Raleigh City Council Minutes Regular Session - …… · Web view2015/07/21 · One client has...

COUNCIL MINUTES

The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in regular session at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2014, in the City Council Chamber of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present.

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

Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. The invocation was rendered by Reverend Shannon Scott of Mount Vernon Baptist Church and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilor Crowder. The following items were discussed with action taken as shown.

RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL AWARDS

CERTIFICATES OF APPOINTMENT – RALEIGH TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND FAIR HOUSING HEARING BOARD – PRESENTED

Mayor McFarlane presented Certificates of Appointment to Yvonne Bailey, new member of the Raleigh Transit Authority, and Ashleigh Parker Dunston and Yetunde B.K. Andrews, new members of the Fair Housing Hearing Board. She congratulated them and thanked them for their willingness to serve. Ms. Bailey thanked the Council for their support and her appointment and said she is looking forward to working on the Raleigh Transit Authority with new Chairperson Jason Horne. Ms. Andrews thanked the Council for the opportunity to work on the Fair Housing Hearing Board, adding that she is excited and ready to go to work. Ms. Dunston stated "ditto."

PROCLAMATION – MICHAEL COLE DAY – PRESENTED

Mayor McFarlane recognized Michael Cole, Chairperson and founding member of the New Bern Avenue Corridor Alliance, and read a proclamation proclaiming July 21, 2015 as "Michael Cole Day" in Raleigh. The Mayor presented the proclamation to Mr. Cole and said she heard a rumor he might be retiring. Mr. Cole replied he is retiring and moving to the family farm in October, where they will be working cows; he has been working hard since he was 15 years old. However, he is not selling his house in Oakwood. His family is sixth generation Raleigh residents. Mr. Cole told the Council they will be hearing from him as he will stay involved in the NBACA. He thanked the Mayor and stated he very much appreciates the proclamation.

City CouncilJuly 21, 2015 of 85

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. The vote on the consent agenda will be a roll call vote. She stated she had received the following requests to withdraw an item from the consent agenda: Warehouse District Public Parking Needs (Crowder); Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Administrative Building Renovations (Weeks); Traffic – Left Turn Restrictions – Signalized Intersections (Baldwin); Traffic – No Parking Zone – Brookside Drive; No Stopping or Standing Zones – Frank Street and Norris Street (Baldwin/Weeks). Without discussion, those four items were withdrawn from the consent agenda. Ms. Baldwin moved Administration's recommendations on the remaining items on the consent agenda be upheld. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all Council 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.

BLOUNT STREET PARKING DECK – EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY – AUTHORIZED FOR AUGUST 4, 2015 – RESOLUTION OF INTENT ADOPTED

A request has been received to exchange parking spaces in the City portion of the Blount Street Parking Deck to accommodate need of Cooper’s BBQ for a back-of-house area behind the establishment in the Blount Street Parking Deck. The needs include commercial and employee parking along with storage, solid waste containers, and HVAC equipment. Customer parking is not included as part of the exchange. Ten City parking spaces on level P2 of the Blount Street Parking Deck will be converted to Individual Retail Limited Common Element for Retail Unit One for the exclusive use by Cooper’s BBQ for a back-of-house area. To facilitate the exchange, there are two City parking spaces on level P1 of the parking deck that will be converted to a drive aisle and turn area for users of the parking deck.

In exchange for the space behind Cooper’s BBQ for the back-of-house area and the two parking spaces on level P1 of the parking deck to be converted, the City will receive 12 new parking spaces that it will own in fee simple by conversion of existing drive isles to City parking spaces on levels P1 and P5 of the Blount Street Parking Deck.

Conversion of the spaces and property interests will be formalized by, among other instruments of conveyance, the execution and recordation of the Third Amendment to Declaration of Condominium for Blount Street Parking Deck Condominium. This document is expected to be brought before Council for approval at the August 4, 2015 meeting.

Since the City will have the same number of parking spaces in the Blount Street Parking Deck after the exchange as it did before the exchange, no monetary consideration is recommended by staff as a condition of the exchange.


Recommendation: Authorize the parking space exchange as outlined and direct the City Clerk to publish a Notice of Intent resolution pursuant to state statutes (NCGS 160A-271) to advertise the intention to execute the exchange on August 4, 2015. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Resolution 138.

BUDGET – REAPPROPRIATION OF JUNE 30, 2015 UNEXPENDED FUNDS – APPROVED – BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDED

At the beginning of each fiscal year, Council typically is asked to adopt a budget amendment to rollover certain unexpended appropriations from the prior year. An amendment to the Economic Development Fund is requested in the amount of $170,000 to complete budgeted activities for which funds are not yet encumbered. The amendment consists of two components. The first is rollover of appropriations to the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance and the New Bern Avenue as previously discussed with Council during budget deliberations. The second component is to rollover economic development funding in the amount of $70,000 which entails unexpended funding for entrepreneurship program managed by the Office of Economic Development. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Authorize an amendment to the FY 2015-16 budget ordinance in the amount of $170,000. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Ordinance 464 TF 256.

SEMI-ANNUAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PETITION PRIORITIZATION – REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS – PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 – RESOLUTIONS OF INTENT ADOPTED

Semi-annual street improvement petition reviews have been conducted, and based on statutory requirements of signatures from a "majority" of the abutting property owners which represent a "majority" of the linear feet of proposed improvements; the following petition projects have been validated for sufficiency and are ready for Council consideration:

Churchill Road from the end of the existing curb and gutter eastward to Canterbury RoadImprovements to include construction of 0.5-foot of a 38-foot, back-to-back street section including curbs, gutters, drains and paving on the north side only for an approximate distance of 164 linear feet. Administrative design adjustments include the following:

● Retrofit the proposed improvements within the existing 60-foot right-of-way● Omit the sidewalk requirement● Omit the five-foot utility easement, maintenance strip, planting area, and right-of-

way requirement

This petition has met the sufficiency requirement with signatures from 100 percent of the abutting property owners representing 100 percent of the abutting lineal feet. The proposed assessment rate is $32/linear foot and the estimated cost of construction is $22,952.


Breeze Road from Beechridge Road to Hales RoadImprovements to include construction of a 27-foot, back-to-back street section with 3.5-foot shoulders including curbs, gutters, drains, and paving for an approximate distance of 1,352 linear feet. Administrative design adjustments include the following:

● Retrofit the proposed improvements within the existing 36-foot right-of-way● Omit the sidewalk requirement● Omit the five-foot utility easements, maintenance strips, planting areas and right-

of-way requirements

This petition has met the sufficiency requirement with signatures from 62.5 percent of the abutting property owners representing 55.02 percent of the abutting linear feet. The proposed assessment rate is $32/linear feet and the estimated cost of construction is $301,992.

Lorimer Road from Kaplan Drive to Garland DriveImprovements to include construction of a 27-foot, back-to-back street section with a six-foot wide sidewalk on a six-foot setback on the west side and a 3.5-foot shoulder on the east side including curbs, gutters, drains, and paving for an approximate distance of 2,940 linear feet. Administrative design adjustments include the following:

● Retrofit the proposed improvements within the existing 60-foot right-of-way● Omit the sidewalk requirement on the east side● Omit the five-foot utility easements, maintenance strip (east side), planting area

(ease side) and ROW requirements

This petition has met the sufficiency requirement with signatures from 68.29 percent of the abutting property owners representing 70.96 percent of the abutting linear feet. The proposed assessment rate is $32/linear foot and the estimated cost of construction is $1,730,000.

Funds are currently unavailable in the Paving Petition Program FY16 fund. If approved, allocation will need to be approved in the FY17 budget for design and construction.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution of intent to schedule public hearings for Tuesday, September 1, 2015 to consider approval of the petitions and assessment rates. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Resolutions 139, 140 and 141.

POLICE DEPARTMENT – GRANT – NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION GRANT CONTINUATION – APPLICATION SUBMISSION APPROVED – RESOLUTION ADOPTED; MAYOR AUTHORIZED TO SIGN RESOLUTION

The City is seeking grant funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to continue with year three of a grant to support a Driving While Impaired (DWI) enforcement squad consisting of four officers and one sergeant to detect and arrest impaired drivers. The grant is funded at 70 percent and will pay a total of $289,811 in federal funds for salaries, fringe benefits, equipment, and travel costs for in-state and out-of-state training


opportunities. The City match for the third year of this four-year grant is 30 percent, which will amount to $124,205. This grant was approved by the Grants Committee on January 15, 2015.

Recommendation: Authorize staff to submit the grant application and authorize the Mayor to sign a Local Governmental Resolution to accompany the grant application. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Resolution 142.

PLANNING – HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND GRANT – ACCEPTED – BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDED

As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the City has been awarded a grant from the federal Historic Preservation Fund to cosponsor a National Alliance of Historic Preservation Commissions (NAPC) Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program (CAMP) workshop at the 2015 Preservation North Carolina (PNC) Annual Conference in Salisbury, North Carolina. Administrative partners include PNC, the City of Salisbury, and the City of Raleigh. The CAMP workshop will provide specific training for historic preservation commissions, serve a minimum of 10 CLGs across the state, and be open to non-CLGs and registrants interested in historic preservation commissions.

The pass-through agency is the Historic Preservation Office of the Department of Cultural Resources. The $3,500 match is being funded by 10 CLGs across the state, collected by PNC, and paid to the City in FY16.

Recommendation: Authorize acceptance of the grant award and authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $7,000. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Ordinance 464 TF 256.

CONTRACT SERVICES – COMPREHENSIVE JANITORIAL SERVICES AT CITY FACILITIES – CONTRACT AWARDED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE SYSTEMS, LLC; CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

A request for proposals (RFP) was advertised for consolidated and comprehensive professional janitorial services at various city locations for Parks, Public Works and Police facilities. Excluded from the contract are services for the Convention Center, Fire Department and Public Utilities facilities, and parking decks. After thorough evaluation of the proposals, staff recommends award of the base submittal of the contract to Environmental Service Systems, LLC. Environmental Service Systems, LLC is certified with the North Carolina office of historically underutilized businesses as a minority owned business. The term of the awarded contract is three years; the agreement may be extended for two additional one-year terms for a total contract period of five years. Total contract cost is based on five years of service. Funding is appropriated in the operating budget and may require administrative budget transfers.

Name of Project: Comprehensive Janitorial ServicesManaging Division: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources – Facilities and

OperationsApproval Requested: Professional services contract


Reason for City Council Review: Contract >$150,000Original Contract Total: $6,111,610Vendor: Environmental Service Systems, LLCPrior Contract Activity: N/AAmount of This Amendment: N/AReason for This Amendment: N/AAnticipated Future Amendments: Amendments may occur as locations are added or removed

from the contractBudget Transfer Required: Administrative

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

CONTRACT SERVICES – CARPET CLEANING AT CITY FACILITIES – CONTRACT AWARDED TO SERVICEMASTER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE; CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

Included in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for consolidated and comprehensive professional janitorial services was an alternate, line-item pricing for hot water carpet extraction at various City locations. As a result of the evaluation of proposals, staff recommends award of a contract to ServiceMaster Professional Building Maintenance. Small Disadvantaged Minority and Women Owned Business (SDMWOB) participation is zero percent. Selection of this vendor to provide services independent of the comprehensive professional janitorial services contract will provide the City an annual savings of $120,160. The term of the contract is three years; the agreement may be extended for two additional one-year terms for a total contract period of five years. Total contract cost is based on five years. Funding is appropriated in the operating budget and may require administrative budget transfers.

Name of Project: Janitorial Services – Hot Water Carpet ExtractionManaging Division: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources – Facilities and

OperationsApproval Requested: Professional services contractReason for City Council Review: Contract >$150,000Original Contract Total: $514,737Vendor: ServiceMaster Professional Building MaintenancePrior Contract Activity: N/AAmount of This Amendment: N/AReason for This Amendment: N/AAnticipated Future Amendments: Amendments may occur as locations are added or removed

from the contractBudget Transfer Required: Administrative

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES – HIRING AGENCY MASTER AGREEMENTS – EXTENSIONS – APPROVED; CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS OF WORK

The City currently maintains master agreements with the hiring agencies listed below. These agreements establish standard terms and conditions for the acquisition of professional services to support various initiatives and serve as contract vehicles that allow the City to acquire professional services from individuals and firms with experience in the technology field to work on enterprise projects to fill technical resources shortages and to meet the need for immediate technical expertise that does not exist within existing City personnel.

The Information Technology Department is requesting authorization to extend these master agreements, agreements that may exceed the threshold of Council approval of $150,000 for individual professional services contracts, for three years and not to exceed the following amounts of the three-year term:

Accentuate Staffing $337,000CCCi $181,000DataStaff, Inc. $530,500North America Database Network $530,500Pinpoint Resource Group $168,500Red Zone Resources $193,500

Statements of work will be funded from the approved Information Technology Department operating budget within each fiscal year to maintain appropriate levels of service.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the individual statements of work for the master agreements with each of the vendors. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

LICENSE AGREEMENT – GOOGLE FIBER – APPROVED – CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE LICENSE AGREEMENTS – MAYOR AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE EASEMENTS ACROSS CITY PROPERTY

Authorization to enter into license agreements for a ten-year term with Google Fiber North Carolina, LLC for a portion of the nine properties addressed below is recommended by staff:

● 6900 Perry Creek Road● 3305 Southall Road● 1242 New Bern Road● 4720 Rock Quarry Road● 11053 Raven Ridge Road● 3215 Wade Avenue● 1721 Trailwood Drive (Fire Station 20)● 7808 Six Forks Road● 8525 Leesville Road


The purpose of the license agreement is to grant the licensee the right to use the licensed premises to construct, operate, and maintain structures associated with development of a fiber optic network owned by the licensee. The licensed premises will be provided to licensee for an annual fee of $2 per square foot contained with the license area. Required statutory notice was advertised in The News and Observer on July 9, 2015.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements to convey the license rights, including site specific requirements at 1242 New Bern Ave and 3215 Wade Ave, described above to Google Fiber North Carolina, LLC. Authorize the Mayor to execute required easements across City property to allow access to provide utility services to the improvements within the license areas. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

RADIO TELEMETRY SERVICES – CONTRACT AWARDED TO RADIO COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY – CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

Proposals were solicited for preventative and emergency response services for the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and flood warning radio telemetry sites. One proposal was received in response to the Request for Proposals. Radio Communications Company was selected and a three-year contract has been negotiated in the amount of $336,558 with an option to renew for two additional one-year terms.

Name of Project: Radio Telemetry ServicesManaging Division: Public Utilities – Water Treatment and Resource Recovery

DivisionApproval Requested: Contract awardReason for City Council Review: Contract >$150,000 (policy)Fiscal Year 2015 Budget: $112,186Actual Contract Amount: $336,558Vendor: Radio Communications CompanyPrior Contract Activity: N/A

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in an amount not to exceed $336,558. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

LONG-TERM WATER QUALITY MONITORING – NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY – CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE – APPROVED

A contract with North Carolina State University (NCSU) was executed in for water quality sampling and monitoring of Falls Lake. The Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology (CAAE) at NCSU has been operating and maintaining real time water quality monitoring platforms at Falls Lake and periodically collecting samples since 2006. Data from this work has been critical in evaluating long term water quality trends and represents the longest continual monitoring effort in Falls Lake.


Contract History:Name of Project: Long-Term Water Quality MonitoringVendor: North Carolina State UniversityPrior Contract Activity: $191,741 (approved by City Council July 15, 2014)Amount of This Amendment: $585,000Encumbered With This Approval: $776,741

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment in an amount not to exceed $585,000. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

LOWER WALNUT CREEK SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT – MCKIM & CREED, INC. – CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO – APPROVED

Design of the Lower Walnut Creek Sewer Interceptor Project, which will consists of approximately 16,500 linear feet of 72-inch and 66-inch gravity sewer along Walnut Creek from Barwell Road upstream to the Walnut Creek Softball Complex on the east side of Sunnybrook Road, to address existing capacity and future growth needs is currently in process.

It was determined that the following items need to be added to the design engineers scope due to unanticipated conditions: design of an additional siphon near the Walnut Creek softball complex; design of additional storm crossings due to regulatory requirements; model and structural evaluation of the downstream siphon under Walnut Creek at Barwell Road; and additional work on the environmental assessment to include the adjoining Upper Walnut Creek interceptor project.

Contract History:Name of Project: Lower Walnut Creek Sewer Interceptor ProjectRequest Reason: Contract amendment approval (contract amendment

>$150,000)Vendor: McKim & Creed, Inc.Prior Contract Activity: $334,000 (approved by City Council November 20,

2013)Amendment One: $998,900 (approved by City Council July 1, 2014)Currently Encumbered: $1,332,900Amount of This Contract Amendment: $331,200Encumbered With This Approval: $1,664,100


ON-CALL SERVICES – BROWN & CALDWELL – CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO – APPROVED

Council authorized staff April 16, 2013 to negotiate a contract with Brown and Caldwell for the professional engineering on-call services as one of 13 on-call engineering design firms. This amendment will provide funding for the next phase of services for two projects. Additional


services include final design and construction administration services for the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant 12 million gallon clearwell improvements and structural rehabilitation, and three sewer pump station improvement projects. The design tasks necessary are associated with projects where the estimated costs of construction fall within the scope of typical on-call projects. This final amendment will extend the contract an additional three years through estimated project construction completion.

Contract History:Name of Project: On-Call ServicesRequest Reason: Contract amendment approval (contract amendment

>$150,000)Vendor: Brown & CaldwellPrior Contract Activity: $200,000 (approved by City Council August 12,

2013)Amendment One: $400,000 (approved by City Council June 6, 2014)Currently Encumbered: $600,000Amount of This Contract Amendment: $420,000Encumbered With This Approval: $1,020,000


ENCROACHMENT– LONGWOOD DRIVE AND SECRET DRIVE – APPROVED

A request has been received from Google Fiber North Carolina, LLC to install underground conduit, below-ground vaults, and above-ground LCP cabinets in the right-of-way. A report was included with 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, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

ENCROACHMENT– OBERLIN ROAD NEAR SMALLWOOD DRIVE – APPROVED

A request has been received from Fiber Technologies Networks, LLC to install 411 feet of underground conduit in the right-of-way. A report was included with 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, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

CONDEMNATION – SANDY FORKS ROAD WIDENING PROJECT – RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

Efforts have been unsuccessful to obtain needed easements; therefore it is recommended that resolutions of condemnation be authorized for the following:


Sandy Forks Road Widening ProjectThis project will include the widening and rehabilitation of Sandy Forks Road between Six Forks Road and Falls of Neuse Road. Objectives include improving traffic capacity and congestion; pedestrian connectivity and safety; and to provide a multi-modal solution between the residential and the business districts at each end of the corridor. The work scope includes engineering design, surveying, subsurface utility engineering, right-of-way acquisition and platting, and includes but is not limited to roadway design, sidewalk design, drainage and erosion control and utility coordination and relocation.

Name: RCE Properties, LLC; Twin Forks Properties, LLC; WARA, LLCLocation: 5910 Six Forks Road

Name: Alex M. VelezLocation: 2 Lynn Road

Name: Woods Garden Associates, LLC, et al.Location: 6200 Shanda Drive

Name: Daniel L. Stapleton and Dorcas StapletonLocation: 6500 Arbor Grande Way

Name: Ming Zhao and Lu Qu ZhaoLocation: 6501 Brookhollow Drive

Name: Wachovia Bank Trust Company NA, et alLocation: 6516 Suburban Drive

Name: Margaret P. ParrishLocation: 7100 Sandy Forks Road

Name: H. Merritt Enterprises, LLCLocation: 7110 Sandy Forks Road

Name: DRA RCG Falls Village, LLCLocation: 6615 Falls of Neuse Road

Name: Ajswabhavish Real Estate, LLCLocation: 7200 Sandy Forks Road

Name: McCombs Enterprises, LLCLocation: 6515 Falls of Neuse Road

Recommendation: Adopt the resolutions of condemnation. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Resolutions 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153.


GORMAN STREET SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION – MOFFAT PIPE, INC. – CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO – APPROVED;

The Public Utilities Department in collaboration with the Stormwater division is currently under contract with Moffat Pipe, Inc. for the Gorman Street Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project. This project involves the replacement and rehabilitation of over 4,900 feet of sanitary sewer along a tributary just west of Gorman Street to provide increased capacity and eliminate sanitary sewer overflows within the basin. The project also includes the installation of an eight-foot by four-foot stormwater box culvert beneath Sherman Avenue to help address area flooding.

The change order is intended to cover the following additional items: tracer wire (state law mandate); removal and replacement of unsuitable soils; bore and jack to eliminate power pole conflict; sidewalk restoration; waterline relocation due to conflict with box culvert; and mechanical rock removal through a neighborhood due to safety concerns associated with blasting.

Contract History:Name of Project: Gorman Street Sanitary Sewer RehabilitationRequest Reason: Contract change order approval (change order

>$150,000)Vendor: Moffat Pipe, Inc.Prior Contract Activity: $1,375,425 (approved by City Council July 16,

2013)Change Order One: $497,439 (administrative)Currently Encumbered: $1,872,864Amount of This Contract Change Order: $316,839Encumbered With This Approval: $2,189,703

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute contract change order number two with Moffat Pipe, Inc. in the amount of $316,839. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0.

TRANSFER – PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

At the July 7, 2015 meeting, City Council approved the reorganization for forestry positions currently housed with Planning Department to the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department. A budget transfer in the amount of $253,330 is necessary to align appropriations for salaries, benefits and operating expenses with the correct department. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $253,330. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Ordinance 464 TF 256.


LAKE JOHNSON WOODLAND CENTER – BID AWARDED TO TCC ENTERPRISES, INC. – BUDGET TRANSFER AUTHORIZED – CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

On May 14, 2015, six bids were received for construction of the Lake Johnson Woodland Center project. Staff recommends that the construction contract be awarded to TCC Enterprises, Inc., license number 72364, with the total contract amount being $2,388,200 including the base bid and seven alternates.

Funding of $1,982,258 is currently available in the project budget. A transfer of funds in the amount of $600,000 is recommended from the Dix soccer improvement project to support the base bid, the alternates and 8 percent contingency. Funding from the Dix soccer project was originally programmed for the creation of a synthetic turf field on the site. Since the City is in the process of property acquisition and master planning for Dix Park is yet to occur, this funding source is recommended for reallocation to a higher priority. Additional details were included with the agenda packet. Small Disadvantaged Minority and Women Owned Business (SDMWOB) participation for this project is 4.1 percent. The Business Assistance Program office has accepted a written memo from TCC Enterprises with supporting documents regarding good faith efforts to subcontract additional SDMWOB vendors.

Information regarding the potential effect of current market trends and economic drivers on capital construction costs was previously addressed in the Manager’s Update Number 2015-25. Staff believes the high bid amount is indicative of higher construction costs in the Raleigh area. Staff will be providing further information on construction cost escalations under the Report and Recommendation of the City Manager.

Name of Project: Lake Johnson Woodland CenterManaging Division: Parks, Recreation, and Cultural ResourcesApproval Request: Bid awardReason for Council Review: Formal bid award and fund transfer >$50,000Original CIP Budget: $2,600,000Current Construction Budget: $1,982,258Construction Bid Award: $2,388,200Vendor: TCC Enterprises, Inc.Encumbered With This Approval: $2,388,200Budget Transfer Required: $600,000

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract in an amount not to exceed $2,388,200. Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $600,000. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Ordinance 464 TF 256.


SIX FORKS ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – BID AWARDED TO NARRON CONTRACTING, INC. – BUDGET TRANSFERRED AUTHORIZED – CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

Bids were opened May 6, 2015 for construction of the Six Forks Pedestrian Improvement Project from Coleridge Drive to Wake Forest Road. A total of three bids were received with Narron Contracting, Inc. submitting the low bid in the amount of $619,710. The low bid exceeds the engineering estimate of $405,143.

Information regarding the potential effect of current market trends and economic drivers on capital construction costs was previously addressed in the Manager’s Update Number 2015-25. Staff believes the high bid amount is indicative of higher construction costs in the Raleigh area. Staff will be providing further information on construction cost escalations under the Report and Recommendation of the City Manager.

This original project budget was $483,000. Land acquisition costs totaled $305,072, leaving a balance of $177,928. With a low bid of $619,710, the budget shortfall totals $441,782. Staff recommends a budget transfer in the amount of $441,782 from budgeted reserves identified within the transportation capital program to fund the project budget shortfall. Accounting details were included with the agenda packet.

Narron Contracting, Inc. has indicated self-designation as a Small Disadvantaged Minority and Women Owned Business (SDMWOB) contractor for a total amount of $111,000 or 18 percent of the total bid amount. A bid summary, letter from the Office of Economic Development, and backup information were included with the agenda packet. In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 635.113), negotiations with contractors during the period following the opening of bids and before the award of the contract shall not be permitted. An alternative to approval of the bid would be to reject all bids and re-advertise the project.

Name of Project: Six Forks Road Pedestrian Improvement ProjectManaging Division: Public Works – Design and Construction DivisionApproval Request: Bid awardReason for Council Review: Formal bid awardConstruction Bid Award: $619,709Vendor: Narron Contracting, Inc.Prior Contract Activity: N/AEncumbered With This Approval: $619,709Budget Transfer Required: $441,782

Recommendation: Award the bid to Narron Contracting, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $619,709. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract following concurrence of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $441,782. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Ordinance 464 TF 256.


I-40 BRIDGES PEDESTRIAN RETROFIT IMPROVEMENTS, PW 2014-10 – BID AWARDED TO FRED SMITH COMPANY – BUDGET TRANSFER AUTHORIZED – CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

Bids were opened May 14, 2015 for construction of the I-40 Bridges Pedestrian Retrofit Improvements along Avent Ferry, Buck Jones, and Rock Quarry roads. One bid was received. Fred Smith Company submitted the low bid in the amount of $2,535,111. Fred Smith Company has indicated they plan to use Small Disadvantaged Minority and Women Owned Business (SDMWOB) contractors for a total amount of $255,825 or 10.1 percent of the total contract amount. A bid summary and a letter from the Office of Economic Development were included with the agenda packet.

The engineering estimate for the project was $2,068,491. Information regarding the potential effect of current market trends and economic drivers on capital construction costs was previously addressed in the Manager’s Update Number 2015-25. Staff believes the high bid amount is indicative of higher construction costs in the Raleigh area. Staff will be providing further information on construction cost escalations under the Report and Recommendation of the City Manager.

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 635.113), negotiations with contractors during the period following the opening of bids and before award of the contract shall not be permitted. An alternative to approval of the bid would be to reject all bids and re-advertise the project.

Name of Project: I-40 Bridges Pedestrian Retrofit ImprovementsManaging Division: Public Works – Design and Construction DivisionApproval Request: Bid awardReason for Council Review: Formal bid awardConstruction Bid Award: $2,535,110Vendor: Fred Smith CompanyPrior Contract Activity: N/AEncumbered With This Approval: $2,535,110Budget Transfer Required: $74,269

Recommendation: Award the bid to Fred Smith Company in the amount of $2,535,110 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract following concurrence of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $74,269. Accounting detail was included with the agenda packet. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Ordinance 464 TF 256.

TRAFFIC – NO PARKING ZONE – WILMINGTON STREET – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

It is recommended that a Commercial Loading Zone located on the west side of Wilmington Street, south of Morgan Street be changed to a No Parking Zone effective between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.


Staff at the North Carolina Supreme Court building, 2 East Morgan Street, has requested removal of parking adjacent to the building for the safety of court personnel that have offices on the Wilmington Street side of the building. The proposed change will replace the existing 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. commercial loading zone with a no parking zone during the same hours. Upheld on consent agenda, Baldwin/Weeks, 8-0. See Ordinance 465.

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

WAREHOUSE DISTRICT PUBLIC PARKING NEEDS – VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS – APPROVED

The City has been approached by private parties with regard to partnering on projects in the vicinity of the Warehouse District to increase the amount of available public parking within the district. North Carolina General Statute 143-128.1C, Public-Private Partnership Construction Contracts, requires local governments to determine that a "critical need" exists for capital improvement projects involving a public-private partnership. Staff has determined a critical need for public parking in the Warehouse District exists, and is needed to support retail, economic development, the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and the approved Raleigh Union Station. The City is interested in seeking qualified private parties interested in working on a partnership for the construction of public parking in a facility in close proximity to the future Raleigh Union Station. The parking facility is expected to be constructed on private property and may be part of a larger mixed-use development project. Additional information was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Approve the staff determination that a critical need exists for a capital improvement project for public parking in the Warehouse District. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Qualifications from qualified private partners, including the development of qualification criteria, for participation in a public-private partnership to address the critical need identified by staff.

Ms. Crowder requested a point of clarification from the City Attorney. She said there appears to be something new in the way the City works out private/public partnerships as it relates to, in this case, parking facilities, and she wanted to know how long the process will take from the moment the City issues the RFQ. City Attorney Tom McCormick replied by the time all the required activities take place, it will be sometime in the fall; the middle or end of September is the earliest possible date. Ms. Crowder asked if this step merely opens this up to whether people can build parking for the City in the Warehouse District and City Attorney McCormick replied affirmatively. Ms. Crowder moved to approve the recommendations as presented. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.


NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING RENOVATION – BID AWARDED TO RIGGS-HARROD BUILDERS, INC. – CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

Five construction bids were received June 18, 2015 for the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) Administrative Building Renovations project. This capital improvement project consists of complete renovation of approximately 15,000 square feet of 1970’s vintage laboratory and office space. The scope of work includes new walls, ceilings, finishes, casework, doors, HVAC replacement, plumbing, electrical, and fire alarm work. The scope also includes roof and window replacement. Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive bid in the total amount of $3,614,982 with a 5.45 percent Small Disadvantages Minority and Women Owned Business (SDMWOB) participation plan.

Name of Project: NRWWTP Administrative Building RenovationsManaging Division: Public Utilities – Capital Improvements DivisionApproval Request: Bid awardReason for Council Review: Formal bid awardOriginal CIP Budget: $3,840,000Construction Bid Award: $3,614,982Vendor: Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc.Prior Contract Activity: N/AEncumbered With This Approval: $3,614,982

Recommendation: Award the bid to Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $3,614,982. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.

Mr. Weeks questioned the low percentage for the SDMWOB participation plan and wondered if there was a reason for it. City Manager Ruffin Hall explained the contractor did follow the rules and make a good faith effort. The City is beginning to have difficulty getting contracts because there is more development and construction activity. It is also impacting small business participation as subcontractors for larger contractors. Since Riggs-Harrod Builders complied with good faith effort, staff recommends approval. Mr. Weeks moved to approve the recommendation as presented. His motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

TRAFFIC – LEFT TURN RESTRICTIONS – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS – REFERRED TO LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

It is recommended that left turns be restricted from Fayetteville Street between Hargett Street to Davie Street and from Glenwood Avenue between Johnson Street to Jones Street. These restrictions would be in place from Friday to Sunday between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. for a pilot period of six months. The restrictions of these left turns are to reduce congestion and increase safety in the downtown area during the peak entertainment hours.


Ms. Baldwin asked that this item be referred to the Law and Public Safety Committee as it relates to a current issue the Committee is discussing, Private Use of Public Spaces – Outdoor Dining, which the Committee plans to discuss at its July 28 meeting. She said it relates because of noise concerns downtown and she wants appropriate outreach to be done before the Council votes on it. Mr. Odom said he is not against the item going to Committee, but asked if this was a noise complaint. Mayor McFarlane pointed out it is a left turn issue. Ms. Baldwin explained it is related to helping reduce noise downtown by moving people out of downtown more quickly so they're not in the streets for one to two hours. Before the traffic change is implemented, she wants to ensure it has been heard at the highest level. Ms. Crowder asked if the noise was created by people in the street or by cars turning, and Ms. Baldwin replied by cars turning. Many times, drivers cannot get down Fayetteville Street at 2:00 a.m. or 2:30 a.m. and this is contributing to the noise and congestion issues downtown Raleigh is experiencing. Ms. Baldwin moved to refer this item to the Law and Public Safety Committee. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative except Ms. Crowder. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 7-1.

NO PARKING ZONE – BROOKSIDE DRIVE, NO STOPPING OR STANDING ZONES – FRANK STREET AND NORRIS STREET – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

It is recommended that a No Parking Zone be established on both sides of Brookside Drive from Edmund Street to Frank Street. It is also recommended that two No Stopping or Standing Zones be established on both sides of Frank Street and Norris Street.

Due to safety concerns, the Raleigh Police Department (RPD) recently requested staff to investigate improving the carpool procedure for Conn Elementary School, particularly during afternoon pick up. In an effort to minimize the impact to residents, staff is requesting that only the afternoon school zone hours be restricted to No Stopping or Standing zones on Frank and Norris Streets. The restriction would apply 3:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. to coordinate with the school’s afternoon dismissal time. Staff conducted field observations on various days and concurred with the RPD concerns. After meeting with RPD, Wake County Public Schools staff, and Conn Elementary staff, the following improvements were developed and notices were mailed to the 33 affected residences. Three objections were received from nearby affected residents, but as this is a safety issue involving an elementary school, staff recommends the proposed restrictions. The request for No Parking Any Time on Brookside Drive is to shift the current double yellow line to accommodate two lanes headed northbound at the school intersection, a through/left and a right turn lane. Proposed lane widths would not be wide enough for parking in the affected area. Creating these restrictions will improve traffic congestion issues associated with Conn Elementary afternoon car pool procedures and improve safety in the school zone.

The changes do not impact school crossing guards in service at Conn Elementary.

Recommendation: Approve as recommended and authorize the appropriate changes in the traffic code as included in the agenda packet.


Mr. Weeks stated he appreciated City staff, the Raleigh Police Department, and Wake County Public School System staff for addressing this issue. It has been a problem over by Conn Elementary. Most of the telephone calls he has received are in favor of the recommendation as included in the agenda, but some callers did say that people who live in this area and don't have children going to the school are being penalized for living by school. They asked about the possibility of having a residential sticker program so they do not get ticketed.

Transportation Operations Manager Mike Kennon explained this item came to his office from the Raleigh Police Department. There is traffic congestion around Conn Elementary during school pick-up time. Frank Street and Norris Street are very narrow; roughly 19 feet wide. Brookside Drive is 35 feet wide and is the traditional way that parents have lined up and parked to come into the school to pick up their children. Staff contacted 33 property owners who would be affected by this proposal and they heard from three residents. Staff attempted to talk to those three to come to some sort of resolution. They have not been able to get in touch with two of the residents. Transportation Operations Manager Kennon talked to the third this morning but they still did not reach a resolution. While issuing a permit for residents to park in front of their homes is a possibility, the concern is that Franklin and Norris Streets are very narrow and because of the traffic congestion with the school in the afternoon, there could be a traffic issue. Transportation Operations Manager Kennon is hesitant to recommend permit parking at this time.

Mr. Weeks agreed with Mr. Kennon, stating the City is looking out for the safety of the children. Ms. Baldwin said she just wants to make sure the City has done its due diligence in communicating with the public. Transportations Operations Manager Kennon replied staff has worked with these property owners and tried to seek win-win solutions. Staff may end up tweaking Brookside Drive after school starts, but staff believes this recommendation is a good place to begin.

Mr. Odom moved approval of staff's recommendation as presented. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 465.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

TC-4-15 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND NONCONFORMITIES – LIMITED USE – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2015

This request amends Sections 1.5.2.C., 1.5.4.D.1, 1.5.6.C, 1.5.11.B., 1.5.12.E.1.,2.2.3.E, 2.2.4.D, 2.3.4.E., 2.3.5.D., 3.2.3.E., 3.2.4.D., 3.4.2, 5.2.2., 5.4.3.A., 5.5.1., Article 10.3, and Article 12.2 of the Part 10A Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance to modify the measurement, exceptions and general rules of applicability, frontage requirements, and the nonconforming principal sections of the regulations to reflect issues and concerns raised during the initial utilization period of the Unified Development Ordinance and during the UDO Citywide Zoning Map Amendment review process. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this text change. Staff suggests that a public hearing be held on September 1, 2015.


Planning Director Ken Bowers stated this is a large text change. One of the key provisions deals with structural nonconformities and making sure they are grandfathered by the application of frontages. Rezoning case Z-18-15 on Donald Ross Drive deals with a gymnasium and staff received word today the applicant would like this text change to be heard on August 4 instead of September 1, if possible. Mayor McFarlane said it depends on what other hearings are already scheduled for August 4 and how long this item is. Planning Director Bowers told her there is complexity to the text change and there is a busy agenda for August 4. Planning Commission Chairperson Steve Schuster added there was a lot of discussion about this text change from the development community during the citywide remapping process.

The Mayor said since the text change is complex and may need a lot of discussion, she would rather wait until September 1 when the agenda is less crowded, and asked how that would affect the rezoning case. Planning Director Bowers explained the case is still pending right now. It is considered to be inconsistent because of a technical legal matter about not requesting frontage so they can be conforming during the period where they are trying to dispose of the property. The applicant was amenable to the City imposing a frontage as part of City-initiated action because that would mean the property owner had not asked for it and therefore under North Carolina law they would be grandfathered in a way they would not be if they had actually asked for the standard to be imposed on them. Even if the text change was sent to public hearing on August 4, there is no guarantee Council would approve it that night. The text change does have some impact on the rezoning applicant's timeline and how staff addresses the specifics of the case.

Mr. Stephenson suggested if it would be helpful, the text change could be referred to the Comprehensive Planning Committee to review the issues and as a result, by the time the text change gets to public hearing, Council might have more information. Planning Director Bowers said it is possible to schedule the text change public hearing for August 4, but notice would have to go out before the Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting. The Committee could discuss the text change and if it had any recommend changes, the public hearing could be held until September 1 to implement any changes to the text of the ordinance. If the Committee determined it is comfortable with the text as currently drafted, Council could vote on the text change on August 4. Mr. Stephenson said he has no idea whether or not the applicant would be interested in this course of action.

Mr. Odom said he thinks the first meeting in September might be adequate. Planning Director Bowers noted the public hearing for Z-18-15 is scheduled for August 4. If this text change public hearing is not scheduled for August 4, the rezoning applicant would have to hold his case for 30 days. Ms. Crowder said there seems to be a lot of material with the text change that needs to be discussed and September 1 seems like the appropriate time. Mayor McFarlane asked if the Council had to take action on the text change before it takes action on the rezoning, even if both matters were scheduled for public hearing on August 4. Planning Director Bowers replied there is no requirement for Council to decide on both matters at the same time, nor is there any requirement for one to be decided before the other. However, the decision on one may impact the nature of the decision on the other.


Mayor McFarlane moved to schedule the public hearing for TC-4-15 for September 1, 2015. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and carried unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

TC-6-15 – EXEMPTIONS FROM ACTIVE STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2015

This request amends Section 9.2.2.A. of the Part 10A Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance to amend language related to exemptions from the active stormwater control requirements of the code. This text change restores several exemptions that were previously allowed under the Part 10 Zoning Code as well as expanding the exemptions to allow for certain recombined lots to now qualify for an exemption. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this text change. Staff suggests that a public hearing be held on September 1, 2015.

Mr. Odom moved to schedule the public hearing for TC-6-15 for September 1, 2015. His motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and carried unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REZONING Z-21-14 – HILLSBOROUGH STREET – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2015

This is a request to rezone property from Buffer Commercial with Special Residential Parking Overlay District and Pedestrian Business Overlay District (BC w/SRPOD & PBOD) to Neighborhood Mixed Use-4 stories-Shopfront with Special Residential Parking Overlay District (NX-4-SH w/SRPOD).

The Planning Commission finds the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is reasonable and in the public interest. The Commission recommends approval of the request. Staff recommends that a public hearing is held on September 1, 2015.

Mayor McFarlane moved to schedule the public hearing for Z-21-14 for September 1, 2015. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Gaylord and carried by unanimous vote. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

SPECIAL ITEMS

REZONING Z-1-15 – WEST HARGETT STREET – TO BE PLACED ON AUGUST 4, 2015 AGENDA AS A SPECIAL ITEM

During the July 7, 2015 Council meeting a hearing was held to consider a request from Dillon Supply Company to rezone approximately 2.5 acres from Business with Downtown Overlay District (BUS w/DOD) to Downtown Mixed Use – 20 Stories – Conditional Use (DX-20-CU). The property is located on the north side of West Hargett Street between South West Street and South Harrington Street and south side including all properties on the block bounded by West Hargett Street, South West Street, South Harrington Street, and West Martin Street.


The hearing was closed and it was directed that the item be placed on this agenda to allow an opportunity for additional/changed conditions. It would be appropriate for the Council to further consider the item and take action should it so desire.

Mayor McFarlane asked if new conditions had been submitted. Senior Planner Bynum Walter said conversation had taken place, but no new conditions had been submitted. Attorney Michael Birch, representing the applicant, stated they anticipate filing revised conditions by this Friday, July 24, so Council can act on the rezoning request at its August 4 meeting.

Ms. Crowder cited three sections from the Zoning Staff report in the Planning Commission's Certified Recommendation #11637 as they relate to this case. (Clerk's Note: Italics indicate what Ms. Crowder read aloud.) The first citation was from Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis, 2.4 – Policy Guidance, Policy DT 7.5 – Ground Level Design:

The ground level of every building should engage the pedestrian with multiple entrances, large transparent windows at the pedestrian level, creative signage, and a high level of articulation and pedestrian scale building materials on all façades. Also, the ground level of every building should provide pedestrian amenities such as adequate lighting levels and protection from the elements. This can be accomplished through the use of façade-mounted lighting elements, canopies and awnings, and arcades.

The second citation was from Public Benefit and Reasonable Analysis, 2.4 – Policy Guidelines, the paragraph under Policy UD 1.10 – Frontage:

Policy UD 1.10 – FrontageCoordinate frontage across multiple sites to create cohesive places. Encourage consistency with the designations on the Urban Form Map. Development in centers and along corridors targeted for public investment in transit and walkability should use a compatible urban form.

As noted above, an urban frontage designation, or conditions which comparable achieve it, are needed. The subject property is next door to the future Union Station, a major public investment in transit and infrastructure.

Ms. Crowder noted the City has invested $70M in Union Station.

The third citation was from Public Benefit and Reasonable Analysis, 3.2 – Detriments of the Proposed Rezoning:

Lack of designated frontage could result in parking structures with no intervening active uses along extended sections of block faces, failing to achieve activation of pedestrian areas.

Ms. Crowder said the Council is looking for a very active use on all four sides of Union Station so when people walk out of Union Station there is a ground force activity around the building. She does not believe that exists under the current proposal and conditions and she would like to


leave the item open for further discussion at the next Council meeting. Without objection, Mayor McFarlane stated rezoning Z-1-15 will be placed on the August 4 Council agenda as a Special Item.

REZONING Z-28-14 – SOUTH PERSON STREET – APPROVED

During the June 2, 2015 Council meeting, a hearing was held to consider Rezoning Z-28-14 – South Person Street. Following the presentations and public comment, the hearing was held open in order to provide an opportunity for the applicant to present additional conditions as well as provide an opportunity for staff to validate the sufficiency of a protest petition. The item was placed on the June 16, 2015 agenda, and it was directed that it be placed on the July 7 agenda for further consideration. Council closed the hearing and directed that the item be placed on this agenda to allow time for additional/changed conditions. It would be appropriate for the Council to take action on the case.

Senior Planner Bynum Walter summarized the conditions and changes (changes underlined):

1. Fences along the east and south property lines.2. Limited hours of operation for service of trash/recycle facilities.3. Exterior lighting limited in height and must be full cut-off.4. Prohibits certain uses: Bar, nightclub, tavern, lounge, pawnshop, and adult

establishment; commercial breweries and distilleries permitted in DX.5. No on-site parking or vehicular surface area between building and street.6. Minimum of one primary street-facing entrance provided and direct pedestrian

access from the public sidewalk to the primary street-facing entrance provided.7. Restrictions on eating establishment uses: outdoor seating further limited (65% of

the amount of indoor seating, changed from 75%); hours of operation limited, as well as hours for vendor deliveries; setback for trash/recycling facilities from southern property line.

Ms. Baldwin asked what the hours of operation will be.

Andy Petesch, Esq., Petesch Law, 127 West Hargett Street – Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27601-1351 – Mr. Petesch is the attorney for the applicant. He stated the restaurant will close at 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, and 9:30 p.m. on Sunday.

Mr. Odom stated Council had asked that conditions be considered for the case and several have been placed on it. He moved approval of the rezoning. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin.

Mr. Weeks said this case was brought up many times in the Central CAC and Shaw University CAC, and part of community opposed this rezoning. He is in favor business but even with the conditions, one issue that came up in the CAC was alcohol sales, so the CAC voted unanimously against the rezoning, as did Shaw University and some of the surrounding areas. Mr. Weeks said with that many people voting against the rezoning, he will also have to vote against it.


Mr. Stephenson commented this proposed rezoning is in an area of town where there have been many different opinions about what should happen there. Some people were in favor of a local historic overlay district, the only African-American historic district in the City of Raleigh. Some people believe the City should be working hard to preserve the residential character of the area. Some people see the area as an opportunity for redevelopment and change. Shaw University opposes this case, nearby Smith Temple Church opposes the case, and the Central CAC is strongly opposed. Mr. Stephenson commended the stakeholders, the applicant, and Attorney Petesch for the many discussions they had while trying to find common ground. The issue of inserting alcohol sales into this neighborhood raises many questions for these groups relative to what the future holds for the neighborhood, whether the City will move in a preservation direction or redevelop direction. Mr. Stephenson stated he will oppose this case.

Ms. Crowder asked about the condition on the operating hours, specifically, whether the applicant has evaluated the hours to make sure the restaurant can exist with this limited amount of time they are open. Attorney Petesch responded the hours were chosen after consultations with restaurants similarly situated in neighborhoods and their operating hours, and those restaurants have thrived. That was the thought process in terms of striking a balance between what works from a business standpoint and from the neighborhood standpoint.

Mayor McFarlane called for the vote on Mr. Odom's motion, which resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Weeks and Mr. Stephenson. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-2 vote. See Ordinance 466 ZC 712.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER

REVIEW OF CURRENT CONSTRUCTION MARKET TRENDS AND IMPACT ON CAPITAL PROJECTS – REPORT RECEIVED

Staff will provide an overview of construction cost trends and the impact on capital project delivery funding.

Recommendation: Receive as information.

City Manager Ruffin Hall pointed out three projects on the consent agenda (Lake Johnson Woodland Center, Six Forks Road Pedestrian Improvement Project, and I-40 Bridges Pedestrian Retrofit Improvements) where not many bids came in and the bids submitted exceeded the construction cost estimates. There have been similar instances on previous agendas. This is the third bid attempt for the Lake Johnson Woodland Center; the City received no bids at all for the first attempt. City Manager Hall stated this is a reflection of the market. Staff will provide data and information about this trend in terms of where the City is broadly and how the City will compensate its approach to deal with it.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Manager Ben Canada expounded on the following information contained in his PowerPoint presentation.


Capital Overview (pie chart)● FY2016 to FY2020 CIP totals $1.046 billion

Public Utilities $691.4MTransportation $125.0MParks, Recreation and Cultural Resources $118.9MStormwater $36.3MTechnology $31.4MGeneral Public Improvements $22.5MConvention and Performing Arts Complex $17.1MHousing $3.6M

National Construction Market Conditions● Construction investment up since 2011 (line graph published by Federal Reserve Bank in

Richmond, VA a couple of months ago; compares real private residential construction and real private nonresidential construction)

● Construction costs rising as economy improves● Most construction costs indices show recent increases of 3% to 5% annually nationwide

(line graph of Mortenson Construction Cost Index as published in The Wall Street Journal this past winter)

Real private nonresidential construction is indicative of the types of projects the City of Raleigh engages in

In its CIP process, the City of Raleigh builds in cost inflators to anticipate higher costs in the future. Typically, departments are asked to use an industry-specific inflator. For example, Transportation planners use an inflator that is customized for street projects. If there is no industry-specific inflator, the City uses a default of 3.5% per year. That figures is derived from the Engineering News-Record and a survey of North Carolina cities. The City is seeing extreme overages in transportation projects.

Recent Construction Bids● 16 instances from January to June 2015 that had lowest bid exceeding construction

budget (surveyed bid activity for Transportation, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Stormwater, and Public Utilities)

● Seeing trend in site preparation and building construction● Consultants and staff provide estimates● Challenges receiving minimum three bids

CIP Manager Canada distributed copies of a summary of recent City construction bids for Transportation, Stormwater, and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources which illustrated the bid overages v. construction budgets. Public Utilities had participated in the review, but did not have much bid activity during the January-June period, so there are no bids on this sheet for the department. However, Public Utilities anticipates higher bid activity in the coming months.

What's Driving the Higher Costs?● Acquisition of easements


♦ Increasing frequency and cost of condemnations (ex. Jones Sausage Road)● Cost of site preparation

♦ High demand for site work, including Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) building program and I-440 Fortify project

● Contractor availability♦ Contractors went out of business during recession♦ Less supply, more demand from public/private sectors♦ Challenging to get competitive bids

Recommended Administrative Efforts● City will first look at administrative options within the project

♦ Contingency funds♦ Scope reduction options and value engineering♦ Coordinate resources with other projects♦ Seek additional cost-share from NCDOT♦ Transfers $50,000 or less

Recommended Policy Choices● Second, look at policy options outside the project

♦ Trade-offs with other projects– Budget transfers over $50,000

♦ Consider additional funding sources– Budgeted reserves– Accumulated project savings

These actions require Council approval to implement. The Lake Johnson Woodland Center is an example of a trade-off. WCPSS has also faced trade-offs as part of its billion dollar program and currently estimates a $50M shortfall. A recent newspaper article indicated the school system may postpone or cancel two specific school projects to keep the others going.

Recommended Next Steps● Evaluate our cost inflation index as part of the upcoming budget cycle and determine if

we need to get more aggressive● When staff has a project with low bid exceeding budget:

♦ Complete staff review process, consider administrative efforts; if necessary, bring City Council policy recommendation

Mayor McFarlane pointed out the bid for the two-way conversion of Lenoir and South Streets almost doubled, and asked if the reason was anything other than what CIP Manager Canada just stated. Design/Construction Manager Chris Johnson explained there had been some items misunderstanding with the contractor. Staff has discussed the situation with the contractor and hopes to see the bid estimate come down. Mr. Maiorano asked if staff had revised the engineering estimate. D/C Manager Johnson responded staff is revising the estimate but it is not yet complete. He said the bid prices will come down, but the engineering estimate will be the same.


Mr. Maiorano said the City is always evaluating engineering, maximizing efforts, and seeking additional funding from other resources. He asked if those efforts are going to be accelerated and CIP Manager Canada responded affirmatively. Additionally, staff discussed how to address those factors when the project budget is exceeded. Mr. Maiorano pointed out safety is always a paramount concern, but so is quality. If we are going to meet the long-term needs of the City, we need to make more thoughtful decisions about not moving forward with projects.

City Manager Hall stated staff does a lot of this vetting on a regular basis. Council may see more items on the agenda under bid proposals that staff has to reallocate from reserves to avoid cutting projects down and compromising standards. Second, as Council looks forward into the CIP process, we may have to be more conservative about money for new projects until we know the savings from those already approved and/or in progress.

Mr. Maiorano noted staff is still evaluating the $90M+ Parks Bond. He asked if staff has conducted a deeper analysis of what implications this will have. CIP Manager Canada replied staff has not started that yet.

DISPOSITION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES – 301 HILLSBOROUGH STREET AND 324 WEST MORGAN STREET – NEGOTIATED OFFER APPROVED SUBJECT TO UPSET BID PROCESS

Staff received an offer to purchase the sites from The Lundy Group, Inc. in February 2014. The offer was presented to the Budget and Economic Development Committee for consideration September 23, 2014. Council approved disposition of the properties via the negotiated offer and upset bid process on October 21, 2014, with conditions that the site be rezoned to the Unified Development Ordinance zoning classification of DX-20-SH. Council approved the rezoning May 5, 2015. A negotiated offer in the amount of $3,100,000 was received from The Lundy Group, Inc. on July 13, 2015. The winning bidder will be required to pay all advertising costs accrued during the upset bid process.

Additional Property Data:

301 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC (Tax ID 0090690)Land Size: 0.50 acresZoning: DX-20-SHTax Value: $1,089,000 (land only)

320 West Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC (Tax ID 0031017)Land Size: 0.68 acresZoning: DX-20-SHTax Value: $1,332,945 (land only)

Recommendation: Accept the negotiated offer of $3,100,000 from The Lundy Group, Inc. subject to the statutory negotiated offer, advertisement and upset bid process with the condition that the winning bidder pays all advertising costs accrued during the upset bid process.


Economic Development Manager James Sauls offered the following information through the use of a PowerPoint presentation.

Overview of Sale and Disposition of Real Property● NCGS 160A, Article 12, Sale and Disposition of Real Property

1. Advertisement for sealed bids;2. Negotiated offer, advertisement and upset bid;3. Public auction; or4. Exchange

● NCGS 158-7.1, Local Development● Private sale for economic development purposes

* Streamlined method that would require General Assembly approval for City to utilize

Option 2 under NCGS 160A was selected, and Council will soon receive the initial offer to purchase.

Process● City Council receives initial offer● Initial offering firm submits deposit to City Clerk● City Clerk advertises in The News & Observer and on the City's Web site● Bidders submit upset bids via Offer Sheet (created in partnership with City Attorney's

office)● 10 days to receive bids● Staff from Economic Development, City Attorney's office, and Real Estate will review

any upset bids● If City receives upset bid, the City clerk will notify the highest bidder, who will be

required to bring a deposit to the City Clerk● City Clerk will advertise for 10 days● Process continues until no upset bids are received● Final bid approved by City Council

History● February 21, 2014 – staff received offer from The Lundy Group, Inc. to purchase

301 Hillsborough Street and 320 West Morgan Street● September 23, 2014 – staff presented report to Budget and Economic Development

Committee (BED) on site disposition tools and informed the Committee that two offers to purchase sites had been received

● October 7, 2014 – BED recommended to Council that staff rezone the sites to the new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) zoning and begin negotiations with initial offer

● October 21, 2014 – Council approved BED recommendation for staff to negotiate with initial offer to purchase and to see rezoning to DX-20-SH

● May 5, 2015 – Council approved rezoning of properties to DX-20-SH


● June 2, 2015 – Council confirmed BED recommendation to sell the properties via negotiated offer, advertisement and upset bid

● June 17, 2015 – staff received an updated appraisal value of $3,080,000● July 13, 2015 – staff negotiated with and received an updated Offer to Purchase from

The Lundy Group, Inc. in the amount of $3,100,000

Recommendation● City Council declare the properties located at 301 Hillsborough Street and 320 West

Morgan Street available for sale and accept the negotiated offer of $3,100,000 from The Lundy Group, Inc. subject to the Statutory negotiated offer, advertisement and upset bid process

● Direct City Clerk to advertise in The News & Observer and on the City of Raleigh Web site

● Winning bidder pays all advertising costs accrued during the upset bid process

Mr. Stephenson distributed copies of pages 58-59 of the Downtown Experience Plan prepared by consultants Sasaki Associates, Inc. Those pages contain a component for retail strategy and its implementation. Mr. Stephenson read aloud the following excerpts from "Action 4: Recruit a Grocery Store":

Attracting an urban neighborhood-sized grocery store is a key component of the retail attraction strategy.

The public sector could pursue one of two strategies for attracting a downtown grocery store. The first option would be to incorporate the preference for a grocery store into property disposition. An urban-format grocer should be located on a parcel accessible to existing downtown residents and workers, as well as developments in the pipeline. The city could help facilitate development by accepting a lower offer for the public-owned land than would be tendered with more profitable ground floor uses.

Potential locations for a grocery store using this method include:

● Hillsborough Street parcels north of Nash Square.

Mr. Stephenson asked if the Council had the authority to accept offers which included a condition stating the purchaser will provide a grocery store on the ground floor. City Attorney McCormick responded Council did not have that authority. Under the action taken by the BED Committee, the thought was to sell this property at a cash price to realize the maximum value from the land for the public. If Council wanted to sell the land another way by attaching conditions that must be in the development, Council would need to start the process over. EDM Sauls had negotiated the sales price with The Lundy Group, Inc. based on this being a cash transaction. If Council sells the property for $3.1M, it will have the money to incentivize a grocery store to come, whether at this site or somewhere else.

Ms. Baldwin said she thinks there are two issues here. This part of a larger policy discussion related to the City's economic development toolkit. Also, Council needs a retail strategy in order


to talk about retail. Council does not know if this is the best location for a grocery store or if there are other locations that might lend themselves better to a grocery store that the Council could incentivize. Ms. Baldwin moved to approve the recommendation as presented. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano.

Mr. Stephenson believes the Council has a draft vision for 10 years of success downtown in the plan from Sasaki Associates. Action 4 in the plan states this is good approach and good site. It is one thing for Council to say it has lots of other options but another to say the City owns this property and Council will entertain conditions whereby it can guarantee a grocery store on this site for the citizens of Raleigh. He will oppose the motion.

Mr. Odom said he disagrees with the City Attorney. He thinks Council can add a condition to guarantee a grocery story, but he thinks the City Attorney's point was that such a condition should have added during the BED Committee discussion, not here at the last minute when there is an offer on the table. Mr. Stephenson stated he has been approached by someone who wants to bring forward a proposal with a condition like this.

Mr. Gaylord stated he was under the impression that Council would be moving forward with a desire to look at all components of offers as opposed to just strictly the price. With rezonings, Council typically asks for conditions. This property was recently rezoned and there are limited conditions on this case. He is concerned Council is offering up the property without any sort of qualification. Mr. Gaylord was unaware that Council would have no opportunity to vet offers based on a multitude of factors; he did not know it was strictly price. He would not support moving forward without additional flexibility for Council to be able to make decisions.

Mayor McFarlane asked if the process Council is following obligates the Council to accept the bid with the highest dollar amount. City Attorney McCormick replied the Council is not obligated to sell the property; it can go through the upset bid process and decide at the end not to sell. By and large, the process to sell this property is about money. When selling public land, it is Council's fiduciary duty to get the most money for the property it can. Once Council begins to direct what uses will go on a piece of property, it will likely diminish the cash value Council will get for the property. Before it does that, Council needs to do a little more evaluation and decide what the public benefit of that is and what diminution in property value Council is willing to take for that.

Mayor McFarlane pointed out there are many different forms of grocery stores; they are not all big box stores. She does not want to preclude any conversations that are already in the works by assuming this is what Council has to do in order to get a grocery store downtown. Ms. Baldwin said this offer came to Council in 2014. One issue already arose about affordable housing and now at the last minute there is another issue. She opined that if Council members keep changing their minds, Council's inability to make decisions could cause a lack of confidence in the development community. She asked the Mayor to call the question.

Mr. Stephenson said there are two ways to look at how the market will respond. One is that Council will take action without a vision and the market may wonder what kind of city Raleigh is if Council will not act on its own 10-year vision for success downtown and will take a series of


independent actions that are not coordinated with that vision. The Council's strong vision plan for the first revitalization of downtown Hillsborough Street had clearly-identified goals for success and received a lot of support. Now there is a great downtown vision plan for the next 10 years waiting for Council to adopt it. The plan can provide confidence, predictability and clarity about the kinds of improvements Council wants to make in a coordinated versus haphazard fashion to achieve its downtown greatness goals. Mr. Stephenson said moving forward without coordination will not engender confidence.

Mr. Odom said Council had the opportunity to discuss this on October 7, October 21, May 5, June 2, and June 17. He does not recall Council discussing the downtown vision at all on those dates. He assumed it was discussed by the BED Committee but is not certain because he is not a member of BED, and the result was that the Council would sell this property for cash. Mr. Odom believes that is what the Council should do. Ms. Baldwin added that Mr. Stephenson is a member of BED and had the opportunity to discuss the downtown vision plan at that time.

Mayor McFarlane called for the vote on Ms. Baldwin's motion. All Council members voted in the affirmative except Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Gaylord, and Ms. Crowder. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 5-3.

STREET ACCESS TEXT CHANGE – TO BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 4, 2015 AGENDA AS A SPECIAL ITEM

Council directed staff to draft a text change to the Unified Development Ordinance that would permit the submittal of zoning conditions that restrict access or prohibit street extensions. Staff has identified options for consideration and seeks direction for a preferred option. Upon direction, the preferred text change will be sent to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.

Recommendation: Receive the staff report and identify the preferred option for the text change.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Travis Crane explained this is an item that has been discussed in conjunction with an ongoing rezoning case being deliberated now by the City Council (Z-22-14 – Creedmoor Road). A question was raised about offering a zoning condition that would prohibit street connection or street access. Council directed staff to come back with a text change that would allow for the prohibition of street connectivity through a zoning condition. As staff started to analyze the impact of the text change, they found that it was much larger in scope than they had anticipated. Using the following PowerPoint presentation, P&Z Administrator Crane presented a range of options for which staff seeks direction from the Council on how to move forward.

Street Connectivity● On-going rezoning request raised issues regarding access and connectivity● UDO prohibits zoning conditions that restrict access or street connectivity● City Council asked staff to bring back a text change that would allow conditions related

to connectivity● The UDO currently states:


"No condition shall be submitted that proposes to regulate right-of-way reimbursement values, prohibit cross access or public street connections or extensions, prohibit submittal of a traffic impact analysis . . ."

This language was also contained in Part 10 of the City Code.

● Historically, zoning conditions have been offered to prohibit street connections● Typically occurs when rezoning along a major street with nearby single family residential● Property to be rezoned has existing street stub● Concerns raised about increased traffic through neighborhood● The UDO contains new street connectivity standards

♦ Maximum block perimeter♦ Requirement to connect existing street stubs♦ Regulations related to driveway access to streets

These standards were placed in the UDO to implement a number of comprehensive Plan policies regarding connectivity

Block Perimeter


How is Block Perimeter Used?Reviewed at time of subdivision or site plan submittal● Standards based on zoning district● Maximum length measured at street edge● Design adjustment may be granted by Public Works Director

(Two sample maps on slides exemplified what block perimeters mean and were explained by P&Z Administrator Crane)

Street Stubs Must ConnectWhen subdividing land, existing street stubs must connect● Streets must be interconnected (Section 8.3.4B)● Street stubs shall be extended to meet block perimeter (Section 8.3.4C)


Access to StreetsAccess regulated by use (residential v. non-residential)● Maximum number of driveway connections● Minimum standards for driveway spacing● Special rules for accessing neighborhood streets

♦ Driveway can be located 300 feet or less from intersection of local street♦ Cross access to local street is prohibited

What's the Issue?City Council asked to change UDO to allow zoning conditions that prohibit street connectivity● Would run afoul of standards in UDO● Zoning conditions cannot be less restrictive than Code

Three OptionsStaff offers three options for consideration

Option 1:● Change UDO to allow zoning conditions that restrict street connections● Would require repeal of several sections of UDO related to connectivity, such as block

perimeter standards

Option 2:● Change UDO to allow zoning conditions that restrict street access● Zoning conditions could be offered that specify where driveways can (and cannot)

connect● Block perimeter standards would remain● Must meet site access standards in UDO

Option 3:● Change UDO to allow zoning conditions that restrict street connections and site access,

but only in limited situations● Only allowed if property has more than one street stub● Adjacent street stubs must be maintained by NCDOT● Must meet site access standards in UDO

Mr. Stephenson said there are three zoning cases on hold waiting for Council to have this authority. He talked to attorneys on one side and neighbors on the other side and all are in favor of Council having this authority. One of the land use attorneys said the rewrite to accomplish Option 1 would not be onerous. Mr. Stephenson distributed copies of that attorney's comment on how to amend the UDO to address Council's direction (Option 1):

I've reviewed staff's memo. [There is no need to] wholly remove sections from the UDO to address City Council's direction. I think site access, street connection, and block perimeter issues could be simply addressed as follows:


1. Remove the language in UDO Section 10.2.4, thereby allowing rezoning applicants to offer zoning conditions that regulate street connections, site access points, and block perimeter standards.

2. Add language to UD Sections 8.3.1.4., 8.3.2.B.6., 8.3.4.B., 8.3.4.C.8., and 8.3.5.D. to the effect that a City Council-adopted zoning condition is a basis for a design adjustment/administrative alternate or waiver of compliance with standards.

3. Add a new subsection to UDO Section 8.3.6. that states something similar to "A design adjustment shall be granted with a City-Council-adopted zoning condition prohibits compliance with the applicable UDO standard."

Mr. Stephenson stated he has championed good planning goals for connectivity for the past 15 years, but believes the UDO rule is a single rule that doesn't anticipate the context of an individual case. Council members have been elected to use their judgment in interpreting the unique circumstances of these conditions and decide how the vehicular impacts of rezoning cases will be borne by surrounding community. That is a tough decision Council was elected to make. Mr. Stephenson said he is ready to make a motion.

Ms. Baldwin said she was not prepared to vote on this today. Council has been talking for eight years about increasing connectivity and walkability and Option 1 would remove that from the UDO. She said she needs to examine this more closely. Mr. Gaylord agreed with Ms. Baldwin. The examples presented by staff show this is a major issue in Raleigh. When Council had that authority, Council over-utilized that authority to the detriment of the connectivity of the City and the public benefit of the infrastructure the City provides. Mr. Gaylord wants to approach this very carefully. He said if these street connections are not made, there will be a significant issue with moving people around the City going forward.

Mr. Maiorano agreed with Mr. Stephenson's comments. He thinks there is a reasonable, narrowly defined scope of discretion that makes sense for the Council because absolutes create constraints that could have equal detrimental effect on how the City is growing. However, he also agrees with Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Gaylord that this is something the Council needs to hold at the table and give more consideration to before making a decision. Mr. Maiorano wants to digest Mr. Stephenson's handout to better understand if it is even a viable option. Ms. Baldwin asked if staff could look at the handout and provide some sort of guidance to Council. Mr. Maiorano suggested the City Attorney's office should also review it to make sure the Council is comfortable that a more surgical revision to the UDO is feasible and enforceable rather than something much more comprehensive than what is contemplated under Option 1. To Mr. Maiorano, Option 1 as presented seems to be far-reaching and he does not think it is what Council is trying to achieve.

Mayor McFarlane said that based on the last map Mr. Crane showed, it appears there are some instances of interconnectivity that are neighborhood to neighborhood. Also to be considered is the impact from the introduction of higher density and more retail. She suggested staff may want to look at a threshold of traffic impacts that would send a zoning case to the Council.


Mr. Stephenson noted that during discussion, it was mentioned that Council is in favor of connectivity but has Comprehensive Plan goals to reduce car dependency. One approach is to promote bicycle/pedestrian connectivity, not vehicular connectivity. In almost all cases where he has spoken to people on both sides of the three rezoning cases, they have stated that is a much more viable alternative to them. Mr. Odom stated this issue has been around a long time. Whether it is neighborhood to neighborhood, neighborhood to business, or business to business, adjacent groups don't want people using "their" streets no matter what. He said Council did not do a good job of implementing this in the past. He would also like to hold this item for further study.

Mr. Stephenson asked about the process for this text change. Mayor McFarlane reminded him there have been requests for clarification of the impacts of the suggestion in the handout on the UDO. She asked if there could be some kind of impact point where the final decision on connectivity in a case came to the City Council. The Mayor said people just want time to read through the three options and have a better understanding of how the differences in those three options would affect the City going forward. Without objection, she stated this item would be placed on the next Council agenda as a Special Item.

REPORT OF THE BLUE RIDGE CORRIDOR ALLIANCEAND THE NEW BERN AVENUE CORRIDOR ALLIANCE

BLUE RIDGE CORRIDOR ALLIANCE AND NEW BERN AVENUE CORRIDOR ALLIANCE – PROPOSED 2015-16 WORK PLAN – APPROVED – WAIVER OF CURRENT GRANT DISBURSEMENT PROCESS – APPROVED

Representatives from the Blue Ridge and New Bern Avenue Corridor Alliances will provide a status update and request a waiver of the current grant disbursement process adopted by Council.

Stuart Levin, Chair of the New Bern Avenue Corridor Alliance, offered a status update via a PowerPoint presentation and the following statement.

In response to the release of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan identifying downtown and seven designated growth centers, including West Raleigh, the executive teams of the North Carolina Museum of Art and Rex Health Care held an initial meeting in 2008 to discuss the potential implications of the Plan for this area. Over time, the group of stakeholders expanded and formed the Blue Ridge Corridor Stakeholders Advisory Group. A number of key points were identified.

● Several major institutional landowners had current or future growth plans, including the North Carolina Museum of Art, Rex Health Care, North Carolina State University, and the State Fairgrounds.

● State agencies were notable for uncoordinated and suboptimal land uses though the needs were identified in the 1995 Master Plan

● PNC Arena had significant underutilization at the time● Transportation infrastructure investment created a major mixed income

transit-oriented development opportunity


● This area would constitute the nexus of major Triangle area growth over the next 20 years

In 2011, the Blue Ridge Corridor Stakeholder Group raised $160,000 to conduct a district plan through public input in coordination with the City of Raleigh. The study was led by Urban Design Associates of Pittsburgh. The Blue Ridge Road District study developed ideas and generated consensus for optimizing opportunities to create a 24/7 urban place stretching from Edwards Mill Road to Western Boulevard. In the short term, the study's examination of land use planning, transportation, housing, public and private open space, public health, and economic development established a range of next steps and actions.

Recommendations included four sub-districts: (1) Health and Wellness District anchored by Rex, (2) Arts and Research District with the North Carolina Museum of Art and agricultural research areas, (3) Entertainment and Education District including PNC Arena and NCSU's Centennial Biomedical Campus, and (4) South of Hillsborough Street, tied to transit-oriented development. Mixed use nodes would be developed to create vibrant neighborhoods, with each district designed to be bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly as well as transit-oriented. The plan was unanimously adopted by Council in September 2012. Councilor Thomas Crowder commented that this was "a model study – the best I've ever seen – a national model." The Growth Framework map was subsequently modified to encompass the Blue Ridge Corridor Plan and the UDO incorporates zoning changes based on these recommendations.

In 2014, the Stakeholders Advisory Group was transformed in the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance, a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to coordinate public and private investment connecting the major institutional assets of the Blue Ridge Corridor with complete streets infrastructure and mixed use developments, focused on creating jobs, a pedestrian-friendly environment, increased property value, and a vibrant designation. This mission is guided by the Blue Ridge Corridor District study.

Major contributors to the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance over the past year include the Centennial Authority, Highwoods Properties, Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., The Lundy Group, the North Carolina Museum of Art, the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, North Carolina State University, North State Bank, Rex Health Care, Wyrick-Robbins, and York Properties, Inc. Their contributions totaled approximately $58,000.

The Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance Board of Directors is composed of Stuart J. Levin, President of the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance; Chad T. Lefteris, Vice President of Operations – Rex Health Care; Ralph Recchie, Director of Real Estate – NC State University; Jessie Taliaferro, Long Range Planning Chair – Centennial Authority; Daniel P. Gottlieb, Director of Planning and Design – NC Museum of Art; Jane C. Doggett, Senior Leasing Representative – Highwoods Properties; Bonner Gaylord (ex officio), Raleigh City Council – District E; and Trisha Hasch (ex officio), Urban Planner/ Project Manager – City of Raleigh.


The Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance has now obtained 501(c)(3) status. We have held monthly board meetings as well as bimonthly stakeholder meetings. The Alliance has contracted with the Hillsborough Street community Services Corporation as our project manager, which has been greatly beneficial in moving our organization forward through building a strong infrastructure. Governance policies have been developed as well as a mission, vision, and strategic plan.

Six themes reinforce Raleigh's Vision for 2030 and serve as Planning Raleigh's overall goals: economic prosperity and equity, expanding housing choices, managing our growth, coordinating land use and transportation, greenprint Raleigh – sustainable development, and growing successful neighborhoods and communities. By starting to implement our strategic plan, the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance is dedicated to this vision for Raleigh's future.

Over the past year, the Alliance has raised $58,000 in stakeholder contributions, of which roughly $18,000 in expenses covers administration, office technology, operations, bookkeeping, accounting, and insurance. In the coming year, we anticipate growing our contribution base to $65,000 to $70,000.

In June 2014, Council approved the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance and the New Bern Avenue Corridor Alliance, each with a grant in the City of Raleigh budget of up to $25,000 per year for two years. To date, neither organization has accessed any of those funds. Corridor alliances are unique organizations that are not intended necessarily to be permanent. Their purpose is to promote economic development along each corridor which benefits the City. Considerable time and resources by many community leaders and professionals have been, and will be, invested at no cost to the City. Seed money is the most critical component of support. Initial financial commitment by the City will kick-start the organizations' marketing, fundraising, and fundraising mechanisms.

Therefore, the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance and New Bern Avenue Corridor Avenue respectfully request (1) one-time $50,000 funding; (2) a one-to-one match within the two-year period 2014 – 2016; and (3) up front funding. This will allow us access to the $50,000 match in Fiscal Year 2015-16 as a lump sum payment to establish essential seed money to kick-start each organization's efforts dedicated toward implementation of our district plans. The Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance funds would be used to pay for administration, operations, and support contracted through the Hillsborough Street Community Services Corporation. A memorandum from both organizations is included in the agenda packet.

In summary, both the Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance and the New Bern Avenue Corridor Alliance are working aggressively to prevent our district plans from "sitting on the shelf" and saving the City much in the way of expenditures as we operate with significant volunteers and limited resources. We appreciate Council's support to date, as well as the opportunity to play a role in helping implement Raleigh's future vision.


Dr. Levin recognized the following people who were present and ready to answer any questions Council might have: Jeff Murison, Project Manager through the Hillsborough Street Community Services Corporation; Ralph Ritchie, Director of Real Estate at NCSU; Will Gaskins of Hillsborough Street Community Services Corporation; and Andy Curtis and Michael Cole of the New Bern Avenue Corridor Alliance.

Mayor McFarlane thanked Dr. Levin for his hard work, adding the Council had recognized Michael Cole at the beginning of the meeting. She thinks both organizations have done a good job engaging private organizations and securing pledges and money. It takes a lot of citizen time and energy to keep these plans moving forward. Mayor McFarlane moved to approve the $50,000 one-time funding for each Corridor Alliance. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THEBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMISSION

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMISSION – FY 2015-16 ANNUAL WORK PLAN – APPROVED

The Commission serves to recommend implementation of relevant programs, policies, regulations, and funding priorities and to promote biking and walking as vital transportation options. Representatives of the commission will present the proposed annual work plan. Copies were included with the agenda packet. A brief presentation will be made during the meeting.

Recommendation: Approve the annual work plan.

Michael Dayton, Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve. He is getting ready to rotate off the Commission, but will stay engaged with it on an ongoing basis. There is fund work ahead of the Commission members. Council received a copy of their work plan in the agenda packet, which the Commission approved unanimously. Chairperson Dayton shared highlights of the work plan with the Council. The Commission members will continue looking into implementing the BikeShare Program, which they hope to see happen for the City. They will work on the Bicycle Plan update that is going on now; Chairperson Dayton understands they have received feedback from their survey. They are working on making the City of Raleigh a walk-friendly community; there has been a lot of initiative on that, such as putting up signs locally and increasing sidewalk interconnectivity. The Commission would love to move Raleigh from a bronze bicycle-friendly community to a silver or gold bicycle-friendly community. The Commission will continue coordinating with the Parks, Recreation, and Greenway Advisory Board on special projects and special events.

Ms. Baldwin moved to approve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission's FY 2015-16 Annual Work Plan. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THEPARKS, RECREATION, AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD

PARKS, RECREATION, AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD – FY 2015-16 WORK PLAN – APPROVED

Representatives of the Board will present the proposed annual work plan. Copies were included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Approve the annual work plan.

Diane Sauer, Director of the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department, was present to answer any questions Council might have as Chairperson Kimberly Wicker was unable to attend today's meeting.

Mr. Odom moved to approve the Parks, Recreation, and Greenway Advisory Board's FY 2015-16 Annual Work Plan. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and approval was unanimous. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REQUESTS AND PETITIONS OF CITIZENS

SAFETY VILLAGE OF RALEIGH – INFORMATION RECEIVED – REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION

Cason Maddison, 3305 Landor Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 and Alissa Hennen, 2008 White Oak Road, Raleigh, NC 27608, representing Safety Village of Raleigh, asked for placement on the agenda in order to introduce their nonprofit children's injury prevention education program in hopes that the City will support and advise on the placement of the Village. Cason's presentation was as follows.

Thank you for having us today. On behalf of my partner, Alissa Hennen, and I, we would like to present an idea to you, Safety Village of Raleigh. It is a child injury prevention nonprofit that we hope can find a home here.

More than 30 years ago in Hinsdale, Illinois, 7-year-old Katie Satkamp stepped off the school bus in front of her home with her sisters. Katie dropped a trinket under the bus, the drive lost track of the number of children crossing, and she was killed. In 1983, Katie's parents created Safety Village of Hinsdale in her memory.

Alissa Hennen, the Safety Village of Raleigh founding chair, was a Hinsdale attendee. After moving to Raleigh seven years ago, Alissa recognized the potential that a Safety Village could bring to our growing, family-friendly City of Raleigh.

Safety Village is an experiential, learn-by-doing educational program for rising kindergarteners and first-graders covering 55 facets of safety including how to make a 911 call, stop-drop-and-roll, stranger danger, pedestrian safety, and more. Children drive


pedal cars through mock streets of a miniature village and rotate between classroom lessons and interactive demonstrations. Children learn through practice so they don't panic during a crisis. The Safety Village student will not only learn the rules; she'll acquire an instinct for conduct that will last a lifetime.

In Wake County, between 2006 and 20012, 310 child pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents resulted in Emergency Department visits. Fifteen of these children died. These were all unintentional injuries, many which could have been prevented.

In 2014, the John Rex Endowment prepared a childhood injury and prevention reporting highlighting that 75% of fatalities, 77% of hospitalizations, and 84% of Emergency Department visits were due to unintentional injuries. Safety Village will help conquer these topics and studies show that the teaching methods used effectively increase children's knowledge of life-saving lessons.

Safety Village will be a representative landmark of Raleigh's dedication to providing security for young citizens and their families with a plan for accessibility to all children, regardless of economic status.

These statistics and potential benefits identify a need in Raleigh and the Safety Village team is well-equipped with a plan to make this happen. Now it is time to find a home. Safety Village requires one-third of an acre of land with access to an indoor classroom or gym with restrooms. A Raleigh community center would be an ideal location.

On the snapshot handout and the business plan you received, please review options for levels of both minimum and substantial City of Raleigh support. These scenarios are based on research of other Safety Villages and are by no means definitive. Safety Village of Raleigh is proud to partner with the City in whatever capacity the City Council and our fellow citizens deem appropriate.

These Safety Villages cannot operate without the support of their respective cities, especially the invaluable participation from the Police and Fire Departments. On behalf of our leadership team and, most importantly, as advocates for our children of Raleigh, we ask you to please consider a role in the founding of this life-changing program. Thank you.

Mayor McFarlane asked if this program was administrated in conjunction with other schools. Ms. Cason replied not necessarily, but partnering with the school system is an option. The Mayor asked if there had been any such discussions to date. Ms. Hennen replied that some of the Safety Villages across the country are built at elementary schools, but the downside is that you need an open classroom, so those programs are strictly summer camps. She and Ms. Madison are proposing to offer a more year-round program to get a better return on the investment. It would allow many more children to pass through the program. They propose a summer camp program as well as a field trip program during the school year.


Ms. Baldwin asked Ms. Maddison and Ms. Hennen if they had talked to any other nonprofits that have open space and land, such as Communities in Schools or Passage Home. There is a multitude of organizations that could be interested in a partnership with Safety Village of Raleigh. Ms. Hennen replied they have not talked to Communities in Schools, but have talked to Safe Kids Wake County and private landowners. They thought being at a community center would allow accessibility to all children and would allow a lot of advantages, such as taking advantage of the existing infrastructure. Some Safety Villages have a much larger budget and have built a freestanding building along with the Village. Ms. Maddison and Ms. Hennen saw no reason to do that if there was an existing building, land, and infrastructure they could use. Ms. Baldwin said Communities in Schools shares space with the City of Raleigh and suggested it would be good to contact them. More importantly, they work with the same age groups as the Safety Villages.

Mr. Gaylord said he already had a chance to review the Safety Village business plan and he believes everyone will find it has been thoroughly researched. Staff is interested in pursuing what this may offer for our citizens. He said it would be appropriate to ask staff to continue to working on this proposal. Mayor McFarlane said she would like staff to look at this, not only in the context of whether it is something the City wants to do but also if there are other groups or programs in the area that Safety Village could partner with. Mr. Maiorano wants to ensure the Wake County School Board is engaged. There must be an educational component because Safety Village is a purely educational program. Ms. Maddison stated they have reached out to the Wake County Public School System but have not had much luck in terms of response, and Mr. Maiorano told her that is why he suggested the School Board.

Mr. Odom asked about the time frames for the Safety Village programs, for example, the length of time for classes. Ms. Hennen explained they have three program options. The Hinsdale Safety Village is a two-week summer camp, two hours a day for 10 days, and is a very stimulating camp, not a free play camp. Option 2 is a condensed one-week camp for three hours per day. There are pros and cons to both options. The third option is a four and one-half hour field trip. Hinsdale is a city of 17,000 people. There are larger scale Safety Villages, such as DeKalb County in Illinois, which has an eight-acre Village serving 20,000 children per year. Ms. Hennen distributed copies of the Safety Village of Raleigh business plan and a two-page summary of their proposal.

City Manager Hall made it clear staff is in favor of children's safety. Staff has had some preliminary conversations with the Safety Village of Raleigh leadership team and would be happy to continue working with them. He suggested if the Council members wish to pursue this proposal in greater detail , they will need to consider two things: (1) the role questions that have already been identified in terms of schools, nonprofits and the City of Raleigh, and (2) budget and resources. The table that is the summary of their plan shows it requires a significant amount of resources. The City probably could not move forward with the program under the existing budget due to demands of staff time, insurance, programming, support, etc. The City Manager also suggested staff bring preliminary estimates for potential costs to the Council at a future meeting. If Council wishes to move forward, this will become a budget item in the future in terms of staffing as well as funding.


Ms. Baldwin said that is why it is important for Ms. Maddison and Ms. Hennen to look at collaboration and collective impact right now. Ms. Hennen agreed and said one of the main things they need from the City of Raleigh is land; however, police and fire personnel are an essential part of the program as well. Many of the Safety Villages are supported through in-kind donations and they plan to utilize that as much as possible. They already found that people are interested in helping out with various aspects of the proposal. The Hinsdale Safety Village used donations from paving companies and brick companies, for example. The monetary aspect is not necessarily something they need strong support for from the City. Ms. Baldwin asked if they had any corporate sponsors lined up. Ms. Maddison said they had spoken to several, but the corporate sponsors want them to acquire the land first. Ms. Hennen explained that many Safety Villages are supported by local hospitals because of similar missions. They have talked to WakeMed and are in communication with Duke Raleigh. There are also ideas for other corporate sponsors.

HIGH RISK/UNDERPRIVILEGED YOUTH – ECONOMIC AND EMOTIONAL DISADVANTAGES – SPEAKER ABSENT

Saleemah Abdullah, representing SANFAN Charities, had asked to be placed on the agenda in order to discuss the issues of high risk/underprivileged youth who are at economical and emotional disadvantages. She was not present at the meeting.

UNFIT BUILDING – 2604 BRADFORD PLACE – REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME – 60-DAY EXTENSION GRANTED

Michael Jackson, 1303 South Bloodworth Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 had asked to be placed on the agenda in order to request a time extension for the rehabilitation of property at 2604 Bradford Place. He explained he had been working with PSNC Energy for the past couple of months to get a meter relocated. He hoped to add a room onto the house in the future and the meter is currently located where he wanted to put the furnace. Mr. Jackson wanted to move the meter to the end of the house. He became frustrated by his dealings with PSNC Energy and put the furnace in a different location. The City housing inspector suggested he forego today's meeting but Mr. Jackson said he wanted to come here and let the Council know how much he appreciates what Council has allowed him to do relative to rehabilitating this house. He said it has been an exhausting experience. The inspector suggested Mr. Jackson ask Council for an extension of time. The furnace is installed and Mr. Jackson is calling in his finals now; then he will have to call PSNC Energy to install the meter. PSNC Energy will not install the meter until an electrician is there, and Mr. Jackson can't get his housing final until the gas meter is installed. He will be calling in the finals for mechanical by the first of next month, and hopes PSNC will then install the gas meter so he can call in his housing final. Mr. Jackson hopes it will take no more than two to three weeks to get this all done.

Housing Inspection Administrator Ashley Glover stated this is a long overdue project but is close to the end. He recommended Council grant Mr. Jackson an extension of 60 days.


Ms. Baldwin moved to grant Mr. Jackson a time extension of 60 days to finish rehabilitating the house at 2604 Bradford Place. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and carried unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING

UNSAFE BUILDING – 5209 REMBERT DRIVE – DEMOLITION – HEARING –ORDINANCE ADOPTED

This was a hearing to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Part 10A, Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 11, Article 11.5, to authorize the demolition of the unsafe buildings/structures as listed below:

TAXLOCATION PROPERTY OWNER ID NO. TIME LAPSE5209 Rembert Drive (E) James A. and Pamela J. 0042681 596 days

Smith Mayor McFarlane opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard; thus, the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved to adopt the ordinance authorizing the demolition of the structure at 5209 Rembert Drive. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Ordinance 467.

UNFIT BUILDINGS – VARIOUS – DEMOLITION – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED

This was a hearing to adopt a resolution to confirm as a lien against the property as listed below the charges for demolition of unfit buildings:

LOCATION TAX COST OFAND DISTRICT PROPERTY OWNER ID NO. DEMOLITION1717 Dallas Street (C) Allen L. and Emma King 0039127 $ 3,8801516 Joe Louis Avenue (C) Joseph Boykin, Sr. Heirs 0007466 $ 7,200447 Rose Lane (C) Leroy Miller Heirs 0047314 $13,925

Mayor McFarlane opened the hearing for the three properties. No one asked to be heard; thus, the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved to adopt the resolution confirming the cost of demolition for each property as presented. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. See Resolution 154.


PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT – VARIOUS – HEARING – RESOLUTION ADOPTED

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

LOCATION TAX COST OFAND DISTRICT PROPERTY OWNER ID NO. ABATEMENT1005 Beverly Drive (C) Geraldine and Donald E. 0011554 $1,052

Harris837 Campanella Lane (C) Rosa McCoy Heirs 0045519 $ 2561422 Carnage Drive (C) GMAC Mortgage 0024156 $ 256833 Coleman Street (C) Gwendolyn S. Watkins 0045776 $ 266

Heirs, c/o Dorna Sanders5708 Creel Court (C) LPP Mortgage, LTD 0227291 $ 238619 Cumberland Street (C) Dorothy Mitchell Gibbs and 0047741 $ 696

Mary M Overton Heirsc/o Edith Mitchell

1712 Dallas Street (C) Ondrea L. Pollard 0055974 $ 2791716 Dallas Street (C) Ondrea L. Pollard 0055976 $ 256700 Darby Street (C) Christiana Trust Trustee 0043389 $ 274

Normandy Mortgage LoanTrust

3812 Hidden Branches Christiana Trust Trustee 0115060 $ 378Drive (E) c/o Selene Finance306 North State Street (C) Anita Marie Lee and 0025637 $ 238

Northington Goodson310 North State Street (C) Anita Marie Lee and 0025638 $ 238

Northington Goodson524 Marble Street (D) Maria Torres 0025958 $ 290708 Peach Road (D) Mary Evans, Teddy Wright, 0124210 $ 241

Darla Evans257 Pecan Road (D) Margret Walker Reaves and 0049617 $ 293

Ronald Wayne Reaves Heirs1808 Poole Road (C) Donnell McDowell 0048790 $ 2367401 Ray Road (X) Eva L. Thorpe 0070641 $1,253447 Rose Lane (C) Leroy Miller Heirs 0047314 $ 3297000 Sandringham Drive (E) John T. Van Pelt 0127310 $ 24712412 Schoolhouse Street Jose M. and Joanna R. 0251496 $ 270 (B) Madonna Perez2224 Shannon Street (C) Edward Walker 0072179 $ 237630 West South Street (D) Everlee York Heirs 0080307 $ 236

c/o Marilyn Sturdivant724 South State Street (C) Mark Thompson Bullock 0022607 $ 466915 South State Street (C) Laura H. Blue and 0078216 $ 256

Josephine Grimes


1804 Sunview Street (C) First Franklin Financial 0101682 $ 378Corporation

The property located at 7401 Ray Road was withdrawn as it had been paid. Mayor McFarlane opened the hearing for the remainder of the properties. No one asked to be heard; thus, the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved to adopt the resolution confirming the costs for abatement of public nuisances as presented. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a unanimous vote of 8-0. See Resolution 155.

REZONING Z-12-15 – BUFFALOE ROAD/NEW HOPE ROAD CONDITIONAL USE DISTRICT – HEARING – TO BE PLACED ON AUGUST 4, 2015 AGENDA AS A SPECIAL ITEM

This was a hearing to consider a request from Buffaloe Properties, LLC to rezone approximately 15.7 acres from Residential Six (R-6) to Neighborhood Mixed Use – Three Stories – Conditional Use (NX-3-CU). Conditions prohibit certain uses: limit hours of operation; limit building height; address curb cut location; specify protective yard standards, tree conservation areas, minimum distance of building from adjacent properties, minimum flour area of all buildings; as well as for any single establishment: require a fence along the interior of the protective yards: prohibit drive-thrus in certain locations; offer transit easements for New Hope and Buffaloe Roads; and require a development allocation covenant. The property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Buffaloe Road and New Hope Road. Following the hearing, the Council may take action on the case.

Mr. Maiorano stated he was previously excused from discussion and voting on this matter because of his law firm's involvement. He left the table.

Senior Planner Bynum Walter presented this rezoning case with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation. Slides included the existing zoning map showing Buffaloe Road along the north side of the site, New Hope Road on the west side, adjacent R-6 and R-10 parcels, and R-4 parcels to the west across New Hope Road; an aerial view of the site showing its location; different views from the site; the 12 proposed conditions (prohibit certain uses; limit business hours of operation as well as hours for trash pick-up and deliveries; specify maximum building height of one story/30 feet; address curb cut location next to adjacent properties; specify protective yard standards, including requirement of masonry wall next to certain properties; specify tree conservation areas; specify minimum distance of buildings from adjacent parcels; restrict the maximum floor area of all buildings as well as for any single establishment; require a fence along the interior of protective yards and tree conservation areas; prohibit drive-thrus in certain locations; offer transit easements for Buffaloe Road and New Hope Road; and require a development allocation covenant); transitional protective yards and tree conservation areas; and existing versus proposed zoning.


Existing v. Proposed Zoning

Existing Zoning Proposed ZoningResidential Density 6 DUs/acre (94 total units) 4.5 DUs/acre* (70 total units)Setbacks

FrontSideRear

10'5'20'

If General Building Type5'0' or 6'0' or 6'

Retail Intensity Permitted Not permitted 71,000 sf*Office Intensity Permitted Not permitted 71,000 sf*

* Per conditions

The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site for Neighborhood Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan analysis shows the rezoning is consistent with the FLUM and Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to the request and no outstanding inconsistent policies were identified. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request by a unanimous vote of 8-0. The vote at the April 9, 2015 Northeast CAC was 40 in favor and 12 against.

Mayor McFarlane opened the hearing and the following people spoke.

Lacy Reaves, Esq., 150 Fayetteville Street – 2500 Wachovia Capitol Center, Raleigh, NC 27601-2960 – Attorney Reaves stated he represents the owner of the subject property, Tom Bartholomew. Mr. Bartholomew is present today, as are Mike Horn and Richard Brown from Kimley-Horn and associates who, together with their colleagues, have served as the development team for this project. Several years ago the opposite corner of the intersection of New Hope Road and Buffaloe Road was proposed for development as a gas station/convenience store, which caused quite a bit of consternation in the neighborhood. Ultimately, the case was denied and a number of issues came to the forefront at that time about what would be appropriate for this intersection. The subject property is 16 acres designated by the Future Land Use Map as a Neighborhood Mixed Use area. The applicant came forward with a proposal for a small retail shopping center and in July 2014, initiated dialogue with the stakeholder neighborhood group in the area that was organized by some of the neighborhood leaders. They had a series of meetings and while Attorney Reaves cannot represent that all residents of the area are completely satisfied, a majority supported a set of zoning conditions the applicant developed after meeting with the neighborhood stakeholder group. The applicant proposed a zoning case requesting the property be rezoned to NX-3-CU. The conditions they proposed as Senior Planner Walter outlined largely deal with limitation on the overall size of the development. The total development can be no larger than 71,000 sf and the largest single establishment can be no larger than 42,500 sf. The conditions prohibit a number of uses; prohibit sale of gasoline; and establish that the hours of operation for any business on the premises are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. A series of conditions address transitional protective yards extending around the eastern and southern boundaries of the property where it adjoins residential neighbors. A condition states that on the southern boundary, where the applicant was not able to offer as wide a buffer as in other locations, the applicant will build a 7' masonry wall 310 feet long. The back corner is wooded and they


incorporated a tree conservation area and buffer that has considerable width. They continued the transitional protective yard out to Buffaloe Road at varying widths of up to 150 feet and included for a substantial portion an 8' high berm within the landscaped area. The case was presented to the Northeast CAC on three occasions for their review. On April 9, the CAC voted 42-12 to recommend approval of the case. The applicant asked Kimley-Horn to conduct a traffic impact analysis (TIA) of this development and its effect on New Hope Road, Buffaloe Road, and other roads in the area. The TIA determined that there will be no adverse effect or change in the level of service with the additional traffic generated by this development. NCDOT and City of Raleigh staff received the TIA. An essential element of this development is a grocery store that will not exceed 42,500 sf and will include a pharmacy. The applicant has been asked to consider adding a condition that would assure the inclusion of a grocery store with a pharmacy when the development opens. Attorney Reaves stated no developer or property owner can assure what will happen in the future, but they have represented to the neighbors what the development will be. The applicant is prepared to add that condition if the Council desires, but they would ask for a two-week deferral in the Council's vote on this case so they could do that. The Planning Department has determined this rezoning case is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and there are no outstanding issues, and that the proposal is compatible with the adjoining properties.

Mr. Odom asked what the additional condition would be. Attorney Reaves explained the applicant would add a condition stating the property will be developed as a shopping center and will include a grocery store that employs a pharmacist. Ms. Crowder asked if this was the property Council discussed before that proposed a Wal-Mart. Attorney Reaves responded that what has been discussed is a Wal-Mart neighborhood market grocery store, which is a new Wal-Mart marketing concept. It is strictly a mid-size grocery store with a pharmacist. The concept has not been introduced to the Raleigh market yet, but there are one or two in Cary and Morrisville. The applicant and his team found it has been well-received by the residents they discussed it with.

Ms. Baldwin asked if this last-minute condition was requested by citizens, and Attorney Reaves said it was a request from a Council member. Ms. Baldwin wanted to know the purpose of asking for the condition. Mr. Stephenson stated he and Mr. Odom were at the CAC meeting when the vote was taken. All the representations to the neighbors were that the development would include a grocery with a pharmacy and the CAC vote was strongly in favor of the proposal. There were also issues raised that related to stormwater and pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Stephenson said it was very clear to him that the strong vote of support was for a grocery store and pharmacy. Mr. Odom said excellent progress is being made on the stormwater and pedestrian connectivity issues. It is fine with him if the applicant wants to add a condition stating a grocery store with a pharmacist will be part of the development, but he does not want Council to start telling people what they can sell in their own retail establishments. He asked if the other Wal-Mart grocery stores had pharmacists. Attorney Reaves said the applicant and his team have tried to be completely transparent with the neighbors with whom they have dealt since last July. The developer who has this property under contract is a developer of shopping centers that include a Wal-Mart neighborhood market, which is a grocery store with a pharmacy. The Wal-Mart neighborhood markets in Cary and Morrisville have pharmacists. Mr. Odom suggested the Council hold this item for two weeks to allow the applicant time to submit revised conditions.


No one else asked to be heard; thus, the hearing was closed. Without objection, Mayor McFarlane stated this rezoning would be placed on the August 4 agenda as a special item. Mr. Maiorano returned to the table.

TC-2(B)-15 – VEHICLE FUEL SALES – HEARING – REFERRED TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE

This was a hearing to consider amending Section 6.1.4 and 6.4.11.C of Part 10A Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance to amend the allowed Principal Use Table related to Retail Sales – "Vehicle Fuel (including gasoline and diesel fuel)." The text change would classify the use as a limited use in the NX, CX, DX, and IX Districts. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this text change. Following the hearing, the Council may take action on the proposed text change.

Assistant Planning Administrator/Zoning Eric Hodge presented this item with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation. The text change further distinguishes vehicle fuel sales from the general retail use category, where it is currently housed. If the text change does not go forward, gas stations would be treated like any other retail use within districts where retail is allowed. Staff proposed introducing specific use standards related to fuel sales in the NX, CX, DX and IX districts. Slides included the following information.

1. The adoption of the text change would make Retail Sales – "Fuel (including gasoline and diesel fuel)" a Limited Use in the NX, CX, DX and IX Districts.

2. The adoption of the text change would require a Type 2: Medium protective yard along any side of the property abutting a Residential District or use, even if in a mixed use district, and must include a wall at least 6.5 feet in height.

3. The adoption of the text change would require that Retail sales – "Fuel (including gasoline and diesel fuel)" would carry additional regulations if the lot is located within 200 feet of a Residential District (R-1, R-2, R-4, R-6 and R-10):

a. The lot must be 100 feet wide and within 300 feet of a major intersection.b. Hours of operation for the "Vehicle Fuel Sales" and associated car

washing/vacuuming would be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Those limited hours would not apply to any co-located use, such as a convenience store or fast food restaurant.

c. The total number of gas pumps would be limited such that no more than eight (8) vehicles could be simultaneously fueled.

d. All vacuuming and compression machines located outside must be at least 50 feet from a Residential District or use and shall not exceed a noise level reading of 55 dB(A).

e. Accessory car washing is only allowed if the car wash is equipped only with fully automatic wash equipment so the driver remains in his car during the entire wash process.

f. Backlighting of fuel canopies is prohibited. All canopy lighting shall be flush mounted underneath the canopy except for signs.


g. Canopies shall be limited to a 16-foot maximum height to the bottom of the underside of the canopy and a 23-foot maximum height to the top of the roof of the canopy (absent any required vent stacks).

h. Fuel pumps must be located a minimum of 50 feet from a Residential District.

APA/Zoning Hodge said the Planning Commission Text Change Committee worked on this for many months. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the text change unanimously, 8-0. Mayor McFarlane opened the hearing and the following people spoke.

Tom Worth, Jr., Esq., P.O. Box 1799, Raleigh, NC 27602-1799 – Attorney Worth stated he commends the text change to the Council. As Mr. Hodge indicated, it is the result of many months of work during which Mr. Worth represented two small providers of convenience gas stations. The text change is directed at convenience gas stations close to residential uses. He and his clients believe it is a responsible compromise and commend it to the Council.

Joe Johnson, 4105 Southall Road, Raleigh, NC 27604-5026 – Mr. Johnson said he attended two of the several Text Change Committee meetings that were scheduled. Other attendees included representatives from oil companies, land use attorneys, and a few residents from time to time. He said part of the problem is that many residents are unaware of Committee meetings. Mr. Johnson said he hopes the Council members received his e-mail yesterday expressing his opinion and the opinion of many of the people who voted in favor of the shopping center that Attorney Reaves just presented. They are against any gas sales adjacent to residential districts. They believe gas sales, especially those that are co-branded with convenience stores, should be limited to CX and other higher industrial districts.

Michele McIntosh, 3922 Sue Ellen Drive, Raleigh, NC 27604-4248 – Ms. McIntosh stated she also sent an e-mail to the Council members about this text change. She read the following statement into the record.

This UDO text change should restrict gas stations next to neighborhoods, but it does not. I support the original text change to the UDO as written by City staff, to protect neighborhoods adjacent to NX districts from disruptive development. It is my understanding that NX districts are meant to promote the following:

● dense development● where businesses serve the surrounding community● forming a walkable neighborhood center

The current text change, as influenced by gas fueling industry representatives, will allow:

● sprawling drive-thru development● with highway retail adjacent to residential

♦ that is geared toward passing commuters and not neighbors


● the current text change promotes car-centric development unsafe for pedestrians

Gas stations and fast food restaurants are generally sprawling, one-story complexes. Calling these businesses "dense development," appropriate to Neighborhood Centers that are intended to promote walkability, is laughable at best.

I read a month ago that City Council recognizes the peril of development similar to that of Austin, Texas, where a transition from car-centric development has yet to begin. The original text change draft by Planning staff protects neighborhoods from "highway retail development" and gives Raleigh a chance to choose a better direction for development than the one seen in Austin.

Please do not approve this text change, because it was written in the interest of profits over quality of life. It is important that you please request a text change similar to City staff's original that protects neighborhoods from inappropriate development. Please work to ensure that the UDO implements the vision of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and supports truly walkable development for NX-zoned Raleigh Neighborhood Centers.

Jamie Gerhart, Sheetz Corporation, 5700 6th Avenue, Altoona, PA 16602-1111 – Mr. Gerhart stated he works directly for Sheetz Corporation and while he appreciates the Text Change Committee's work on the text change, it is a compromise. He opposes this text change for at least five reasons. (1) No other commercial use has restrictions in NX with the exception of vehicle sales, which are not permitted under a fully enclosed building. If all the restrictions in the text change are intended to reduce the impact of fuel sales, such as noise and lighting and scope (eight fuel pumps versus four fuel pumps), why is it necessary to restrict 24-hour operation? (2) The restrictions are arbitrary and affect only fuel sales. They do not affect drug stores with drive-thrus or fast food stores with drive-thrus; these uses can still operate 24 hours a day. There is no record of complaints with existing fuel sales that are adjacent to residential uses. There are at least three or four good examples in the City of Raleigh. He checked with City staff to see if there was a history of complaints or a history of zoning violations for these existing fuel sales and there is no record on file of a complaint. He is not aware of any other jurisdiction in North Carolina that restricts hours of operation in a base zoning district. (3) Fuel sales as a retail use are not new to the City Code. They were culled out and are prohibited in RX districts. RX has restrictions on retail and commercial. Perhaps it would be better to further discuss the merits of RX versus NX versus CX rather than instituting a quick fix that is an attack on fuel sales. (4) There is an unintended consequence of the text change. There is a new Code that was at least three years in the making and that is not yet fully adopted. Mr. Gerhart has attended joint Planning Commission and City Council meetings three years ago to provide feedback on the new UDO. To change it before it is fully in effect would be an unwelcoming signal not to just to fuels sales, but to all businesses in the City of Raleigh. It says "you never know when we are going to change our minds." The goal of the UDO was a more predictable process. Changing the Code like this is not a predictable process. A change should not be slipped in at the end of the UDO process after three years' worth of meetings, public hearings, and open houses. (5) The text change freezes any new competition. Existing operators will have no incentive to reinvest, rebuild, or expand because they will be grandfathered. They will be


ahead of the game, will be allowed to be open 24 hours, will not have to reduce their lighting, and will not have to build sound walls. They will have no incentive to reinvest in, and add to, the community.

Michi Vojta, 3725 Eakley Court, Raleigh, NC 27606-2518 – Ms. Vojta prefers City Planning staff's initial draft of this amendment presented in February that restricts hours of operation, the number of pumps, and the size of gas stations near neighborhoods. It is more protective of homes in the vicinity. Ms. Vojta is thankful the Council realizes the UDO is not perfect. She recalls Mr. Maiorano as saying the City is test driving the UDO to work out the kinks, and she said the issue of vehicle gas sales is a big kink for a lot of people. She worked hard with the Text Change Committee of the Planning Commission on TC-2(B)-15, but as a member of the general public was clearly outnumbered by the number of gas company representatives. This ordinance amendment is necessary; as Mr. Hodge mentioned earlier, without this amendment gas sales would be treated as general retail uses. However, the initial proposal has been watered down and doesn't offer as many protections as it did before. Some people like living downtown because they like being close to amenities. Other people buy houses in external areas because they want separation. Trying to retrofit these 24-hour operations into 30-year-old communities is not fair to the homeowners. Mr. Stephenson stated earlier that Council members were elected to mitigate how development is borne by communities, and this is a classic example of how development will affect a neighborhood. She stated this is something people do not want. She asked the Council to understand the difference between a small neighborhood gas station that has one or two pumps and closes at a reasonable hour and a brightly lit, gaudy, noisy operation with 14 pumps and a car wash or other associated business that is open 24 hours a day. Ms. Vojta reiterated she appreciates and prefers City Planning staff's initial draft of the text change.

Attorney Tom Worth stated that Council has now seen the juxtaposition between Sheetz and the neighbors. In between the juxtaposition is the text change presented by the Text Change Committee with very reasonable restrictive conditions. Conditions address hours of operation spatial distance, the number of vehicles controlled by the number of pumps, and other things that would be disruptive to adjoining neighborhoods. This is a compromise based on many months of work and is sensitive to neighborhoods. Attorney Worth recommended the text change to the Council as presented.

Lillian Thompson, 3641Top of the Pines Court, Raleigh, NC 27604-5053 – Ms. Thompson, Chair of the Northeast CAC, asked the Council to consider surrounding fuel stations that are close to a particular development and whether there has been some planning by the community that is near the suggested location before it approves placement of a fuel station.

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

Mr. Stephenson asked what the primary differences are between Staff's initial draft and this compromise draft. APA/Zoning Hodge replied the main difference is that under the first draft, the operation of the facility itself would have to cease at 11:00 p.m., so any co-located facility would also have to close at 11:00 p.m. For example, if a convenience store also had gas pumps, the entire facility would have to close at 11:00 p.m. Under the compromise draft presented today, the gas pumps would have to be shut down at 11:00 p.m., but the convenience store could


stay open. Mayor McFarlane asked what the reason was for that change in the second draft. APA/Zoning Hodge said the thought was facilities such as fast food operations are not restricted in and of themselves and therefore a fast food restaurant without gas pumps in conjunction could operate 24/7. If a fast food operation is co-located on a site with fuel sales, the entire operation would have to cease at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Hodge said industry representatives had pointed out during discussion of the text change that even though it was possible for a convenience store to remain open after its pumps were shut down for the night, it was not typical.

Ms. Crowder suggested referring this item to the Comprehensive Planning Committee for review and recommendation since there are differences between the two text changes. Without objection, the item was so referred.

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

SP-9-15 – CRABTREE COMMONS LOT THREE – HEARING SCHEDULED IN ERROR – REMOVED FROM AGENDA

This was a hearing to consider a request from Weingarten Investments, Inc., developers of 4600 Crabtree Valley Avenue, for approval of a site plan on the property, Crabtree Commons, Lot Three (SP-9-15). The case was heard at the June 9, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and did not receive a two-thirds or more vote for approval. The hearing is being held pursuant to City Code Section 10-2141.

City Attorney McCormick stated this evidentiary hearing was not needed. The case had received the appropriate percentage of votes but was inadvertently scheduled for hearing. The plan has been approved.

STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENT – 10505 STONTON WAY – HEARING – BUFFER WIDTH REDUCTIONS APPROVED – TO BE PLACED ON AUGUST 4, 2015 AGENDA AS A SPECIAL ITEM

This was a hearing to consider a request for relief from the natural resource buffer requirements of Raleigh City Code Part 10A. The hearing is being held pursuant to Raleigh City Code 10-2141. The hearing relates to a request from Garth and Cristina Mulroy related to property at 10505 Stonton Way. Following the hearing, the Council may take action on the request.

City Attorney McCormick opened the hearing and the following people spoke.

Michael Birch, Jr., Esq., Morningstar Law Group, 630 Davis Drive – Suite 200, Morrisville, NC 27560-6849 – Attorney Birch (sworn) represented Garth and Cristina Mulroy, owners of property located at 10505 Stonton Way, who are engaged in the sale of their house. The buyer's survey identified two minor buffer encroachments and he is present today to ask Council to legalize two buffer encroachments to facilitate the sale. Attorney Birch introduced a PowerPoint presentation containing the following information.


Summary of RequestBuffer width reduction for screened porch in existence since house was constructed in 2000-2001

Ranges between 3" to 2'9" over 16' lengthAt most, 44 sf of impact

Buffer width reduction for steps from porch to allow the two supports for the steps5" x 5" in two locations (two supports)At most, 4.2 sf of impact

Lot size is .63 acres (27,538 sf) part of which, approximately 10,000 sf, is in the natural resource buffer

Buffer impact of 48 sf is approximately 0.48% of the total buffer on the property

Ms. Crowder asked if a permit had been required to build the porch. Attorney Birch replied that after reviewing City files, it was their understanding the screened porch was constructed with the house and was part of the permit for the original house. Based on historic aerials, that screen porch has been in existence since the house was constructed. Therefore, his answer is "yes," the screened porch was permitted. There was not a permit for the steps and the supports for the steps, and he does not believe one was required. That occurred after the screened porch was constructed initially.

Attorney Birch showed slides of maps indicating the location of the property north of Strickland Road, east of Creedmoor Road, and south of I-540 in the Traemoor Manor subdivision. It is zoned R-1 and is in the secondary area of the Falls Watershed; the primary area is above I-540. Another slide showed an excerpt of the plat when the lot was created; it was platted in 1999. As part of the plat creating those lots, Note No. 5 provided a maximum impervious surface for this lot of 9,614 sf. The owners are significantly below that impervious surface limit at approximately 76% of the maximum amount. Attorney Birch showed an excerpt from iMaps which had the layers turned on for the Neuse Riparian Buffer and the USGS blue line streams. There are no Neuse Riparian Buffer impacts and no blueline stream impacts on this property. Attorney Birch showed an excerpt from a 1999 DWQ (Division of Water Quality) letter confirming there are no Neuse Riparian Buffer impacts on the property. He exhibited a copy of the survey that was provided by the buyers to the current property owners. He had highlighted the two encroachments for the steps and the screened porch on the survey. Additional slides were photographs showing the rocked area of the water feature that is being buffered; retaining walls that were installed as part of the original development of the property; the support beams for the steps that are up to the retaining walls and are in a landscaped and mulched area; support beams for the screened porch; how the subject steps provided access for the deck and porch; and the patio area under the screened porch. There was a slide of a 2002 aerial view showing the screened porch constructed with the house. The steps were installed after the screened porch was constructed. A 2012 survey showed a buffer line continuing on the same trajectory off the screened porch, with the retaining wall, as if the retaining wall was part of the 35-foot buffer. Based on the 2012 survey that was done as part of the pool permitting, they installed the steps closer to the house than the retaining wall was located, which, based on the survey, was outside the buffer. However, the survey provided by the buyers has identified a small encroachment which is essentially the width of the support beams for the steps.


Summary● Buffer reduction to legitimize screened porch permitted and constructed over 14 years

ago● Buffer reduction to legalize supports for steps from screened porch● Permitted impervious surface totals approximately 7,320 sf or about 76% of allowed

amount of 9,614 sf● No Neuse Riparian Buffer or USGS blueline stream buffer impacts. The City, not the

State, regulates the buffer.● Buffer impact of 48 sf represents a 0.48% impact to buffer area on 10505 Stonton Way● Without a reduction, the buffer width would unreasonably restrict the use of the property

Attorney Birch concluded his presentation by stating his clients respectfully request a variance from the buffer width. City Attorney McCormick said since it appears Mr. Birch has presented all the evidence for the proponent's side, he would ask Assistant Deputy City Clerk Ralph Puccini to swear in Mr. Birch retroactively. Assistant Deputy City Clerk Puccini did so. Without objection, Attorney Birch's testimony was accepted into evidence. Mr. Puccini then swore in Stormwater Development Section Manager Ben Brown, who was present to answer Council's questions.

Mr. Stephenson asked staff if this was an appropriate request or if additional mitigation was needed. Stormwater Development Section Manager Ben Brown (sworn) replied this is technically a violation of the City's buffer regulations in the watershed, but it is a small violation. Mr. Stephenson asked if there was any sort of realistic mitigation since the violation is so small, and SDS Manager Brown told him there are definitely mitigation options on-site to make up for the impacts on the buffer area. Mayor McFarlane asked about the size of the area that is impacted, and Attorney Birch (sworn) replied a little over two feet for the steps and may 35 feet for the porch; his earlier estimate of 44 sf is a worst case scenario. Mr. Stephenson said there seems to be minimal intrusion, and asked what staff would consider realistic mitigation. Mr. Odom interjected it was unfair to ask that question of staff as Mr. Brown must support and enforce the City Code.

Mayor McFarlane asked SDS Manager Brown if he believes the violation is creating a significant impact on water quality. Mr. Brown responded it depends on your definition of significant impact. This encroachment into the buffer is a concern. Mr. Odom said it is for Council to determine "significant impact." City Attorney McCormick stated there is no doubt the porch is not in compliance and that is all Stormwater Development Section Manager Brown is saying. Attorney Birch is asking for a waiver, which Council is entitled to do under the City Code.

Ms. Crowder asked if the City was asking for monetary compensation from the applicant since this was done and is not in keeping with the City Code. City Attorney McCormick replied the City is not asking for compensation. Mayor McFarlane said the house was built in 2001 and somehow the City allowed this to happen during the permitting of the swimming pool. She does not see a necessity for Mr. and Mrs. Mulroy to tear out the porch and stairs, and she is fine with granting the variance.


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

Mayor McFarlane moved approval of Mr. and Mrs. Mulroy's request for relief of the natural resource buffer requirements at 10505 Stonton Way. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and a roll call vote resulted in all Council members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0. This item will be placed on the Council's August 4 agenda for Council to receive and consider the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THEBUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

NO REPORT.

BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – JULY 28, 2015 MEETING – CONFIRMED

Mayor McFarlane announced the Budget and Economic Development Committee would meet on July 28, 2015 as scheduled, but she would not be present.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THECOMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE

NO REPORT.

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE – JULY 29, 2015 MEETING – CONFIRMED

Chairman Stephenson announced the Comprehensive Planning Committee would meet on July 29, 2015 as scheduled, to discuss the newly-referred item TC-2(B)-15 – Vehicle Fuel Sales.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THELAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

NO REPORT.

LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE – JULY 28, 2015 MEETING – CONFIRMED; TIME CHANGED

Chairperson Baldwin announced the Law and Public Safety Committee would meet at 3:00 p.m. instead of 4:00 p.m. on July 28, 2015.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THEPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

NO REPORT.


PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE – JULY 28, 2015 MEETING – CANCELED

Chairman Weeks announced the Public Works Committee would not meet on July 28, 2015.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THETECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE

NO REPORT.

TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE – JULY 28, 2015 MEETING – CANCELED

Chairman Gaylord announced the Technology and Communication Committee would not meet on July 28, 2015.

REPORT OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

WAKE COUNTY NURSE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP – COMMENTS RECEIVED

Mr. Weeks said he attended the Wake County Nurse Family Partnership graduation. They work with about 20 young women with children. He has been working with them for approximately a years and they do an outstanding job. These are nurses who have full-time jobs but also work with this program and work with children until they are two years of age. He thanked them for the outstanding job they are doing for Wake County and the City of Raleigh.

TRAFFIC – 4-WAY STOP AT HARRINGTON STREET AND JONES STREET – ENHANCEMENT – REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION

Mayor McFarlane said that even though there is a 4-way stop at Harrington Street and Jones Street, there are still near misses. She asked staff to look into whether a flashing light or other some other enhancement should be added to make people realize that all drivers entering the intersection from all four directions must stop.

REZONING Z-27-14 – CITY-WIDE REMAPPING OF UDO REZONING DISTRICTS – HEARING AT 6:00 P.M. – SPEAKER TIME LIMIT DETERMINED – FOLLOW-UP WORK SESSIONS SCHEDULED

Mayor McFarlane stated that the rules for tonight's public hearing would basically be the same as those for the first part of the hearing held on July 7, where speakers were asked to limit their comments to two minutes. There will be two microphones this evening and staff will be helping people line up. Five attorneys have signed up to speak and some of them are representing multiple clients. There has been discussion between those attorneys and staff regarding allocation of time, e.g., whether the limit should be two minutes for each of their clients, two minutes for each attorney with the attorney submitting the remainder of his/her remarks to staff, four minutes for each attorney representing multiple clients, etc. Mayor McFarlane said she was leaning toward two minutes for the attorneys who are representing one client each, and four


minutes for the attorneys representing multiple clients. The attorneys representing multiple clients can submit the remainder of their comments in writing to staff.

Ms. Crowder asked for Mr. Maiorano's opinion, since he is an attorney. Mr. Maiorano pointed out if an attorney has been hired to represent a client with respect to an issue, Council would be penalizing people for hiring an attorney if the attorney is given a shorter time to talk. Most attorneys who appear before the City Council are succinct in their remarks. He would be concerned about truncating the amount of time the attorneys have to speak because it disadvantages their clients. He appreciates the desire to have brevity and thoughtful control over this evening's public hearing, but he does not want people to have less time for their issues to be properly aired and considered by the Council. The Mayor asked if anyone had been in conversation with these attorneys to know if the multiple properties involved the same issue or different issues.

Attorney Tom Worth told the Council his clients would be better off under a restriction of two minutes per client if they came forward individually. Mayor McFarlane said she was asking about the issues involved. Attorney Worth replied there is some similarity in some of the issues. One client has over 10 properties and even though he signed up to speak for that client, they have decided not to bring his concerns forward at all. Attorney Worth said he will try to hit the issues that need to be hit, and he thinks the other attorneys will do the same. He raised the issue of valid statutory protest petitions. The mandate of "more restrictive only" plays against the property owner and plays in favor of those opposed to a proposed use. Attorney Worth suggested four minutes is inadequate, but understands the need to move this item forward. He said a more reasonable time limit would be appreciated and attorneys would not abuse it.

Chad Essick, Esq., Poyner and Spruill, 301 Fayetteville Street – Suite 1900, Raleigh, NC 27601-2173 – Attorney Essick stated he will be representing one client who owns five properties. Even though only one issue is involved for those properties, two minutes is a tight clip to get out what he would like to say, but he can do it.

Mayor McFarlane pointed out if Attorney Essick's client signed up himself, he would only be allotted two minutes even though he owns five properties. She asked for Council's input regarding time. Mr. Gaylord proposed leaving the time limit alone, allowing two minutes per client for the attorneys, and making it clear Council will award brevity. He thinks peer pressure will help. The Mayor calculated the potential time for each attorney at two minutes per property and estimated it could add another hour to the hearing. Mr. Gaylord and Mr. Maiorano said they did not see how Council could penalize a citizen for hiring an attorney to represent him at the public hearing.

Mayor McFarlane stated Council needs to schedule follow-up work sessions after the public hearing. Staff will present an overview/synopsis of the comments heard and things that need to be addressed by Council. Staff will also present an overview/update of the draft Downtown Master Plan so Council can discuss it in the context of the remapping of downtown. She said Council has been polled and the work sessions will be scheduled for Monday, July 27 at 4:00 p.m. and Monday, August 3 at 4:00 p.m., even though one Council members has a conflict on August 3. Mr. Maiorano said he has an unavoidable conflict on July 27.


TRAFFIC – SIGNAL BOX – MILLSTREAM PLACE AND LASSITER MILL ROAD – RELOCATION – APPROVED

Mr. Gaylord stated he has been working with staff on a neighborhood issue and believes they have arrived at a reasonable solution. The Public Works Department is moving a signal box at Millstream Place and Lassiter Mill Road at the crosswalk for Root Elementary School. It is being moved because of aesthetic and safety issues. The proposed initial relocation site also caused aesthetic and safety issues. The neighbors have been working with staff and an alternative location has been identified. The cost of the signal box relocation is $10,000 to $12,000 and staff has identified funds for it. Mr. Gaylord moved approval of the new location. His motion was seconded by Mayor McFarlane and approval was unanimous. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

TRANSIT – R-LINE STUDY – TRANSIT PLAN CONTRACT WITH WAKE COUNTY TO INCLUDE R-LINE STUDY – APPROVED

Ms. Baldwin reminded Council she had asked staff to look into the possibility of hiring Jarrod Walker to perform a study of the R-Line. The City Manager's Report on Friday contained an outline of the conditions. Mr. Walker has agreed to perform the study for a cost of $10,000 and staff will locate the funding. Ms. Baldwin believes it is important for this study to be done in the context of the Wake County Transit Plan and the changes that will be happening there. She moved to amend the Transit Plan contract with Wake County to include examination of the R-Line. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano and approval was unanimous. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

APPOINTMENTS

APPOINTMENTS – VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN

The Deputy City Clerk read the following results of the ballot vote: Appearance Commission – One Vacancy. David Kelly – 6 (Baldwin, McFarlane, Maiorano, Odom, Stephenson, Weeks).

Board of Adjustment – One Vacancy – Alternate Member. Judson Root – 7 (Baldwin, Gaylord, McFarlane, Maiorano, Odom, Stephenson, Weeks).

Historic Cemeteries Advisory Board – One Vacancy. Barden Culbreth – 7 (Baldwin, Gaylord, McFarlane, Maiorano, Odom, Stephenson, Weeks).

Raleigh Sister Cities – One Vacancy. Jean Tedrow – 7 (Baldwin, Gaylord, McFarlane, Maiorano, Odom, Stephenson, Weeks).

Substance Abuse Advisory Commission – One Vacancy – No nominees.


The Deputy City Clerk announced the appointments of David Kelly to the Appearance Commission, Judson Root to the Board of Adjustment (Alternate Member), Barden Culbreth to the Historic Cemeteries Advisory Board, and Jean Tedrow to Raleigh Sister Cities. The Substance Abuse Advisory Commission vacancy will be carried over to the next Council meeting.

NOMINATIONS

APPEARANCE COMMISSION – REAPPOINTMENTS MADE

The terms of Asa M. Fleming and Cari Jones are expiring. Both are eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint Mr. Fleming and Ms. Jones by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

ARTS COMMISSION – NOMINATION MADE

The term of Clyde Lundy, Jr. is expiring. He is not eligible for reappointment due to length of service. Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Gaylord nominated Gail Perry. This item will be carried over to the next Council meeting.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMISSION – NO NOMINATIONS MADE

The term of Dr. Linda H. Butler (Health and Wellness Representative) is expiring. She does not wish to be considered for reappointment. No nominations were made; thus, this item will be carried over to the next Council meeting.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION – REAPPOINTMENT MADE

The term of Lacy Reaves is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment and is willing to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint Mr. Reaves by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD – NO NOMINATIONS MADE

The term of Keith Karlsson is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment. The Deputy City Clerk reported City Clerk Gail Smith had spoken to Mr. Karlsson this morning and he did not wish to be considered for reappointment. No nominations were made; thus, this item will be carried over to the next Council meeting.

FAIR HOUSING HEARING BOARD – REAPPOINTMENT MADE

The term of Arnetta Adams-Brown is expiring. She is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint


Ms. Adams-Brown by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

GREATER RALEIGH CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU – REAPPOINTMENTS MADE

The terms of Taxable Establishment Representative, Kevin B. McAteer, and at large representative Thomas "Skip" Hill, are both expiring. The Hotel Motel Association recommends the reappointment of Mr. McAteer and supports the reappointment of Mr. Hill. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint Mr. McAteer and Mr. Hill by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

HISTORIC RESOURCES AND MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD – REAPPOINTMENT MADE

The term of Joe E. Mobley is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint Mr. Mobley and Mr. Hill by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

HOUSING APPEALS BOARD – REAPPOINTMENT MADE

The term of Shirley Hicks is expiring. She is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint Ms. Hicks by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION – REAPPOINTMENTS MADE

The terms of Candace Brown and Valerie Jordan are expiring. Both are eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint Ms. Brown and Ms. Jordan by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

PLANNING COMMISSION – REAPPOINTMENT MADE

The term of Rodney Swink is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and reappoint Mr. Swink by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and approval was unanimous. Mayor McFarlane ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

City Attorney McCormick reported he had two closed session items to discuss with the Council. There is an additional closed session item as well that should be discussed first.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY CLERK

MINUTES – JUNE 16, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING – APPROVED

Council members received copies of the minutes of the June 16, 2015 Council meeting in the agenda packet. Mr. Odom moved approval as presented. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

CLOSED SESSION

Mayor McFarlane moved to enter closed session pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3) and (5) for the purpose of consulting with the City Attorney regarding the following items:

1. Acquisition of the Dix Park site2. Settlement of City of Raleigh v. BRNA, LLC

and pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11(a)(2) to prevent the premature disclosure of an award or honor. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and approval was unanimous. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote. The Council entered closed session at 4:12 p.m.

The City Council reconvened to open session at 4:38 p.m. Mayor McFarlane announced the City Council had provided direction to staff regarding settlement of City of Raleigh v. BRNA, LLC; had received an update on the Dix Park site acquisition; and had received information regarding an award or honor.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m. She reminded the Council members they would reconvene at 6:00 p.m. to continue the July 7 public hearing for rezoning Z-27-14 – Citywide Remapping of UDO Zoning Districts.


The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in a regular reconvened meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 in the Fletcher Opera Theater of the Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts, 2 East South Street, Raleigh, North Carolina to continue the recessed July 7, 2015 public hearing for rezoning Z-27-14 – Citywide Remapping of UDO Rezoning Districts. All Council members were present.

Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. and the following items were discussed with action taken as shown.

PUBLIC HEARING

REZONING Z-27-14 – CITYWIDE REMAPPING OF UDO REZONING DISTRICTS – HEARING – REFERRED TO FUTURE COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS

During the July 7, 2015 Council meeting, a hearing was held to consider a request from the City of Raleigh to rezone approximately 41,000 acres from districts permitting high-density residential and nonresidential uses, as described in Chapter 10 of the City of Raleigh Code of Ordinances (Residential-15, Residential-20, Residential-30, Special Residential-30, Residential Business (RB), Office & Institution-1 (O&I-1), Office & Institution-2 (O&I-2), Office & Institution-3 (O&I-3), Buffer Commercial (BC), Shopping Center (SC), Neighborhood Business (NB), Business (B), Thoroughfare District (TD), Industrial-1 (I-1), or Industrial-2 (I-2)) to residential, mixed-use, and special districts as described in the City of Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance (Residential Mixed-Use (RX), Office Park (OP), Office Mixed-use (OX), Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NX), Commercial Mixed-Use (CX), Downtown Mixed-Use (DX), Industrial Mixed-Use (IX), Heavy Industrial (IH), or Planned Development (PD)), as well as height and frontage designations for select mixed use districts as delineated online, www.maps.raleighnc.gov/remapping.

At the 10:00 p.m. close of the meeting, it was agreed to hold the hearing open and place it on this agenda to hear from those persons who had signed up to speak, but were not given the opportunity. A listing of those persons who signed up to speak July 7, 2015 was included with the agenda packet.

Mayor McFarlane made the following announcement.

Welcome, everyone, to the Fletcher Opera Theater for the continuation of the public hearing from July 7, 2015 to receive input on the citywide UDO remapping process. In conducting the hearing tonight, we will keep the same ground rules for speakers as we did at the first hearing. We will first hear from those speakers who signed up to speak on July 7. Following that, we will hear from speakers who signed up to speak earlier this evening. A list of the order in which citizens will be called from the July 7 roster has been published and is available at the entrance. Speakers will get to speak only one time, for two minutes only. Delegating time to another speaker is not allowed, and staff has made an attempt to group speakers into similar topics.

http://www.maps.raleighnc.gov/remapping


The speaker list from July 7 includes a handful of land use attorneys. These attorneys signed up to speak on behalf of clients. They are grouped at the end of the original roster to allow private citizens the opportunity to speak first. At today's City Council meeting, Council decided the attorneys would have two minutes to speak for each client they are representing.

I will call five to seven names at a time to assist with an orderly process in lining up speakers. When you hear your name called, please make your way to one of the two microphones on the left or right aisle of the theater. Please approach the podium and speak into the microphone. State your name and address for the record.

I ask that everyone be mindful of the limit of two minutes per speaker. Please be respectful of those coming after you and keep to the two-minute time limit. Speakers will hear a bell at the conclusion of two minutes, at which time we ask that you clear the podium for the next speaker.

We will now begin.

Yonatan Neal (no address provided) – Mr. Neal, stating everyone has an eternal home in either heaven or hell and 700 years in advance, read aloud the Bible verses from Isaiah 52:13 through the entire chapter of Isaiah 53. He closed by stating "Ava Father, Daddy God, please have mercy, in the name of the issue of Jesus, on Israel, with this latest decision in Iran. Have mercy on this land with the latest Supreme Court decision on marriage. Please have mercy on this city within the vilification of handing out a biscuit to someone who is homeless. Please have mercy on this city within the fact of trying to change around how people would do with what they do within where they live."

Gene Alston, 3134 Shirer Lane (no city provided) – Mr. Alston stated he is with Social Justice Ministries on behalf of the citizens of Raleigh. He suggested postponing the remapping until everyone in the neighborhood knows how it will affect them in a 5- or 10-year term. Letters were not sent to certain neighborhoods, although he sees signs in different locations. More election signs are erected than rezoning signs. Many people do not understand what R-30 is, or R-20. Rezoning means a lot of things. It means a sidewalk, or knocking down trees. Let people know what it is and what you are going to do. He reiterated the remapping should be delayed and re-evaluated relative to what the City is doing, and it should be explained to everyone. (The timer sounded and Mr. Alston left the podium.)

Neil Riemann, 204 East Park Drive, Raleigh, NC 27605-1714 – Mr. Riemann said he was present on behalf of the Cameron Park Neighborhood Association regarding 15 parcels on the north side of Hillsborough Street between Oberlin Road and St. Mary's Street and another three parcels along Groveland Avenue that are northwest of the Player's Retreat. The proposed zoning for all those parcels is OX-3 with or without a green frontage. All these parcels are across from Cameron Park and a public alleyway separates them from the homes that are zoned R-6. Because these parcels proposed to be rezoned for mixed use are separated from the Cameron Park homes by a public alleyway, at this time they do not receive any sort of transition treatment under the UDO. The Cameron Park residents have been trying to get this problem addressed for


over a year. After these issues were referred to the Comprehensive Planning Committee, staff proposed a text change that would implement a residential transition across that alley. That change is acceptable to them, if not ideal. Thus far, they have been unable to convince staff to adopt a preferred alternative. The text change has already been considered by the Comprehensive Planning Committee and twice by the Planning Commission which resulted in a favorable report to the Council on May 12 (alley transition proposal). The CPNA respectfully requests that Council send the text change to public hearing and thereafter adopt it. That needs to be done before these parcels on Hillsborough Street are rezoned to a classification that would allow someone to build a 57-foot building five feet back from the alleyway.

Tom Worth, Jr., Esq., P.O. Box 1799, Raleigh, NC 27602-1799 – Attorney Worth stated he was present on behalf of Robert Troxler, who left for India yesterday. Mr. Troxler owns 901 Oberlin Road, located at the northwest corner of Oberlin Road and Van Dyke Avenue. Since 1906, that property operated as the Community Grocery, now the Community Deli. He is concerned that activities in proximity to the Community Deli will result in its demise, be they changes in Oberlin Road or a roundabout at Van Dyke Avenue. Second, Mr. Troxler owns 2607 Vanderbilt Drive and is concerned the proposed NX-4 along Hillsborough Street is too tall. He would respectfully request the Council consider NX-3 instead.

Connie Crumpler, 120 Gilbert Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603-2420 – Ms. Crumpler stated she was speaking on behalf of Carole Meyre, who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. She was speaking tonight as the First Vice Chair of the Raleigh CAC. Ms. Crumpler thanked the Council and staff for driving the new UDO and read the following statement into the record.

We realize tonight is about the specific remapping, but she would like to make a comment about two UDO categories. Many, but admittedly not all, of the CACs share a common concern that two areas of the UDO do not provide the level of protection for neighborhoods as envisioned and articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Neighborhood Mixed Use category is intended to apply to small neighborhoods but currently includes retail that allows very large box-sized shopping centers. A large number of the CACs support the recommendation that Neighborhood Mixed Use should be revised, or a second code created, that provides for a smaller-scale neighborhood-sized retail area. The second concern is the proposed reduction or elimination of the neighborhood edge transitions which currently provide for 100 to 150 feet of protection for current neighborhoods from new development. These were brought to the CACs' attention by the Grow Raleigh Great group. Grow Raleigh Great presented their concerns and a resolution of support to several of the CACs. Those CACs overwhelmingly supported the resolution. On behalf of the CACs, we respectfully ask that the Council and Planning staff ….. (The timer sounded and Ms. Crumpler left the podium.)

Dave Wiesner, 302 North Bloodworth Street, Raleigh, NC 27601-1108 – Mr. Wiesner read the following statement into the record.

Hello, my name is Dave Wiesner and I own a house at 302 North Bloodworth Street. I also currently reside in Historic Oakwood at 515 Euclid Street. I have lived in Historic


Oakwood for the past 19 years. Thank you for making the effort to continue this public hearing.I believe one purpose for this zoning change is to increase density in certain areas of the City. I have concerns about how this plan proposes to increase density. I don't believe Historic Oakwood needs more density. One of my neighbors, at the last hearing, presented statistics to illustrate this.

This plan, in some cases, increases the mixed use zoning to neighboring properties which are currently totally residential, and is not just a name change for zoning codes. Some residential areas are being changed in terms of usage.

Some areas on the perimeter of our neighborhood, but still in the neighborhood, have proposed changes in use which would allow bars, nightclubs, lounges, and other businesses when they are currently residential. These areas specifically are south of Edenton, Watauga Street area, and the 300 block of East Jones Street.

The area across the street from my Bloodworth Street house poses another concern. Currently, there are some businesses there – Sidestreet Restaurant, a yoga studio, and some other businesses – but two residential houses directly beside these businesses are also included into the NX-3-DE and NX-3-GR zonings. This encroachment of mixed use zoning into residential areas has the potential to have dramatic changes on the neighborhood. (The timer sounded and Mr. Wiesner left the podium.)

Ken Treimann, 613 Watauga Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1963 – Mr. Treimann said he would like to talk about the 600 block of Watauga Street, including 615 right next to him and six other lots that are being rezoned for RX-3 mixed use. They are currently zoned for R-20 but are surrounded by R-10. Everything currently in that zone is built to R-10. There are three houses, one duplex, and three empty lots, one of which is probably not buildable because it has a creek running through it. Everything in this area is R-10; everything surrounding this area is R-10 and not up for rezoning. The only thing that makes sense is to rezone it to R-10 as opposed to mixed use. Mixed use is intended for transition areas between different zonings and there is no transition here; it is completely surround by residential R-10. Please make this area R-10.

Rosalind Blair (no address provided) – Ms. Blair stated she is co-owner and founder of Beginning and Beyond Child Development Center. She said she was disheartened today because of the rezoning of the area where her day care is located and where they own property at South Bloodworth Street, East Cabarrus Street, and South Blount Street. This area was blighted over 20 years but they have helped out with its revitalization as a part of a small business incubator, the Pacesetters, and other programs they participated in with the City's Façade Program. They were rewarded with some concessions. They were also part of a program with the Department of Agriculture where they won an award. The issue that she has today is that this area is changing from Residential Business to DX-3. She has researched DX-3 and does not believe her neighborhood is like the Glenwood South neighborhood. Her neighborhood a little more defined and different. She asked the Council to please reconsider rezoning this area to OX, which she feels is more appropriate for their neighborhood. She compared the area to a recovering alcoholic and stated you would not bring alcohol back to a neighborhood that once had it and is


trying to recover from it. They have done a lot of work in this area and are asking the Council to please reconsider this rezoning.

Sylvia Wiggins (no address provided) – Ms. Wiggins stated she comes before the Council with strong reservations and opposition to the proposed rezoning laws. Many property owners have called her to ask about the meaning of "this jargon." The rezoning was not given to people in layman's terms so everyone could understand it. A lot of people are not getting this information. This project is not citizen-friendly or user-friendly where it would reach everyone. The City has had a couple of bad years with marathon runners dropping dead and constructing workers falling off buildings and dying. Council has had a big year making decisions, good and bad. She suggested for everyone's safety and to "get this thing right," Council should go back to the table, because this is not ready. It is destroying the fabric of families and neighborhoods. Being able to put a beer joint on every corner is not the answer. People need to be able to approach the Mayor and Council and not have to talk to their secretary every time they call. What happened to the time when people rezoned their own properties? (The timer sounded and Ms. Wiggins left the podium.)

Heather Richardson, 1120 Hightower Street, Raleigh, NC 27610-3810 – Ms. Richardson stated she lives in the Quarry Hills community. She implored the Council to please preserve her community and the surrounding businesses so they won't suffer the loss of relocations, properties, and churches that have been a foundation in their community. They deserve the right to keep their properties, to keep their families and community from being taken. Ms. Richardson thinks this rezoning is a bad idea and that Council needs to revamp the whole thing. She and many other people grew up in this community. Helping Hand Mission kept her off the street and out of trouble, and she is a testimony to this community. Ms. Richardson stated the rezoning won't do anything but benefit the City's financial greatness; it will not benefit the people. Council needs to think what other avenues of revenue are available. Taking their community is not one of the ways.

Wanda Basden (no address provided) – Ms. Basden stated she is representing her daughter, Endia Basden, the 521 Bart Street area, and the area concerning Roberts Park. In her opinion, rezoning this particular area will implement a devastating effect on the people who live there as far as taxes are concerned. She proposed that if the City Council implements any tax changes or tax increases, the City should pay the tax increase differentials. Mixed use and residential cannot be included in this area. Once Council makes a decision on the remapping, the community would like to know that decision immediately. She reminded the Council this is an election year and they will have to make changes if their concerns are not heard.

Muriel Dunn, 713 South State Street, Raleigh, NC 27601-2047 – Ms. Dunn said it has been stated "age is just a number" and she has told people that "age will do a number on you." She stated it has been said there is no place like home. "God Bless America, my home sweet home." Rezoning has put a number in her mailbox that makes her wonder how it will affect her. Looking at downtown and all that's happening, downtown is getting a little too close to where she lives. The tall buildings are difficult for her to look up at and see what is happening because her neck gets tired. She has to step back but it is getting so crowded, there is no room to step back. Ms. Dunn said people have tried to explain this remapping to her, but she is not


understanding what the Council is explaining. Sometimes when people have no further explaining to do, they say "I got it from the horse's mouth." She would like to meet the horse that started all this.

Mischelle Corbin (no address provided) – Ms. Corbin said she is a lifetime resident of Raleigh and appreciates the opportunity to speak to the Council about the remapping. Like many people, she did not receive any notification postcards even though she owns several properties. It is not a good feeling when decisions are being made and you are not informed until after the point in time when you can effect a change. She thinks the outcry from the community is due in part to lack of communication and in part to lack of trust. Ms. Corbin said she is exhausted by this entire process because of the way the City is allowing historically established African-American neighborhoods to be dismantled, displacing these families. This is a routine common in their neighborhoods and is seen too often. Ms. Corbin assured the Council she is "not playing the race card." She does not want to see this history repeated again. For example, take the South Park area, which is currently zoned R-20. Under the new UDO, there is no R-20 equivalent, so her ability to do what she wants with her property has been usurped. The use of mixed use is overused in this language. This leaves too much ambiguity to the enforcement of the code and too much subjectivity in its application. If density of people is what Council is trying to control, perhaps reduction in the height of foreign (not locally owned) companies' high-rise apartments could help accomplish this while being less intrusive on your native sons and daughters. She realizes many people maintain these changes are done to update the systems. Ms. Corbin does not object to updates to the system ..... (The timer sounded and Ms. Corbin left the podium.) Phillip Carver and Tammy Wilfong (in audience), 5401-1/2 Rock Quarry Road, Raleigh, NC 27610-5305 – Mr. Carver stated there is an illegal water reclamation facility going on and it has been going on for 14 years since the City tried to take their property. The City knocked down their stream and killed their trees, doing everything in the name of easements, overlays, and rezoning. They stopped the City 14 years ago, and the City is not allowed to come over the line this time. Regarding transitional yards of 30 feet, he asked if the City was going to come over to cut their grass. Mr. Carver said he went to all the low-income housing facilities around the area and passed out flyers because he has the plans that show the Barwell facility spewing sewage onto the corner of Barwell Road, Rock Quarry Road, and South New Hope Road. That property is owned by Council members. It is all about money and greed and power. Mr. Carver said Council takes it so they can sell the water back to the low-income people. The plans show no fresh water is pumped into these facilities. After waste is dumped onto the property at South New Hope Road and Rock Quarry Road, Council will sell it to a developer at a reduced price because it has been tainted, but the City lets the low-income people live on it. He fought for those people and went to jail for it. He took the police officers to court in the District of Columbia where his Constitution is. He asked Council, under Title 28, Sections 1602 through 1611, what jurisdiction Council has as a company to come to his land and take it.

Patricia H. Smith, 321 South Haywood Street, 27601-1925 – Ms. Smith stated she has lived at this address for over 40 years. As a senior citizen and homeowner, she is concerned about how the rezoning will affect her and the seniors' community. One of her main concerns is having her property taxes raised and not being able to pay them on her fixed income. How is it possible for the City to raise homeowner property taxes and put the homeowner in a position to have to sell


their home in which they have invested so much? What is the law pertaining to rezoning, she asked. What laws protect homeowners in the community who oppose rezoning plans? Ms. Smith said for the last seven or eight years she has been thinking of how the City has destroyed all homes on Haywood Street. They sent two surveyors to her house and offered to give her a house, but not for free. Ms. Smith suggested the Council "come down to where we are and try to live off our income."

Gail Wiesner, 515 Euclid Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1938 – Ms. Wiesner stated she was speaking on behalf of Peggie Fedderson, who could not attend tonight's meeting. She read the following letter from Ms. Fedderson into the record:

Hello from Peggie Fedderson, 401 Elm Street. My statement is being read by Gail Wiesner. I am very concerned about this new zoning change and hope that the City Council will listen to the citizens and change their plans as the citizenry is solidly against some of the planned changes. The zoning change of height from 40 to 50 feet and up may change our city to look more like Brooklyn, New York than Raleigh, the city we like as is. I think we have more than enough loud bars downtown. These changes are all items which can induce developers to buy property, even historic homes, and wait the required 365 days to tear them down. It happens in Charlotte and elsewhere all the time. They can even buy two and tear down one to make a parking lot. We do not need more ugly private parking lots; rather, let's add more public parking lots, if we need them.

Developers do us a service when they build what is needed by the community rather than build solely for their own profit. If all these changes bring more people to downtown Raleigh, where are they going to buy groceries? Are our streets adequate to carry the new load of cars? Will the City improve its public transportation? Do you really want to change Raleigh into Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn? They, at least, have a river and the ocean. All we have is Crabtree Creek.

We want Raleigh to be beautiful and treat their citizens well and respect their rights and their hopes. We do not want a city based on some people making out like bandits and leaving us with ugly crumbs.

One last question. Do any of these changes negatively affect the homes of anyone on the City Council? They do affect ours.

P.S. Forty stories? Really?

Myrtle Walker, 211 Maple Street, Raleigh, NC 27610-2330 – Ms. Walker said she has lived in her home for 20 years and does not want to have to move from there. There is a lot of tearing down around there, but she enjoys her home very much.

Marilyn Falk, 4116 Pin Oak Road, Raleigh, NC 27604-4721 – Ms. Falk thanked the Council for extending the hearing. She had been present for five hours during the first part of the hearing on July 7. Ms. Falk stated she opposes the rezoning of 4201, 4205 and 4209 Willow Oak Road and 1901 New Hope Road. These properties are currently zoned O&I-1 and are proposed to be


rezoned to OX-3 under the UDO. She bought her home over two years ago and thought it could be a place where she could grow old, but now she is not so sure. She has trouble imagining herself looking at a three-story office building from her back deck. Her one-story home is in a residential neighborhood comprised of one- and two-story homes. The properties in question are currently occupied by one-story homes. The new zoning will allow three-story buildings. They will dwarf the homes in the area and eliminate the neighborhood charm. Ms. Falk asked the Council to please keep those properties zoned for one-story buildings. She also asked Council to allow more time for public comment.

Shirley Brett, 5413 Opal Falls Circle, Raleigh, NC 27616-5076 – Ms. Brett stated she lives off Buffaloe Road, less than a mile from the Neuse River. Council is considering rezoning that entire area. She thinks it is good that the City wants to improve each area, but it should be done a little at a time. Doing it all at once takes away the ability for all people to say whether they like it or they don't. There are new people moving to the area who do not even know what is going on yet. They are moving into homes and have no idea how they are going to change. As she stated earlier, she lives less than one mile from the Neuse River. Development in her area will change the water table for the people who live in the area and may cause flooding later. Will Council pay for the flood insurance they have to buy? All the animals in the area will have to relocate and she does not want them in her yard. Ms. Brett said she understands what Council is trying to do, but doing it on this large a scale is not a good idea.

Marian Rowland, 3230 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603-2984 – Ms. Rowland said she is 71 years old and this is her first public speaking experience. She lives at this address on Tryon Road and owns a small business there. She is also the CO for the estate of the deceased Melvin Upchurch. Ms. Rowland said when Tryon Road was widened in 2005, they did not receive any compensation. She and her sons were told that her deceased mother-in-law gave up her right to the City, so they received no compensation even though everyone else in the neighborhood did. She said that was a lie and one day everyone will have to face the just Judge. Ms. Rowland is against the rezoning. She is afraid of what it will cause to happen where she lives. She has a small house and is opposed to big buildings being built around her. Ms. Rowland stated she does not like the last paragraph of the notification letter she received. It said if people comment negatively about the rezoning, that would make the rezoning more restrictive. She asked "where is the justice to all that?"

James Milton Hines, 8009 Duck Creek Drive, Raleigh, NC 27616-5801 – Mr. Hines was able to read a portion of his statement into the record:

Good evening, City Council members and Wake County residents,

My name is James Milton Hines. I live at 8009 Duck Creek Drive, Raleigh, NC 27616, in the Riverside community development located off Perry Creek Road. Let me change the tempo just a little. I would like to thank the City Council members for your service to the community. You have a very difficult job and you are to be commended for the good job you do.


What I am hoping we can do this evening is to help you become more responsible to the Wake County residents, more accountable to the Wake County residents, more trustworthy to the Wake County residents, and more rational. For more than 30 years, I have served as a volunteer at the pleasure of City Councils in North Carolina, Virginia, and New York. I know what you do and appreciate what you do, but you may have dropped the ball in being responsible, accountable and trustworthy to the citizens. I do not think the community trusts the Council and it has come out. It is a real problem. I hope we can do something to come together and work on that.

I am opposed to the urgent implementation of the Unified Development Ordinance that includes rezoning 30% of Raleigh in less than three to five years. I was born in North Carolina … (The timer sounded and Mr. Hines left the podium.)

Elroy Seegars, 8008 Duck Creek Drive, Raleigh, NC 27616-5800 – Mr. Seegars read the following statement into the record:

I am here to discuss my concern at 8008 Duck Creek Drive in the Riverside subdivision. My house is 100 feet from the back of the WRAL soccer field. My chief concern is making my dead-end street a thoroughfare. One of the reasons we picked this lot is for the clean air and low traffic flow. That means a lot for a father whose son has asthma and cystic fibrosis. With the rezoning, we will have more traffic and dirtier air. We currently have two air purifiers in our house to combat air quality issues. Quality of life is what I am talking about. With the rezoning and possible opening up of the dead-end street, that will definitely alter his living conditions with increased traffic.

In the last few weeks, they have started to work on the drainage issues at the back of the soccer field, coupled with paving the dirt road. Here is my main concern. Since they have started that work, my son has to avoid his outdoor activities. He has even coughed up blood recently. Once the dirt and earth is disturbed, it has to settle back down somewhere. I prefer it not to be in his lungs, thus causing the issues he has now.

I would like to propose that this dead end not be used as a Conditional Use Thoroughfare District (CUD-TD). In your own words, and I quote: "Due to the wide range of uses allowed under TD and the variety of ways that these areas have developed, other districts may be considered as replacements."

I would like to implore you to NOT open the dead end on the south end of Duck Creek Drive. This is not for property value, but rather for a chance to have a shot at my son having a normal life with living conditions where he can live a long and prosperous life. You gave us two minutes to discuss an issue that will be a lifetime of change.

Russell Capps (no address provided) – Mr. Capps offered the following quote frequently attributed to Groucho Marx and stated if it didn't describe this issue, he doesn't know what would: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." He said this is foundationally wrong for the citizens of Raleigh. Property owners and taxpayers have been shaken to the core by the proposal to rezone


one-third of the properties in the City of Raleigh in one fell swoop. Mr. Capps said he has served in public office, the purpose of which is to represent the people. He listened to scores of people outside the July 7 hearing who were frustrated and fearful as to how this massive rezoning would affect their properties. Many were small business owners who were frightened that their property and livelihood were in danger. Mr. Capps said two minutes is not enough time to adequately this issue. This remapping will further erode the rights of property owners and their investments and will raise taxes for the losers who have no place to turn. Arising under the term "sustainable development," this is not a land use policy but a complete transformation of American society away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel, and even free association. It is a life plan planned by someone else … (The timer sounded and Mr. Capps left the podium.)

Katherine Frankos, 4523-A Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, NC 27612-3753 – Ms. Frankos stated she has no problem with apartments being built down the street from her but she does not want beer joints or similar businesses coming into the neighborhood. She spent top dollar to buy her property and it would not be fair to allow the neighborhood to be unsafe. She has a married cousin who lives in Historic Oakwood. Many of those homes go back to the colonial era and she does not think the residents should have to worry about beer joints in their neighborhood. A neighborhood should be a place where people can go to bed at night without fear of someone standing over them in the dead of night with a knife, ready to kill them. Ms. Frankos said as much money as property owners pay in taxes, they should have a voice in what happens. Council should "back off on the rezoning" and plan it in such a way that people understand what rezoning means. They have a right to their properties

Stephanie McDade, 7813 Stephanie Lane, Raleigh, NC 27615-5031 – Ms. McDade stated she lives in North Raleigh, off Six Forks Road. She asked the Council to reconsider the rezoning at this time. Not everyone understands what is involved and everyone needs to understand what rezoning means for their area.

Amanda Holt, 4500 Jacqueline Lane, Raleigh, NC 27616-5695 – Ms. Holt stated she represented the Smoketree subdivision off Capital Boulevard. The land behind them is a wooded and wetland area that Perry Creek runs through. This area is being rezoned for commercial use with buildings up to five stories, or 75 feet, high to be used for a variety of mixed residential, retail, service, and commercial uses. The letter received by the Smoketree residents was the first they heard of the rezoning; they received no postcards. The letter was dated June 18, 2015 and received June 27 or later. Because they had little time to research what the rezoning would do to their neighborhood, they can only speculate what the plans are and what the effects will be. Since moving to Smoketree 21 years ago, they have seen this area boom with growth. To their area, this has meant increased traffic, increased noise, and increased crime. The proposed rezoning will likely add to these issues. Jacqueline Lane is already used as a cut-through by those trying to avoid the traffic on Capital Boulevard. The speed limit on her street is 25 MPH but the average speed of those who use it as a cut-through is 40 MPH or more. Jacqueline Lane is already a dangerous road for children playing and people out walking. Ms. Holt asked why the City is planning to build more commercial properties around the Capital Boulevard area when Triangle Town Center, Plantation Point, and the shops at Poyner Place all have vacant retail spaces. Apartments are being built everywhere and many of them are sitting empty. There


are many reasons this area should be left as it is, a wooded natural area that many wildlife call home, and no good reason to build another strip mall, big box store, or car dealership. (The timer sounded and Ms. Holt left the podium.)

Vicenza Rodino, Blue Sky Services (no address provided) – Mr. Rodino said he was speaking on behalf of Kirit Pradia, who was unable to attend tonight's hearing. He would talk about 615 West Peace Street. They recognize and understand the City's conundrum, that explosive growth has taken place over the last decade and things need to change. In 2008, they paid approximately $60,000 in fees and permits to build a four-story building on said property. With the downturn in the economy, they had to postpone that project. Under the new phase and the new zoning, they would not be able to build this project because the building there can only be three stories. They believe this area of 615 Peace Street should be considered for higher density growth.

Jonathan Matthews, Real Estate Associates (no address provided) – Mr. Matthews stated he was speaking on behalf of Gordon Darwin, 1406 Brookside Drive, Raleigh, NC 27604-2064, who was unable to attend tonight's hearing. This property is a small apartment complex of 68 units. Mr. Darwin is basically opposed to the rezoning, but he is not opposed to the mixed use designation. This is probably the only affordable housing available in that sector of Raleigh. Mr. Darwin purchased the property with the intent to sell it later. If the proposed limitations and restrictions are applied to this property, he will not be able to do so. There would be an adverse effect on the City in terms of generating tax revenue as well. Mr. Darwin asks that the Council please leave this property as is. He suggests sites should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Andrew Kelton, 104 Monument View Lane, Cary, N 27519-6843 – Mr. Kenton stated he represents the owners of 3900 Sumner Boulevard, the last vacant site around Triangle Town Center. Last fall, they met with the Planning Commission and Planning Department. They are working with the property owners to devise the best and most feasible opportunity for the family and are trying to help them develop the property. One issue is they have no height limitation. Their plan calls for four stories, but anything less hampers them. The other issue is setbacks, which can be difficult on certain sites. Triangle Town Boulevard goes along 1400 to 1500 feet of their property. There is a 100-foot setback requirement and another 20 feet on top of that. They had talked about making that part of the site the primary focus of their project, but the setbacks put everything so far away from the road they cannot achieve the urban look and feel that they want. They can build the buildings against the street on Sumner Boulevard but elevation is a problem; the elevation transfers from 278 feet to 340 feet. They could turn it into a sled hill. (The timer sounded and Mr. Kelton left the podium.)

Russell Sanders, 1913 Teabrook Court, Raleigh, NC 27610-4567 – Mr. Sanders stated he was present on behalf of Union Baptist Church; the church was holding a revival tonight. The church purchased land a couple of years ago at 602 South Saunders Street and now there is talk about rezoning it. The pastor of Union Baptist Church owns property at 600 South Saunders Street. Union Baptist Church was told by the City that the City was going to build skyscrapers down there, but they did not materialize. Union Baptist Church is asking the Council not to bother the land at 602 South Saunders Street because they plan to add on to the church at 600 South Saunders Street. Please reconsider 602 South Saunders Street and leave it alone. The church is


still paying on the property and wants to stay there. Mr. Sanders was raised in this area and even though he lives on the other side of Poole Road now, he still loves this area. He thanked the Council for their consideration.

Jeannine Grissom, 713 Gaston Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1409 – Ms. Grissom stated she lives in the Glenwood/Brooklyn neighborhood. In 1940, the City Council rezoned all older neighborhoods to R-30 to make way for row housing. There was a shortage of housing after World War II and it was assumed all this row housing would be built; however, none of that happened. In the 1960s, it was discovered what you could do with that zoning and absentee landlords started buying the larger houses in older neighborhoods like Oakwood, Mordecai, Boylan Heights, Cameron Park, and Glenwood/Brooklyn. Because of that, the City had pockets of these R-30 houses that were being broken up into multiple units or being made into rooming houses. Those are the house that are causing the problems in this rezoning issue of multiple use housing. The rezoning of the 1940s was incorrect and the problem continued for years. When Glenwood/Brooklyn filed their rezoning, one of the problems they had was that people weren't willing to invest in the neighborhood because of the unpredictability of what might happen; they didn't know if they would get a boarding house next to them or not. After the rezoning, all of those concerns were basically resolved because there were performance standards that protected the neighborhood. Since 1984, no houses have been converted to multi-family use; the only conversions were conversions back to single family use. The proposed remapping will take away all their protections and performance standards. Mixed use zoning will be given to these houses and that will destroy older neighborhoods.

Steve Plemmons, 4208 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27610-1448 – Mr. Plemmons stated he is the owner of Bill Plemmons RV World at this address. He is a second-generation owner; they have been in business since 1951 in Winston-Salem, which is where he lives. Mr. Plemmons said he received nothing in the mail at all about the remapping. He has been leasing this property since 2007 and bought it this spring. The previous owners, the Dean family, who had owned the property since 1967 did not receive anything in the mail, either. Mr. Plemmons heard nothing about the remapping until four days before the July 7 Council meeting. He has 70 employees in his two stores. His business is retail sales of RVs; they are not a mobile home store. His concern for this property is that before the sidewalk was installed on New Bern Avenue, there was 100 feet of land from the road to his front door because the road had been widened. Now there is only 74 feet. His surrounding neighbors, including the NCDOT beside him and behind him, all have a zoning designation ending in PL. His zoning designation ends in PK, and he asked to be PL like the properties around him. The PK designation means they must have a 50-foot setback the full length of the property with vegetation that must grow five feet tall within three years so they cannot be seen from the road. This could force him to relocate outside of Raleigh and he does not want to do that.

Danny Eason (no address provided) – Mr. Eason submitted a written statement for the Council. He stated that in 1977, he and his wife purchased and moved into the house at 4428 James Road. That location is one of four lots in Winter Park that are the entrance into one side of the neighborhood. When the 401 North Corridor Plan was enacted, fresh on the minds of the Council at that time was what appeared to be a blighted area on South Saunders Street. They were small starter homes and no one wanted to live along South Saunders Street when the


highway was expanded, so they ended up being boarded up. The City Council members said the entrances to the City could not look like that, so they adopted the corridor plan. Mr. Eason and some of his neighbors attended meetings about the corridor plan and the Council decided that at some point in the future it would be appropriate for the houses fronting the road to go into some kind of commercial use. The Council actually used those four Winter Park lots as an example of what they wanted to see happen in transitional areas. The UDO removed that language. Mr. Eason asked the Council to please reinstate that language which had been there for such a long time and leave them alone. When the time comes, the Council will have a vehicle to act but in the meantime, Mr. Eason and his neighbors would like to live their lives.

Kaye Buchanan, 6321 Mt. Herman Road, Raleigh, NC 27617-8960 – Ms. Buchanan stated she had previously talked to the Council about her graveyard and here it is again. She does not know why the Council wants to push out the small man. She is 58 years old and her father purchased this property in the 1960s and she was five or six years old when she moved onto it. Ms. Buchanan said it is common sense to tell the Council members they are pushing out the little man. People do not have rights any more in North Carolina. She did not even know when they were annexed into the City limits, or she would have come to Raleigh to say something about that. She asked if their taxes would increase because Council wants to change their property from Thoroughfare to Industrial. Her brother spent 20 years in the service and is in a wheelchair because of the VA. He can't even get a shot if he goes into cardiac arrest. They don't have 9-1-1 half the time because 9-1-1 does not know where they are located since their address was changed from Durham to Raleigh. She would have opposed that change. Ms. Buchanan has a wall around her land that is 15 feet high and she had to fight to keep that on her father's land. She had promised her father that her brothers would always have a place to live. It is difficult to keep everything paid and Council keeps trying to push them out. They can't even have what they want on their property.

Chad Essick, Esq., Poyner and Spruill, 301 Fayetteville Street – Suite 1900, Raleigh, NC 27601-2173 – Attorney Essick stated he was representing MLC Automotive, LLC which owns 20 parcels along the Capital Boulevard corridor in Raleigh that occupy a number of Leith Automobile dealerships. Of the 20 properties they own, the have concerns about five: 4800 Capital Boulevard, 5401 Capital Boulevard, 5601 Capital Boulevard, 5603 Capital Boulevard, and 5613 Capital Boulevard. Most of these properties are located north of Oak Forest Drive near Triangle Town Center. Their significant concern for these five properties is the application of Parking Limited frontage. That frontage may be appropriate for undeveloped lots or smaller lots, but when you are dealing with large lots like this where sites have been designed and developed for a particular use with the idea of being able to expand that use in the future, either by demand of the franchise or by the automobile dealer requiring them to expand it, this frontage requirement will prohibit that. During the review process, the issue of frontage was more of a policy issue that the Planning Commission wanted the City Council to look at. Attorney Essick's client requests the removal of that frontage. There is a text change coming to Council in September that deals with the nonconforming situations that will be created by these frontages. Attorney Essick reiterated they think that addresses smaller lots like gas stations and fast food restaurants, but has not fully taken into account large lots where sites were developed in the middle of the lot. For example, their BMW site is 300 feet back from the right-of-way on a parcel of approximately 8.5 acres. (The timer sounded and Mr. Essick left the podium.)


Joe Dye, 7990 Arco Corporate Drive, Raleigh, NC 27617-2029 – Mr. Dye stated he is Executive Vice President of American Asset Corporation, the master developer of Brier Creek. His comments will be about rezoning designations along Brier Creek Parkway with respect to frontage. They submitted a letter to the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014 in response to the proposed remapping of properties along and around Brier Creek Parkway, asking the Planning Commission to change the proposed frontage from Parkway to Parking Limited for several properties. They also addressed the Planning Commission on March 17 and March 31, reiterating this request for Parking Limited frontage. They provided a letter to the Strategic Planning Committee which included study area maps providing a holistic view of the Brier Creek Parkway area, illustrating the current zoning, remapping as proposed by the City, and remapping as requested by American Asset Corporation, highlighting key aspects of zoning and remapping districts. Mr. Dye offered a few key points:

● They provided comments in order to allow for a more walkable pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly development pattern in a high-growth, urbanizing part of the City as envisioned by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.

● The Future Land Use Map designates many of these properties on Brier Creek Parkway as Regional Mixed Use.

● The Urban Form Map includes many of these properties within the City Growth Center.

● According to the Comprehensive Plan, areas designated as Regional Mixed Use may include high density housing, office development, hotels, and region-serving retail such as department stores and specialty stores.

● Per the Comprehensive Plan, City Growth Centers provide significant opportunities for economic development and redevelopment, and are the areas the City desires to drive much of the new growth and more urban development pattern.

Mr. Dye stated the requested Parking Limited frontage is more appropriate than Parkway frontage for facilitating this preferred development pattern. (The timer sounded and Mr. Dye left the podium.)

Michael Birch, Jr., Esq., Morningstar Law Group, 630 Davis Drive – Suite 200, Morrisville, NC 27560-6849 – Attorney Birch stated he was present on behalf of American Asset Corporation. He and Mr. Dye have been working on this issue for about 15 months with staff and the Planning Commission. Throughout the process there seemed to be an acknowledgement that Parking Limited could be appropriate, but that it was something that the Council ought to consider as part of its deliberation. Because of the way the public hearing was noticed and because Council did not receive any public comment before the public hearing was authorized, the City Council cannot consider or take action on their request for Parking Limited frontage because staff considers it a less restrictive frontage. Attorney Birch thinks this can be remedied working with other land use attorneys, the City Attorney, and others. State law and the UDO do not require that the Council only make more restrictive changes. However, that would require re-noticing the public hearing and removing the more restrictive language as part of that notice. Attorney Birch asked the Council to please consider their request for Parking Limited frontage and others' requests for something less restrictive.


Lacy Reaves, Esq., 150 Fayetteville Street – 2500 Wachovia Capitol Center, Raleigh, NC 27601-2960 – Attorney Reaves stated he is present on behalf of four different owners of four different properties. The first is 8024 Glenwood Avenue, which was rezoned Neighborhood Business Conditional Use in 1998. The rezoning allowed up to 40,000 square feet of the owner's mixed use building to be used for the retail sale of office equipment. Citywide rezoning Z-27-14 proposes rezoning the property to OX-3 Conditional Use which would reduce the allowed retail use on the property by 90% and make the existing use nonconforming. A proper zoning for this property which would maintain the rights of the property owner and the owner's mortgage holder is NX-3 CU with the same limited conditions that are now applicable to the property. The second parcel is 6301 Mt. Herman Road. This property is zoned Thoroughfare District and is developed as a concrete plant that is operating today. It has improvements on-site that exceed 50 feet in height. Rezoning Z-27-14 proposes IX-3-PK. Concrete plants are not allowed in this proposed IX district, nor are three stories and 50 feet in height. This creates another nonconformity. Mr. Reaves submitted that IH-5 is a far more appropriate rezoning for this property and would maintain the current zoning character and allowed use of the property. Another situation involves the adjacent parcels at 2824 and 2834 Spring Forest Road. These parcels compose Penske's truck leasing facility in Raleigh. The existing uses on the property include vehicle maintenance and repair, offices, and storage yards for the inventory of trucks. The property is currently zoned Industrial-1 and is conforming. Rezoning Z-27-14 proposes IX-3-PL for this site. The IX designation places limitations on the existing uses which would make them nonconforming and would completely prohibit vehicle storage as an allowed use. Far more appropriate and fair to the owner would be IH-3, which would allow a lawful continuation of the existing use. The last property is a little bit different, but as with the three previous cases, the property owners only learned of the proposed rezoning by receipt of a letter one week before the public hearing. This last property of almost a whole block is bounded by Hillsborough Street, West Morgan Street, South West Street, and the CSX railroad corridor. The 19-story Holiday Inn is almost adjacent, catty-cornered across Hillsborough Street to the northeast. The property is currently zoned Business District which, for all practical purposes, has no height limit, and it also has the Downtown Overlay. Rezoning Z-27-14 proposes DX-12 for this block. However, it sets a height limit of 20 stories for property immediately adjacent to the east and property to the northeast. The property owners believe 20 stories is a more appropriate height designation for their property. Because they only received notice of the rezoning a week ago, they have not had the opportunity to talk to discuss this with staff or the Planning Commission. They believe the CSX railroad tracks adjacent to this property would be a proper point of transition for height in this area. Attorney Reaves' client faces the same dilemma as Attorney Michael Birch's client, which is that Council can only approve the proposals before them or proposals that are more restrictive zoning. Mr. Reaves and his clients believe this is contrary to established North Carolina law and is an undue restriction on Council's legislative authority under North Carolina statutes and the North Carolina constitution. He suggested it may be necessary to re-advertise the public hearing with regard to this case and it would be appropriate to remedy situations like the four he presented to Council tonight.

Tom Worth, Jr., Esq., P.O. Box 1799, Raleigh, NC 27602-1799 – Attorney Worth stated he is appearing on behalf of several clients. The first property, 0 Gresham Lake Road, is owned by the Davidson & Jones Hotel Corporation. The owners bought the property with the intention of building a hotel on the site. Under the proposed rezoning, there would be a default height limit


of three stories. Attorney Worth sent a letter to Planning staff and the Council on May 4, 2015 decrying the situation and requesting relief. A hotel of three stories on almost four acres would be an abomination and it will not happen, he stated. He agrees with Attorney Michael Birch and Attorney Lacy Reaves that there is a serious question about making requests only more restrictive. He has not informed Planning staff of what they specifically seek in connection with these various cases that have loss of entitlements or the prospect of nonconformities, or both. Next he will discuss property owned by David Johnson, owner of the Johnson Lexus complex. This is a group of four properties on Capital Boulevard and one property on Old Wake Forest Road. The default height limit is a potential problem going forward, but the Parking Limited frontage is "a hidden hammer" in this remapping effort. Many people do not know what the consequences are of the frontages until they have to confront them. Parking Limited frontage is a problem as far as future redevelopment. The zoning designation proposed for two of these four properties will restrict future redevelopment as outlined in the memorandum he submitted to the Deputy City Clerk. Next for discussion are the three properties of National Business Partners, LLC located in the Mitchell Mill Road area. Parking Limited frontage will present significant problems for redevelopment of these properties. Finally, there is the Anderson Toyota complex, a number of properties where the default height limit of three stories is a definite loss of entitlements. "Vehicle sales" is a limited use in the proposed IX that will require transitional protective yards and other protective yards. IX prohibits the elevation of display areas and prohibits outdoor speakers, which are an important part of the automobile business. Heavy Industrial uses are not permitted in IX but they are permitted in the existing Thoroughfare District zoning. Attorney Worth asked that these properties that are going to suffer a loss of entitlements and future development opportunities be revisited in a further action.

Isabel Worthy Mattox, Esq., P.O. Box 946, Raleigh, NC 27602-0946 – Attorney Mattox stated she is present on behalf of five clients owning 12 properties. She spoke generally about this remapping process. Notices were flawed in many cases, arriving too late to make any meaningful challenge to the rezoning. Several of her clients did not receive their notices until July 3, just a few days before the original public hearing, so there was no time to file a protest petition. They did not receive any notices of the Planning Commission proceedings and therefore did not make any comments during that process. Second, she stated the "more restrictive only" policy taken by the Council is unfair to property owners and makes a mockery of this public hearing. The public should expect that the Council will hear their comments and take action in response to those comments. This policy would help someone who opposes a rezoning, but it does not help property owners. Third, the City has generally promoted this massive rezoning as a straight-forward exercise to correlate old zoning to new zoning, but it goes beyond that in many cases. It adds frontages, it adds height limits, and it adds districts that make some existing permitted uses nonconforming. It is not a straight correlation and it is unfair. Attorney Mattox then reviewed specific properties. First was Worthy Partners, LLC, 800 and 900 Jones Franklin Road, proposed for CX-3. She and her client propose CX-7. They made comments to the Planning Commission at its proceedings, but the Planning Commission did not support their proposal. She and her client believe more height is appropriate in this case because the property is adjacent to I-40 and US 1. It is the Capital Center office complex, which is multiple stories. The second property, 4000 New Bern Avenue, is owned by M.M. Fowler, Inc. Its current zoning is Industrial-1 and the proposed rezoning is CX-3-PL. She and her client propose CX-3. The frontage creates a problem for redevelopment of this property and will chill


the prospect of renovations to these properties. Third was 2811 Capital Boulevard, also owned by M.M. Fowler, Inc. The proposal is CX-3-PL. The property is located by the old Holiday Inn on Capital Boulevard and is currently used for major auto repair, vehicles sales, and off-site parking. CX-3-PL would render the site and the existing uses nonconforming. They are asking for IH with a minimum of three stories, but hopefully more, consistent with some of the buildings in that area. The next property was 3820 New Bern Avenue. It is currently zoned Industrial-1 w/SHOD-4 and is proposed for CX-3-PL zoning. They object to the frontage in this case and do not believe it is appropriate for the use they have in that location. The fifth property, 3520 Capital Boulevard, is currently zoned I-1 and is proposed for rezoning to IX-3-PL. The Parking Limited frontage will limit and prevent the current use; this property is used largely for off-site parking. Next is 2120 New Bern Avenue, owned by M.M. Fowler. It is currently zoned Shopping Center and is proposed for CX-3-UL. Again, they object to the frontage. This property is next to the Longview Shopping Center, which experienced a fire two years ago. The owners were in the Planning Department within a couple of days of the fire, but still don't have all the building permits to rebuild that site. M.M. Fowler also owns 112-118 Peace Street, which is proposed to be rezoned to DX-7-UG, which does not match the current zoning or use. This is the Shell gas station in front of the Seaboard development. It is very narrow, too narrow for building, and they do not think Urban General frontage will work in that location. The next property, 3930 Wake Forest Road, is owned by M.L. Barnes. It is currently zoned I-2 and is proposed to be rezoned IX-3-PL. It is a warehouse distribution use on a lot behind a convenience store owned by another property owner. The warehouse distribution use would not be permitted in IX, but would be permitted in IH. Therefore, they request that this property be rezoned to IH-3 or IH-5. The next property at 1634 Glenwood Avenue is also owned by M.L. Barnes. It is the BP gas station/convenience store located at Five Points. It is a very shallow lot with a very irregular shape. The owners do not think they can accommodate the Urban General frontage at this location; there is no room for parking at the rear of the property. Next was 224 East South Street owned by Stuart Cullinan. He acquired this property during the Planning Commission process but was too late to get to the Planning Commission table. This is a very small lot in a block which is dominated by Shaw University-owned tracts. O&I-2 is the current zoning. The entire block, except for three small parcels including the subject property, is proposed for OX-12, which makes sense, but this property and the other two small parcels are being remapped to R-10, which represents a huge downzoning for this property. It should be rezoned OX-12 like the rest of the block. This was the end of the individual parcel discussion. Attorney Mattox stated Z-27-14 is too important for "the cram-down approach" without meaningful public comment. It is not meaningful public comment if the Council cannot hear the comments and react and adjust. Council should move all cases with major opposition, inadequate notice, or nonconforming situations, re-notice those cases, receive some meaningful public comment, then re-advertise the actual public hearing, and make decision based on everyone's reasonable comments. Attorney Worth got ready to leave the podium but realized she had omitted John Wardlaw's property at 2008 Hillsborough Street. Mr. Wardlaw owns the Wardlaw for Life insurance business there. He does not object to the base district for this rezoning but does object to the proposed Urban General frontage. This is an irregularly-shaped lot due to a condemnation by the City of Raleigh to accommodate the roundabout on Hillsborough Street. UG frontage is not workable for Mr. Wardlaw and he strongly objects to that frontage.


Jerry Crenshaw, 1604 Elegance Drive, Raleigh, NC 27614-9580 – Mr. Crenshaw stated he is opposed to the remapping of 1500 and 1540 Dunn Road. The current zoning restricts retail development to 3,000 square feet per floor per building. Remapping to NX would allow for unlimited retail square footage. This is a direct conflict with the City's goal to remap the property from the retired district to one that most likely resembles the existing entitlements. At the July 7 hearing, the landowner and his attorney said the Dunn Road properties had always been planned for retail development. While this is true, they have always been planned for small retail development and small professional offices. There are plans for such a development for those parcels on file with the City today. The property owner and his attorney also said the current proposal was completely different from the Z-1-14 rezoning case that the City Council unanimously denied on May 12 because it is only a four-acre portion of the original 13-acre site that was in Z-1-14. These are the same four acres that were proposed for 20,000 square feet of development in 2008. That proposal was also denied by the City Council. Rezoning Z-1-14 proposed NX zoning for 58,000 square feet on 13 acres, which is roughly 4,400 square feet per acre. The July 7 proposal calls for 30,000 square feet on those four acres, which is 7,500 square feet per acre, an almost 70% increase in entitlement. (The timer sounded and Mr. Crenshaw left the podium.)

Brad Mullins, 4904 Yadkin Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609-5117 – Mr. Mullins stated was present on behalf of Dunn Road Associates. He pointed out this is not the same amount of property that was contemplated under rezoning Z-1-14; it is less than one-third of the original. He and his client have met with a number of the neighbors and met with the Bedford subdivision homeowners' association Board of Directors last night. He believes the meetings were productive. Mr. Mullins is not sure if conditions can be added as part of this process, but has heard they can be. They submitted conditions to prohibit drive-thrus, prohibit gas stations, and limit the square footage to 30,000. They will continue to negotiate in good faith with accurate information going forward. Mr. Mullins said he knows that Council has been working on this for a very long time. He believes that former Mayor Charles Meeker initiated this remapping six or seven years ago and it has been arduous. Council is working on good planning for the City and he and his client will continue to do the best they can to achieve the best result for the neighbors.

Rev. Isaiah Green, Jr. (no address provided) – Rev. Green said the Council members must have received his letter because they chose another venue for tonight's hearing. He expressed concerns about the quadrant around Nissan Raleigh at New Hope Road and Rock Quarry Road as well as the connection on Rock Quarry Road to Barwell Road up to Poole Road. That property had previously been before the City Council years ago and was voted upon to be placed in Old Towne, which was actually a city within this City. At that time, there was a problem with the roads in that area. There are still problems, even after the completion of New Hope Road in that area. Rev. Green is concerned about the rezoning of this property because the first time that construction started at the site there was dynamiting taking place, and no signs had been erected while people used the highway in that area. He visited citizens in that area and found there was damage done to their properties and they were waiting for settlement for those damages. Rev. Green said there are not enough roads to accommodate the rezoning.

Carolyn Guckert, 2815Mayview Road, Raleigh, NC 27607-4142 – Ms. Gucker stated she lives in University Park. She is not speaking to any particular part of the rezoning but to express


her concern about the pattern that seems to be taking place particularly in older parts of Raleigh, i.e., infill. She is trying to determine if this is the new Raleigh, where a builder can raze a property and remove every tree. This happened with a quadruplex in her neighborhood. The flavor and the character of the neighborhood have completely changed and this was done by a builder who will not be living in her neighborhood. She has seen this happen on Anderson Drive as well. Ms. Guckert cannot understand how this can happen, how something that makes Raleigh so charming can be eradicated in one fell swoop without public comment or input of any kind. Ironically, this is lower density, because the builder tore down a quadruplex. When she moved here 20 years ago from Memphis, one of the things she found so refreshing and that she loved was the diversity in the neighborhoods. She is afraid that now the City will have a bunch of "McMansions" and not much diversity.

Unidentified speaker – this speaker said it is enlightening to hear attorneys representing commercial interests and development state that they have been working with staff for months, while the poor individual citizens does not get those resources. The UDO the Council is proposing is a taking of their' rights at a number of levels. Council is taking their property rights and their rights of petition. The lack of information to citizens, the lack of notification, and the lack of information about what the impacts of this rezoning will be is really a taking of their right to petition their government. The U.S. Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to privacy and the right to be secure in his home. In many instances, zoning is an affirmation of those rights. When a property is rezoned right underneath a person, the City has taken away a fundamental right. It destroys the value of the person's home and destroys his quality of life in the long term. The speaker said as he sits in this theater and watches what is going on and sees the expressions on the Council members' faces, he gets the impression that very little said here will have any impact at all and the Council's minds are already made up.

Patricia Dixon, 313 South Bloodworth Street, Raleigh, NC 27601-1901 – Ms. Dixon stated she does not want to live in the suburbs. She chose to live downtown because she likes to walk. She moved downtown five years ago and is building a small urban oasis for her retirement. She wants to be able to have input on the rezoning but she understands that there will be no neighborhood input. At this time, a three-story building could be built next to her house and she wants to have input on what will be shading her garden. Ms. Dixon is very uncomfortable with the unpredictability. She had a plan for her retirement and this rezoning has made her start looking at other parts of town. She thinks she is in a great place where she is now and she wants to stay there; she has a great life. She told the Council she goes to her CAC meetings and never misses a vote. Ms. Dixon closed by saying it is nice to see the Council members walking around her town.

Annette Byrd, 620 Devereux Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1504 – Ms. Byrd is opposed to the rezoning of the federally-designated historic Glenwood-Brooklyn neighborhood from Special R-30 to R-10. While the City has initiated the process to establish a streetside historic overlay district to address the gap between Special R-30 and the proposed remapping to R-10, she asks that the Council please defer the change so they can remain R-30 until a streetside HOD is implemented. While it seems to be the belief that the R-10 residential infill compatibility standards would give their neighborhood the same protection during this interim period of time that R-30 does for setbacks, height, and design for multiple units, it does not. They are already


seeing attempts to buy property, do tear-downs, and build large houses for multi-family units. If the HOD process takes months to complete, which they know it will, the nature of the first planned subdivision in Raleigh could be virtually destroyed in less than a year. She asked the Council to value their neighborhood and its contribution to the City and help them by allowing them to remain Special R-30 while the streetside HOD is completed.

David Hickman, 5007 Field and Stream Road, Raleigh, NC 27613-7534 – Mr. Hickman said neither he nor his neighbors received notice of the public hearing. He found out about it through the Wake County Taxpayers Association. He questions whether proper and adequate notice was given to everyone. Mr. Hickman stated the UDO tries to be a one-size-fits-all process. He has heard many people express their points of view about specific properties but overall, whole thing is not allowing citizens a voice in what happens around them and puts it in the hands of unelected planners and people who don't really care what happens or don't have a feel for what individual property owners have. He said it seems a lot like the Boston Tea Party. Instead of no taxation without representation, it seems to be no zoning without neighbors having an input on what happens to their neighborhoods. Mr. Hickman stated he is opposed to the UDO.

Dick Hilliard, 7912 Harps Mill Road, Raleigh, NC 27615-3717 – Mr. Hilliard said he is present to speak on behalf of the 34,750 property owners who will not be given an opportunity to speak or who could not get here tonight. He said if they were snail darters, spotted owls, or pink-eyed squirrels, they would get more respect than they are getting in this UDO. This hearing is not even on television for people to watch. Mr. Hilliard stated the Council members have taken an oath to honor the U.S. Constitution and they cannot simultaneously under that oath pass this UDO. This has allegiance to foreign things and takes away constitutional rights. He said he knows that at least four of the Council members would not like to have happen to them what people have talked about here tonight, such as a three-story building being built next to a residential home. Mr. Hilliard advised the Council to redo this. (The timer sounded and Mr. Hilliard left the podium.)

Wynne Coleman, 5548 Hamstead Crossing, Raleigh, NC 27612-7014 – Ms. Coleman said that at the first public hearing, she conversed with people from different neighborhoods. Everyone was bewildered and disturbed by the new zoning classifications for their neighborhoods and by the rush to implement them. They asked her why this is happening. Ms. Coleman said the answer is found in the introduction of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It is sustainability, described as the "cornerstone of Raleigh's vision for the future." In 2010-2011, she represented the Wake County Taxpayers Association on the Wake County Sustainability Task Force, an appointed position. The majority of the Wake County Commissioners followed her recommendation to reject the Task Force's adopted definition of sustainability and its collectivist philosophy because it was based on the definition created by the Chair of the United Nations Brundtland Commission, who was also Vice President of the World Socialist Party. The Brundtland definition is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The City of Raleigh Web site has indicated the City of Raleigh is willing to subscribe to the same philosophy. Ms. Coleman opined that the international power elite and planners are implementing the Brundtland vision for sustainability in every nation through the use of international codes and standards, especially in the United States. The sustainability vision for Raleigh is not unique. It does not address the


genuine needs of local residents. It implements global-to-local regimented cookie cutter plans that are cropping up simultaneously in almost every municipality, eroding property rights, choices, and freedom of expression. Impersonal city planners do not care if people get a good night's sleep because of some noisy bar and restaurant or if the beautiful character of their neighborhood has changed. (The timer sounded and Ms. Coleman left the podium.)

Donna Bailey, 2506 Mayview Road, Raleigh, NC 27607-6915 – Ms. Bailey stated she was speaking tonight as Chair of the Wade CAC. The NX zoning district does not do enough to protect neighborhoods. The City needs a mixed use buffer district that already exists in the current zoning district but has not been carried through to the new UDO. The NX zoning district promotes over-scaled development with bars and gas stations that do not belong adjacent to neighborhoods. The City needs a zoning district that is limited to low impact, neighborhood-friendly office, retail, and residential uses and apply that next to neighborhoods. One of the main components of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect neighborhoods. The current NX district does not protect neighborhoods and she would like the Council to ensure that all citizens of Raleigh are represented in the UDO remapping. She encouraged the Council to take its time and do this right. We've come a long way; we are close but we just aren't there yet.

Philip Poe, 620 Devereux Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1504 – Mr. Poe said he would talk about district skipping and would use the Five Points business district as an example. The south side of the business district is Vance Street and is zoned R-4. Right behind that yard, up in the business district itself, the proposed zoning is NX-3. There are five intervening districts between properties. The intent is that there should be an orderly transition between uses, but those five districts were skipped, resulting in harsh impacts. Mr. Poe thinks this should be looked at closely. His other comments pertained to TC-2(A)-15 that was recently approved by the Council. That text change which allows bars, taverns, nightclubs, and lounges on a limited basis in NX. There are three bars in Five Points that are zoned CX because they are bars. He said if those bars can now possibly be mapped as NX, the Council has done something wrong. Council already agreed to move forward with this initial public hearing and Mr. Poe would question the validity of some of the mappings of bars to CX. He suggested one way to address some of these issues, even if the properties are zoned NX, is to say there will be no late night businesses within 200 to 300 feet of neighborhoods.

Tim Niles, 11509 Midlavian Drive, Raleigh, NC 27614-6950 – Mr. Niles read the following statement into the record:

I am here to speak about the property located at 9745 Fonville Road. It is located at the base of the Falls Lake Dam and the source of the Neuse River. The river is the future source of drinking water for Raleigh and a current source for communities downstream.

Planning staff and the Planning Commission have recommended that this property be remapped to NX. They make this recommendation despite being asked by the Comprehensive Planning Committee of the City Council to reconsider based on the fact that the property is located in an environmentally-sensitive area.


Remapping this property to NX will allow for the development of a gas station by right and with no further discussion. You might as well just put the gas pump into the river and open up the hose.

Issues like this, like Historic Oakwood and the others we have heard in this public forum, make it clear that the UDO doesn't have enough zoning districts. You cannot force everything across the City into NX. Yes, appropriately sized developments with appropriate uses could be developed under NX, but they cannot be REQUIRED. There is no limit at all on retail development in NX other than prohibiting pawnshops.

I've been told that the UDO regulates the size of NX properties to 10 acres and that this limit is what keeps development to a reasonable amount. It doesn't take 10 acres to build a gas station in an inappropriate location, and even this weak limitation is easily skirted. In the infamous Z-1-14 case on Dunn Road, both the Planning Department and the Planning Commission ruled the proposal to be appropriate for NX. The site is 13 acres. That's 30% over what the UDO regulations allow by law.

I'll leave you with a final warning. Once you have remapped properties across the entire City using NX as a catch-all for retail development, it's game over. You will have effectively removed yourselves from the process as the citizens' representatives. You may breathe a sigh of relief at this thought. You shouldn't. It's frightening.

Mayor McFarlane thanked everyone for coming out this evening. The Council has planned a work session to start discussing this, but she thinks the Council needs to take some time to discuss how they are going to take this apart and address it. She does not want everyone to feel they have to show up for the first work session, because the Council hasn't really delineated how they are going to address the citywide remapping and they will not be voting on anything.

Planning Director Ken Bowers thinks a good option is to use the first work session to determine the scope of the remainder of the review and how it will be conducted. Staff has the comments from the July 7 public hearing that Council can review. However, if the Council wants more time for staff to get that list out to the public eye, they could schedule those for a subsequent work session.

Mayor McFarlane proposed spending the first work session discussing how to tackle the remapping. The most important thing is that everyone who has concerns feels they have been heard and that through these discussions, everyone understands exactly what remapping means and what it means to them. Mr. Odom would like to refer items to staff that Council would like brought up at the first work session, such as the PK and PL issues on Capital Boulevard. The Mayor agreed but she also wants everyone to know exactly what Council will be discussing at the first work session so if any of those items are their issue, they can attend the meeting. Planning Director Bowers reiterated that if the first work session is used as an organizational tool, staff can put together detailed agendas for subsequent work sessions. Mayor McFarlane agreed this would allow staff to collate the parcels, issues, and comments so they can be grouped together and Council can determine how they will be discussed move forward. This will allow everyone to know when those discussions are taking place. Planning Director Bowers said there


had been a request from the Council that was related to the UDO but was not a particular remapping issues, and that was the presentation of the Downtown Plan. Staff was preparing to do that Monday, but they can hold it and present it later at Council's request. Without objection, the Mayor stated the presentation of the Downtown Plan would be held for later. Council will spend the first work session on Monday, July 27 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council chamber developing a structure whereby Council can fully discuss all of the issues and make sure that it is communicated to the public so they will know exactly when and where their issues will be discussed. There will be no voting or decisions made about specific parcels or zonings.

Mr. Odom said from a procedural standpoint, this public hearing should be closed and discussion opened back up in a different venue. He moved to close this public hearing. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and approval was unanimous. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Leslie H. EldredgeDeputy City Clerk

Raleigh City Council Minutes Regular Session - …… · Web view2015/07/21 · One client has...

Documents

Transcript of Raleigh City Council Minutes Regular Session - …… · Web view2015/07/21 · One client has...