Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Good evening. We uh will call our planning commission meeting for July 14th uh to order. Good evening commissioners. I'll call the role. Mariah Bishop here. Ralph Carson here. Philip Jefferson here. Jihan Hodes here. Ben Mills here. Sher Phillips here. And Michael Voand here. That's seven members present. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Um this is a a special evening um because um Miss Phillips uh will be rolling off of our commission uh tonight. Um we uh want to share with you how much your voice on this commission has been so important um to the town of Garner and to us. Thank you. And um you will be deeply missed. But know that you can always return after a certain point. Um, and we hope to welcome you in the audience at any time that you have feedback for us. And if there's anything that you see that the commission needs to do better, you know what that looks like. I do. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it. I appreciate my time. I appreciate Jeff. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity and uh you know to the commission tenant commissioners you guys are incredible and um I tell everybody all the time you know about the planning department and the work the a lot a lot of the work that goes into um what goes on what you see you know around the town of Garner. I said don't take it for granted because

um it is a lot of work and those guys are they're incredible. So I appreciate it. Thank you. on. There we go. Maybe I just need to speak into it a little more carefully. Um, but we do have a little going away present for you, a little plaque commemorating your two terms of service from 2021 to 2025. And uh, we will also let you take your name plate with you as well. Um, so yeah. And then I think we have somebody that we're ready to appoint. And I'm sure mayor, would you like to say anything or give her a shake on the way out? We've already talked. Thank you so much. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Sherry. No problem. And Sherry, it's been a pleasure to serve with you and thank you for all your support and your years on the planning commission. And we're definitely going to miss you. Thank you so much. I will miss you guys as well, but I'll be watching online. Definitely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your service. I'll be out the audience. [Music] Thank you, Sherry. Uh next on our on our on our agenda where on our item of agendas is our swearing in of our new appointed and reappointed uh members and um which has already been been done um uh previously. Um so at this time um we would like to welcome our new commission member uh forward uh Mr. Shane Banks. Um you can take one of any of the two seats if you like.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. And I I will say, Mr. Banks, as you as you as you take your role, feel free to ask us any questions. Um um starting out is always a lot of of new words and phrases and the commentary. So we are here to help you. Thank you. Um just like we help each other. Thank you. So welcome. Thank you. Um uh it is now uh we are at the stage where we need to elect our officers for the commission chair and vice chair. Um and uh so typically um we uh ask for nominations from uh from the commission. Um uh I I will say I'm happy to serve in this role if you would like. Um I believe that Mr. Carson is also happy to serve in that role. Um but if anyone else would like to serve in one of these roles, you're welcome to also nominate yourselves. But um we would need an official nomination for Mr. Carson as vice chair or an official nomination for Mr. Jefferson as chair unless there is someone else that would like to also put their name into I'll nominate Mr. Jefferson for the for the position of chairman again. Well, thank you. I accept that nomination and um I will nominate Mr. Ralph Carson for vice chair. Thank you very much. We have a we have a nomination for chair and vice chair. So uh now we will uh vote on those unless there are any other nominations. Please do feel free to nominate anyone else on the commission, any of those roles. Seeing none. So, there's a nomination on the floor to

uh nominate Mr. Carson for vice chair. I think we'll call a vote. Um we'll go down our list here. Um Shane Banks, do do we have to have a second for both of them? Do we need a second? Yes. Do we have a second? And so we need a second for the nomination of chair. We had uh Jihan Hodgeges nominate uh Mr. Carson for vice chair. Do we have a second? I will second that nomination. Thank you, Mr. Boland. There's a um mot um yeah a motion and a second to uh to elect uh Mr. Carson for vice chair. I'll call the vote. Um Shane Banks I. Uh Mariah Bishop I. Uh Ralph Carson. Hi Philip Jefferson. Hi Jen Hodgeges. I Ben Mills. Hi. And Michael Boland. Hi. That's uh seven eyes. Uh Mr. Carson, you have been reelected vice chair. Thank you. So we have a motion on the floor from Mr. Carson to nominate uh Mr. Jefferson for chair. Do we have a second? I will second that. Also, Mr. Voiland, thank you for that. We have a motion and a second to nominate Mr. Jefferson as chair. And I will call the vote again. Uh, Mr. Banks, I uh Mariah Bishop I, Mr. Carson, I, Mr. Jefferson, I, uh, Miss Hodgeges, I, Mr. Mills, I, Mr. Boland, I. That's seven eyes. Mr. Jefferson, you have been reelected chair of our planning commission. Thank you. Uh thank you for um

giving us this opportunity. Hope we uh serve this season as well as we can uh for town guard. At some point my role will be up and there will be new people to come into this role. So keep that in mind. Keep that in mind. I feel like one of our former chairs would say the same thing. Um so um uh it is uh time for our invocation. Um uh I'd be happy to share. Lord, we thank you for this opportunity to serve as another season for town of Garner to do the work that we have been tasked to to do. We ask that that we are watched over this evening as we do the work of town of Garner. We think about all of those that are in need in our town, especially those that have um gone through major um natural um disasters recently from our storms and flooding. And we ask that uh we do all that we can to support our neighbors and our communities and in our town of Garner and that the work that we do uh will not affect uh any of our residents. We thank you for all that you do for us in your name. Amen. Amen. We need to adopt our agenda. Are there any items on our agenda that need to be updated or revised? If none, do we have a motion to adop adopt our agenda as written? I'll move that we adopt the agenda as written. Thank you, Mr. Carson. Do we have a second? I will second. Thank you, Mr. Balden. 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. Shane Banks, I Mariah Bishop, I. Ralph Carson, hi. Philip Jefferson, hi. Jihan Hodgees, I. Ben Mills, hi. Michael Voyand, I.

Uh, the agenda is adopted. Thank you. We have adopted our agenda. Um, our meeting minutes from our May 12th meeting um are in front of you. Um, are there any changes that need to be made to our meeting minutes from May 12th? Anybody see anything that needs to be revised? Seeing none, is there a motion to um approve our meeting minutes from May 12th? I'll move that we uh adopt the minutes of uh the May 12th, 2025 meeting. Thank you, Mr. Carson. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Have a motion and a second. There's a motion on the floor to approve the minutes, and I'll call the vote. Um, Shane Banks, hi. Uh, Mariah Bishop, I Ralph Carson, hi. Philip Jefferson, I Jan Hodes, hi. Ben Mills, hi. And Michael Boland, I. The minutes are approved. 7 to zero. Thank you so much. We have approved our meeting minutes. U, we can now move on to our old and new business. Um, CZ MP24006 Creek Road Homes. All right. Thank you. Good evening everyone and members of the public. Um, my name is Aaron Joseph and I will present the uh reasonzoning case CZMP24-00006, also known as Creek Road Homes. This is a tier 2 reasonzoning request,

conditional resoning request to uh reszone 42.4 acres of land located in the ETJ from rural agricultural to residential for conditional uh for the development of 37 single family detached units. of the site is located as I stated in the ETJ and it's located on the east side of Creek Road between Jules Street and Plaza Drive. Rural Agricultural the existing zoning district is intended for larger lot of rural residential living um agricultural and civic cultural uses. um is typically found in areas outside of the town's corporate limits where water and sewer is not readily available. Uh currently the site is primarily vacant land uh but at least one of the uh current lots has a single family home on it. A cere road is a major collector road. It serves as a vital connection between residential neighborhoods, schools, and commercial areas. If you notice the uh map on the screen, you do have um an activity center. To the northwest, you have the neighborhood activity center. And then to the souththeast at Jones Sausage Road, you have the regional employment center. Um the most recent NC DOT traffic counts um has this portion of Creek Road at 5,598. And actually, I'll I'll update that number. uh 2024 data is out and so uh currently it is actually at 5,777 um as of 2024 annual average daily traffic. Um but it is showing

continually showing a upward trajectory um from 4,500 trips in 2015. The applicant has narrowed the uh permitted uses to one out of 14. Um they've narrowed it to single family detached with a maximum of 37 dwelling units. The average lot size within the proposed development is 12,000 square ft. And outside of the narrowed permitted use table, uh the applicant has profered conditions that are uh addressing specific guidelines for site design, architectural standards, and open space and recreation within the development. Regarding site design, the maximum density has been capped at one dwelling unit per acre. Uh there are trails for pedestrian connectivity and also uh enhanced landscaping along uh a portion of Creech Road. Architectural standards they are committing to a variety in front elevations um specific building materials um they've listed uh size of the porches um and window and garage features. also have committed to a percentage of the units with firstf floor primary bedrooms with the open space and recreation. Uh the active open space will include a playground. Um there are two greenway uh trail connections uh 10-ft trail connections to the proposed public greenway that traverses the northern uh boundary of the site. and they are committing to at least one amenity such

as a dog park, a p picnic tables, outdoor games, um or pickle ball courts. On the screen you have the proposed master plan and I will highlight the so here you have an active open space here. Uh there's a a public trail connection to the public proposed greenway. Also a private trail connection here that connects to the public greenway. Um and also another private trail that connects here. And then you also have a recreational uh open space in this area. And just to below you have an area called out open space for potential dog park. There are two access points to the site. There's one access point here at Creek Road and then you have another at um Creek Road and Jewel Street and this uh connection at on Jewel Street. So again, this site encompasses 42.4 acres. 4.2 acres are required for open space and of the uh acreage for open space, 25% of that must be activated. Um and with that a combination of conservation and recreation space is included. The conservation includes repairarian buffers uh areas and uh conservation buffer areas. Um and then the recreation again includes qualifying open areas amenities and pedestrian trails. The site is not within the watershed protection area. However, it is subject to water quality and quantity requirements. There are two above ground storm water control measures. And then there the uh site will be served with

city of Raleigh water. Um water will connect from an existing 12-in line from Creek Road and then a 18in uh outfall uh for sewer along Little Arm Branch. A traffic impact analysis was not required for this proposal um as it did not meet the thresholds that are set by NC do or the town of Garner. Um the uh proposal does include uh dedicated southbound turn lanes, one at uh the Creek Road access point and then one right at the um access point at Creek Road and Jewel Street. Um, and the preacher road access will be restricted to a right turn only when exiting the development. There are FEMA designated flood planes and the map shows that in green on the screen and associated conservation buffers at the northern boundary of the project that extends southward through uh the east and central portion of the property. There were two neighborhood meetings that were held for this request. Um 150 properties were notified. Um the first meeting was held in December of 2024 and the second meeting was held in April of this year. There were four attendees at the first meeting and two at the second. and you um have your um meeting information attached to the staff report. Looking at it from the comprehensive land use plan, again, this site does not fall within a a framework, but it is wedged between the neighborhood activity center and then the regional employment

center. The land character type is neighborhood or the typology and the development intensity is a level two area to strengthen. A staff evaluated this proposal um with the comprehensive land use plan. 14 growth framework criteria were evaluated. 13 were strongly consistent and one received a one uh modest non-sup support and that was due to the transportation choices. Um but it was um an existing condition with limited uh pedestrian um connectivity and so it did not receive the strongest non-sup support rating for the land use and community character consistency 26 criteria were determined to be applicable or possible to meaningfully address. Um it received overall support. Um staff noted that expanding housing options to accommodate a broader range of residents should be considered uh and including greater variety in housing types, price points, and sizes to help it further align with the comprehensive plan. and one strong nonsup support was given due to the lack of commitment to uh green street solutions and always with uh continued fine-tuning um in response to this evaluation tool and additional public input and input from uh the commission this evening. um staff will be uh likely to uh continue to support an overall finding of consistency and you do have that consistency detail uh within your packet. During the public hearing on June 17th, there were uh a few questions and

comments. They primarily related to uh the previous proposal for this site. Some of you may remember um there was an application for this uh site um last year um and it has significantly changed and so qu questions about that um really were were um raised during the public hearing such as um the neighborhood response to the change um how the unit count um compares to uh the previous development. The previous development proposal included 312 multif family units and as well as a commercial um um building space, office space. Um there was a comment and appreciation given for the zoning district, the R4 doning zoning district um is appropriate for the request. Um there was a question about the minimum square footage of the houses and stemming from that question the applicant has um updated their conditions um to reflect the uh a a larger minimum uh footprint to now 1,800 square ft of heated space. Um and there was a question uh regarding lot sizes and road improvements on Creek Road and again appreciation for the reduction in the unit count and overall um improvement of the development plan. So staff has prepared a draft consistency statement that affirms the consistency with the town's adopted land use plan on the screen. highlighted in yellow, you have um the results of staff's analysis, which is consistent and recommend approval

and a draft motion for your consideration. So, this concludes my presentation. The applicant is here to answer any questions you may have. Um and tonight our duty and for your your charge for the commission is findings of consistency and recommendation to approve or deny to town council and then the case will be heard again before town council for findings of reasonableness and a decision to approve or deny and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Um and also as I stated the applicant is here as well to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you Miss Joseph. Does the commission have any questions for staff at this time? If not, we can hear from our applicant. Um, please state your name uh and affiliation and address for our record. Good evening, members of the planning commission. My name is Isabelle Maddox. I'm a land use attorney. My address is 3700 Glennwood Avenue, Raleigh, 27612. Here tonight representing CR306 and Zero LLC. uh and the other applicant to this for this resoning case. Um as Erin so eloquently pointed out, um this this case started out in over a year ago. We came and we presented an apartment development, 312 apartment units. The neighborhood did not like it. We had a couple of meetings um neighborhood meetings before we we had new neighborhood meetings. So, they were very opposed. Um council did not like it. Nobody liked it. To my client's credit, they did a major pivot to change this from 320 roughly apartment units to

37 single family detached and really proposing some very nice homes here with lots of architectural features, garages, uh you know, a lot of architecturals that will make them each one different. Um there are significant open space here. The requirement is 4.2 acres. the actual was 15 acres uh and and lots of active uh areas with um you know playground, dog park, pickle ball, etc. Um a lot of greenway connections as well. Um, I don't I I don't think we need to belabor all the points because Erin discussed it very thoroughly, but I I do want did want to make you aware of this major pivot done by my clients to make this more in keeping with what the general the overall neighborhood and the council seem to want, which is a, you know, lower key single single family development. And with this, I'm I call Erin um, excuse me, sorry, Erin's already done her part. Beth Blackman, our engineer for the project to talk about the details. Good evening. Beth Blackman, Tim's Group, 5410 Trinity Road, Sweet 102 Raleigh, uh 27607. Um I've seen all of y'all lots of times. So, um and we've talked about this project before when it was apartments and town homes in the same area that we have now with single family. Um, so I just wanted to point out a couple of things. Erin and Isabelle have covered everything pretty detailed. We did add the enhanced landscape buffer uh for the homes backing up to Creech Road um there at the intersection of Juul Street. So that was an addition that we add added before council before the council meeting. And then as they pointed out after the council meeting, we added the increased uh home square footage. So that was the only zoning condition that we changed after the council meeting. Um

but we are proposing a couple of storm water devices, open space. Um streets will be public. Uh there'll be water and sewer for the neighborhood. Water is already existing in cere is already existing on the property as well. Uh we will improve Jules Street. Uh so the frontage on our side will have curbon gutter and sidewalk. The whole street will be paved. Right now it is currently gravel, dirt. Technically it's a DOT street. Um so it will be paved so at least the full width would be paved and there would be curving gutter on our side and then the frontage and cerech uh where that enhanced buffer is would also be improved with u curb and gutter sidewalk and widened. Uh the entrance through the middle is a public rideway currently. So that will be a town of Garner Street uh built to town of Garner standards. And I'm here Isabelle's here if anybody has any other questions for us. Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Blackland. Are there any questions for staff or our applicant at this time? Mr. B. Yeah. Um, trying to get my orientation here. There's there's something on the design that looks like a stub, but it isn't. It seems to be going to a property. I circled it because it would seem that that would be a culde-sac, but I can't figure it out. It It is as if it was a culde-sac, but it's less than 150 ft. Um, so a turnaround is not required. Oh. Um, and we we we debated that one a few different times. A culac obviously is huge, right? It takes up a lot of room. Yeah. Um, we didn't want to do a flag lot. And this actually allows those two corner lots to like have a side entry garage by having that street in there. So we that

was what we proposed. Um it also gives you a break in the block phase. Um like I said, we have that little odd little corner that there was no real good way to access it. So it is a very short street um that really only like there's three lots would people would use. Um it is amazing how much of this property will not be developed. Amazingly good. Um there's wetlands, there's conservation buffers, there's a stream. Um you seem to have done a nice job at protecting the naturalness that is there. There is a chunk of the property that says reserved by owner. Do we have any notion of plans? So when we first submitted that that was actually all tree safe. So we were not going to go across the stream. We're not going to impact and go across the stream other than greenway, you know, will have to be built and stuff like that. Uh the town thinking ahead, we don't need that for tree preservation from a percentage wise. What would like us not to count that as um a required tree preservation area. So then in the future when Wilmington Street is developed, that property actually may benefit the property on the other side, which gets kind of like triangular shaped um and might be something that could be used in the future, but there are no plans for that now, but we are not like counting it as any of our open space or preserved area. Okay. Thank you. Um I've got a couple questions and comments. So, um, the 25- ft buffers along the south of the property that are facing Creech Road, are those going to be replanted trees? Are they going to maintain the existing because there's quite a grade difference there? Are they

going to try to hide those roof lines from Creek Road in some fashion? So, I I would not want to tell you that they're going to be preserved just because we have to widen Creek Road. Um, yes, to the extent practical, we will preserve. Um, but in the actual street yard buffer, it will probably have to be replanted. But yes, the hope is to leave trees in everybody's backyard. Um, I do want to commend the developer on coming up with this plan versus what we looked at previously. Um, I do like the idea of more than one ridge line on the roof. Uh, I do have a concern about the secondary roofs only having a 4 in minimum eve when the lower roof has a 12-in minimum. I think that's going to look a little odd. Um, just suggesting they may want to look at mirroring what's on the lower roof. Um, and the other question I believe is probably more of a town question. Has there been any consideration for the town to install curb and gutter along the east side of Jewel Street? So, when this road is curb and guttered on the project side and they're going to pave it, would it not be beneficial to the town to actually put a little bit of money in and have this curb run and then you have a nice new street with curb and gutter on both sides? Well, I I'll let them speak as well, but I'm not 100% certain if they have quite enough right of way. So that would also be something to consider because it it's currently built what do rightaway limit? It is and it should be a 50 or 60 foot wide. Um we're dedicating five feet two and a half or five feet can't remember now. Um so we had to dedicate a little

bit to do our half. So I would think the other side would also need to do a little bit to do their half because it's supposed to be the 55 foot major local. Yeah. So it's it's 50 now. It's supposed to be the 55. So, we're dedicating two and a half. They have to dedicate two and a half. I think it would behoove the town to look at doing what's necessary to put curb gutter on the other side of the street. And that has nothing to do with the applicant here this evening, but you're going to have a road that's going to be new street. It's going to be paved. You have curbon gutter on both sides. You're going to control the storm water better. I think that's something that maybe the town or council might need to look at. uh possibly invest a little bit. Just you're you're you're building a new road with curb on one side. Doesn't doesn't make sense. But um that's all the comments I had. I think this is a good plan. I like the the parks, the dog park, the the open spaces, the recreational open space. Um I I I like the plan. Thank you. Mr. Banks, do you have any questions? No questions, but commentary in terms of the open space is quite impressive from what was previously presented to the commission. I'm impressed with the dog park, the just the general connections to the the greenway. So, nice job. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Bishop. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and I see here it says that there's going to be a a greenway connection. Um, is it connecting to any existing greenways all? No. So, it's it's on the future greenway plan for a greenway to run north south and the plan is turned right. So, north south um up to

uh Wilmington Place was just approved north of us. So they have a greenway that runs east west along the creek and then this would go up and eventually excuse me tie into it. Um and then this would eventually go south all the way to uh past the school and down to East Garner Road. Uh but right now it doesn't connect anything which is why we have a trail connection at both ends um to provide kind of an egress and eg ingress and eress um and so there's not kind of a dead end. Got it. And so there's the potential to connect to Jurgen Park that one day. Yes. Okay. And then my other question so I I actually agree with Mr. Carson. Um, as far as the the gutter, um, especially since this is in a flood plane area and especially with the recent amount of floods that we've had, um, it's definitely a concern. Um, um, but yeah, I I like the open space and recreational open space. Um, and I also like the fact that it's only right turns out of the neighborhood as well. Well, at Jill Street, that will be a left or a right. Oh, okay. Yes. Um, the reason it's only a right out, sorry, a right out of the other one is because of sight distance going over the hill with the existing speed limit on Creek Road. It's not safe for anybody to to make a left out. Got it. So, um, do you know DOT's plans for Creek Road or they ultimately want to make it a two-lane road each direction or just leave it? So the the town's plan for Creek Ready is the DOT street, but the town's plan calls for it to be a 74 foot rideway. 75 foot rideway. I keep changing them. Um

it's a ultimate 75 ft public rideway, major collector street with a 45 foot back to back. So that is a three-lane section uh with curb and gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Okay. And I guess um at some point the developer reached out for these other houses the fronts Creek Road and couldn't get a We have had um one of those is a is a Austin participant at every one of our neighborhood meetings. It's our family home. She has no intention of moving. Um some of them are rentals. it. There's been conversations, but it never went anywhere soon enough to do anything else about it. Okay. I'm sure people will call after it's built, and it's kind of hard. Yeah. Um, my only other question was the I guess the storm water ponds. It didn't work out to have just one. The grades were So, there there's there are two actually, a skinnier one and a larger one, but yes, it should work out for the two. Yeah, but I guess the grading on site or the way their existing grades are, you couldn't make it to one SM. Oh, couldn't make it to one. Um, I don't quite have enough room because of the fluid plane conservation buffer to fit it all in one and I would have a lot of extra space in the I would have to take away lots to make the one bigger, but I wouldn't be able to put lots where the other one is. So, okay, it made more sense to have two That's all for me. Um I know it's early on and I only bring this up because it was mentioned, but are there any renderings of um what the homes may look like or garages, anything like that? We we have um talked about different things. I mean everything would be very

um uh fitting in with the area uh kind of southern architecture but we did not um I don't the client the developer and they are actually the property owners. I don't know whether they're going to build them themselves or end up um selling them to someone to build them. So there is no actual building plan. It's not like a national builder that has these plans, right? Okay. Well, I'll add a few um I'll ask a few questions for you and mostly some comments. Um one, I do appreciate the new layout. It is uh I think much more in keeping with the characteristic of the existing neighborhood and um and and for the existing residents along Creech Road to feel like they can remain right is really important to me that a development uh should not be implemented in such a way that it causes an existing neighborhood or housing component to have to relocate. I think that's a negative for me. So, um the kind of surrounding what's exists and hopefully it also begins to create um uh a component that even enhances uh the existing um so I appreciate that. I do appreciate also the storm water um devices with what has been happening so randomly with our current storms. Um we want to make sure that any mitigation occurs to reduce any potential increase of flooding for this development and the neighbors. And so you feel pretty confident about that from this bringing

in new storm water. I mean new uh you know impervious surface area and that our devices will capture all coming off of but then also the potential rising of the flood waters and the flood plane. Yeah. So this we will meet all the town standards uh capture the impervious for the um what 2 10 25 year storm. The site is significantly flood plane already. Um the a lot of cases when we have developments we're backing up to existing neighbors right so in this case we are backing up to the flood plane so our pond runoff which will be mitigated will go directly to the flood plane which is also beneficial so it is not going to have to go through some other property before it gets to the flood plane so I think in this particular case you're we have no issues Okay, it's good. Really good to hear. Um, uh, some of the, uh, conditions. Um, Mr. Carson's already mentioned one about overhangs. I I tend to have a pretty major concern about overhangs because of water intrusion and shade calculation. So, I'm assuming that the secondary roofs are um, dormers or or or the like. And so there's kind of a proportion that begins to change from the 12-in overhang, that's standard, and then moving upward to the kind of more of an 8 in overhang. So I would also suggest that we try to increase that overhang for the eaves and rakes of secondary roofs. It's mostly again because of movement of water and also um for shade calculation. um the cementitious um siding which I appreciate but I I I do have concern of going from a cementitious material for this for siding to a to a PVC material.

Those two materials have very different rates of change. And so I would suggest that we make a consistent language that trim boards are cementitious um just like any of the uh fibers um uh cementitious material for siding it uh that PVC material also begins to um move and separate and have waving patterns. So, I would can't change the design, but I would suggest that with the notion of keeping our units um long-term maintenance, that would help a lot. That that's an area I'm not very familiar with. That is a very standard setup of uh materials like we've used this on most of our resonings. Um, so somebody who knows more about that sort of stuff will have to guide me on that. Totally. Okay. I would say take that back to your folks. Um, but uh, but anytime you have two different materials, they're they're going to function differently. Um, and uh, so that's one of my uh, questions. Um, and then the last major question is the 5 foot by 5 foot minimum porch. So that's that's um I know it says minimum. Is there a larger? I most of the various plans we sketched and talked well sketched but talked about um had significant front porches. So I don't think you will have to be worried about just having the minimum. Okay. Okay. That's good to hear. um porches. When I when I hear porches and especially when you say a more southern architectural aesthetic, the southern architectural aesthetic even along the existing kind of character are porches that we can actually utilize. And there's usually kind of a distance and width and depth that is actually

able to sit on. So when we say kind of the southern porch, 5 foot x 5 foot to me is a stoop. Um, and so when we say porch, you know, at least a 6 feet depth for chairs to sit and at least a good 7t 8 ft wide for, you know, the doors on one side and you can sit on the other side. So when we say porch, I I have a very specific language of how they say that. But also because of the existing kind of ranch houses that have a space to actually sit um in the in that existing characteristic would be useful. So, um I take that as um and and so was there any this is the last question. Was there any additional conversation about the size of units? The 1,800 ft is shown as the minimum. Um but to meet you know more in alignment to our um uh garner forward do you do you think there's kind of more you know small medium size and then so that was an increase from the town council meeting at town council meeting it was 1500 square feet um because of the potential for like a ranch um or even something with an unfinished basement we weren't we're trying not to go too large um to have some options for future home buyers. Um but in general, when we were in the town council meeting, we were talking about we're we're thinking it's a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot house. Um like I said, we just wanted to give oursel a little bit of room because that is heated square footage. Um and make sure we didn't end up with a plan that was just too short. Right. So, so you have a So, it sounds like you have kind of a a maximum size that you are also aligning to. That was just the general comment that the property owner said when we were talking about the square footage.

So, I would say I wouldn't say there's a maximum. I just the general is thinking that it would be 2 to 3,000 square feet. Okay. Okay. Just I'm sure that if somebody wanted a bigger house, they would be glad to build a bigger house. So, Okay. Okay. And like I said, you also have the potential for some basement which would also make it naturally a bigger house or could be a bigger house one day. Okay. If it wasn't finished. Okay. Yeah. Just um looking at our, you know, our consistency of our comprehensive plan and trying to find ways to match our character consistency with just those small moments of, you know, 18 to 2,00 18 to 2400. We know that there's a minimum. Is there a maximum and small medium size that gives the opportunity to kind of I mean I think this is a neighborhood unlike most of what you're seeing right these are larger lots um generally like 75 ft wide um 12,000 square feet you know kind of on average so I expect that the houses will also be larger but we're trying to make sure we have some flexibility since the develop is not a home builder normally, so they don't know if they're going to build the homes or, you know, get somebody else to build the homes. Okay, I think those are all my questions. Are there any other questions or comments at this time? Seeing none, then for us to make um final um statements there, we need a motion to either approve or not approve to have some further discussion. Oh, actually, do we have anyone that is in favor or not in favor of this um um proposal that we need to have um heard from our audience?

Seeing none, now is there a motion of consistency? Um I'm guess I'm confused. Do we have a motion first on consistency and then one on approval? There's there's a draft um consistency statement that you can accept and refer to with your draft motion to recommend approval that's in the packet. So if you um take the consistency statement that's drafted um as something you believe you can recommend or uh you can make the motion that is drafted to recommend approval in the packet. Is that a good way to explain it? Erin, you you make the motion to recommend approval or denial. In that motion, you accept the consistency statement. Okay. Well, as a straw man, 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 CZMP24006 to town council. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? I'd like to request an amendment to that. Okay, possible at the end of that consistency statement to request staff and town council look at the feasibility of adding curb under the town's guidance to the uh east side of Jewel Street. interrupt Terry Jones town attorney. Um

I don't believe I believe that should be a separate motion that that shouldn't be part of the consistency and recommended approval of this plan as that's an independent action not respons that the developer wouldn't be responsible for. But you can certainly make a second motion if you'd like to and and that information could be presented to council. Okay. I withdraw the amendment then and we'll just move forward with Mr. Voyan's motion. So, I'll second his motion. Sounds good. Thank you. And thank you, uh, Miss Jones. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Are there any other discussion before we take a vote? Okay, well, we are ready to vote. That is the motion on the floor to uh accept the consistency statement drafted therein and recommend approval to town council. I will call the vote. Uh, Shane Banks, I. Mariah Bishop, I. Ralph Carson. Hi, uh, Philip Jefferson. Hi, Jan Hodes. Hi, Ben Mills. I, Michael Voyand, I. That's seven eyes. The motion passes. Thank you so much. So, following up on my last statement, I'd like to under the uh the guidance of uh Miss Jones, I'd like to uh make a motion that we request staff and town council to look at the feasibility both in right of way and and cost of course to uh include urban gutter along the east side of Jewel Street separate from this previously approved motion. I'm and I'm going to say the south side of Juul Street because our plan is well. Is that okay? Southside. Yes. Sorry. All right. So, um the motion on the floor is uh Mr. Carson that you ask staff and council to study the feasibility to add curb and gutter to the south side of Jules Street. Um

and in what uh the town can do and look at um is that fair to say if I word that? Yes. a little more formal. All right. Well, part part of it may be a rightaway restriction. Part of it could be cost just to review the feasibility of Sure. Um, so we have that uh motion from Mr. Carson. Do we have anyone that would like to second that? I will second that. Okay. Thank you, Miss Hodes. Um, so we have a motion on the floor and I'll call the vote. Um, Mr. Banks. I uh Miss Bishop, I Mr. Carson. Hi, Mr. Jefferson. I Mr. uh I'm sorry, Miss Hodgeges. I Mr. Mills, I Mr. Voand I. All right, that's seven eyes. Uh Mr. Carson's uh motion passes. Thank you so much. Um we have approved those to go to council. Um thank you so much for your presentation. We appreciate your time and uh your changes. Uh, next on our agenda is our residential SUP uh, threshold modification review. I will turn it over to staff. [Music] Okay. Good evening again, commissioners. Um today we have a very I think small well I don't say small but focused uh text amendment package for you to consider. Um just as a little bit of background um over the last 5 to 6 years um there has been considerable discussion and

inquiries made uh from the development community about our requirement uh that requires any project that is over 200 residential units um to go through a special use permit process. Um, as you may recall, um, special use permits are not something that you see. It is something that goes directly to, uh, the town council, uh, for approval. Many of these projects typically go through a resoning, but not everyone does. Um, for those of you who I'm trying to think if anybody's actually been on the commission, uh, that goes back to the old ordinance, um, there was a time when if the property was zoned correctly or in a manner that allowed for the residential development to take place by right, um, it used to be that residential subdivisions in those particular circumstances actually were approved by the planning commission. um that was for one reason or another that was done away with during the streamlining and those now are um a staff level approval. I did provide for you a a listing of projects here on the first page of your staff report. Um that uh shows projects that have gone through uh both in six out of the seven or there seven out of those eight let me start there. Seven out of those eight were apartment projects and then six of those seven apartment projects um there had not been any

additional conditions that were added as part of that SUP process. Um but there again there are some cases where additional conditions were added by the council. So those are highlighted for you as well. Proceeding to page uh two of your report, you'll see that we currently have three projects that are at some stage in the review pipeline. Uh Village at Garner Station, Homestead at Brian Farms, and Bethl Green. Um that have been through the resoning portion uh and would currently require that they come back for a special use permit. I believe some of them are proceeding regardless of what happens with this particular text amendment. Um, but it's possible that one or two of them may also be waiting to see what the outcome may be. Council asked for some review of what other jurisdictions do and require in similar circumstances. Um, so at first we did a review of peer communities in the greater Raleigh area. Uh, so those that are similar in size to us. Uh, for the most part, SUPs are not required by any of our peers except in very limited circumstances. Uh, nobody has a general, if you're this many, you have to also have a special use permit. Um, Apex, it's strictly tied to town homes. Uh, Holly Springs does not, although they do require certain residential projects to go through a conditional zoning process. Um, so that is something unique to some jurisdictions is that when you go to their use table, um,

rather than just permitted by staff or permitted with a special use permit, um, some of them do structure their zoning districts in such a way that you have to go you have to go through the conditional zoning process. Um, for us it just happens that the majority of cases do because most land in Garner's jurisdiction that is not developed is zoned as resident or rural agriculture and so they have to, you know, come to us for a reasonzoning. But in some jurisdictions that proactive are who are a little more proactive with their zoning prior to development, um they will write that into their use table that hey, but if you want to do this particular use, you do have to get reszoned regardless. Um you'll see FWave Arena in Wake Forest. it really only kicks in for certain uh developments that are proposing manufactured homes. Um again, Clayton is another one of those jurisdictions like Holly Springs that occasionally will require that conditional zoning process. Council also asked us uh to do a little more uh research across the state. So both the town attorney's office and the planning department um cast a question out there amongst our colleagues around the state as to what their requirements may be. Um, so you'll see that there's four that in some fashion may require uh again an SUP for single family detached uh dwellings.

It was far more common though for those jurisdictions to require a special use permit process for town homes and apartments or multif family. Hillsboro, uh, for example, they do have a requirement that if, uh, a single family subdivision comes forward that has, uh, 20 units or more, um, 20 units for Hillsboro seems kind of small. Um, admittedly, by comparison, uh, when I called their staff, uh, the response that I got was, I honestly don't know why. um it's just been that way for a really long time. Um so there was not anybody on staff currently that could recall as to why that particular threshold had been chosen in Hillsboro. Um Maggie Valley, again talking about a small jurisdiction up there in western North Carolina, that is a very small jurisdiction. Um, so any residential development that's over 10 acres, um, and again, admittedly, 10 acres in Maggie Valley, that's probably a really big deal. Um, it would have a tremendous impact on the community as a whole. Uh, so that kind of, you know, that kind of makes sense to me. Um, Henderson County, uh, up there. I think that's south of Bunkham, Hendersonville, if I'm not mistaken. Um, they have a 300 unit threshold for single family detached. So, again, just some background information. um another way

of kind of looking at it to see who does what and where we could find out a little bit as to why. Very few jurisdictions had uh changed their process in the last couple of years. Uh most of them have had the the systems and processes that they've had for quite some time. Um, Mills River was kind of the exception to that where they did notice that um, they used to use an SUP process, but actually they switched uh to mandatory conditional zoning about two years ago. um their staff noted that their council uh given some of the court precedents that is out there in the North Carolina court system uh that their council felt compelled uh to approve unless there was something very specific that came up during that quasi judicial process that they could really hang their hat on to deny. Um and I and I do think there is some credence to that that um you know special use permits are kind of to a degree in that realm of they are to be approved unless there's a valid reason not to approve. Um so they felt that they had more flexibility um to judge a project in a legislative resoning process much more liberally probably than in the special use permit process. Um one of the other jurisdictions I do I forget which one it was but they actually did the opposite. Um, and again it was just kind of the preference of

the local board as to which one they preferred. Um, I will say that that was in I think what was probably a more developmentfriendly wanting to encourage growth a community that didn't have a lot. Um, and they felt that uh, and an SG process can do this. it can limit um the public input. public is always still welcome, you know, to give their thoughts and comments, but that quasi judicial process is can be narrowed more carefully um by the applicant to only consider uh testimony and things that the person coming up to speak is actually qualified to speak about. Um, so again, there's there's all these little nuances as to what works and and what a jurisdiction is really trying to accomplish. So staff um has had several discussions with the town council and you'll see here in section two of the report that we talked about four different potential options. Um, one was of course no change, just to leave things as they are. Um, and to the opposite extreme, uh, there's an option to just repeal that subsection A2 in full. Uh option C was something where we decided we could potentially uh focus on exempting or not requiring the SUP process if a project

has gone through a conditional resoning. And I think that's the feedback from the development community is that they feel, hey, we've already been through a conditional resoning. at least if they've done a tier 2 where you've actually seen a master plan, you've seen what the subdivision is going to look like. A tier one doesn't do that. So, we've specifically focused on tier 2. Um so the option uh under C would be to remove that requirement uh for single family uh development uh that has gone through a master plan process but then also tie it down a little bit further so that if the applicant later on wanted to come back and modify what was approved during the zoning process. Currently, the UDO allows for them a 10% wiggle room. So, if somebody came in with 400 residential units, they could go up to 440 or they could come down to 360. That's pretty wide gap. I mean, that's 80 units total spread. Um, so there was discussion about that being potentially too much before it would have to come back and go through the process again. Um, so staff has proposed that under that option, we would narrow that to 5%. So that same 400 unit development at resoning could go up to 420 or down to 380. But if it exceeded that in either direction, they would have to go back through the resoning process. And so both council and planning commission would see it again. So that just kind of speaks to the idea

that when you do see it at resoning, you are pretty much seeing what you're going to get. Um and then option D was to um kind of set different thresholds. Um you know potentially keeping the 200 unit requirement for town homes and multif family but raising the single family to 500. um that does create the need for a little more thought uh if that's the one the route we wanted to go because what do you do then in the case of projects that have both um West Garner Road would be a good example um they're near downtown where I know that they have you know way more than um 200 of the town homes and apartments. Um if they do introduce a single family, which the zoning would permit them to do, um what do you do in that case where the single family is under the threshold, but the town homes and the apartments are over? Do you break it up? What do you do? We could we could solve it, I'm sure, but it is a little more complex. So, the proposed language that went to the public hearing was pretty much option C. And so, you'll see that in um pages four and five. And I will say here again, this is something that that could be discussed

further and I take exception to what I may have said before because I think I may have said that wrong. Um, the current language would apply to any residential. We could further discuss whether we want to narrow it more. So this could be single family, town homes, apartments, whatever the case may be. We could discuss potentially doing it for some and not the others, but at this point the draft language is for any residential that has gone through a tier 2 reasonzoning process. So you've seen the master plan. You know what it's going to look like that those would be uh removed from having to go through a subsequent special use permit process. combined with the um proposal to modify 4.8.2 which again takes that 10% unit wiggle room and cuts it in half to five. So when looking at the comprehensive plan, what does it have to say? not a lot. Um admittedly, a plan um a comprehensive plan looks more at the outcomes and what development is expected to look like and does talk less about process. Um but there were a few sections that did and so I highlighted those for you. um pages 112 and 115 of the comprehensive plan uh did talk about process to a degree.

Um page 112 though particularly focuses really on infill development. And when the plan talks about infill development, it is usually not talking about projects that are 200 or more units in size. We're talking things that are geographically and numerically smaller. Um, not that a huge development couldn't be the last one in in a particular part of town. Um, but we still really don't often consider that infill. It just happens to be the last the last part. Uh the other reference in page 115 really had to do with incentivizing uh affordable housing. Um so again not really the focus of where this request was coming from. Um but that is definitely something to for Garner uh to think about. Um, so again, not a lot really said about what our processes should be. Um, but a couple of indications of in certain cases, uh, where the plan would encourage us to review our processes and see if maybe there's something we can do, um, to better attack those specific issues of infill development and affordable housing. So, we did draft a consistency statement for you that kind of covers that in a nutshell. And we do have a couple of options um highlighted in yellow. Those two that are highlighted in yellow are based on um adopting that draft consistency statement. Um but then one to recommend

approval to the council or one to recommend denial. The one for recommending denial does um if you decide to go that route, we would ask you to state your findings and supported you know reasonings as to why. And with that, um, I will wrap up my part of the discussion of this proposed amendment, uh, with you and open it up to the floor for discussion. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Trezenberg. That was water. A lot of technical infos for us to think about, a lot of um kind of future forward things for us to think about and uh a lot of things for us to make sure that we make the decision that's going to best support our community and our residents as well as well as you know support our development at the same time. So um are is there any discussion any questions to staff? Yes, Mr. Carson. Um, as a member of the affordable housing task force, I I sat in on the coalition meeting and their main comments were the cost of going through an SU and the additional time it takes. But I think it's very important for the town planning commission to maintain some control on the growth. I think the SUP's help with that as opposed to shortening the process. I think we need to maintain some control. I as I read C, I guess if we approve C, that also means D is also accepted as part of that, Mr. Tenberg.

Is that correct? No. No. D, C and D work completely different. Okay. cuz it if I read that last sentence of section C where it reduces the dwelling by 5% or greater and then it says amend section two under D. So that's that's how I first read it but then I realized that that they were separate. Correct. Yeah. So that and Okay. So it's just C as it stands by itself. Maybe was a type correct. I I just read C when it ends in and oh as a choice I guess. A C the C the C the and between C and D is just the listing of A B C and D. Just grammatic. Sorry. Okay. So So we're we're just Okay. So it's just C without the right. Um I I again I think that we need to keep some control on the development. Um, we are one of the fastest growing towns in the US and I'm supportive of Ze as has written um I I think we need to continue with the SUVs in in a limited fashion that they set out. Anyone else have massages? Yeah. So this does not take in or the current language taken um lot size acreage. It's just for the number of dwelling units like relating to how some municipalities is acreage of development. This is this is just looking at correct. Yeah, there is there are standards by which if they modify the acreage that it would also need to come back through, but we're not proposing any adjustments to that.

Have any but but I will say sorry um I will say generally um if a project adds geographic area it has to come back. Yeah. But we would know to your point for ahead of time what the geographic area was and how many dwellings. Correct. Before. Okay. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So, is this hindering Garner's growth? Like, has any developer have any developers actually said, "Hey, we're not coming here and we're going to Apex because of this at all?" I can't I can't say that anybody hasn't come. Um, I got that question also from council, but that's not typically something that we as staff are really going to know unless somebody just explicitly tells us that. There may be some I I do know there are some folks like when a resoning comes in, um, it's not always done by a builder. There's usually a builder that's in mind probably, but not in every case. Um, I do know some builders who have passed on a particular subdivision that's been approved um in Garner, but then another builder usually has always come in. Um, but as far as somebody who just said, "I'm not coming to Garner," I don't know. Um, I think on on the one hand you could say, well, we can see who is in Garner and then there's the question of, well, why hasn't that builder come to Garner? I don't have the answer to that. Is it our process or is it just not we're not in their geographic area of focus? It's kind of it's hard to say.

Thanks, Mr. Mills. Nothing question. No, not at this time. Um I I you know I think there's there's kind of a um I think there there needs to be a a method uh and not kind of an open-ended process um in order for us to make sure that um you know our our first concern are our residents and making sure that we are doing the best for our residents in our town. Um, anything that's new doesn't exist. Um, but what affects our existing community is important and for us to not be able to speak about that or to have them speak about it, we're taking away a little bit of their voice, I think. And so that's that's something that I definitely don't want to see. Uh but I but I do think that um coming to us for a reasonzoning that we have already seen in a tier 2 makes sense that we have we've reviewed what should be done like what is being planned and unless some major change happens that requires it to come back to us I don't know that it necessarily makes sense that if that project is in keeping with our con our tier 2 reasonzoning approval that it needs to necessarily come back again unless there's a change and we have those written that there is a change. So those elements um that it does need to come back if it's been modified, right? And I think that's important. Yeah. And I do think it's important for

y'all to realize that this amendment would not have any effect on your role in the process. It's going to come through a through a resoning regardless of whether this is approved or not. Your part in the process is going to stay constant no matter what. It really is. Does it go back to council for that extra we might say it's just routine. Um, but again, for them to have to go back to that and there's there's valid arguments on both sides. I see. Yeah, I definitely see both. Um, but I don't I definitely don't want to, as Mr. Carson said, kind of take away the ability for us to be more meaningful about what we are trying to accomplish for the town. I think that's in our responsibility, especially when it comes to affordable housing. If it doesn't if if we don't look at that and say that it's missing or it's needed or there needs to be more, then who's going to do it? Does if I may ask a question because I think this may get to something that council may be interested in some feedback on. Is there any do you think there's any reason to kind of separate out kind of from the evidence that maybe we see in around the state where some folks are keeping a little extra tight control on town homes and apartments, but when it comes to single family detached, maybe that can be a little more streamlined. I I do think because right now this the way it's proposed it would apply to any residential getting rid of the SU if it's been through a tier two, but maybe there is some good reasons for

keeping it if the project has town homes and apartments. But if it is just single family only and it's been through a tier two, that that's okay not to have to come back for a special use permit. but keep the special use permit for town homes and apartments. I I think that a unit is a unit. And so if if it's 200 of this, it's 200 of the other. It's still I think in in my in my opinion, I would rather see it than to kind of start separating piece by piece this this I don't know. I think that it makes I don't know. I don't know. staffwise, how complex does that begin to get? I don't think that's as complex. I think it's just more there's there is a certain fundamental thing about single family detached homes in North Carolina. Um, you know, any property that exists today, you're entitled to build one single family detached dwelling. Um, there just seems to be a lot more, I don't know, comfort in the idea that folks should be able to build a single family detached. But as soon as you're going to try to, you know, up that density a little bit and do a town home or do an apartment complex or for some folks that's that's a very hard line. Yeah. or an important one for to consider. But then like you say on the other flip side, a unit's a unit. But you know, I think that when it's when it's one or someone's building two or someone's building five, that's a huge difference than three 300 perhaps.

I just think it's a good tool in the toolbox to allow council to guide development as they see fit. as opposed to just having a somewhat of a free-for-all. It's It's there. We We're in a enviable position where Garner's growing. It's growing fast. And I think we need to have ability either as the commission on some of the stuff that we vote on or the council to at least have that extra step of a review in having the SUB. So that's that's my opinion. What was some of our public comment? Did we have any public comment? Um I want to go back to the six or seven cases that you presented here. So my understanding that out of these there's only been one that went to back for special use permit of the ones that were already initially approved or so all all of on page one all of those eight did go back. Okay. Yeah. And during that process, was there anything that came up that wasn't initially right? So, um second I'll point you to the second sentence of the last paragraph. Um Bennett Assemblage Apartments North um did have four additional conditions added. Um again, that was an apartment project. So, one of the conditions was that they add elevators. Um, a second was that they add um EV parking stations,

uh added bicycle parking, and they also committed to a certain percentage of affordable housing units. That was not, you know, for whatever reason that was not discussed at the conditional zoning hearing. could have been. Um, those weren't things that necessarily had to be. Um, and so I don't know if it was really we knew that the SUP process was there, so maybe some of that was left or maybe it was just, oh, you know, these are some things that we thought about because I do know we were having quite a bit of discussions about apartment projects during that time. Um, so I can't really speak as to why they came up in the SUP versus not the conditional zoning hearing, but that was a case where four things were added. Um, and then in Cambria uh, which was the single family subdivision uh, case, there were two additional cons uh, two additional conditions. one was a reduction in the number of units um for part of the subdivision and converting one of the roadway connections to a oneway. So in those cases if we didn't have that second tier the um special conditions they could have you could have approached them they could simply say no you already approved it and that would have been that right. Okay. So that that is an important distinction that during the legislative zoning hearing any condition has to be agreed to by the applicant. During the special use permit hearing, council can just impose if they have the supporting reasons. But with our design modifications, that would still be the case, right? Even with this option C, but those

changes being made after the tier 2 zoning, they would still have to come back, right? Yeah. if they wanted to change something after the zoning and the SU process wasn't there or it was something that was addressed during zoning and they wanted to change it that would have to come back. Yes. And all of these six items are mostly covered in those bicycles parking. That was a case where that was under the old ordinance and so now the new ordinance we do have bicycle parking requirements and we do have electric vehicle parking requirements. So yeah, there's a lot each one of those cases had its own kind of moving parts to it. Um some of those would not have to be addressed anymore today because the ordinance has changed the same. Um, if we happen to adopt C and later realize that maybe that wasn't the best thing to do. Um, can we come or can we meet back here again for another proposed text change? I mean, not necessarily quickly, but you know, down the line, right? Yeah. You always have we always have the option to amend the ordinance. Um, I just feel like you can't sit here and think of all the circumstances that may come up until something is implemented. Um, and I'm sure people will figure out ways to use it to their benefit. Um, so that that would be my only concern. Well, and in some ways it gives them the the um, you know, kind of ability to

kind of share everything with us. during the tier 2 zoning that you intend to do so you don't have to come back again. And in some way that's an incentive to plan it out more forward. We have it all taken care of as long as any modifications that are going to affect the the you know the zoning that we've approved you know would have to come back for review. league. You know, just changing a two-way to a one-way could be a really big problem if we don't make sure that it's done properly, right? In the 300 unit development. Um, and a develop developer decides to reduce the number of affordable housing units because feel like their cost is different. Well, then we told you that that's not the case. We need that in. So, if that, you know, we don't want to see that either. Um, but that's listed here. So I think right does our affordable housing component fall under the design modification that if there was a change to affordable housing? So if they made that condition um and they wanted to differ from it, we'd have to look at exactly the condition that they offered for that particular case and determine if that's substantial, the change that they want to make is substantial or just inconsequential. And we would use those parameters in the UDO to try to determine that.

Okay? But depending on how they would word it would be depending on how we address. Any other any other comments or statements? Those are all good questions. And I have one question I actually um said it was the town council brought this forward. Is that something they voted to do, I guess, or is just what may maybe not super formally um but during the work sessions there was um a consensus of a majority that um to bring something forward. Okay. Um I don't I would not say that it was unanimous in any sense. Um, but there were at least three members who who did go on the record as saying, "Let's talk about C." Okay. Mr. Jefferson, I might address council. Yes, Mr. Mayor, please. Thank you. My name's Buddy Gupton. I live in Garner. I'm the mayor. Issue. Uh, first of all, I'm I'm very impressed with with the detail orientation that all of you have and the understanding that all of the commission members here have on a very complex issue. There's a lot of moving parts. I can speak in a very general way uh for council in saying no one on council is interested in losing any control over the quality of our projects. We are in the driver's seat today. 10th fastest growing city in America. We are in a mood to demand more and better. Let me make that crystal clear. Nobody is trying to do less. We want to do more and better. We're just trying to remove

one redundancy that we see. And just to rephrase what Jeff and his staff have already said, if this is a residential reszoning that has come as a tier two with a detailed master plan like the master plan we just saw on the project on Creek Road where we see every house size, we see every lot, we see every dog park, we see every uh road improvement. If we see that, whether it's 37 homes like that one or whether it's 201 homes, we feel the council feels if we've seen that in that level of detail, then we're ready to make a decision. Uh council has also become a little leery of this SUP process, which is quasi judiciary, which means it's a legal east court process as opposed to the the more informal legislative process we often go through. uh looking back on one of those apartment projects we mentioned that were mentioned here that at the SUP portion the uh council decided well I'd like to see this I'd like to see that I'd like to see elevators and the developer just stood up and said I'll just do it just let me get this through and cold detachment later uh on the advice of our attorney we might not have ma we might should not have made those particular decisions at that point in the process process uh that SUP process does not come before you guys. All the zoning does. Every piece of zoning, every master plan you'll still see, you'll still approve on. But this quasi judicial and I think Jeff, Terry, anybody correct me, but I think there are seven issues that can be adjust addressed and not by the public, not by the neighbors, but only by people with that specific training and background. And so they're not really talking about the big picture. They're talking about

details that the public's not even allowed to speak at SUP quasi judicial and the SUPs do not come back through this commission unless I'm mistaken. So just to rehash, your council has high expectations. Your council wants to see more and better. They want to eliminate the redundancy of something that we and the planning commission has already been through and said, "Yes, yes, yes. All looks good. Why do we have to have a court trial with with attorneys and paid experts taking another 100 to 150 days and costing maybe another 50 to $100,000 to the developer. We think he could spend that money better improving his development than relitigating the thing. I don't want to put words in the developers or the engineers mouth. But we we want to keep control. The council wants to keep control. uh but we don't want to add undue costs for what we see as minimal or very little improvement. So we're we're we're for uh option C, not D C. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your your concern on all this stuff. I'll sit down and shut up now. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mayor Gton, for that. That really helps us to understand where this is all coming from. And I I mean I'm not I I can't speak for the commission necessarily, but I think that we um would not want to hinder the process if we have already reviewed something that makes sense without any major change unless I'm also speaking out of turn for the commission. But um sounds like the resounding similarity from our comments. Well, if I don't want to I don't want to push this any faster. I don't want to I want to make sure that we're thinking about this because we do have the option of pushing this decision to the next

meeting, but if we feel that this is good for us to continue um a process of reviewing our work without making any major additional work for our our applicants. I'll make a motion if we're ready. I'm I'm ready for a motion if you're ready for uh I move that the planning commission accept the consistency statement drafted here in our own written recommendation regarding the consistency of the request with the town's adopted land use plans and recommend approval of case number CTA-25-00001 to the town council as appropriate in the public interest noted as option See, that is the Texas written, correct? See? Yeah. So, that that's the one that is part of this. Yep. Okay. Thank you for that motion. Is there a second for Mr. Carson's motion? I'll second that motion. Thank you so much, Mr. Banks. We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion before we take a vote? All right, there's a motion on the floor. I'll call the vote. Uh Shane Banks, I. Mariah Bishop, I. Ralph Carson, hi. Philip Jefferson I Jen Hodgees I Ben Mills I Michael Voiland I that's seven eyes I's the motion passes thank you so much we have passed that motion we are now in a force planning director and commission yes um thank you for your thoughtfulness and um text a moments are always to me harder Um, so appreciate your your thoughtfulness and talking through that. Um, in terms of what's happened since your last meeting, which was actually

back in May, um, not a whole lot of activity. Uh, on May 20th, uh, council did consider the action on the resoning at 5828 Fagatville Road. If you'll remember, that was the little light industrial um, piece. Um that was approved on a vote of five to zero from RA rural agricultural to light industrial. Um at the work session on May 27th, we did have uh some discussion about the R8 zoning district. Um some of you may be familiar with some of that. um the R8 district, there's no there's no minimum uh density for that district, but the way the district is written kind of implies that it would be used differently than how it's being used thus far. Um, so there was there was general agreement that we need to change some things about the R8 district. And so, um, I will actually be bringing a or bringing back a discussion about some amendments to the residential portions of our UDO that would help to better implement some of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Uh, and we're going to bring that R8 discussion potentially into that package. Um, so again, I'll be presenting that to them at their work session this month. Uh, so if you're so inclined, feel free to listen in. Um, on June 3rd, um, there was just a discussion of the text amendment that we just finished up and so that will now be going back to council for a decision. And then on June 17th, um we had the public hearing for Creek Road, which again you heard tonight and will now be going back um for a

decision. And then they also uh considered a decision on the Renmore uh subdivision off of Clifford and New Bethl. Uh that was approved on a vote of 3 to2. uh in June uh towards the later part of the month. I think I had told you in May that we were getting ready to hopefully issue the transportation plan update request for qualifications. Uh we did get that put out and I think it was maybe was July 3rd right before the 4th um was our deadline to receive uh qualifications. We did get uh responses from four different firms uh here in the Raleigh area. Um so we do have an expectation uh that if we can get through the review process and selection process uh that we should have a consultant on board to start in September. Um have not decided on the final format of how that's all going to work. that will be part of the discussions that we will be having uh with the respondents. Um it is entirely possible that we could just I think the comprehensive plan um project went about as well as it could have from a public input and planning commission and council input. If for those of you who weren't here, um both the planning commission and the council served as kind of the advisory board, the full groups. So that's possible. We may do that again. Um other options may be where we ask you to appoint a couple of representatives um to serve on an advisory board. Um but again, we're looking to ramp that up in September. I did want to give you just a

little bit of an idea of what we put out preliminarily as kind of the scope for our transportation plan. Um we do currently have two plans that are still officially on the books. Uh we have our 2010 transportation plan. Um that is still official in some capacity. And if I can type in my password, that would help. Um we did we did do an update um to the transportation plan as part of our previous comprehensive plan update back in 201620 2017. It was not a complete rewrite though. We did not have enough funding earmarked to do a complete rewrite at that time. So currently the way things work for the for transportation is is if it's in the 2017 plan, we follow that. If there's something that comes up through review that the 2017 plan doesn't address, then we go back to the 2010 plan. Um so council did um budget for a complete rewrite uh this time. And so as part of that obviously one of the things we're going to do is ask the consultant to consolidate. Um we don't want two versions of maps hanging out um that we have to consult. So we're going to get all the maps and recommendations consolidated into that one document. We are also um looking at various forms of what I would call origin and destination analysis. Whether it's from outside of Garner into

Garner, outside of Garner through Garner, um from one part of Garner to another part of Garner, we're really trying to um get some insights from this version of the plan as to why people are coming to Garner, how many are coming, where they're coming from, and really try to drive home for folks. You know, we all know congestion is an issue. it is everywhere. Um, how much of that is really self-imposed and how much of that is just imposed because of things that are happening elsewhere that we have no control over. Um, so really trying to get some output products that help us understand how the traffic's moving through and where it's coming from and where it's going. Um, so that was a big uh portion of what we put out there is what we were looking for. Um, that is kind of a specialized thing. So we want to make sure that folks have access to the data and can really present that to us in a way that's easy to understand. Um the other thing that kind of came out um of our staff discussions uh we invited other departments to sit in and help us draft this RFQ. And so one of the other things that really came up was the topic of safety and safety from all aspects. It's not really something that previous plans have addressed in much detail. Um, so we want to we want to the plan to kind of get at addressing, you know, perception versus reality. Um, digging into crash data that's available and helping us kind of bring that to the forefront to understand where our problem spots really are in Garner.

Um maybe identifying some hot spots where the consultant could dig in with a safety lens and say, you know, here's some recommended improvements to this stretch of road or this particular intersection. Um that would really be helpful. And of course the allimportant cost estimates uh that go along with that work. Um school zone best practices. We did participate in a safe we were I think one of the first communities in the state to participate in a in a school safety zone study. Um we did we partnered and did some work at Vandor Springs Elementary. Um so kind of bringing that forward into the plan and doing some additional work on that. Um and then also traffic calming. Um we seem to talk about that a lot. what's really the best, what works, what doesn't work. Um, and trying to be more proactive in that regard and forward thinking, um, rather than being reactive after the development happens, what can we really do on the front end to try to address that? Um, finally, a couple of the other things that we threw out there was again talking about um, connectivity. Uh, looking at the benefits and the costs that come with connectivity in various uh, situations and trying to come up with some definitive kind of recommendations on that that everybody can hopefully get behind. Um, and then finally kind of right-of-way management. And when we say right-of-way management, we're really talking about working with what we have from curb to curb. Um, it's increasingly almost cost prohibitive

to try to widen roads these days. Um, particularly the secondary routes. Um, just because of particularly because of the way some of the formulas are set up at the state level. they just, you know, don't reward those kind of applications. Um, it's already limited funding. And so, one of the things that we thought we would have this plan potentially work on is, okay, what are some strategies that we as the town can use that don't require widening? work with what we have and how best to try to to use that whether you know it's is the vehicle always the most important for every road in Garner or there's some roads where we want to you know potentially take some vehicle capacity away and add better sidewalks or better side paths and bike facilities. Um the bicyclists um admittedly we haven't spent a lot of time um in years past talking much about them or how to accommodate them. Um I do get the sense that there are more people who are biking or would like to bike around Garner. Um so I think that is a question we do want to put out there and try to get some movement on for how how do we accommodate cyclists? uh better in Garner. And then finally, also, let's dig into transit. Um we have a lot of transit related projects that Garner is not necessarily leading the way on, but they are things that are happening um to us and around us by other, you know, regional agencies. And so, how can we start to kind of gather all that information together and come up with a

clearer picture of where Garner does want to put its resources to build on what is happening um around us and take advantage more so of the Wake Transit Plan and those tax dollars that are coming with uh what we're paying and contributing uh to that in Wake County. If any of you are interested in really digging your teeth into this while we're going through the selection process, I am more than happy to share all of the information with you. Um, and would welcome you to in, you know, send me any comments that you have. I am doing a review and scoring um, of these as well as six of my colleagues um, from around the town. Um, but if you do want to dig in, if it's something you're really interested in, um, feel free to let me know. I'm happy to share the materials with you and take your comments. Right. I'm excited um, about that. Um, I've always had an interest in like transit and trying to help the connectivity of Garner. Um, has Garner considered also like a pedestrian bridge? Because I know I noticed there's a lot of large intersections and lately there's been some pretty horrific crashes at those intersections. Yeah. To the point where I wouldn't even feel safe walking across. And there's been multiple times where I've was like, "Oh, I would walk." But you're walking essentially across a major highway. Yeah. No, I think that kind of input is is what hopefully the consultant and having some one-on ones or small groups uh with you um where maybe some of those areas we can elevate those to a more detailed discussion about what we can do whether it's a bridge or something else. Um yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. Well, I definitely would love to participate where I can. Um, transit is really important. Try to hammer that into my students. So, I think that's we need to kind of get ahead of that. The last thing I have, unless there's questions on that, um, we've had two vacancies left, as I say. Um, we are happy to report that we have filled one of those and we do have a staff member who will be joining us Monday the 21st on Aaron's team. So Aaron and Thomas will go from being a team of two to a team of three. And uh perhaps in another month or so we may have hopefully good news to have them at a complete team of four or further at least further along in that direction. So look forward to introducing him at the next meeting. Thank you for the work. Any comments from commission? I've got a question on another topic. If If that one was done, sorry, to Mr. Fzenberg if he's done with that. Yeah. Yeah, I'm good. That's all I had. That's all. Okay. Um, got a question for Miss Jones. Um, do you have any update on the NC House Bill 765? I think we discussed that maybe three months ago. So, probably not a good update, but my understanding is that bill didn't go anywhere, but most of its provisions were put into and is it the swimming pool bill? Yes. So, there was a small bill that

you can't make this stuff up. Um, there was a small bill where it is now a very large bill and we're continuing to monitor that. Um there are some bills you may have heard have been signed into law. Some have been vetoed by the governor. So we continue to track those and we'll be doing a report to um council on the the session laws that have passed and their impacts and as they relate to planning and development we will share that um so that planning commission and the board of adjustment can can be aware of those as well. Okay. Thank you for that question. Spoiler. Uh the social media site next door can be very interesting. Um has there been any overtures from Publix moving into the White Oak area? Oh, I know. I do understand that they are one of two or three grocerers that may be considering um the first part of the new development across from the existing White Oak Shopping Center. Yeah. But nothing confirmed. Nothing confirmed. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Rumors. Always rumors. This is a place to get it all figured out. Hear about it for sure. Are there any other commission needs or comments? Okay. Well, hearing none, then we will call our meeting a journ. [Music]

[Music]