Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening all and welcome to the June 13th, 2022 edition of the Town of Garner Planning Commission. Appreciate those who are in attendance. Um with that, we'll go ahead and move on to roll call. Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners. I will call the role. Gina Aent here. John Blasco here. Ralph Carson here. Philip Jefferson here. Vang Mau here. Sher Phillips here. Michael Voan here. That's seven members present.

All right. Fantastic. Um do we have a volunteer for the invocation? do it. Oh, gracious father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for all that you've allowed us to accomplish within it. We thank you for allowing us to gather tonight to discuss the town's business. And as we go into this meeting would be to glorify you and to glorify our town. All the blessings that you've bestowed upon us in Jesus name we pray. Amen. Uh, next up on the agenda, uh, meeting minutes. Any conversations or questions or comments about the minutes? Add one point of clarification on page two of six where it says that, um, I asked about whether the applicant intended to sell town homes to homeowners. The clarification is I just asked if they would be lease units or if they would be purchase units.

Other questions, comments? Hearing none. Do we have a motion? I'll make that motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Chair, the motion on the floor is to adopt the presented minutes with the amendment from Miss Avent. I will call the vote. Gina A. Hi, John Blasa. I Ralph Carson. Hi. Philip Jefferson. Hi. Vang Ma. Hi. Sherry Phillips. Hi. Michael Vylan. Hi. That's unanimous.

Fantastic. Thank you. Uh, moving on to our next order of business, conditional zoning map amendment request, CZ 2201, townwide resoning. Um, I think we've all had ample opportunity to research and review the documents and um, so if there's no opposition, I like to, you know, I think I think we I think we need a report from staff, but we can keep it brief and limited and not go into a ton of detail unless there's some specific questions, but sound good, David and Jeff? Um, so yeah, I won't I won't pull up all the individual slides. You have them in in your packet. Um, but mostly we just went through and checked on a few things particularly related to the commercial districts. Um, because those were uh divided up differently depending on the actual use that was on the property. Um, so some of the some of the default rules that we set in place um, didn't work quite like we thought and then we went back and were proactively thinking about um, making some changes here and there and then after the the text and the use table got squared away, we found out, well, we should have just kept should have just kept it the way it was. um we probably would have had fewer changes. Um so unless you have any particular questions about any one of the the areas that's highlighted to be done differently than what was originally drafted for zoning purposes. I'll be glad to explain any of them to you, but um otherwise we don't really have a whole lot to offer. Again, the the the purpose of this is to keep everybody's

status quo as close to status quo as possible. So, it's not to change anybody significantly up or down in terms of what they're entitled to do now. Um, but just get them the the most closely equivalent um district designation.

Sounds good. Um, any questions or comments for staff? Yeah, I I I just would like an example under non-residential zoning district changes on on the uh graphic there that it's in our packet. Yeah. Service business and I guess one of the splits in the proposal is to industrial heavy. Can you give me an example of that?

Sure. Um, so the service business district currently, I quite often will tell people that that district is actually more intense than I um even though it's in the commercial classification, it actually encompasses quite a few of the heavy industrial uses, just not the ones that are known to be super noxious. Um, so there's certain uses that are real heavy on outdoor operations. Um, but don't involve real loud noise or smells, odors, things like that. Um, that are allowed in service business. Um, but would not be allowed in light industrial or the community retail. So, where we had um some of those businesses that might have been real heavy on the outdoor use component, but not necessarily a use that would would generate one of those noxious industrial kinds of nuisances. Um, we potentially then did reszone a couple to to, you know, a heavy industrial use because that the focus of the commercial now went exclusively to commercial um and mixes of uses that play well with commercial.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. There there's um I was just trying to think of some actual examples. Um I don't have the whole map in front of me.

I don't either, but I believe like some around Yeah, there's probably a few around mechanical or even around like Rupert Road um back there behind Garner Station in that area. We had a lot of mix of service business and industrial type zones and there really was not much of a difference between the actual uses. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. like to ask a question uh Jeff and it's regarding um article 9 I guess 9.2 or page 9.2 uh and I brought this up previously about the site grading restrictions. Has that been reworked as far as the verbiage on that? Is this for the me for a second? Is this for the um this is not on the map. This is actually on the

It's in the Yeah, let's hold that. Let's get through this one first and then we'll move on to that. So, good question, but let's just Yeah. Any other questions about the map and the um that's in front of us. We have a motion on the floor then. Well, I guess I should ask if there's anyone in attendance who would like to speak in favor. None. Anyone in opposition? None. Got to do my duty. Um, at that point, I guess we can move on to a motion unless it's there's a a advantage to discussing both together, but I feel like it's probably very separate.

Um, yeah, your your reasons for consistency are probably going to be much different. So the ma the map is kind of one thing and the the text is another. Okay. Do we have a motion on the floor?

I will move uh I move that the planning commission accept the consistency statement detailed in section five of this report as their own written recommendation regarding consistency of the request with the town's adopted land use plans. And I further move that the planning commission recommend approval of CZ22-01 to the town council because it articulates and advances both the goals and benefits identified in the Garner Forward plan. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second before we take a vote. Any other discussion on the motion? Um, I think we're ready for a vote. The motion on the floor is to uh recommend approval of CZ 20201 to the town council. I will call the vote. Gina A. Hi, John Blasco. I Ralph Carson. Hi, Philip Jefferson. Hi, Vong Ma. Hi, Sher Phillips. Hi, Michael Boland. Hi. That's unanimous.

Great. Thank you. Uh, moving on to the next item, zoning text amendment request ZTA2201, the unified development ordinance. We can tackle we can tackle this one of two ways. Um, if if we're going to have more than a handful of questions, um, then I'd probably like to just step sequentially real quickly through each article and just say, "Hey, anybody have any questions on article one, um, and just go through them sequentially. Um, I just don't want to hop around because then I worry that I'll forget something that I wanted to point out to you." Does that sound okay?

That works. And then if there's if there's any highlights we need to, you know, mention as you go into each article, that would be helpful. But I think that approach will work.

Okay. Um, so we'll start then with article one. Any questions on that? The only thing that I have is just to insert the date of adoption once we get to that point with council. But otherwise, nothing has changed in this article since you saw the original draft. hearing none. Okay. Um, article two is the nonconformities chapter. Um, again I don't have anything. Um, I will caveat this by saying that uh the legal team and um from the town attorney's office and myself are still going through and addressing some legal things that we need to get make sure is right. Um so there may be some technical legal changes that will happen between tonight and when this goes back to council, but nothing that um you know is quote unquote up for debate. think things that are just have to be the way they have to be. Um but at this point in time, nothing nothing um proposed other than maybe a a legal issue here and there um for article two. No draft changes. Moving on to article three. Bear with me. I'm kind of turning on and off my tracking and comments here to

make sure. Um, again, article three, no uh substantial changes that have uh been prepared for you since it came to you last time. So, any questions on article three? Wasn't expecting much of anything there. Um, but now we're starting to get to some of the meteor articles. Um, so article four is our review procedures. And showing again nothing uh has changed in this article um prior to this coming or since coming to you at your last meeting. Any question four and again these articles were part of the 160D package um that was approved months ago. So hopefully hopefully there's not a lot. Alrighty. Um but now for article five, I know we do have some.

So let me get that pulled up. There are a couple of changes um that I we've kind of settled on even since uh we sent the new drafts out to you. I do want to highlight a couple of things. Uh we are proposing to call our new multif family districts actually MFA and MFB. For the last two iterations of the zoning ordinance, they've been known as MF1 and MF2. um to try to alleviate any confusion um which it there has been some already um because the new MFA as I'll call it now or drafted as MF1 is actually meant to take in the old MF1 and the old MF2. So a few people had looked at it saw that they were no longer MF2 and were now MF1 and that was raising an alarm unnecessarily. Um, so I think we would settle then on on MFA and MFB just to kind of help make that distinction more clearly. Be less confusion as well when we're going back and and looking at historical records as to okay which which MF1 or MF2 are are we actually talking about. Uh similarly with the industrial districts um I'd like to settle on LI and HI. Um, again, there's been a history, a long history of I1 and I2. Um, not that there's a whole lot different about them going forward, but again, just for historical purposes, being able to look back and more readily determine when these things have changed, that would be be helpful. Plus, the one and twos didn't actually

mean anything. And we actually have numbers used in the residential districts that do mean something. So um and then finally also then just on the residential um arterial overlay, we're not using the word arterial anywhere else particularly like in the street classifications and things like that. Um, so again, just to kind of be a little more consistent, uh, we're proposing to change that to the residential thoroughare overlay. And so I've changed those uh, currently here in article five. I'll have to go back before this goes to council and make sure that that gets changed consistently throughout the document. Um, but those three would would carry carry throughout. Um there's been a couple of just formatting things where things should have been capitalized where they weren't. Um on page 5-6 uh we create we corrected the um date underneath the culde-sac diagram. Um that actually should have been no lock created after the new adoption date. Um, just recognizing that something that obviously is approved under this new ordinance shouldn't be entitled to a variance um because it will have been created to meet the new requirements. But anything before that um could see um then on page 5-9

we have in the setback section um about the This happens more now than it used to because as the lots get smaller um and then if the builder changes the house they intended to put on the lot and try to squeeze it in and it should fit but the width of the house matches basically the width of side set back to side setback. We get a closing survey when the buyer goes to the bank and suddenly the footprint is encroaching into the setback. So we have to give we have to give a little administrative variance that says yes we know you didn't purposely do this but because things are tight these things are going to potentially happen. Um it is a little consuming to do um the the green card posted mailings uh to all the neighbors. Uh the what do they call that? Seat

certified mail.

Certified mail. Thank you, David. You I know you do it. So um so we as a practice though because quite often some of the lots are still in the builder's ownership or they know who they just sold it to. Um so we we accept have accepted written letters of consent. Um but just something that's notorized. So, we inserted that as a matter of practice so that we can keep doing that and not run a foul of of the rules that we have. Um, scroll through. Okay, then we're down to page UDO5-25. Um this is in response to a concern that we had from a number of folks. Um particularly in these MF districts for apartment buildings. Quite often the the peak of the roof is taller than 35 ft. Um but the rule is that they're not supposed to be above 35 ft. Um, currently the ordinance gave an exception that the roof could get above 35 if you increased the setback by a foot for every additional foot you wanted to go up. And we would let that stagger. So, as the roof went up, you know, you're another foot further away, you the roof can be another foot higher at that point. Um, that did not get carried forward into the draft. So, we proposed to put that back in. Um, and so you see that here, but we are capping it at 45 ft. Um, just because there is a and this is for the MF1 district. Um, apartments that will be in or in the MFA

in the new MFB that was created to allow taller buildings. So, the the cap really doesn't come into play. But for the existing apartments, they were created under that rule. We want to be sure that that rule doesn't throw them into non-compliance going forward. So that's why you see the new subsection B on page 525. Um on page 5-42 um there we made a clarification on uh driveth through windows um for restaurants. we under the current ordinance we sometimes stumble over the interpretation of how the restaurant's um definitions are broken down. Um so this again drivein refers to the actual use. So if it's a drive-in restaurant like a Sonic or something like that, that's what drive-in we're kind of reserving. Um but then drive through is for the actual lane with the pickup window. Um, I also have made some cleanups since this went out. Um, David brought to our attention, he's been looking at a few of the the more I guess the the uses that have tripped us up in the past. Um, so ve the whole vehicle service repair kind of thing um is one that comes up quite often. Um, so we did make some clarifications just in terms of terminology being used um, further down on page 542, but again,

nothing that changes. Um, the old overlay on page um, in the list of I think it's prohibited uses on 543. Um, use the old or the current overlay language and the current use breakdown. So um here we were saying that auto service was was allowed but then auto service was not allowed but that's because of how we we changed the the definition. So we struck out um vehicle sales and rental um is still there listed as item J. Um but then auto service stations, automobile repair shops, and car washes were really redundant things. Um we don't have those separately defined now in the draft ordinance. So we struck those, but they're all covered now by uh the prohibition on vehicle sales, rental or repair. And then at the bottom of 544, top of 545. Um, see, oh, again, this kind of is very similar to the the multif family um where the existing overlay did allow for higher buildings if again you increased uh the setback um for every additional foot. So, that has been has been restored. That last sentence of subsection one was struck because that was um actually redundant.

Articles five and six were the two where we made the most adjustments. So once we get past these two, we'll be okay, I think. That looks like the end of the substantive edits that we made. Does anybody have any questions on article five? Article six. Y'all are gonna make this too easy on me. I get worried when it's too easy. Um, alrighty. Article six. And we made some clarifications just related to um religious uses and short-term rentals that have um again those were largely legal things that we've been working on with the town attorney just to make sure that those are squared away in the use table correctly. um wh definition of multif family on page 6-11. Um again, that kind of comes from us dealing with developers currently. It the definition really didn't cover um multi- family units that are constructed like town homes. Uh so we wanted to be clear that that's where those that's how we're going to treat those types of products as multif family. Um so that was just a clarification

Then on page 6-46, I think this was something that may have come up since the packets went out. Um, not that it was something we couldn't interpret, but the decision was made for these vehicle sales, rental, repair, and service. At one point, there was discussion about those being an allowable use in the neighborhood commercial district if they were relegated to a certain size. Um, that decision was later decided not to to recommend putting those in neighborhood commercial. Um the use standards were still in there. So we're just striking out the use standards since um the recommendation is not to allow those in neighborhood commercial again. Not that they were before. I'm sorry if that sounded like they are currently, but the idea was is if they're small enough, would they be appropriate? And the discussion was really that they probably shouldn't be. tried to put a comment with all of the major things, but I'm not trusting that I did it with every um that's minor. Okay, here we go. Here's one where I know I can have some discussion with y'all or I know you'll want to. Um, so on page 6-78, uh, this has our proposed accessory

dwelling unit regulations. So since the time this has been drafted, we had a very very recent court case that came down just a few weeks ago um that made it pretty clear that you cannot have an ownership requirement. Um so when this was discussed in the committee um my sense of things was that folks felt fairly strongly about if we were going to permit accessory dwelling units that the owner of the property really had to be living in one of those units. So now we know though that we cannot require that. So the question becomes is given all of the other standards that you see there in A through I do we still feel it would be appropriate? Um my feeling is that the other standards are fairly strict. Um, you know, the size can't be super large. Um, you have to have a big enough lot to do it. Uh, and we've crafted that so it's not going to be available for the majority of homeowners in any subdivision to do it. Um, but for those that do have an extraordinarily large lot for the zoning district that they're in, they could. Um, we had some concerns from a few neighborhoods like Greenbryer um because of the way the recommendations were going at the time um for those districts to be zoned potentially R4, but we've since changed that now to R2. Um, so I feel again that there's

there's some lots that would qualify, but the vast majority would not. Um, I'd say it's probably in the neighborhood of maybe 15 to 20 lots in that entire neighborhood might qualify. Uh, in talking to my colleagues around Wake County of the jurisdictions who have allowed ADUs, um, their experience has been is that people are not breaking down the doors at this time to ask to build these. um they've had very few actual applications. So, part of me I I I can be good either way if folks just aren't comfortable with it, you know, and enough said. Um on the other hand, if we do feel that this is one way to help, you know, provide people, you know, certain people a less expensive option and chances are maybe homeowners will be the ones that make use of it versus investment folks. um you know, we could give it a try and then if suddenly, you know, things we find that we're getting, you know, 50 applications a year or 10 in a month, um we might want to pause and say, "Hey, is this let's review the cases we've got. Is this really the path we want to, you know, keep encouraging?" And at that point, you have a few, but you don't have a whole bunch that are going to be grandfathered in. So, I'm curious what you all think about that given that we cannot um insist on the owner occupancy requirement.

that not turn that into a if if the owner of the parcel doesn't reside there isn't that wouldn't that then become a rental property right the both both units would be rentals then at that point

you had the utilities connected through the principal residence and that is not owner occupied how does subject protection B come in when the ADU shall have permanent access to utilities and let's say the permanent resident who might be unrelated doesn't pay the utility bill would we still be able to require separate utility connections I

think section I kind of I says they can be separate.

Any recommendation for an extra public utility? Yeah. Meter. Um, so coupled with the owner occupancy, often these types of ordinances say that um, there won't be a separate meter, but I don't know why you couldn't require if you had separate meters, there wouldn't be the same kind of issue with that. I was just thinking if if the owner decided to move out, so then both parcels become rentals, possibly non-related, uh, and they not elect to have the extra public utility meter. It would seem to create a conflict with B. I I think it would behoove the owner of the home, whether it's a renter or not, to make sure that if there is still a renter in the accessory unit that the power is still active, right? I don't think that that would just be

our water. That would kind of defeat the purpose of providing that accessory unit. Um, so I I think it's kind of a circuitous kind of response. I don't I mean, I would hope that someone wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't rent an accessory unit and intend to turn off water and power because they didn't find a renter for the primary dwelling or if the I guess the concern is if the renter in the primary dwelling doesn't pay their bills and service gets cut off, it cuts off the accessory. the ADU is

and that would be unfair to them if they're so is there a way to have the language to be that the ADU must have their own separate meter you know meters and connections. I mean I kind of go back and forth because I think that's a a very strong point if if you have two renters but if I build a if I live at my house and I build an accessory unit for mom to live in do I really need a separate connection to meter? I mean, is there a harm in it? I don't know. I mean, I guess connection fees and additional, but I think the flexibility could be could be that it can have a separate

or is there language you could say that if both if if the primary residence is if both residences are are rented, then they must have a separate connections? That might be the better. I don't know if that's feasible. I mean, my suggestion would be that obviously you want if it's going to be an accessory dwelling unit, you want it to have access to utilities, right? And that perhaps the town doesn't need to get into the landlord tenant type relationship. Uh because some landlords will pay the util, you know, the utilities are included and and that, but um

you know, I I haven't encountered the issue of you know, one one unit or two unit. Normally, if there's multiple units on a single meter, they don't necessarily shut off, you know, services, but it also depends on the billing department of each potential utility. So I mean I I think it would be prudent to allow the option of multiple um meters and in the event that there aren't multiple meters that the property owners responsible for utilities and then they can handle it contractually with the various tenants

I I think for me the focal answer or question that I am seeking is whether to have the accessory dwelling unit as an investment or not. If the answer is no, it can't be a rental or investment then that point us to a direction where we can go. If the answer is yes, then it point us to a direction where we can go. So for me, for me again the focal point is can au be a rental or investment? I think that's a question and once we get that answer then we we have an answer or path to go to.

So basically under case law in the North Carolina courts is we c the town cannot regulate the occupancy of dwellings which means whether it's a single family home an accessory dwelling unit or something else it can be rented. It does not ha we cannot require owner occupancy. So um so it can be

then then in that case sounds like we can have a separate meter if both if both buildings are rented. That language perhaps could be inserted if both properties are rented but uh should have that a little bit open to

some individual uh cases that may come up. I mean if if if it's a family and it's the in-law suite, I don't see an issue with any of this. I just where where you cannot regulate uh that the owner has to be a resident of the principal or perhaps the ADU. Um, if you just say if it's if both are going to be rented, that may be the way to wrap that up with a bow. I think we understand the concern. So, we'll take the direction on that issue if this stays in that we'll resolve that. Um, so assuming that that would get resolved, are you all still in favor of keeping them in? Yeah, I I would be in favor of keeping ADUs regardless if it's two rentals or one rental, one owner, or however it works out. I think I I think they're an advantageous use. I think especially as we kind of move forward with the there's a whole lot of things, you know, whether it's housing prices is an opportunity to help with maybe with affordability, it helps with the aging population and care. Um it it sounds like up to this point, whether in Garner or elsewhere, it's not a no one's, you know, it's not the gold rush. you know, people aren't rushing out to um so I I my opinion is is is that we keep them in and and if it like you said, if it all a sudden we get 100 applications and maybe we need to rethink

things. But it sounds like I think even thinking about current land uses and lot sizes and anything that's being built that's new, there's no way you're having an ADU because you barely have a house, let alone I mean, you know, maybe that shed turn into I don't know, but it's really the older lots we're looking at. And I just Can I just ask for a clarification? Were you talking about keeping it in or out? Were you talking ADUs or were you talking about the owner residency portion? No, ADUs just generally

because it said that in the little side note it says likely does not allow for this regulation. So I thought maybe they were Yeah, just that specific. Yeah, I'm all for keeping the ADU in. They feel differently. what we keep ADUs in and it has potential to become a rental or investment. So therefore, it has a potential to have a separate meter connections whether it be water or electric or power.

Well, and we'll work to clean that up so that that's that that's clear.

Can I make can I just make just one comment? Uh I've been doing addressing for a long time and uh if a new meter is required, city of Raleigh will require a new address and there are there will be cases where there is no addressing room meaning because um of the of the sequence of addresses like if the address is 600 which is even the next address would be 602 604 for there are some cases where the addresses of adjoining lots do not leave room to assign a new address. So that um that could create a problem if a if a meter is required and then that requires an address and then there's not an address to assign it. That's just something that we've dealt with over the years assigning addresses.

602 and a half Wake County does allow a half. At least they did. Mhm. years ago. It's not ideal cuz mail gets mixed up and

one 600-2 or so. So So, so Wake County addressing, they're the keeper of the 911 addressing system. So while we come up with numbers, we have to run it through them to get final approval. So I think the good thing is

that's a manner We're not the only town that's discussing ADUs. Raleigh's also having that same discussion. Wake County has been meeting with our AIA to discuss design strategies for ADUs in county and in city Raleigh. So, that's a really good question, but I think that's something that probably more the jurisdictions coming together to kind of justify what that looks like for the county would help the county make a decision on how our addressing Alrighty. Um, I'll take you down now to page 6-91. Um, where we have parking lot sales. Um, we made a couple of clarifications that um, a parking lot doesn't always to qualify doesn't always have to be um on a property, just a property with an operating use. But it it didn't really acknowledge that you can have a commercial subdivision going on, which is where we typically see these kind of things happen where the grocery store goes in um but then there's all the out parcels and the out parcels are until they actually get developed are a good good place to to temporarily hold hold these kind of things. So, um, we made the clarification there that, um, it does include out parcels that are vacant, um, in a commercial subdivision. Um, but there still needs to be that first primary tenant, um, in place. It can can't just be a something without anybody. And then um we proposed striking out uh

subsection F which is that a temporary retail use operator shall operate not more than three such uses anywhere in the town within a single calendar year. Upon reflection, we thought that might be overly restrictive. Um, and that if someone really wanted to go to a different location every month, um, is that really a problem? Um so if somebody wants to sell and they can find a property owner who's willing to accommodate them um you know is is limiting them to just three times a year period um overbearing.

What what was the rationale for it in the first place? David, can you um do you really I believe the current ordinance has a limit of no more than three times a year on a particular site and this maybe that got misinterpreted. Um it it could have been this. The way this is written, the operator cannot operate more than three uses in the T based on the operator rather than the site. If that makes any sense.

Was that was that because there was concern that it would no longer be temporary that it was moving towards permanent or I'm trying to see the basis of why that was in there. Um, I I can't answer that for for F. I know currently there's a for for uh parking lot sales, it's no more than three permits on on any given site in a calendar year. So, somebody could go to an out parcel and have three um parking lot sales, whether it's seasonal sales, um fire that and and after three events on one parcel within a calendar year, they'd have to go to a different site, get property owners permission, and then get a permit from us. that requirement is still stated in E. Um, but for some reason F was added.

So, what that means is you just can't have a continuous uh temporary uses on one particular site all throughout the year. So, you because you could have different operators come in for three permits on one site, then another one coming on the same site for three permits. So the no more than three permits a year on a specific site prevents that type of scenario.

I like that thought process better than being restrictive. Uh so I striking out F, but I like restricting it to three times per. I feel like three consecutive days maybe restrict. I'm in agreeance with with striking F. I think let you know letting them move around. But I think three consecutive days. I'm just thinking about the uses I've seen in the past. You know, the firework sales at at at Target or Chick-fil-A or whatever that area, you know, I think they're there more than three days. The strawberry sales at the gas station that are there for two weeks.

We have we have a a separate section for seasonal outdoor sales in the next section down. And that would cover fireworks, uh, pumpkins, fall, um, Mother's Day flowers. So, those are for 45 consecutive days and Christmas trees. So, this really applies to the guy who sells the furniture or the the person who sells meat out of the back of their truck and Yeah. Okay.

about food trucks. Are they governed by this? food trucks we um really don't get involved in unless they want to set up permanently on a continuous basis. if they're only at a location for less than 4 hours. Um, we don't Yeah, I think I'm in agreeance with striking f, you know, let someone if if they're in agreeance with the owner of the parcel every weekend for however long, I guess. I mean, I

they would they would still be limited by, you know, the the three on that particular site, but they could potentially have four different property owners that they work with so that they could be somewhere in town every month. Yeah. I do have a question though. What's the rationale behind prohibiting on a vacant parcel or vacant use? I think it was A. David, if you could scroll up. I think it was letter A. Yeah, that should it's only allowed on a parcel that is currently that already has some kind of active use on it.

Yes. Yes. I guess what's the what's the reasoning behind prohibiting on a vacant parcel or a I think it's just it I mean one way or one rationale is is a commercial subdivision has the um the access for for transportation safety rather than just a vacant parcel say down on Highway 50 where you just have to just there's no um existing driveway or or access or parking area.

Plus, I think there's also the just kind of the oversight aspect of it that there's kind of somebody present um who's authorized it and if somebody's not supposed to be there, that makes sense. I I but I mean you know I think we all have seen those you know people who set up shop on a vacant parcel that may have once been a gas station or may have been something else but so but no I I I can appreciate the reasoning I was just curious.

Doesn't the owner of the lot still have to sign off use of the lot for the permit anyway? Yes. For a temporary use permit, the owner has to sign the application. Whether it's a vacant lot that's not that doesn't have a use or if it is have a use as

that's assuming they got the permit in the first place because maybe that lot owner is long gone and lives in Texas and you can sell meat out of the back of your truck without anyone giving you a hard time. I mean, the right way to do it obviously is a permit, but I I could I could see a lot of cases where maybe that doesn't happen. Like, you think about the truck parking on 50 where the Bojangles is supposed to go and they kind of come they're there and then all a sudden they all leave because I think someone raises a stink and they kind of come back a little bit later and you know that was the last um item in article six. Does anybody have any other questions on article six? There was that we will strike F. Alrighty. Well, we got through those two. So that's um that is good. Article seven. And I don't believe there were any changes here in article 7 apart from a few um legal issues that I discussed with the town attorney earlier today. Yep, that is the case. So, did anybody have any questions on article 7? Again, this was one that was part of the 160D package. Article 8, subdivisions, streets, open space and utilities.

showing any not showing any edits to this article either. So, any questions on article 8 quite a bit of this was moved to the engineering manual. So, we did cut down this article quite a bit. Um I do have a comment or question and in regard to in regard to the utilities when a rowway gets widening or when utilities get moved around um the placement of the valve boxes or manholes um typically Um, the road user doesn't like to run over those specific items all the time. Do we have some language or some verbiage for the development of those utilities to make adjustments of the top of the manholes so that they will be out of the paths of the of the well paths? do have anything like that that we can provide either a best practice or some kind of a verbiage because I that's that's that's one thing that I don't like when I go down a subdivision road is I hit the the manholes all the time and there seems to be always where my will path is and and so I think a lot of the roads um is

going to be city streets and um I I know that DOT has in their best practice or do recommend that those umes or top their manholes be moved out of the well path if possible.

That's probably not something that we would put in the UDO, but Leah, I don't know if in the manual if we have any kind of Yeah. For for example, I I know that we just improved the railway between US70 and East Corner in that area and and I used to take that all the time, but since they make the improvement on it, it just seems that when I use that road now, I would hit the manholes all the time. So right now I'm stopped using it as much as I would like to use because what that does really it's it causes um alignment issues on my vehicle and and I would have to have it aligned all the time and it costs I think uh under $200 to have it realigned and so I think that that does does have some effect to the roadway. users. So,

we'll take a note of that and um see if there's anything we can do. Thank you. All righty. Anything else on article 8?

Looking at 8 8.35. Um some of the recent dead end streets that have come up. Is there Everything everything now has to have a proper turnaround or if it's meant to be continued they will be allowed to do a temporary. Um but yeah that's all covered. couple um I think are we still changing the designations from I1 I2 to HI and L. Okay. So just a couple places in the charts where I guess they're still

Yes. And and in some of the previous I just want to make sure I call that out. Yeah, I have that on my list to go through each one and do a little find and replace. That's probably the That's probably the best invention in Microsoft Word that although if you misspell it the first time, you may miss it, but um yeah.

Okay, then article nine. Um, article nine, I'm not showing any changes to article nine since it was first brought to you. So, do we have any questions about parking and design for article 9? Wasn't miss your question earlier? Yeah, the 9.15.

We brought that up and I think there's some there's some edits there, I guess. So, my So, I know my concern was uh Oh, there it is. Yeah. Under Well, under B

have the wrong I apologize. I have the wrong one pulled up on my So in B where it says in no case shall mass grading exceed 20 acres per stage. So that in no case that kind of that's a hard and fast rule. A lot of the other jurisdictions have no restriction. Some of them have 25 acres, some of them have 27 acres. I think that's going to impact the cost and the implications for a lot of these developments whether you know there's a there's a development going on now I believe it's rock quarry road that's 10 phases and the topography means you have to clear the whole site to bring all your dirt from one end to bring it up to grade your site to make everything work well this basically would would kill that project because You also have to have all your utilities in. Well, if you have to have all your utilities in per phase, it's not workable. A lot of these lines are gravity fed. And under your utility definitions, um, you call basically everything underground utilities. So, you're saying that your your your telecom, uh, your gas, your oil, your electricity, all that would have to be in per phase. and that that's just something that's not workable and I'm wondering why they could not just change that so that it's on a case-bycase basis and that would be part of the review process. So if you have a particular plot that uh may have topography issues um cut fill issues that you could address that on a case-byase basis. the way the way

this is written, uh that's going to severely limit uh how work is done and you may lose projects out to other areas that don't have these restrictions. What what would happen? And I'm not overly familiar with this particular uh parcel on Rock Corey. I just I have a little bit of knowledge about it. You have to go all the way to the back to get that dirt to bring it out to the front. So if if you go by this rule, that means you're going to have to import hundreds of thousands of yards of dirt to get the first phase done. Then you got to go cut all the rest and then export that and find a place for it. And I just don't think that the developers are going to be too keen on accomodate this language. I know we had talked about it previously. Um, but if you have a site that's 30 acres, that's basically saying you're going to have to do it in two phases depending on which phase you want to start with. Again, you've got gravity issues on your infrastructure. Um,

I really kind of see those as design as design issues.

Well, that's that's why I was saying it it should almost be stricken and just do it on a case by case when you apply for the permit, which would include your your erosion and sedimentation permits and things like that. by putting this language in here uh it's really it's really hurting uh development in Garner I believe I may have to disagree with that only only because I think that if we if we take that out completely it opens up the it opens up a full clearcut of landscape without really thinking about how to preserve in the design process the existing site condition as we move forward. And I know a lot of our me I know a lot of our our citizens are concerned about clear-cut like of of sites. And I think we need I think we I think we have to be very very aware of that in that um process and that's really an engineering and and a design solution on the development side and that's kind of their

well yes but but clear cutting again topography a lot of those are addressed in your erosion phasing plans which the engineers design that gets submitted and that gets and that's fine, but limiting it to a certain age most cases, most of the track developers are going in and cutting everything anyway, whether you do it in phases or not. But I just don't see how you can put and and install all your utilities and all your gravity because your gravity lines may run opposite to the topography. And that's that's where I don't I I think it's a case by case and you you engineer it that way, but putting these restrictions on are going to be problematic because most most of your larger tracks now are 100 plus acres, 150, 160 acres. some of them much larger than that,

you know. Then my question is, are we making this change for the developer? Are we making this change to preserve the natural landscape? Like which one is most

I guess my my question would be what are you what are you preserving? Again, if you're looking at an overall track as a developer, you're looking at minimizing what you're importing and exporting, and that's where these these sites are basically getting leveled or as close to it as they can. And whether you restrict it, you're still going to say, "Okay, well, somehow we're going to have to build this and get the utilities to work." And it may not in a lot of these cases. and have numerous examples off the top of my head where that restriction would not work in subdivisions. This is a a tricky one because I you know personally I see both sides of it is from a design from a you know these builders are going to clear you know at the end of the day they're going to clear 80% of the trees because that the 20% they have to keep you know whether they do it all of it you know next week or they do it you know a quarter next week and then another quarter six months from now and another quarter you know nine months from now. But from the citizenry side and and seeing these 100 acre tracks just get leveled and they sit there clearcut for a year and a half before anything vertical goes up like I'm seeing it near my neighborhood and it's just you're like why in the world? Um and it's it's a tricky one because I understand the intent. I think the execution is a little I think as Ralph is saying is is ch is more challenging than I can think of an example here in Garner where the developer had a phase one that had several well I'll say a hundred roughly homes

but the the sewage pumping station was in phase two. So in order to get your home sold in phase one, now you have to also do phase two. But that involved also going through phase three to get your utilities in. So it it there's an engineering process to this and I think that that I'm just looking at the 25 acre limit and and it says, you know, where all your uh all your on-site infrastructure has to be in and I think they've tried to craft some flexibility in there. Um, so I I feel like that would be what you were just speaking to would probably be covered by number three, B3. Um, so if you have to get your utilities from further away or

kind of other requirement that that might be covered there. I did notice that they did exempt propose to exempt the HI district for what would be those larger industrial sites. Um

well I I'll give you another example in Kerry where they had a 120 acre site and they split it originally it was in three phases they split it up into six so they could start selling homes this there would be an issue there because you would go in and you'd have to have phase one complete which means they could start building coming out of the ground but you're doing blasting 100 ft away, blasting that close to homes uh that potentially could be up and being sold would be problematic as well. And again, I think just just putting in that restriction if they removed it and just left it open to an engineered design and approval and there's a whole process that has that that would have to go through both on the town sometimes do uh NCER. That's a whole process and I think that could be best done through erosion phasing versus capping it at 20 acres and saying the utilities must be just my I feel like the intent of the ordinance is there that you don't have these huge sites that get wiped out on day one and sit there vacant, you know, or clear-cut for two years or you also prevent that happening and then the developer goes belly up and that sits there. So, the intent is there. I just I kind of I'm with Philip in terms of the intent. I'm with Ralph in terms of the execution

and you're sitting right in the middle. I sit right in the middle. I wish I had a solution. you know, my solution would be to totally take away mass grading altogether, but that's unrealistic. um go back to the idea of you build what's the topography you know and respect the earth but I I don't know how you do that and and still have development because the way people well there's a lot of reasons why but um

and and I don't think you know I don't I know we've had this discussion before about uh you know the character of our existing landscape in Garner that we know we don't necessarily want to have um sloping sites just completely leveled for slab on grade construction. That perhaps is not what the site is best used for. That may need to be crawl spaces. And so I think that um that's part of the design problem for the design team and the developer to figure out if that property is of a necessary need. And and I think three gives us gives them enough access to be able to get to that infrastructure that's potentially needed. Not only is are we trying to, you know, preserve the landscape as long as we can, you know, we still have animals and that are being completely displaced when we completely take away that amount of landscape in that short of time. Um, and you know, that's that's part of our environment and that I think that's really important. I think we need to think about that. So th those are those are my those are my points. I'd be curious and maybe we should have done this beforehand, but just to understand how many how much land is available that's how many parcels are out there that exceed 20 acres and I can't imagine there's a whole lot left.

Well, it's it's it's hard to know and every time you think that's the case, somebody assembles something that ends up being that big or larger. Um, you know, I I continue to be surprised at what comes in the door because suddenly somebody's crafted 10 or 12 parcels that, you know, you just didn't realize were part of a family or maybe not all in the one family, but there's two or three families that are somehow kin to each other. It's not and it's not all vacant land either. Some of it's right going to be tear it's going to involve tear downs and

there's there's also restrictions and that's outlined in in state guidelines. But if you have a very large site and you're working in parts of it, the other parts once you stop working in it for 7 to 14 days, you have to stabilize it. So a lot of times you'll have the clearing folks come in and do one or two or three But think there's ways to do it on a case-byase basis instead of limiting that. So I'll just leave what I think most of the cases that if I recall that we've seen come through here, it's about 20 acres or less. So, I was I was wondering if the solution can be that we increase the acorage a little bit and that would help some of the issues that Mr. Ralph Carson is concerned with and and then it would help kind of alleviate some of those um natural environment issues that Mr. Phillip Jefferson is concerned with. So maybe if we increase the acreage a little bit and then also the review of this thing or the case when it comes through it can be a case by case uh uh situation as well that would help to alleviate the concerns because again I think like you said most of the cases or what I recall most of the cases is is 20 acres or less. However, we would be surprised all the time, too. Depends on what comes through the door. We'll never know. But, uh, that's if if we do that with that help

to resolve some of the concerns.

I'll throw this out there. Um, anybody else can speak up if they feel differently? Um, I'm not opposed to potentially just so here here here's a here's an approach I think that is reasonable um, and something that would not be overly burdensome as most developers are very astute as to what's in the UDO and if they see something that's going to be an issue for their project, they approach us early. Um, I don't really have a whole lot of heartburn about because of the intent. Maybe it's not quite the way it needs to be. Um, but I'd rather, I think, start with this and maybe craft an exemption or two going forward as cases come up. then try to be more like, "Oh gosh, I wish we had tightened that up a little bit more."

If a resoning comes through, it might have an accompanying text amendment along with it.

And and if it's truly something that was an unanticipated kind of consequence. Our practice has always been that we do not then require the applicant to pony up the um the fee and all that. We'll take it on as a town staff sponsored amendment and push it through together with it. I do feel like the the request to do something was pretty strong. Have we got it all figured out? Probably not. But I, like I say, I think I'd rather approach it from let's start with this and then open it up kind of on that case by case basis as we find find things that may be appropriate to suddenly have a standard for.

I think that would work. Um but again just looking at what other jurisdictions are the 20 acres is one of the lowest acreages in the vicinity. So maybe there's do what you're suggesting and and going forward but maybe just increase that 20 acres to match town of Apex. anything else that comes out, we do it through text amendments and do something like that.

So, I can go back to Stuart and ask them because I know they did survey and I and I do kind of recall being told that this was probably the the most stringent of sizes. Um, so let me go back to them and see if there's more of a more common commonly used as opposed to the most restrictive.

Yeah, I think if they if they come in closer to where the other competing jurisdictions are and then do any amendments above that like you suggested, I think that would solve the issues along with the erosion plans that come in and be, you know, being reviewed. I would just say let's continue to think about our residents of Garner and what we think our residents would like for us to see as opposed to perhaps what we think only the developer would need. I know there's got to be a common ground, but we're we're we're in the business of taking care of our town first. Um that's that's kind of all I'll say. But I I I completely agree with Mr. Trezenberg. think of that that kind of case by case of the zoning that perhaps that's when you make those recommendations. If there is really a a a problem that causes a project to completely not be a able to be moved forward then that would be that case by case situ.

So how about this? We will we will research what that threshold is around us. We will ultimately as staff choose one to recommend. Um but we will have all the information prepared for council um so that they can quickly choose one or the other. Works for I think that works for us. Thank you.

Apologize. I did not have my my um review tab turned on for article 9 because I was thinking you had mentioned article 9 and then for some reason I was thinking it was somewhere else. So any other questions on article nine? There were no other substantive changes to that. I think one of the other things that I saw was the parking lot. We've have some cases in the past where some developments want to have a reduction in the parking lots. We do still allow that moving forward with what we're doing here. Okay.

Although many of the um quite a few of the non-residential parking ratios went down. So hopefully we won't have to be entertaining as many of those requests, but the option is still there. Um if certified by a traffic engineer have a question on 935 material requirements. Um, so when you say no metal laps siding, does that refer to horizontal? Because I've seen metal used in certain architectural in a very very nice way, but it's it's very minimal. I I don't want to make make sure we're not prohibiting some use of it because because it it can look very modern, very industrial, but understanding we don't want the whole thing to be clad in metal. So, I don't know if there's a way to craft that a little differently or

um or maybe I'm just not reading. I I think it was just very specifically targeted at the old making sure that the old aluminum lap type mimic sighting was not an option, but to allow other types to be permitted as appropriate.

Okay. else on article 9. All righty. Article 10 in this article. It's showing I had something Nope. Oh, yep. I turned formatting off and it went away. So, anything on article 10 on 10.3.4 plant material standards in the chart. I I feel like we I feel like it should be expanded to allow or well one to sort of identify or delineate um large evergreen tree such as like a a holly or a cedar. I mean, I guess it kind of falls under understory or ornamental tree, but it's um I think there should be listed standard minimum height for or if it's understory or ornamental or large evergreen. I think that's it's just not readily clear that that's gota I want to say that I I think if you go to the definitions which a necessary evil sometimes. Um I I want to say that I feel like when I went to the definitions it gave me a very clear

if the mature height is this or this that for an evergreen it falls into this category or the other. Um, but I will double check that. And if not, um, is there I mean, yeah, typically they're sold inspect by height, not by caliber. Um, because you Okay. Which is I think a big piece of it.

Gotcha. Okay. We can we can that clarificate. Could that be something where we just exempt the caliber requirement and stick with the height requirement for evergreens? You could I mean I would just say you could add another line to your chart that says large evergreen trees maybe if you need to say you know minimum mature height whatever but then you would have minimum height at install at six feet minimum uh caliber is NA. Okay. But overall, if if it's a if it's a tall if it's a if it's a evergreen that's going to reach 35 feet, eight feet appropriate. And if it's something smaller,

I mean, typically like those, you know, like the smaller magnolia, the cedars, the American holl, they tend to be sold at 6 to 8 feet. That's kind of generally. It's true. I bought a few of those myself. Um,

I mean, you know, I think like the the larger southern magnolia is sold bigger, but like a um a K Paris or a or a little gem, you know, they get to be 20-ish feet tall, you know. Um, that range 20 25 ft. You know, an eastern red cedar six feet is pretty standard for install. We will insert appropriate evergreen species standards in 10.34A. Um I apologize for not looking at the definitions for this next question, but okay.

Um ornamental grasses, do those fall under the shrub category or will those be a separate?

They do and they are allowed. That's how we've done it under the current ordinance and I believe that's how we discussed carrying it forward else. Oh, I did make a clarification at the request of a resident um on 10.3.5. This should be on page 10-15 um for installation under C site triangle clearance. Um this should be something that we're doing as part of our TRC review. I don't know how astute we may have been to it in the past. Um, but I did just make some clarifications there that we don't shouldn't just be checking sight triangles at street intersections, um, or where a drive backs out onto a street, but still at parking drive aisles or where two internal private driveways come together, we should still be checking that site distances are not blocked there. Um the resident brought up several locations within the original White Oak Shopping Center along Shenstone and just noticed which is a private street. Um several issues with sight distances there. So

Yep. especially at those roundabouts. Yeah. Yeah. They're bad.

Yep. So other than that, I think that was the only other thing of substance that we had in article 10. Any else from y'all ready? Article 11 uh environmental and floodplane rigs. I our staff in planning did not change really anything here that I can recall. Most of this and I think I noted this in my comment um at the beginning of 11 I think it's 11.4 for um Miss Harrison, our assistant town engineer. Um you might be able to explain this better than I, but I guess we had

Yeah, I guess we had something new that we had or something we had to renew and so there was a state agency review of our ordinance involved. So if you just want to touch on that real quick.

Sure. Um yeah, so this happened to kind of coincide with when we were doing this UDO update anyway, but um for the flood plane ordinance, there's a couple things. Um we FEMA has done new flood maps, the ones that we currently have for the area from 2006 to map the floodway and the flood plane. So we finally have new maps um which will be effective in July. So we are required to adopt a new ordinance to make those effective within our town ordinance. And then the other piece of that is Wake County is now requiring that um so formerly the what you would consider the jurisdictional flood plane is the area that's expected to flood in a hundred-year storm is kind of how you hear it. It's a 100-year flood plane. So Wake County has now kind of developed a they call it a future conditions um 100-year flood plane. So based on the Wake County land use maps, they have done a mapping of what the 100-year flood plane will look like in future conditions if the area builds out the way that their land use maps predict that it will. Um, so that has become jurisdictional as well. So we had to update our ordinance to reflect all of that language to also include the future conditions flood plane. So those were the two major changes. Um, in practice, it probably doesn't change a whole lot for us because we basically prohibit development within the flood plane anyway. Um, so we're not, you know, reviewing nearly as many flood plane development permits as a lot of other places are because we generally just don't allow it. And then because we have the conservation buffer as well, which lies outside of our the 100red-year flood plane currently, um, that covers a lot of that future conditions area that is now just jurisdictional beyond the town as well. So those were the two major changes included.

While she was giving you that information, I scanned quickly the rest of the article. Um I did not planning did not have any other changes um for that. So what you are seeing is again just stuff that has we've needed to update to pass state review of our flood plane ordinance um and things that the town attorney's office identified. questions on that. All righty, two to go. Article 12, signage. Um, most of this here has been um reorganizing. This is an article that I've wrestled with uh several times during my review. Um, when we first got it back from the consulting team, they were looking for some larger kind of directional type input. And I'll admit, we kind of waffled as to how we wanted to have it structured. Um, but I'm I feel better about how it's organized now. Um, we've gone through and made a few updates from a legal standpoint about some things related to billboards and such. Um, really the one issue that I wanted to go over with y'all here was dealing with the

um the yard signs which is now in the section 12.6 six other signs allowed without a permit and it's subsection seven uh temporary yard signs. I canvased um jurisdictions across the state to see if anybody had something that they were particularly uh I want to say proud of, but maybe maybe that's the okay word to use um in terms of how they had crafted their sign ordinance um after the the big court case at the Supreme Court a few years ago. And um so I in in the town attorney's office, we we discussed this this afternoon as well. What we've kind of settled on is to allow one 3 square foot non-illuminated sign per street frontage. Um it needs to be a rigid material on a metal or wood stake. Um we've covered placement. We've given it a maximum height of four feet. Um, again, we're trying to be consistent with some of the other sign types that we have in the ordinance so as not to try to treat these differently. Um, we did make an adjustment to um for the kind of the election day voting exemption when folks can have more than just that one in their yard um to be just 30 days prior. Uh the feeling was is that if people are allowed to have one sign in their yard all year, um

that that's kind of their opportunity to express a you know, a voting related thing outside of that window if that's what they choose that they want to use that for. Um so hopefully then we're not being too restrictive and this would actually put us more consistently with some of the other state requirements for um political signage. Um, so again, remember this is to kind of cover whether, you know, a real estate agent is going to put their real estate sign in your front yard or if you're going to have a yard sale or a garage sale. Um, if you do want to put out a, you know, a political type sign or just have your say about something, um, you can have one in your yard, um, placed appropriately. And that was the part that honestly I was really struggling with was the whole at election time folks who do you know quite often you'll see two or three because they want to you know endorse two or three candidates and but you don't want to necessarily have that many all year wrong.

So how do you craft that? So that this was one idea that we got from a a jurisdiction elsewhere in the state.

This doesn't prohibit HOAs from enacting stricter requirements. It doesn't. But I do believe that as Terry and I were discussing today, I think there are limits or there's going to be or there are rules currently that HOAs have to abide by. Um, you can probably speak to that better than I can. So specifically in these shared communities like HOAs, they can regulate all manner of of issues which is by contract basically by their covenants. Uh but state law does protect the American flag and protects political signs. So there's a breakdown of whether the covenants were before 2005 or after, but they have to specifically notify the members of that. But with respect to um political signs, they have a little bit longer period. They allow 45 days before the election. Um, my suggestion was the 30 days keeps it consistent with the right-of-way regulations from the state so that it makes it easier for enforcement personnel um to not have to worry about whether it's in the rightway or it's on private property. Um but at any rate if um the HOA cannot be more restrictive than the applicable jurisdiction uh but if say Garner didn't have any kind of political sign regulation um the state statute does um say uh what they can do and it's it does allow it to be a

little bit larger 24 in by 24 in Um but it doesn't have anything about like the height restriction or or those kinds of things. So um and that's particularly you know say it's a either single family or townhouse on their own property. That's different than the common areas that may be jointly owned by all of the members of the community. It's been our experience that in the sign companies, you know, four square feet like a 4x4 is just not a common um dimension. Um most signs are either 11 by 17 or 12 by 18. Um and that does match the sign the size of our public notice signs. Um so that's why we kind of felt We could ask that they just be limited to three square feet but 12 by 18.

As I cautioned when we were speaking today um the regulation of signs is a dynamic area of the law. So um and it's clear that political in order to know it's a political sign you have to read the sign and it's therefore contentbased. So this may be subject to challenge around the country in the future. Uh but for right now we are modeling on what the state um has allowed for uh state roads and state right of way and that is the statute that enables the the town to also regulate political signs and signs in the right of way. political signs in general taller than 12 in? You mentioned it's kind of like the zoning signs, but most political ones, aren't they?

I'm sorry, I meant 18 by 24. I said 11 by 17 and 12 x 18. I meant 18 by 24. We're scrolling through. Um, did I catch some markups on the flags under 12.6? trolling fast, but I thought I had seen something.

I don't think so. Should have just been If anything, there was some formatting showing anything on article 12. Okay, article 13 is the definitions. Um, nothing substantial there either. So unless you all have any questions on article 13, bring this to a close. We'll go back to the definitions just based on our conversation a minute ago. Under shrubs, I don't see what may be referred to as an or as an ornamental grass. So,

I'll double check that and correct as needed. I think uh a shrub just generally refers to a a woody plant where ornamental grass is herbaceious. Nothing else. I'll add a definition for that, but reference that they follow the shrub standards. Possible to have the blood plane emailed out to us. Just Any other final closing comments, questions? I would like to just commend staff for taking on this effort. Um, I know it's been a long long long process. Um, and I think you all did a great job with it. Um, and I'm excited to be part of it in a couple different ways. So, um, we know it'll never be it'll never be perfect. There'll always be disagreements, but, um, I think you all did a great job to kind of push it forward and and make some big improvements. and and I appreciate the flexibility to listen to what we have to say and what the residents of Garner have to say and and try to make adjustments to make everybody happy, which is impossible. So, so I commend you all and thank you.

Second that. Thank you for that. Just be prepared. There will be some kind of technical amendments within the next year for all the stuff that we missed. Expect correcting now. So with that, do we have a motion on the floor? Anybody?

I move that the planning commission accept the consistency statement detailed in section five of this report as their own written recommendation regarding the consistency of the request's adopted land use plan. And I further move that the planning commission recommend approval of ZTA because it is consistent with the Garner forward comprehensive plan and that it directly addresses several several plan recommendations and over time the adoption of these recommendations will encourage positive growth within the town of Garner.

We have a motion and a second. One last chance for discussion on the motion. We're ready for vote. The motion on the floor is to recommend approval of ZTA 2201 to the town council. I will call the vote. Gina Aan. Hi. John Blasco. I Ralph Carson. Hi. Philip Jefferson. Hi. Vong Mau. Hi. Sherry Phillips. Hi. Michael Voin. I. That's unanimous. All right. Fantastic. Jeff, I believe this next item is any reports from you.

Um, actually don't have anything prepared. Um, I spent the last the first the last hour before your meeting getting ready for this. Um, but no, thank you all for your time um that you have put in. um you've obviously had a little more discretion as to how much you know you want to but um thank you though for for your continued uh efforts. Um it's it's a lot to try to absorb and hopefully you all feel that you were at least able to hone in on the areas of particular interest to you and um get your get your voice heard as part of that. Um, but yeah, other than that, Brian or David, do we or Leah, do you have anything that you

The last two cases? Yes. Yes. The general case or not the general, but the CZ lights. Yes, those were both both approved by council at the last meeting. Um, I'm just trying to think real quickly off the top of my head. Gabby, I think next month might be a heavy um agenda. We've got Yes. three or four resonings. I Yeah, there I think we have four going to council um at some stage

assemblage which was continued. Walters Buffalo and then we got two CZ lights I think.

So things things will start to probably pick up a little bit again here. Um just that we had a huge a huge push of applications back in March and so some of those are starting to slowly get through our technical review. Um so those will be those will be coming. I've I've heard Philip there may be a Timman's group or two in the uh upcoming. I keep getting pestered at work if I've had any cases to review. So I I would not be surprised if one or two comes up. Yes. Um well please yeah let me um know beforehand please

um the only other thing I can think of is that Gabby may have a transportation related survey out there. So I will ask her if she does um to specifically send that out to y'all. For some reason I'm just thinking that there's pedestrian

Yes. for the pedestrian plan. So, if you have not seen that, um, please do pass it. I've heard and I actually sat in on a on a briefing earlier or last week. Um, the response rate has been good and it's been geographically very diverse. Um, it's not particularly diverse in other socio type breakdowns. So, um, still want to get that spread as much as possible and still hopefully get continued good response rates. Um, but I'll have her send that out to you and feel free to mail it out to email it out to your contact lists and neighborhood organizations and um, definitely something that uh, we need to hear back from from citizens on. Where was that sent out already? How how

um I believe primarily so far it's been through the website and the um public information's various newsletters and things like that. They also have been they're taking it to some events as well where they're doing giving people hard copy options. Um it's still got the rest of the month um for it. So, there's still several weeks before it is scheduled to close. Um, but we'll get that out to you first thing tomorrow. Um, so I guess that brings us to our portion. So, a reminder that next month is July, which means is anyone cycling off or are we all returning? Yes, that's right. With that comes officer nominations, elections, whatever you want to call it. Um, I am happy to remain as chair. I have no no strong feeling if someone else wants to take my role, that is fine by me. Um, I just ask that you make me aware and not just make it a coup just out of respect. Um but or if you have questions about being a chair or vice chair, I'm happy to have those conversations. Um but that those nominations will be coming up next month. And it's typical that we somebody basically nominates somebody else to be a position and then it's second and we take a vote on it. So um however that plays out, it plays out. But just wanted to remind everybody. So, if you have aspirations of sitting in the big chair, speak up. You can do it in private, in public, whatever. Um,

I think you're doing a wonderful job. Um, with that, I have nothing else. Anybody else? All right. With that, I will bring it to a close. We are journed.