Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Good evening. We'll call our planning commission meeting for April 14th uh to order. Um can we have our roll call? Good evening, commissioners. I'll call the role. Mariah Bishop here. Ralph Carson here. Philip Jefferson here. Jihan Hodgeges here. Ben Mills. Sherry Phillips here. Michael Voyand here. That's six members present. Thank you. Um our invocation, Mr. Voil. Yep. Um no need to bow your heads. Uh, too often some town residents believe that the town is a mysterious all powerful entity and they label this entity they. T H E Y they. If you go to some local area social media sites, you may know what I'm talking about. You'll likely see posts from Gonerites that shout out they need to put a blank in Garner. Whether that be a Wegman's or a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe's or an IKEA, these sorts of statements suggest that many town folk frame the town officials as being the they. They imagine that the town council and planning commission actually control not only which businesses or franchises will be located in our town, but also control what the addresses of those businesses will be. Of course, the town has no such powers. Land owners within town boundaries has have every right to propose developing their property as they would like to. But unless land owners and developers come forward with a proposal that they believe will be profitable or in some other way

advantageous, there's little the planning commission or town council can do to force such interest on the private sector's part. In short and in reality, a new business will approach the town with a proposal to locate here only when the profit motive motive tells them to. I'm going on about this only because while this misunderstanding of our role may exist among some of our towns people, it shouldn't exist among us as commission commission members. We shouldn't advance a proposal based on what we personally believe would be nice or convenient or exciting or right up the alley of our individual wants or needs. We need to remember that justifying a development should be left to the developer, whereas determining how well a proposed development reflects area plans or character should be what we're all about. It's very important. Really important. Thank you for sharing that with us tonight. It's time to to review our meeting minutes. Oh, sorry. Adopt our agenda. Um, are there any items on our agenda that need to be added that are not there? If not, do we have a motion to approve our agenda as written? I'll make a motion to accept the agenda. Mr. Carson, thank you so much. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, Miss Hodgees. Thank you so much. We have a motion and a second to adopt our agenda. There's a motion on the floor to adopt the agenda. I'll call the vote. Mariah Bishop. Um, yay. Uh, Ralph Carson. I. Uh, Philip Jefferson. I, Jan Hodes, I. Sherry Phillips. I, Michael Voy. I. That's six eyes. The agenda is adopted. Thank you so much. We've adopted our agenda.

I hope you've had some time to review our meeting minutes from our March 10th meeting. Um, are there any um uh changes that need to be made per your review that anyone found? If there are none, is there a motion to approve our meeting minutes from March 10th? I'll make that motion. Mr. Borne, thank you so much. Is there a second? Miss Mr. Mr. Carson and uh Miss Phillips. Thank you so much. We have a motion and a second. There's a motion on the floor to approve the minutes. I'll call the vote. Uh Mariah Bishop I. Ralph Carson. Hi. Philip Jefferson. I. Jan Hodes. I. Cherry Phillips. I. Michael Voyand. I. At six eyes. The minutes are approved. Thank you so much. We have approved our meeting minutes from March 10th. Um now our old and new business. We have um one item on the agenda this evening. CZ24007 um 5828 Fagatville Roading Commission. I'll switch hats now. I'm going to be presenting CZ24007 which is a uh resoning for 5828 Favville Road. Uh, our applicant for this is Flores Capital LLC. The owner is Adelfo Flores. This is a tier one conditional district reszoning request um to reszone approximately 6/10 of an acre from rural agricultural to light industrial conditional. Uh, the site is along US 401 South at the intersection of Fateville Road. There's actually a little road called Fateville Road next to what we know as Favville Road 401. Um, as a reminder, this is a tier one uh request and there is no sight specific

master plan. For context, it is currently zoned rural agricultural, which is primarily agricultural and lowdensity uh residential. The site is currently vacant. Uh it is on the west side of US Highway 401 South at the intersection with Fateville Road right at the corner about halfway between Simkins Road and uh the Georgia's Landing subdivision. Much of the area is single family residential. Um mix of smaller commercial and industrial uses as well. Uh mostly on small sites and it does fall within the CHO overlay district, the commercial highway overlay. The site falls outside of our designated activity centers. Uh the nearest activity center is a regional employment center, that red circle that is centered at the Buffalo landfill to the north. Um, and there's also a mixeduse activity center, which is the brown circle, a little harder to see. Uh, that's at the intersection of where 401 meets Old Stage Road and Farm Road. I did want to put in a slide about our CHO. Um, that was a question that, uh, council had kind of questions about from our first to our second part of our public hearing. So you'll find that everything in the CHO applies per UDO regardless of whether it's written into the conditions. Um there are prohibited uses in the CHO, none of which the applicant is proposing. Uh there's also uh a map there that kind of shows where the CHO is. The red, it's primarily along 401 170 and Garner Road. There are also standards uh related to development, design and landscaping within the uh CHO. Uh as far as development standards, these are just parts of what is in the

UDO. There are limits to the outside display or storage of goods. Um in the CHO, they're limited to 50% frontage if the parking is in the street yard area or 66% if it's in the side or rear yards. Um there are design standards including limits to the maximum building height. Um they would be limited to 24 feet in height because it does adjoin residential uses. Um there are avenues for the height to be increased if the setback increases. Um but you'll see from what they're proposing in their standards as far as buffer that's not um something they're doing. And then landscaping standards, they also go above the general landscape standards of the UDO. Um, and mostly relates to high density uh or highintensity activities and certain non-residential uses adjoining residential uses, none of which apply in this case, but I did want to point that out. The site also falls within our Swift Creek land management plan, so we are aware of imperous surface limits. Um the site is designated as a yellow uh new suburban site. So there's an impervious surface limit of 12%. The applicant if if they chose to retain an inch of rainfall on site, they could go up to 30% impervious. However, you see in their written conditions, they are writing and they're going to stay under the 12%. They're not doing any onsite storm water capture. So it will be a smaller footprint development. from their written conditions. Um, from our part one to part two of the public hearing, they limited or they reduced their permitted uses to only two. You'll see those listed here. They are

proposing for permitted uses other offices other office uses not listed and flex space other light industrial manufacturing warehousing or transportation uses not listed. So just those two uses um they are proposing at least 60% materials that are brick stone or decorative scored masonry units. The UDO requires 50%. Number three, they are proposing a covered awning of 28 square ft and decorative light fixture to be installed at the main entrance, the public facing entrance of the building, not their bay entrances. They are proposing an opaque screening buffer or hedge at least 22 and 1/2 ft wide. Um that will be provided along the north side of the property uh which would back up to the or the parcels that are on Weeks Drive there um where it borders residentially occupied properties. The buffer and hedge shall include a combination of evergreen plantings, earthn BMS, and/or solid fences, all designed to exceed the required height of 4T, reaching a height of 6 feet. So, um they're writing that in because they're going to a higher height than is required in the UDO, 6 feet rather than four. Um and they are calling for um at least a full screening whether it's um opaque landscaping or that fence. Number five, they have a written condition uh regarding storm water kind of green um street solutions. Um they are proposing a bioail that's going to modify the drainage pattern um including a channel drain with perforated pipe running from north to south along the west side of the property that will uh connect to Favville Road and 401. The bias whale shall be excavated to a depth of 2 feet lined with gravel and covered with soil

or stones. Um I do want to point out all of this bronze brown colored text was um changes the applicant made from the first part of our public hearing to the second part which is what council saw and now you are seeing. Um and then number six, they are writing in a condition where they're limiting themselves to that 12% impervious surface. Um they are counting the building uh with a square footage of approximately 1,600 square ft included in that with the building driveways, parking areas, and other hardscape areas. And they are not going to exceed 12%. Um, so although we don't have a master plan, they have determined that they can fit within that and they're writing that into their conditions. Staff had 84 properties and occupants within the notification radius. Um, the neighborhood meeting was held this past August 22nd at the Garner Rec Center. There were eight people in attendance and you have the full neighborhood meeting packet uh in your staff report. We were able to evaluate nine growth framework criteria. Um you'll see six of them were strongly consistent. One was modestly split and there were two strongly inconsistent ones. The uh strongly inconsistent ratings were given to the LI zoning choice because it's otherwise not consistent with the neighborhood's typology destination. And then the uh industrial or warehouse building type also received that negative rating. However, there overall was strong consistency with the development intensity metrics of the site. For the land use community character consistency, uh it was largely mixed. There were higher ratings given for the low intensity uses and that it is a small infill redevelopment. Um they

also got high ratings for the consistent size and scale of existing development in the area. As I mentioned, there are some small industrial and commercial uses in the area, but they are also generally smallcale. Um, they did get low ratings for a lack of design features uh or treatments as a destination. That is in our um comp plan. Also, a lack of a pedestrian network connection. Staff would like to point out that uh minimal pedestrian connection along 401 is already a pre-existing condition. Um the full detail of the consistency review is attached to your staff report. So overall despite those two strong non-supporting scores for growth framework criteria uh we do believe you can make an overall finding of consistency. Um there were some fine-tuning from our first to second u public hearing that got to a uh better score for them. Um there's also marginal support for land use and community character. Um but with continued uh input, we can find an overall finding of consistency. Um as I alluded to before, they did have a public hearing initially February 4th. Um council had some concerns over the small single site tier one resoning. There were questions of whether tier ones were better suited for large or small scale. Um staff believes that tier ones can be used for both small and large scale reasonzonings. Um there were also concerns over the land use consistency and what the stated purpose of was for the site. Um the applicant returned a month later for a second part of our public hearing with some changes. uh council uh voiced their appreciation

for the reduction of the number of permitted uses. Um they did have a question over the impervious service allowance as a written condition. Um and there was a question over the maximum building size that the applicant is proposing. Uh we do have a draft consistency statement. It's in your staff report. It's also on the screen. Um there are of course four options for a motion that uh you can consider for this case. Um the highlighted option does indicate results of staff's analysis. You'll find that in your staff report and of course you can make any other motion um that you would like. The draft motion to recommend approval will be here on the screen also in that staff report. Um tonight our next steps would be um planning commission you would uh return your findings of plan consistency and whether you would recommend to approve or deny this to council and then it would go to council next for their findings of reasonableness and their decision to approve or deny. The applicant is here tonight. Um they don't have a formal presentation but they're happy to answer any questions and speak. Staff can answer any questions as well. Um, so I'll open up the floor to commission to ask us any questions and then if you have questions um for the applicant, they're here. Thank you so much for um are there any questions for staff? I've got uh couple questions I guess. Um on the application for uses and zoning the one page under item two they talk about the 60% materials brick stone or decorative scored masonry but in the public meetings in three applicant responses the building was all metal.

So, is the building all metal or is it falling under Well, the the architectural standards are for the outside of the building. If the building itself is structurally metal, um that would be for the applicant to answer, but they could not have a metal building. It would have to have at least what they're proposing architecturally on the exterior. Um, Commissioner Mills couldn't be here this evening and he did ask um a couple clarifications. Is there anything in this application that prevents automotive repairs being done at this? Well, it's not in the uh permitted uses. So that so no. Yeah. And in fact, in their original application, they did have um vehicle repair uh as a permitted use. They took that out um as a result of council feedback in that first public hearing. So, yes. And the last question that uh Commissioner Mills had, uh this bioail, is that going to be exempt from the yearly O andM uh inspections, yearly inspections that have to be done uh for the bio treatment? Is that something that uh exceptions for I don't um it's basically a buried structure. So I wouldn't think that would apply but I just Yeah, I I don't know um if there are um I I don't believe so. Um Aaron, do you know if those kind of things are inspected uh annually as SCMs are? Um, I'm not 100% sure if they are or not. Um, they they I would think that they they wouldn't be because it's not a um a

storm water control measure. Um that would have that that's a requirement. Um they are profering this as a condition. Um there there also would not be any maintenance easements or anything of that nature. Um typically those um storm water control measures have some sort of maintenance um easement to them for access if if any um if the town or any other agency would need to step in. But because this is being voluntarily um added as a commitment, I don't I don't believe I can certainly check where you know just to verify with our storm water control um reviewer for the town. Um but I don't believe so. Yeah, that's a good question. it probably uh because it's not a required uh SCM, it it wouldn't fall into the typical um inspection um uh guidelines, but this is something that they are offering. Um but yeah, good question. We we could probably find a little bit better answer for that. It's not going to be tonight, but um keep in mind this is something they're proposing that is not required at least. I got one more question for the applicant. Um, and it goes to consistency or compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. I mean, you're kind of adjacent to single family homes and I know there's other commercial properties along there, but I guess I'm having a a little bit of a issue with having another warehouse adjacent to single family homes where it's rural now. or trying to change it to light industrial if that's really the best use

for this property as it's not really compatible with the neighbors. Uh I'll answer that first. Uh I will point out as you are right behind it there are residential uh uses that are there. Uh across the street on the other side of Favville Road, there is also a light industrial building and right next to it is also um RA zone. So, we already have a little bit of that in the area um that you could say is inconsistent uh next to each other, but we we already have light industrial touching residential in that area and we're probably trending to not have many more single family residential lots in that 41 corridor. But that's just kind of where the development pattern is taking us there. But that's a good good um observation, Mr. Carson would applicant like to be completely honest. So yeah, the main reason is we're trying to Let me stop first. Can you state your name and your address? Yeah, sorry. So my name is My name is Estan Brano. Uh my uncle actually is Ado Flores, but he's not able to speak better English than I am. So I'm helping with his property. Sorry. Um so yeah. Uh and address location. The address is 577 Corb Road, Clayton. Okay. Thank you so much. Uh sorry. But yeah, uh like Thomas said, we're trying to replicate what's across of us. Uh it's really a small building mainly because my uncle owns a lot of uh supermarkets and restaurants uh right here in in Gardener in Raleigh too. Uh so he wants to have it for like a storage of small goods. That's why the building is 16 square footage and we

don't plan to go above the 12% in previous as well. So, uh he's trying to make sure he uses the land that he owns and the best way to do it was sitting with planning commission and talking through and tuning up all these conditions and all all the land uses and all that. So we we've been playing along with it to make sure we don't overstep the residential size that we are around, but we also have enough so we can make sure we use it as we wanted to use it. So okay, I I I understand what your plan is. I I guess again we're take we're taking a rural zoning and making it light industrial immediately adjacent to single family homes. And if I was in those single family homes and I knew that was rural that kind of limits what could be built there. Now all of a sudden, uh, we're encroaching into that area with light industrial, even though it's further south and it's across the street. I just have a concern about that, but I'll I'll let somebody else speak on that. And well, related to that, I I don't see where Li Light Industrial can creep anywhere away from the site. I What is the parcel immediately to the west? of this site. I don't see a house on it. Correct. It's vacant. It's vacant. Yeah. That that the on the same side of Fable Road right next to it. Correct. Yes, it's vacant. Well, it just leads me to believe that there's some buffering there. Um and as you said, there's light industrial across the street and to the

south. So, I'm I'm not as concerned as Ralph might be. Miss Phillips. What exactly you going to put in this warehouse? Uh goods for the supermarket or maybe an equipment that we don't have place yet in the supermarket just to move it from the site to the supermarket. But it's mostly for storage of goods. That's why the warehousing comes in. because I noticed on the uh summary of discussion from the neighborhood meeting, it says, "What can you say about the project and trucks will enter the street? Will there be um a lot of trucks going in and out of the area or Not that how do you plan on getting these whatever it is that you're going to be putting in there? I mean, how how do you plan on getting the getting that getting that those those um items to the warehouse on a truck because they're not big items. Uh they're boxes pretty much. So, you going to Okay. Yeah. So, my concern is just, you know, about the about the a lot of movement of trucks and everything. Yeah. No, we have the same concern with uh the public hearing uh with the neighborhoods meeting, but we don't plan to have many trucks coming in and out day or night. Uh it's mostly like moving stuff from the supermarket because everything gets dropped at the supermarket, but since we don't have the space in there, we might move them from the supermarket to the warehouse. But there shouldn't be trucks coming in and out all the time to the site. That's mostly for storing the goods of the other businesses that my uncles has. Okay. Thank you. And I want to clarify. So I feel like there may be two different like when we're discussing trucks, I think we're maybe thinking like 18 wheelers and we were thinking probably like more like personally owned

vehicles like pickup trucks. So there that's a big difference than a huge warehouse that has 18 wheelers pulling in and out like an Amazon or something to having overstock and filling up the back of a Yeah, it wouldn't be 18. It's more personal truck uses or potentially box trucks. Just a box truck. Yeah, potentially. But this isn't going to be like a loading loading deck or anything like that. No. Okay, Miss Bishop. Um, yeah, I I guess I have a few of the same concerns that were kind of echoed um by Ralph. Um, about the the land use consistency. Um, and I get that there's, you know, a buffer and that there's industrial across the street. Um but yeah, my biggest concern is that it it is near, you know, homes and I get that in the past it's, you know, been industrial, but we kind of have to, you know, keep looking forward and um and same with the pedestrian connection. Um I think Garner really needs more pedestrian connections. Is there any way that you could add a pedestrian connection? Um and I get that there's not in the past. There hasn't really been, but in order to keep the town growing and moving, I think um we need to move towards that direction of having pedestrian connections like a sidewalk or something. Yeah. I couldn't tell you about it because I know the 401 is expanding. Yeah. um from at least uh along the 401 side um we would probably not have them add that because there would be if there are ever sidewalks there it would be probably a DOT project where they'd be either widening or adding curb and gutter or sidewalks. Um, but if you know there were sidewalks along For1, if the applicant were to um,

you know, agree to in the future perhaps just have a internal connection, you know, I I think that's probably more what you're leaning towards. But if they were just to put a piece along 401, it would unfortunately not connect to anything at this time. Um, yeah, and I think a lot of my other questions were answered. the rest of the group. So, Miss You have any? No, I'm just looking at the Google Street View. So, it just looks like I mean, it's not even the closest um commercial property to there's a several commercial properties already there between where your your land's located and the neighborhood. So it wouldn't it's not even turned like I guess not the last piece of property adjacent because it looks like across the street is the crown flooring. There's a place on the other side that has um metal fencing and a brick building and a lot of trucks look like U-Haul trucks in the insulating um ink looks like. So there's several already. Yeah, there's certainly a mix of uses in the area. Um uh you know these are just not large sites. Um there was a question that council had at the first public hearing if this was going to lead towards uh additional properties being acquired and then the zoning applying. Well, you know, if you were doing a combining of properties, you would have to come for a combined resoning. All these properties would have different reasoning. It would be very unlikely they'd all have the same permitted uses and could just build something large scale. So, um, you know, this as a 610 of an acre site, we're evaluating it just as this, but we can compare it to places in the area. Um, so that's for you guys to consider.

Is there anything in the pipeline that you're aware of that would affect those adjacent rural agricultural zoning that somebody else might be looking to do? No. uh and and industrial and as we get to weeks and Garner Glenn and up to Simpkins, you know, that's uh that's not ETJ, it's not town limits. The applicant has told us they can tell you that um their goal is to connect to services and and annex this is uh currently in ETJ. Um but um no, we haven't seen anything um in that area that's coming, Aaron. Um, no. You know, I think if you ever see a large scale thing, it would probably be the speedway long way down the road. Um, but there's just not large sites there. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Um, I just wanted to add that I did hear back from our uh, storm water administrator and she did confirm that the um, the bio swell would be considered um an a, um, a storm water control measure and it would require a um um, O andM agreement um, operation and maintenance agreement and that they soon will be considered a primary storm water control measure um similar to a wet pond and um storm water wetlands. Okay, thanks for that. Thank you clarification. Um I think my question uh maybe aligns with Miss Phillips and I think when she was also asking about access to the site um the I'm assuming this might be and well I'm not sure which question it's going to be is access coming from

Fateville Road on the west side of 401 or is access to the site from 401 because that's a really big that that's a different their access would be from Fateville Road, the the the Yeah. the the the culde-sac rather than um the highway itself. Okay. Which is which in some ways is probably, you know, probably a better Yeah. access point actually coming off of 401. Um Okay. Are there any hour restrictions on when the site could be accessed? Like is it going to be during the day hours 7 a.m. 700 p.m.? Is it going to be in the into the evening when you may have deliveries coming in and being stored there or? Not really. The the use of the location will be mainly office hours. uh mainly because we have the other offices use is not listed. So I might play into part maybe if my uncle decides well I don't want to use it as a storing goods then I want to rent it and put an office administration in there then it will be only office hours but from our side from our uncle's p purpose it's only office hours he doesn't do anything at night and he's more a family guy so he stays at home really after five I don't think I really have any other major questions besides the fact I mean we've already discussed the material. you you've already written that you are

in alignment with uh an exterior that is brick and um to you know link to some degree with the style of the scale of the neighborhood. I think that's what one more of the issues may be um kind of questions about the kind of character of Yes. Um I'm I kind of agree with you Mr. oil and the the site already has light industrial. This is on the overlay side of the highway. If this was if this was an inner lot, I would have more questions about it. Um there's already light industrial and CMX on the southern side. Um and it's a highway side. Uh so it seems, you know, more of a street frontage to me. Um, if there was no industrial there at all, this would be a bigger question for me. I think I feel more comfortable in it being a storage building kind of transitioning from heavier light industrial to the south to maybe acting as a buffer to the homes. But yeah, I mean I would note it from the uses they're proposing um you know they're limiting themselves to just those two um and the size of the site and their 12% impervious that um they would just not be able to effectively have a large building there. Um so that with without a master plan without you know seeing the site layout um we we have uh an image of the scale of of the development at least. Um so that's something that you know you can

consider when you're um thinking about this site. And I appreciate the applicant narrowing down his permitted uses. That that gives me a little more comfort in narrowing tailoring that to that site. I would note that the applicant was working directly with staff. They did not um use a land use lawyer. So, they have been very receptive um to us and and council and I'm sure you as well just uh for input since they were doing this essentially on their own, but they wanted to do things as they're supposed to missing something. always uh you know I'm I'm looking at the uh notes from the town meeting and you know from the residents that attended. I mean the questions weren't questions that were I don't want you to build here type of question. They were just what is it going to be? Um what's the size of it? How tall is it going to be? Um, and so yeah, you know, I'm not picking up any controversy in in all of those notes. I'm just not. Yeah. Right. And that's, you know, and we don't have any here. Um, so, you know, that that helps me to see that perhaps the neighbors are not as majorly concerned about that considering that there are other uses that are light industrially. And may I add, uh, the use of the bios well that we're implementing is because the neighbor on the north side of the property is having issues with the irrigation system on his property as well. So since we're doing the reasoning

and we're doing we're planning going back and forth tuning all the proposal, we installed that bio as well. So it helps and benefits his property so it doesn't get all muddy because there's a lot of strongware trap on it. So that's why we put that as our proposed condition too. Well, thank you for thinking about the neighbors and being a good neighbor in that. I think that's a really important thing to perhaps consider in this. Um are there any other questions for staff or for the applicant at this time? Okay. Well, um um well, this is the time that I ask if there is anyone uh uh um that would like to speak in favor or against u the application that is here tonight. And seeing none, um do we have a motion so that we can discuss uh the next step? I I'll do that. Mr. I move that the planning commission accept the consistency statement drafted herein as our own written recommendation regarding the consistency of the request with the town's adopted land use plans and recommend approval of case number CZ24007 to the town council. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Miss Lodges. Uh we have a motion and a second. So before we uh do a vote, is there any other discussion on this item? We have no discussion. So we can um All right. There's a motion on the floor um to find the proposal consistent and recommend approval. Um and I will call the vote. Mariah Bishop I. Ralph

Carson. I. Philip Jefferson. I. Jihan Hajes. I. Cherry Phillips. I, Michael Voiland, I. That's six eyes. Uh, the motion passes. Thank you so much. They pass our motion. Um, I I'd like to thank Thank you all for thinking about something that would not overrun that neighborhood of something that would be large and off-putting for the neighbors. um and trying to fit in at least with a size that is reasonable within a kind of an overlay that makes sense. So, thank you for that. No, thank you. You planning uh it's really been a really nice journey with planning and tuning all these just to see how everything works and understanding how every project comes up to life. So, it's been a pleasure. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Uh so we are at action I um reports now. Report from the planning director. Do we have any planning director? No. Jeff is um um taking a wellness day and so I don't have anything to report on his behalf. Okay. Well, thank you. Any reports from planning commission? Mr. Carson I know has a report for housing and Mr. Van next. Um just to update everybody on the affordable uh housing work that we've been doing. Uh our last meeting as that task force was in January. Um town council continued their discussion on the task force recommendations at their February planning retreat. Uh we are working with the triangle community coalition to curate a panel of their membership to

meet with town representatives to discuss the report and council's recommendations. Uh TCC is a land use and development advocacy group uh whose mission is to influence land use policy that encourages a balance among economic growth, development, the environment, and community needs while advocating for private property rights. The task before us is focused on getting feedback from traditional developers of market rate housing and their input on the recommendation of getting their participation in meeting the town's affordable housing goals. So, the town manager and council has asked uh councelor Vance, councelor Dinger, myself and Miss Cardinus to participate in this discussion with the TCC coming up in May. And uh so it's kind of a followup to the task force and kind of going with the council's uh work coming out of the February planning retreat. So still in process, still still working with the community to see what uh what can be done there. That's really great to hear. It's great to hear that that has not just ended just because the task force meeting schedule or agenda has has ended, but that is there is moving into the next step. uh with our kind of larger I'd like to thank all the town staff that's been working on that, some of the folks here and Miss Joseph and uh thank you. You know, this this has been a a project that has been probably years in getting to where it's at now, uh as far as being an issue and now it's we're trying to address it. Um, and as the

staff's put a lot of work into this, so just commending them for all of their hard work. I agree. Thank you. And legal. That's very much appreciated. We've been, you know, most of our cases that come up then have residential. We ask that same question like someone always someone from the commission asked that question. How much is this house? How much other houses around it? How much is going to be affordable for uh our um Garner residents to remain here? Um, not just that we want, you know, people to move here, but we want people that live here to be able to stay here and not to be some reference. And just to give some feedback on some data that we had, Garner is as a percentage of population of Wake County and what Wake County's goals are for affordable housing. Town of Garner is way ahead of our percentage based on population. And that's without any regulation or statute. These are developers that are coming to the planning department and in discussion with them and and council members voluntarily bringing in the affordable housing component. So, I commend the staff for directing that uh in those discussions and and hopefully that'll continue and uh and and we'll we'll nail down some more uh perhaps concrete uh items to look at. Even better to hear garner forward, right? Thank you, Mr. Boer. Uh yeah. Um, there's a pad at Bojangles. Two and a half years later, there's a pad and it looks like they're they're

working at all due speed. Now, do we happen to know whether there will be a traffic light at Evolve in Benson? No, there will not be. Don't know. on that. Oh, there won't be or we don't know. I don't believe there's one proposed right now. Okay, that's going to be fun. Well, I guess once we see what happens with I will say there's still discussions with D. Yeah. Out there. So, yeah. Okay. Um, I've brought this other uh topic up before now that they've removed all of the construction trailers and other stuff for the VA building at that sharp corner on the southwest corner angle of Rand and Benson. That looks like it's a half acre. And I'm just curious whether that is there's some use in mind for that or will that be taken up by when they do redo Rand Benson and the stretch leading down to the Swift Creek Bridge. Do we know? There's no Yeah, there's no um proposals in um it does have existing zoning that is um different I believe on that corner versus the rest of the um site. Um it's just base CMX, not CMX conditional, but um it's a site somebody could put in a you know proposal at some point. It's it's it's small main. Yeah. If it's a half acre, it's a half acre. I don't know what could be done with it, but it's it

stands out more and more as they remove material and other stuff that had to do with the building of the VA. It's it's it's there and uh cars are starting to use it as a cut through to make the right onto Benson. So for what that's worth, that's something we need to perhaps just get to kind of keep an eye on. Yeah. Sure. That we're forcing. That's all I have. Anyone else? Planning Commission any reports or comments? Okay. Well, I have none either. So that being said, I will call our meeting ajourned. [Music]