes a year or a year and a half to design a greenway.
Various Council members commended all for their work and maximum utilization of greenways as a part of the transportation system which is one of the things we have been striving to accomplish. Ms. Baldwin moved approval of the Capital Area Greenway Planning and Design Guide dated January 2015 as presented. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and a roll call vote resulted in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE RALEIGH ARTS COMMISSION
COMMUNITY GRANTS PANEL – APPOINTMENTS CONFIRMED
The Community Grants Panel consists of chair-appointed commission members, at-large community members, and a representative from the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau. The recommended appointees for fiscal year 2015-16 Arts Grants panelists are: Linda Bamford, Yvette Holmes, Alyson Colwell-Waber, Woody Dicus, Sherri Holmes, Tina Morris-Anderson and Tony Granados (community), and Julie Brakenbury (Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau).
Recommendation: Confirm the panel appointments.
Arts Commission member Linda Dallas explained the recommendation. Mr. Weeks moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE RALEIGH HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HISTORIC LANDMARK APPLICATIONS – 800 AND 816 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET – REFERRED TO NC DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES; PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 3, 2015
Two applications for Historic Landmark designation have been received:
• Leonard Medical Hospital, 800 S. Wilmington Street (commission sponsored)
• Leonard Medical School, 816 S. Wilmington Street (commission sponsored)
The commission has reviewed the applications and found that they meet the criteria for designation contained in the General Statues and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO sets out certain actions for the City Council to take with regard to the applications.
Recommendation: Refer the applications to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Office of Archives and History, for analysis and recommendation; authorize a joint public hearing before the City Council and the Raleigh Historic Development Commission on the evening of March 3, 2015 to receive public comment on the historic landmark reports and proposed landmark designation.
Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
RALEIGH HISTORIC LANDMARK – PROPERTY ACQUISITION – VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN
Since 1995 the City has worked with community partners to ensure the preservation of the Plummer T. Hall House, a Raleigh Historic Landmark located at 814 Oberlin Road. Following collaboration with multiple City departments, the commission recommends acquisition of property located at 812 Oberlin Road, authorize the recombination of parcels located at 812 and 814 Oberlin Road properties, and authorize relocation of the house prior to sale. The cost of property acquisition will come from community development housing funds.
Recommendation: Authorize the Housing and Neighborhoods Department to purchase the lot at 812 Oberlin Road in an amount not to exceed $141,000, with the condition that proceeds from future sale be returned to the City; authorize staff to recombine parcels at 812 and 814 Oberlin Road; dedicate right-of-way for future road improvements to Oberlin Road; authorize staff to update the existing option to purchase with Preservation North Carolina to reflect the recombined parcels; authorize relocation of the Plummer T. Hall House to be guided by existing preservation easements on the property and the Certificate of Appropriateness process; and authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $141,000. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.
Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 379 TF 243.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PARK MAINTENANCE TO BE CONSIDERED IN BUDGET DELIBERATION
Mayor McFarlane stated the Budget & Economic Development Committee recommends that staff identify a cross-section of 10 to 12 selected park and greenway locations (including the four open-space parks referenced by concerned citizens) and engage a consultant to assist with an inventory of invasive species, review best practices and development of a management plan for these locations assessing associated resources necessary to implement and sustain the plan. It is understood that staff will continue the current volunteer program for invasive management in City parks and greenways. It is recommended that one-time funding in the amount $125,000 be identified in the FY16 budget process. Mayor McFarlane moved the recommendation be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks.
Mr. Maiorano pointed out he knows there was a lot of discussion in committee on this issue but he is curious if there was any out reach efforts to work with groups such as NCSU, Wake Tech, Master Gardeners, or other municipalities to evaluate current practices rather than spending money for a study. Mayor McFarlane pointed out there is a professor at State who is very interested in helping and the committee had talked about working with that professor to get input, advice, etc. Mr. Maiorano pointed out $125,000 is not an inconsequential sum. He would like to see if we can work with some of the entities such as NCSU, Wake Tech, etc., that is, work with the resources we have in this area who are naturally recognized. We should use the resources that are available in the area. Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Director Sauer indicated they are all good suggestions and something that they can look at in the planning and especially in the development stage. Mr. Maiorano stated he is just concerned about spending this amount of money without utilizing the resources we have available. City Manager Hall pointed out this would be in the upcoming budget. If the budget circumstances changed or if there are other opportunities that could be studied at that point. He stated this is just a proposal to look at it in the upcoming budget and he would assume that staff would look at it in terms of budget capacity.
Ms. Baldwin pointed out she had been contacted by some who talked about having a study versus using the funds as neighborhood grants so that the volunteers can do programs to clean up the invasive species, etc. Mayor McFarlane stated this would be for consideration in the FY16 budget so staff cold evaluate and do additional research. Ms. Saur stated volunteer efforts would continue. How this would come forth in the budget discussion was debated. Mayor McFarlane withdrew the motion. Staff was directed to include a budget note on the committee recommendation and any other suggestions. This would allow Council to prioritize the issue along with other budget items.
STONE’S WAREHOUSE DISPOSITION – TO BE PLACED ON JANUARY 20, 2015 AGENDA
Mayor McFarlane reported the Budget and Economic Development Committee recommends upholding staff’s recommendation to select Transfer Company, LLC for the redevelopment of the Stone’s Warehouse site, authorizing Community Development to coordinate preparation of a purchase agreement, and authorizing staff to amend zoning application Z-25-14 to include split zoning, with conditions to accommodate the proposed uses as proposed by Transfer Company, LLC.
Mayor McFarlane stated a second part of the discussion and motion was that the proceeds of the sale of the property would be directed to help with the relocation of the Rex Center and getting affordable housing back into the area.
Mr. Weeks stated the Transfer Company LLC, the recommended firm, had language in their proposal relating to the relocation efforts of the Rex Center but did not offer what efforts they will make. He stated he had asked the questions and he hasn’t heard anything from anyone as to what those efforts would involve. He suggested holding the item for two weeks to give an opportunity to get a report. He feels it would be good for Rex and representatives of the Transfer Company to get together. He stated we have heard from Rex and we have heard from the Transfer Company but he does not believe those two have talked.
Mayor McFarlane questioned whether the City could engage in that discussion before a vote is taken. She stated she feels it would be very helpful if the City would at least facilitate or help with that discussion. City Manager Hall stated he believe since the City has selected the Transfer Company it would be okay for the City to help with that discussion. It was agreed to hold the item and place it on the January 20 agenda.
PROP/RENTAL REGISTRATION UPDATES – REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA
Mayor McFarlane reported the Budget & Economic Development Committee recommends the item PROP/rental registration updates be removed from the agenda with no action taken. It was reported if information or changes come available it could be discussed by the Council. Ms. Baldwin 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.
EASEMENT SALE – 3215 AVENT FERRY ROAD – DIRECTION GIVEN
Mayor McFarlane reported the Budget and Economic Development Committee recommends that the City Council declare a portion at 3215 Avent Ferry Road as surplus and authorize the sale of approximately 0.0351 acres of sanitary sewer easement located at 3215 Avent Ferry Road to WRI Raleigh, LP for $100 subject to the negotiated offer and upset bid process with the understanding that the winning bidder will pay all accrued advertising cost. On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Odom moved the recommendation be upheld. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin 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.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE
TREE CONSERVATION AREAS – REFERRED TO FUTURE WORK SESSION
Chairperson Stephenson reported the Comprehensive Planning Committee recommends the administrative alternates be adopted as recommended by the Planning Commission with the addition of a seventh administrative alternate to be written by the City Attorney's office which indicates an equal or better standard that can vetted by the Appearance Commission; that the administrative alternate process be revisited in 18 to 24 months for potential modifications or new alternates; and that this pilot process will begin once the new rezoning map is adopted by the City Council.
Ms. Baldwin pointed out she had read through this and had tried her very best to understand. She stated it is a very complicated topic and she would suggest that this item be referred to a future city council work session so that the total Council can understand the issues, consequences, etc. Mr. Stephenson moved the matter be referred to a future work session. His motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
Chairperson Stephenson reported the Comprehensive Planning Committee further recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a report on how the Council could use corridor frontages, either as currently written or with modifications, to implement the intent of the original transfer of thoroughfare trees from the secondary Tree Conservation Area (TCA) list to the primary TCA list to achieve tree-lined corridors. Mr. Stephenson moved the item be referred to a future city council work session. His motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
NO REPORT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
NO REPORT
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING – JANUARY 13, 2015 – CANCELED
Chairperson Weeks reported the Public Works Committee scheduled for Tuesday, January 13, 2015 has been canceled.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
NO REPORT
TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE – JANUARY 13, 2015 – CANCELED
Chairperson Gaylord reported the Technology and Communication Committee scheduled for January 13, 2015 has been canceled.
REPORT OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
TOWN HALL MEETING – FEBRUARY 4, 2015 – ANNOUNCED
Mr. Maiorano pointed out he had scheduled a town hall meeting for the evening of February 4, 2015. He stated the topic to be discussed relates to the budget process, how it works and open that up for discussion. The comments were received.
WILMINGTON STREET SURVEY – STAFF COMMENDED
Mr. Weeks expressed appreciation to Assistant City Manager Michele Adam David and CIO Gail Roper for the work and the survey relating to 901 Wilmington Street. He stated it was well received and he appreciates the work.
RETREAT – JANUARY 29 AND 30 – DRAFT AGENDA RECEIVED
Mayor McFarlane passed out the draft agenda for the City Council Retreat scheduled for January 29 and 30. She expressed appreciation to Councilors Baldwin and Stephenson and Special Assistant Brown and the City Manager and others who have taken the time to work on this and put it together. She indicated additional information would be forthcoming.
RADA LOAN PROGRAM – REFERRED TO BED COMMITTEE
Mayor McFarlane asked that an item be referred to Budget and Economic Development Committee to receive a status report on the RADA Loan Program. Without objection the item was so referred.
TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA – FUNDING AUTHORIZED
Mayor McFarlane indicated she had been working some with a group called Transportation for America. She stated they are putting together a group for a transit academy. This group will be looking at transit opportunities, lessens learned in other communities, look at communities that are facing transit, referendums, etc. There are six members of the group. Mr. Gaylord is one of those members. She again stated this team will look at communities, benefits, lessens learned and transit in general. She stated she knew they would be looking at Indianapolis and Nashville among other cities. She stated the total cost for the event would be $5,000 and they have raised two $500 private contributions. They are asking the county for a contribution. She suggested that the Council appropriate whatever the balance is, up to $4,000 from City Council contingency. Ms. Baldwin moved approval as outlined. Her motion was seconded by Mayor McFarlane 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 379 TF 243.
UDO – WORK SESSION – TO BE SCHEDULED
Mayor McFarlane questioned if the Council could have another work session on the UDO. She stated all councilors have questions and she feels if those questions were forwarded to Ken Bowers in the next week or so we could discuss a time for a work session. Mr. Stephenson pointed out there are items about the comprehensive plan and the UDO that have been referred to committees of the City Council and Planning Commission, etc. He questioned if we are talking about the same items or different items. Mayor McFarlane questioned when the groups are going to make a recommendation on the items referred to them. Mr. Stephenson talked about the list that was submitted to the Planning Commission and staff talked about the need for additional personnel or help. The list is long and they would have to prioritize based on how the Council wants them to move forward. City Manager Hall pointed out there is probably value in the updating the full City Council on the remapping or the overall process of remapping. Mr. Hall pointed out there are also some questions about implementation in general and a work session would probably give a chance for all to get the questions out. He stated if the Council wants to move forward with a work session the staff would need a little lead time. He stated we could try to get it on the calendar and look at something in February or so and the Council could put a place holder for one of the upcoming meetings.
Mr. Stephenson stated he did not mean to get in the middle of what has been referred to the Planning Commission but he feels they would welcome any guidance. City Manager Hall stated if the Council is interested in having a work session on the UDO the staff would pole the Council on a time and start putting together an agenda. If Council members have questions or comments give them to Planning Director Bowers and that can help shape up an agenda for a work session. Mr. Stephenson questioned if the items referred to Planning Commission are off limits or if they could be discussed in this upcoming work session with various Council members indicating that would be preferable. The item was referred to staff to start looking at a time, etc.
SEECLICKFIX – COMMENTS RECEIVED
Mr. Gaylord stated he had been seeing articles in the paper relative to the lag time on responses to SeeClickFix messages. Chief of Staff Buonpane indicated as has been reported there is a back log in responses and staff has been working on a way to address the backlog. He talked about the City Manager reorganization which consolidates all constituent services in the Chief of Staff office and time involved in getting those persons on board. He talked about the process and the possibility of integrating this program into cityworks software and what they are doing to try to deal with the current backlog. He pointed out they also had a long conference with personnel with See ClickFix pointing out they have dealt with this in other locations. He talked about the number of users, explained how the staff plans to work with the existing entries to determine if they are still problems, pushing out a message to all involved explaining where we are, what we are planning to do and doing away with the current backlog but asking people to open a new comment if the problems still exists.
AIRBNB – COMMENTS RECEIVED
Ms. Baldwin expressed appreciation to Jeff Tippett for putting together the AirBNB informational gathering last night. She feels it was very important for this type of event to take place. It was a good discussion for everyone.
WHITEWATER PARK – DIRECTION AGREED UPON
Ms. Baldwin indicated recently during our parks bond discussions there was a lot of dialogue relating to the White Water Park. She suggested that staff have discussions with the county about their interest in exploring the funding of this project. Mayor McFarlane stated everyone felt it was a good idea but the funding was a question with Ms. Baldwin suggesting that we have such a discussion with the county. Mr. Odom stated he feels it is a very good project and he feels it would be a good addition to our parks system and he would like to see it but cost is a big factor. He stated when the concept first came up, he thought the organizers were going to pay and he does not know what happened to that idea. Discussions that have taken place relative to the project and how the project could proceed was talked about. Mayor McFarlane pointed out the City has some very big unknowns as it relates to our budget such as the elimination of privilege tax revenue, etc. She stated we may have to make some very hard decisions when we get to the budget. The possible use of interlocal funds and the fact that that would not affect the budget was talked about. How the City could get county input on the possibility of moving forth with the White Water Park was talked about. It was agreed that Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Odom and may be parks staff member could talk informally with individual commissioners or county staff.
APPOINTMENTS
APPOINTMENTS – VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN; CIVIC CENTER COMMISSION RENAMED
The City Clerk reported the following results of the ballot vote.
Appearance Commission – One Vacancy – Jamie Fergusan – 5 (Baldwin, Crowder, Gaylord, McFarlane, Stephenson)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee – One Vacancy – Seth Palmer – 5 (Baldwin, Gaylord, McFarlane, Odom, Weeks); Lara Weislo – 2 (Crowder, Stephenson)
The City Clerk reported Dan Howe was nominated by Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Gaylord, Mr. Maiorano and Mr. Weeks. She pointed out later on the agenda it shows that there is a new vacancy on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee as a letter of resignation has been received from Charlotte Martin. She stated at this point Mr. Palmer has received five votes so he will be appointed to one of the slots. The Council could consider how to treat Mr. Howe’s nomination. Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council close nominations on both slots and Mr. Palmer and Mr. Howe be appointed. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
Civic Center Commission – One Vacancy – No Nominations. Ms. Baldwin pointed out she did not know we had a Civic Center Commission she thought it was a Convention Center Commission. The City Clerk reported several changes have been made but the name of the commission has not been officially changed. Ms. Odom moved that the name be changed to reflect the appropriate title. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 386.
Mayor McFarlane, Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Gaylord nominated Aly Khalifa.
Fair Housing Hearing Board – One Vacancy – No Nominees
Fireman’s Relief Fund – One Vacancy – The City Clerk reported she had notified the Council at the last meeting that the term of Shirley Boone on the Fireman’s Relief Board was expiring and she is eligible for reappointment and is recommended for reappointment by the Fire Chief; however, no action has been taken. Ms. Baldwin moved that Ms. Boone be reappointed by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board – Dexter Herbert – 6 (Baldwin, Crowder, Gaylord, Odom, Stephenson, Weeks)
Raleigh Sister Cities – Three Vacancies – No Nominees
Substance Abuse Advisory Commission – One Vacancy – Christopher Ball received 8 votes (All Council Members).
The City Clerk announced the appointment of Jamie Fergusan to the Appearance Commission, Seth Palmer and Dan Howe to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee; Shirley Boone to Fireman’s Relief Board, Dexter Herbert to Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board and Christopher Ball to the Substance Abuse Advisory Commission. The other items will be carried over until the next meeting.
NOMINATIONS
RALEIGH TRANSIT AUTHORITY – VACANCY ANNOUNCED
The City Clerk reported a letter of resignation had been received from Irene Godinez. Mayor McFarlane nominated John Pucher. The item will be carrier over to the next meeting.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA – DRAFT – APPROVED
City Attorney McCormick pointed out Council members received the following draft legislative agenda.
Set out below are what I believe are the minimum issues on which the city needs to either take a position or seek legislation. It is important to keep in mind that the first set of suggestions below are general in nature since no legislation has been introduced yet as the session has not begun. The city usually adopts the legislative agenda of the N.C. League of Municipalities and the Metro Mayors Association in addition to any special areas of emphasis that the city wishes to emphasize.
1. General Local Governmental Authority. The city’s primary goal is always to preserve the authority it already possesses to operate the city. You are all aware of the numerous attempts the past few years, some successful and some not, to erode local government authority. It is paramount that we be aware of any future efforts along similar lines and be prepared to oppose them.
2. Revenue Loss Hold Harmless. In addition to the substantial revenue loss that will be caused by the repeal of the privilege license tax last session there may be other attempts to diminish the city’s ability to raise the money necessary to continue operating or to force more and more of those costs onto the property tax. There have been promises by the Governor and others to attempt to replace those funds in the upcoming budget so that process will need to be closely monitored to be sure the city is made whole for the lost revenue.
3. Sales Tax Distribution Formula. There has been some talk that changes in the sales tax distribution formula may be made that would negatively impact Raleigh and other large cities. If this legislation is introduced the city should be prepared to oppose it unless other revenue sources are provided to make up the shortfall.
4. Historic Tax Credits. These credits are important to a community like Raleigh which is trying to develop and redevelop aging properties in the downtown and other areas. The city should support continuation of these credits.
5. Planning and Development Authority. In light of the great expenditure of time and money involved in the development of the UDO and the current remapping process the city will have to be vigilant in opposing any changes to state law that will have a negative impact in this area.
The next category in the city agenda is the local list of Charter changes the city feels would be helpful in continuing to provide a high level of service to the citizens in an efficient way. Department heads were asked to submit their ideas and requests. A couple of departments were unable to finalize their list by the deadline so you may soon receive an additional list of requests to go along with those listed below.
1. Private Sale Authority for Real Property. The BED committee recommended that the city seek reinstatement of the private sale authority once held by the city. This authority will be helpful in disposing of a number of city owned sites. The city would still seek proposals from any number of potential developers for a parcel but this authority will enable a faster, cleaner, and more nuanced disposition of sites and protect the city’s ability to better control what happens on the site.
2. Retirement of Police Horses and Dogs. The city should seek a local bill to allow retiring police horses and dogs to be given to the riders and handlers who have cared for and worked with them during their careers. A special bond exists between the officer and the animals with which they work for often many years. This is the most humane way to deal these retiring four legged officers.
3. Electronic Transfer of Involuntary Commitment Papers. The Raleigh Police Department currently handles a huge volume of IVC transfers annually. These transfers require an RPD officer to make a physical appearance at the magistrates office to pick up papers and then take them to the facility where the person to be committed is located. This process results in thousands of hours of officer time which could be saved if the transfer can be made electronically. I ask that you authorize seeking of legislation to allow these transfers to be made electronically.
As I noted earlier there are some other requests pending which I will review with the city manager to see which ones will be presented to you at another date. Finally, the legislature sometimes moves in mysterious ways to accomplish its wonders so I am sure we will later be discussing many proposals that get submitted and bill filed that cannot be anticipated at this time.
He stated he knows there are some other departments that will be having issues and he will be bringing it back to Council for final approval. Mayor McFarlane moved approval of the following draft legislative agenda. 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.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY CLERK
MINUTES – VARIOUS – APPROVED
Council members received in the agenda packet minutes from the November 5, 2014, November 18, 2014, and December 2, 2014 Council meetings.
Mr. Odom moved approval as presented. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
TAXES – RESOLUTION – ADOPTED
Council members received a proposed resolution adjusting, rebating or refunding penalties, exemptions and relieving interest for late listing of property for ad valorem taxes. Adoption was recommended.
Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Resolution 45.
ELECTION – PARKS AND RECREATION BOND REFERENDUM – CERTIFIED RESULTS RECEIVED
Council members received in the agenda packet the certified results of the Parks and Recreation Bond Referendum from the Wake County and Durham County Boards of Election. This is for information only. Mr. Odom moved the information be accepted. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION - HELD
Mayor McFarlane stated a motion is in order to enter closed session pursuant to NCGS143-318.11(a)(5) for the purpose of instructing City staff how to proceed in the acquisition of the following interest in real property: Potential park property located adjacent to Western Boulevard. Mayor McFarlane moved approval as read. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Council went into closed session at 3:34 p.m.
The Council reconvened in open session at 5:30 p.m. Mayor McFarlane announced the Council had returned from closed session in which they had given direction to staff as to how to proceed with the agenda item.
Adjournment: Mayor McFarlane stated there being no further business the meeting is adjourned at 5:31 p.m. to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
Gail G. Smith
City Clerk
jt/CC01-06-15
The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in regular reconvened meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 6, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, Raleigh, N.C., with all members present except Mr. Weeks. Mayor McFarlane announced Mr. Weeks would be excused from the evening meeting. The Mayor called the meeting to order and the following items were discussed with actions taken as shown.
JOINT HEARING WITH THE RALEIGH HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION – LEWIS – JOYNER HOUSE, 304 EAST JONES STREET – HEARING – REFERRED TO THE RALEIGH HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
This was a hearing to receive public comment on an owner-initiated application for Historic Landmark Designation for the Lewis-Joyner House located at 304 East Jones Street. Following the hearing, it would be appropriate to refer the item to the Raleigh Historic Development Commission to consider the State’s recommendation and information received during the public hearing.
Raleigh Historic Development Commission members present included Jenny Harper, Elizabeth Caliendo, Jannette Coleridge Taylor, Flora Wadelington, Sarah David, Dawn Davis, Rachel Rumsey and Kiernan McGorty.
The Mayor opened the hearing.
Tania Tully, Department of Planning and Development recognized the members present explained that all requirements of the North Carolina General Statutes and City Code, proceeding the scheduling of this public hearing, have been complied with. The Raleigh Historic Development Commission reviewed the report on October 7, 2014 and found it meets the criteria for designation. The report was referred by the City Council to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, as required by statute, and copies of the State’s comments were included in City Council member’s agenda packet. The State had suggestions for the report which has already been incorporated.
She explained the location pointing out the house holds local architectural significance as an excellent example of one of the larger houses constructed in Oakwood by Julius Lewis and Company between 1875 and 1894. It also has historical significance for its association with James Yadkin Joyner, North Carolina Superintendent of Public Education from 1902 until 1919.
Ms. Tully stated at the conclusion of the public hearing the commission will make a final review of these materials and any public hearing comments and will make a final recommendation regarding designation ordinances to the City Council on February 3, 2015.
No one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Baldwin moved that the matter be referred to the Raleigh Historic Development Commission for review. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Weeks who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.
REQUEST AND PETITIONS OF CITIZENS
MARBLES KIDS MUSEUM – REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT – REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION
Sally Edwards, Marbles Kids Museum, would like to provide information on the development of a 10 year facilities master plan to program and expand the downtown Raleigh campus and to request financial support from the City for a portion of the planning consultant fee.
Ms. Edwards, Marbles Kids Museum pointed out they are embarking on development of a 10 year facilities master plan. Mr. Edwards talked about their growth which has far exceeded their expectations, touched on the number of guests per year and additional guests since the introduction of the IMAX Theatre. She stated the Museum has one of the greatest attendance records in the country. She talked about the need for additional space and how they would like to build on the City’s efforts in the downtown area. She talked about their needs and pointed out they are requesting $25,000 from the City of Raleigh toward the public/private funding for the master planning consultant fees which are estimated to be some $100,000. She stated private sector commitments of $45,000 have been identified and talked about meeting with prospects explaining funding from Wake County will support project staffing cost and local architectural fees above and beyond the master planning consultant fees.
Nate Spiker, volunteer member of the Board of Directors talked about the importance of the museum, what it means to him, his family and the citizens of Raleigh, the fact that they want to be part of the planning efforts at Moore Square. It was pointed out Council members received information in their agenda packet on the request, time line, process, etc.
Mayor McFarlane pointed out the City has as process for funding requests and suggested referring the item to the budget process. Ms. Edwards stated they understand that and they will go through that process in June. Ms. Edwards talked about Wake County’s involvement, the use of interlocal funds and the extent and value of the counties contribution. Mr. Odom suggested that the item be referred to the City Manager and staff which could give Council some information on the exact County participation in the museum. Ms. Edwards talked about their plan and how it interacts with the City’s plan for renovation to Moore Square. The County’s participation, the City’s participation and the process in general was talked about after which the item was referred to administration for a report back.
CHURCH IN THE WOODS – REQUEST – WITHDRAWN
James Copp, 5433 Penwood Drive, Church in the Woods, had requested permission to discuss operation blanket, an initiative to purchase blankets for distribution to the homeless. It was pointed out Mr. Copp has withdrawn his request.
TAXIS – VARIOUS CONCERNS – RECEIVED
Iyman Massoud, 200 Sunnybrook Road, had requested permission to discuss various problems relating to taxis.
Lee Churchill stated Mr. Massoud could not be at the meeting because of sickness and asked that she represent him. She pointed out they have done a lot of research concerning consumers small taxi companies and digital dispatch systems. She stated Taxi Taxi is dispatched out of Utah and UBER and Lyft are dispatched out of California. She indicated Taxi Taxi falls under the same rules and regulations as mandated by the City and the State and questioned why Uber and Lyft are not regulated the same. She questioned why they could not be licensed. There is no difference in the companies. She talked about action taken by Raleigh/Durham United Airport pointing out they now have 25 Uber/Lyft vehicles registered at the airport. They all have commercial tags, insurance, etc. She stated the surcharges are shameless and disgraceful to our citizens. She talked about the number at the airport pointing out Raleigh taxi officers do a good job but she is concerned. She stated there are some 348 illegal license plates listed and she does not understand why the City can’t do something. The comments were received.
AIRBNB – COMMENTS RECEIVED
Justin Miller, 401 Dennis Avenue, expressed appreciation to everyone who showed up at the recent town hall meeting about AirBnB. He talked about a trip last year with the Mayor to help show case the City of Raleigh as a tech city, opportunities to make our city successful, technology and the way people use technology and technology services such as AirBnB and his feeling that we need to embrace technology solutions. He stated Raleigh needs to be the leader in things like this not in the shadow of Portland or San Francisco. Raleigh needs to take the initiative and the lead to support this concept. He stated there were some very valid points brought up at the meeting, talked about cities that have had problems but how he feels Raleigh should find a way to resolve the concerns and help other cities do the same. He called on the Council to look at ways to embrace this new business not ways to shut it down.
James Riley, 611 Smedes Place, thanked everyone for attending the town hall meeting. He talked about how he lived and worked in China, came back to UNC to continue his education, and how he rented because of budget restraints. He explained economic problems and how he discovered AirBnB and had used it to help supplement his income and met some really nice people. He stated for generations people have rented out rooms in their homes for extra income pointing out how is grandparents years ago rented rooms to supplement their incomes. It is an attractive alternative to commercial lodging and this technology lends itself to renting private homes, etc. He encouraged the Council to do whatever possible to make this type program work in Raleigh.
Jim Melo, 215 North East Street, pointed out he is a host in the City of Raleigh. He utilizes his historic home in Oakwood and the extra income had given him the opportunity to start a family, improve his house, finish his basement apartment which allows family members to come in and stay when they are in town and when family members are not using the extra space they can rent and the revenue steams allows him to do many things including continuing the renovations to his home. He talked about hosting families from all over the country including lobbyist, people from nearby towns who want to come and visit our restaurants and businesses and talked about the benefits to him and the City of Raleigh and asked the Council to continue allowing this type program.
Cynthia MacGregor, Summerwood Court, spoke in support of AirBnB. She stated she appreciated Councilor Stephenson’s remarks last night about our economy, AirBnB, etc. as well as John Odom’s comments about the City of Raleigh being in need of accommodations. She pointed out she is president of the Business and Professional Women in Raleigh pointing out she is a creative entrepreneur who has lived, worked and played in Raleigh for over 20 years. She talked about her company, her enjoyment of the AirBnB experience as a host and guests since 2011. She talked about the people she has hosted pointing out there have been over 100 in the last few years. It has enabled her to supplement her income and improve her property, a way to get extra income and expand a way of life allowing her to have friendships with people from all over the world. She talked about some of her guests and presented a prepared statement and photos about her experiences through AirBnB. She asked the Council to embrace the concept and allow it to continue.
Mayor McFarlane thanked all who spoke pointing out the Council has asked for a report from staff which will be forthcoming at the January 20, 2015 Council meeting.
MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING
BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – PROPOSED FY2015-16 HEARING- COMMENTS RECEIVED
This was a hearing to receive comments on development of the proposed FY2015-16 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. The Mayor opened the hearing.
Octavia Rainey, 1516 East Lane Street, presented information on a group trip to the General Assembly in 2000 to ask them to look at ABC permits in redevelopment areas. She stated action took place in 2001 and that has been the only audit of ABC stores done in redevelopment areas. She called on the City to work with the ABC Commission for additional audits, talked about her concern that the City does not enforce two laws that were passed by the General Assembly – one which makes it illegal to carry glass tubes or anything associated with drug paraphernalia or illegal for anyone to deliver them in the City of Raleigh. She asked that the Council enforce those rules.
Ms. Rainey also asked that the Council consider increasing funding for the Summer Youth Program, provide more teen centers, especially one in the Fox Road area and West Raleigh area. She expressed concern about the UDO and the comprehensive plan pointing out a lot of citizens do not understand and she feels it would be good if the Council would allocate money for attorneys to help the CACs in these matters. She talked about her work as a volunteer and an advocate and asked about a poverty center.
Dwight Nipper, 4005 Memory Lane, expressed appreciation to the Council for the work they do and apologized for his many emails but expressed appreciation for the responses he has received. He talked about the growth of the city pointing out in the Triangle Business News today, Raleigh was listed as a city to watch in 2015. He asked that the proposed budget include a down town police/fire headquarters that is first class like the Wake County Public Safety Center. He stated our police department has not had a permanent police headquarters in a number of years and he would love to see one fitting for the Capital City pointing out he would love to see the Lightner Plans for a 12, 13, 14 or 17 story building to be used since the citizens have already paid for these plans. Ms. Baldwin expressed appreciation to Mr. Nipper for his emails, pointing out he is always kind and respectful and the Council appreciates that trait.
George Edward Jones, 1304 Hedgelawn Way representing the Wake County Taxpayers Association, stated is very interested in how the City uses the tax money and they are always looking for ways to eliminate wasteful spending. He quoted Calvin Coolidge about government, expressed concerned about taxing citizens. He called on the Council to follow the Constitution of North Carolina and the United States. He stated Raleigh is a great place to start and do business for large companies but it does not support small business people the same way. He stated he has been a small business man in the City of Raleigh for over 50 years and expressed concern about the bureaucracy. He called on the Council to lessen the rules and regulations and allow people to start their businesses, pay taxes, etc. He pointed out there are some 2,500 new regulations being imposed on businesses at the beginning of the year.
George Sharpley, 5504 Daywood Court, Wake County Taxpayers Association, commended Councilor Stephenson who made the statement that the City Council makes policies and planners work for the City Council not the other way around. He expressed concern about planners and some of the things they are coming up with such as roundabouts, how not all people like them, need to focus on pedestrian safety, safety of roundabouts in general and the road rage he has seen due to people not knowing how to use roundabouts. He presented Council members a book on bicycle safety and asked the Council to think about that as they are moving forth with bike lanes, etc.
No one else asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed and the comments referred to administration.
ANNEXATION PETITIONS – VARIOUS – HEARING – ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTION ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider the following petitioned annexations:
LOCATION ELECTORAL DISTRICT
Bacarra II Subdivision D
E-36 Elementary School – WCPSS C
M-13 Middle School – WCPSS B
3716 Conquest Drive – CPH Concrete C
Following the hearing if Council wishes to proceed with the annexations, it would be appropriate to adopt ordinances annexing the properties effective immediately and adopt resolutions assigning the properties to the appropriate electoral districts.
The Mayor opened the hearing on each location, no one asked to be heard thus the hearings were closed. Mr. Odom moved adoption of ordinances annexing the property effective immediately and adoption of a resolution placing the properties in the appropriate electoral districts. His motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Weeks who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Ordinances 381, 382, 383 and 384 and Resolution 46.
STC-2-14 – PALM COURT – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider STC-2-14, which is a request to permanently close the right-of-way known as Palm Court, located off of Horton Street, south of Lake Boone Trail. The request was made by Grubb Palms, LLC. The entire Palm Court right-of-way consists of 0.3 acre.
Following the hearing if the Council wishes to proceed, it would be appropriate to adopt a resolution closing the street as requested.
Eric Lamb, Director of Transportation Planning, indicated this relates to a development plan that has been approved. He pointed out the location explaining Palm Court is entirely within the approved plan. The Mayor opened the hearing, no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Gaylord moved adoption of the resolution ordering the closing as outlined. His motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Weeks who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Resolution 47.
SIDEWALK PETITION – WOODBURN ROAD – HEARING – APPROVED AS AMENDED
This was a hearing, pursuant to a petition signed by a majority (50%+1) of adjacent property owners for the installation of sidewalks on Woodburn Road from Smallwood Drive to Wade Avenue, a distance of approximately 2008 linear feet. Staff is recommending the installation of a six-foot wide sidewalk placed 2.5 feet behind the curb along the east side of Woodburn Road. No assessments would apply.
Following the hearing if the Council wishes to proceed, it would be appropriate to approve the project
Assessment Supervisor Jimmy Upchurch, Public Works Department, explained the proposal pointing out it includes approximately 2,000 lineal feet of sidewalk. There are 34 property owners involved and the policy would require the signatures of 18 and the petition had 19 signatures in support or 56 percent. He explained in reviewing the comments on the petition, most were in favor of sidewalk less than 6 feet in width and a zero setback as opposed to the recommended 6 foot sidewalk with a 2.5 foot setback. He talked about the area pointing out for utility poles would have to be removed to get the proposed 6 foot sidewalk with the normal setback and several large trees would be lost. He stated the Public Works Director approved the variance to bring the sidewalk to the suggested locations. He stated when this was first presented to Council the backup material indicated the cost would be approximately $720,000 however the actual cost is about $360,000. The original estimate was for sidewalks on both sides. In response to questioning from Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Upchurch pointed out utilities would have to be relocated if the standard sidewalk was installed and that is why staff proposed the variance. The setback being suggested does provide a safer walking area. Presently there is no parking on the west side.
Brief discussion took place on the petition process, the fact that it was reduced and now a valid petition is now 50% of the property owners plus one, the difference in a 4 foot sidewalk and a 6 foot and city standards as well as ADA requirements, changed requirements and suggestions were also discussed. The Mayor opened the hearing.
Will Allen, 803 Woodburn Road spoke in support of the sidewalk pointing out he prefers a 5 foot sidewalk and either side of the street would be fine with him.
Banks Talley, 626 Woodburn Road stated he circulated the petition, state he is the former chair of the Cameron Village Neighborhood Association. He talked about the location pointing out one has to walk in the street to get to the Cameron Village area, traffic has increased, the neighborhood requested and received reduced speed limits from 35 mph to 25, traffic continues to increase. He talked about the safety concerns stating they had requested speed bumps but they are way down on the list and they need sidewalks as people are walking in the street. He stated the sidewalks are needed from a safety, connectivity and environmental aspect pointing out no one should have to get in their car and walk the 1/10 of a mile to get to Cameron Village. He stated a 5 foot sidewalk with an 18 inch set back would be preferable to him.
Michael Smith, 809 Woodburn Road, stated he has lived in the neighborhood some 18 years and he helped convince his neighbors to vote in favor of the sidewalks. He stated he feels more people would have signed the petition in favor of the sidewalks if they had been assured of a smaller foot print. He talked about Cameron Village being an historic neighborhood, historic tax credits that have ended and the need for sidewalks. He stated larger sidewalks than what the city has proposed would be a mistake. He called on the Council to move this project forward and let the neighbors provide input during the design phase.
David Fetsko, 1707 Sutton Drive, spoke in opposition to the sidewalks stating he did not feel it was right to let people on both sides of the street to vote even though the property owners on one side of the street will not be affected. He does not feel a valid petition would have been received if property owners had known where the sidewalks were going to be proposed. He stated forcing this on the property owners is not right and called on the City to spend their money in other places. He talked about the number of streets in the Cameron Village area that have only partial sidewalks. He stated if they have to have sidewalks they should be no wider than 4 feet and run along the curb like the existing sidewalks in the neighborhood. He stated many of the lots are small and a 6 foot wide sidewalk would take the whole front yard, driveways are short, many homeowners would park their cars on the street and people will be blocked from the sidewalk. He asked about putting a smaller sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Ms. Baldwin questioned if staff is staying that a 4 foot wide sidewalk is not ADA compliant. Engineer Chris Johnson stated with a 4 foot sidewalk, the City would have to have a wider taper every 300 feet and putting them against the curb is not acceptable from a safety standpoint. He talked about the pros and cons of the different sizes of sidewalks and in response to questioning, pointed out both sides of the street have utility poles.
Michael Bender, 828 Woodburn Road, stated that is the east side and on that side of the street 8 people voted yes and 7 voted no and there were 3 no replies including him. He talked about the number of people on the west side and stated he is in favor of the smaller sidewalk on the side where the people voted to support it but not on his side of the street.
Ann Dawson, 818 Woodburn Road, spoke in favor of the sidewalk installation pointing out she walks a lot in the area and walking in the street is not safe.
Barbara Abernethy, 838 Woodburn Road, presented a statement and photos of the area. She pointed out she is located on the east side where the sidewalks are proposed. She voted against it after talking with city representatives and learning the impact it would have on her property. She stated she was told cost was the reason the sidewalk was recommended on the east side and she does not think that should be the deciding factor. She talked about the natural slope of the street being from west to east, expressed concern about drainage problems, and large trees on the east side which would be in danger of roots being destroyed thereby causing the trees to come down. She asked that the Council consider the size of the front yards pointing out no one on the east side has a large front yard while many of the houses on the west side have considerable front yards with larger setbacks. She presented petitions from her neighbors who could not be at the meeting and pointed out they live on the west side and they voted yes for the sidewalk as it was going to be on the opposite side of the street. A second petition would be in favor of sidewalks and talked about parking problems, etc. She also expressed concern about the process pointing out it takes 75% of the property owners to request a speed reduction and only 50% plus 1 for a sidewalk. She expressed concern that the petition was initiated without some type sharing at a community meeting of all residents. She called on the Council to deny the request and begin the process again so that all would understand.
Ms. Bender, 828 Woodburn Road, stated she and her husband did not reply to the petition, they live on the east side and do not want the sidewalk. Ms. Bender stated she is an advent runner and Bender and uses sidewalks regularly; however this would be a pedestrian highway right in front of her house. She stated she did not feel it was right for property owners on the other side of the street to vote to put sidewalks on her side. She suggested a 4 foot sidewalk next to the curb on both sides. She does not understand why it was considered for one side only.
Julie Moore, 822 Woodburn Road spoke in support of sidewalks pointing out she walks on Woodburn and fears for her life. She thought this was a state road however staff says it is a city road. She stated the sidewalks need to go somewhere and connect with another sidewalk not just stop at the end of her street. She stated people speed, it is dangerous and again stated the sidewalk needs to tie in to another sidewalk some where.
Perry Dean, 1804 Sutton Drive, stated he also owns the property at 635 Woodburn Road. He voted no because he lives on the west side and the sidewalk would be on the east side and he is not comfortable voting for something that doesn’t affect his property. He is uncomfortable with people lobbying to put a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. He personally does not want them on either side. He questioned if there would be any reimbursement for the impact on the property such as damaged or destroyed landscaping, trees, etc. He questioned how many people on the west side voted yes just to keep it off their side of the street. He called on the Council to reassess the petition.
Charles Hensley, 833 Woodburn Drive, stated that is on the west side and he voted in favor. He stated he would like to have the narrow sidewalks. He walks a lot, has twins and it would be safer if they could use a sidewalk, the four foot would be his choice.
English Dean, 1804 Sutton Drive, a senior at Broughton High School stated she feels completely safe walking. There is a better way to deal with public safety and talked about the number of sidewalks in the area that are not maintained.
Matthis Dean, 1804 Woodburn Road, Broughton student, stated he uses the street every day and feels completely safe. It is wide enough to park and allow him to walk on the road. He stated he agrees with his sister in that there are a lot of sidewalks that needs maintenance.
Amy Clark, 1002 James Place, pointed out that is at the corner of Woodburn and James. She voted no for a lot of the reasons mentioned. Woodburn is very busy, has a lot of traffic and speeders and speed bumps would be a better solution but they are way down on the list for that. She feels it would be better to have speed bumps installed prior to any sidewalks. She also does not feel comfortable voting for something that would impact her neighbors, particularly those without large front yards or driveways which would force them to park on the street.
Susan Gaines, 706 Woodburn Road, ask the Council to reconsider this petition. She stated this sidewalk would dead end at Wade Avenue and would not connect to anything.
No one else asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed.
Discussion among Council members followed relative to whether the sidewalk could be placed in the street, this being a 50 foot right-of-way within existing street which is 30 feet which would provide approximately 9.5 feet of right-of-way on each side, therefore the proposed sidewalk could fit in the existing right-of-way, topo on each side of the street and the fact that it is a two-lane street with one lane of parking, and various scenarios and alternatives. The existing standard versus the previous standards, ADA requirements, location and the need to relocate power lines and poles, concern about a 4 foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the curb, location of potentially needed retaining walls and concerns the residents voiced about the petition process, how to move forward was talked about. The need to have something in place for safety reasons was talked about. Mr. Gaylord moved approval of a 5 foot sidewalk 18 inches behind the curb on the east side. His motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Maiorano who voted in the native and Mr. Weeks who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-1 vote.
EASEMENT EXCHANGE – 1300 ST. MARY’S STREET – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider a request from CMS Engineering, on behalf of White Oak Properties, to exchange an existing 20-foot wide sanitary sewer easement of 362 linear feet for a new 20-foot wide easement of approximately 374 linear feet located at 1300 St. Mary’s Street according to terms outlined in Resolution 2014-36, which was included in the agenda packet.
Following the hearing if Council wishes to proceed, it would be appropriate to adopt a resolution authorizing the exchange as outlined in Resolution 2014-36.
The Mayor opened the hearing, no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved adoption of a resolution authorizing the exchange as outlined. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Weeks who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Resolution 48.
EASEMENT EXCHANGE – 401 OBERLIN ROAD – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider a request from representatives of 401 Oberlin, LLC to exchange a transit easement and modify a sidewalk easement at 401 Oberlin Road. The request is made in order to reflect the actual size of easements and location, according to terms outlined in Resolution 2014-35, which was included in the agenda packet.
Following the hearing if the Council wishes to proceed, it would be appropriate to adopt a resolution authorizing the exchanges as advertised.
The Mayor opened the hearing, no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Baldwin moved adoption of a resolution authorizing the exchange as outlined. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Weeks who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Resolution 49.
REZONING Z-16-14 – VARSITY DRIVE – TO BE PLACED ON THE FEBRUARY 3, 2015 AGENDA
This was a hearing to consider rezoning approximately 2.8 acres located on the south side of Varsity Drive west of its intersection with Avent Ferry Road. The request made by Dobs, Inc. is to rezoning from Shopping Center Conditional Use with Special Residential Parking Overlay District (SC CUD w/SRPOD) to Residential Mixed Use, 5 story maximum, Urban Limited Frontage, Conditional Use, with Special Residential Parking Overlay District (RX-5-UL-CU w/SRPOD). Conditions prohibit some uses; provide for pedestrian access, stipulate that at least 85% of required off-street parking be provided in a parking structure; provide for bicycle parking; describe building cladding; provide for 2 transit easements; describe setbacks and the size of street trees. (Z-16-14).
Staff has been unable to confirm that mailed notice was sent to property owners within 100 feet of the requested rezoning. In the absence of certainty, it would be best to delay the public hearing. The hearing should be deferred to February 3, 2015 to allow for required advertising.
Ms. Crowder expressed concern pointing out this is the second error that has occurred on this case and the second time it had to be deferred. She wanted to be assured that proper notification/advertisement occurs so the hearing can move forward with the City Clerk indicating she would make sure responsible parties are aware of the concern.
REZONING Z-29-14 – FORESTVILLE ROAD – HEARING – TO BE PLACED ON JANUARY 20 AGENDA
This was a continuation of a hearing to consider rezoning approximately 80.8 acres located on the west side of Forestville Road north of its intersection with Hartham Park Avenue. The request made by Wake County Board of Education is to rezone from Residential-4 (R-4) to Residential-10-Conditional Use (R-10-CU). Conditions limit the maximum residential density to 3 dwelling units per acre, prohibit townhouses and apartment building types as well as multi-unit living, specify a minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth, and require a minimum 20% open space set-aside if the property is developed as a conventional subdivision. (Z-29-14)
Once the hearing is closed, Council may take action on the request (approve, deny, hold) or refer to committee.
Michael Birch, Morningstar Law Group, stated he represents the applicant and they are prepared to move forward however they intend to add a condition. He requested that the hearing be closed and placed on the January 20 agenda for final consideration.
Attorney Andy Petesch, 127 West Hargett Street, representing the opponents stated they agree with the request to hold it for two weeks. Attorney Petesch pointed out he represents Chesterville Village and Forestville Road property owners.
Councilor Stephenson called attention to a letter received from Commissioner Sig Hutchison.
The Mayor closed the hearing. Mr. Odom moved that the Council approve the request to close the hearing and hold the item at the table for two weeks. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin.
Latika Vick, Forestville CAC, indicated they held a meeting on December 16, 2014. Two votes were taken, one for Forestville residents and an overall vote for all parties in attendance which were mostly Wake Forest residents. The official vote of the Forestville CAC was 8 in favor, one against; the second vote which was for all parties in attendance, there were 0 in favor and 71 against. The overall concern was the impact the rezoning would have by increasing stormwater runoff increasing traffic, and preservation of the current character of the neighborhood. The recommendations from the neighboring residents included reverting to the zoning prior to the school rezoning, suggesting conservation methods to reduce impact on stormwater in back yards such as swales and other conservation wetlands and the fact that a county commissioner had shared a letter with the Council regarding the case. Mr. Stephenson talked about the project existing onto a county road that doesn’t meet City of Raleigh standards so there will be new trips on an unimproved road. Traffic Engineer Lamb pointed out that would be apart of NCDOT assessment. Mr. Stephenson also questioned the flooding issue and questioned the information presented by the hydrologist and questioned if that would be a part of the conversation with it being pointed out that is correct. The motion as stated was put to a vote and passed unanimously (Weeks absent and excused). The Mayor rule the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.
REZONING Z-30-14 – ACC BOULEVARD – HEARING – ORDINANCE ADOPTED
This was a hearing to consider rezoning approximately 14.47 acres on ACC Boulevard and Glenwood Avenue, west of Alexander Town Boulevard. The request is made by SLF Ruby Jones LLC to rezone from Thoroughfare District Conditional Use District with Planned Development District (TD CUD w/PDD) to Residential Mixed Use-5 stories-Parking Limited-Conditional Use (RX-5-PL-CU) and Residential Mixed Use-5 stories-Conditional Use(RX-5-CU). Conditions limit density, specify building and parking setback along Glenwood Avenue, limit tree disturbing activity along Glenwood Avenue and provide for transit shelter on ACC Boulevard. (Z-30-14)
Once the hearing is closed, Council may take action on the request (approve, deny, hold) or refer to committee.
Planner Bynum Walter presented the request and answered questions about the frontage along Alexander Town Boulevard, Glenwood Avenue and ACC Boulevard. The Mayor opened the hearing, no one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Baldwin moved the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Weeks who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Ordinance 385 ZC 704.
Adjournment: There being no further business, Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Gail G. Smith
City Clerk
jt/CC01-06-15
................
................
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 searches
- city council finance
- city council chairs
- purpose of city council committees
- city council peoria il
- peoria il city council members
- peoria city council az
- peoria city council meeting tonight
- baltimore city council district lookup
- worthington city council candidates
- worthington city council results 2019
- peoria il city council meeting
- east peoria city council meeting