Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call the meeting of the Garner Planning Commission to order.

Good evening, commissioners. I will call the roll. Chris Frederick.

Here.

Shane Tapper.

Here.

Shane Banks.

Here.

Mariah Bishop. Here. Ben Mills. Here.

Here.

Keon Hodges? Here. Ralph Carson? That is six members present.

Do we have a motion to allow Mr. Mills and Mr. Banks to participate in tonight's meeting by electronic means?

Motion. Motion.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

I move to allow Mr. Mills and Mr. Banks to participate in tonight's meeting by electronic means, including participating in deliberations, making motions, and voting.

There's a motion on the floor to allow Mr. Mills and Mr. Banks to participate in tonight's meeting by electronic means, and I will call the vote. Chris Frederick? Here, I'm in. Shane Tapper?

Aye.

Mariah Bishop? Aye. Gian Hodges? Aye. That is four ayes, the motion passes.

At this time, we'll have our invocation. Does anyone want to do that? No? Okay, I got it. All right, let's take a moment to reflect on the responsibility entrusted to us. May we approach tonight's work with wisdom, fairness, patience, and respect for one another and for the community we serve. May our discussions be thoughtful, our decisions be guided by the best interest of our community, and may we remain mindful of how decisions made here affect both current residents and future generations. So are there any additions or changes to tonight's agenda? Anyone have any concerns? Okay, do we have a motion to adopt tonight's agenda?

Motion.

Okay, and do we have a second? I'll second. All right, there's a motion on the floor to adopt the agenda, and I will call the vote. Chris Frederick?

Aye.

Shane Topper?

Aye.

Shane Banks.

Aye.

Mariah Bishop. Aye. Ben Mills.

Aye.

Gian Hodges. Aye. That is six ayes. The agenda is adopted.

Okay, and now we need a motion to adopt the minutes from our regular meeting from last month, July 13th, 2026. Do we have a motion or does anyone have anything they wanted to say about last month's meeting? Do we have a motion to adopt the meetings from the July 13th meeting?

Motion.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve the minutes and I will call the vote. Chris Frederick.

Aye.

Shane Tapper. Aye. Shane Banks.

Aye.

Mariah Bishop. Aye. Ben Mills.

Aye.

Gian Hodges. Aye. That is six ayes, the minutes are approved.

Okay, now we'll move to new business. Turn it over to staff. So our next item is gonna be the tier one conditional rezoning request for CZ-26-002 at 7615 Tintin Road.

Okay, good evening Vice Chair and Planning Commissioners. It's good to see you all and members of the public. My name is Erin Joseph. I will provide the staff presentation for this rezoning case as well as the following text amendment. So this is a tier one conditional rezoning at the site located at 7615 Tintin Road. The applicant on behalf of the property owners, Worth Mills is the applicant, has submitted the application, the petition to rezone approximately 31.24 acres. from rural agricultural and commercial mixed-use conditional to commercial mixed-use conditional. The site, as I stated, is located at 7615 1010 Road, and there's a small little portion of the site, this little corner there, that's 01010 Road. This is a tier one conditional request, so it does not include a site-specific master plan. So primarily within the current zoning district, RA, it primarily accommodates agricultural, civil cultural and rural residential uses. Typically the rural residential is large lot, single family detached homes. But there are other uses, utility uses that could be within that rural agricultural zoning district. typically the ra district is outside of the town's corporate limits within its etj or extraterritorial jurisdiction where public water and sewer is not readily available The CMX district, the small portion that encompasses the CMX conditional district, was approved in 2017 as a conditional use district and with the associated site plan to allow for a retail shopping center at that time. So the site is located along the southwestern portion of Garner's 1010 road corridor. So typically a transitional area where suburban residential development meets the remaining rural land within that area. The site is positioned west of US 401 slash Fayetteville Road which is a commercial node including major retail anchors such as Costco, other big box stores, restaurants and service uses. This corridor continues to experience development pressure as growth extends outward from that 401 node. Looking at it from the comprehensive land use plan, the Garner Forward plan, most of the site falls within the community activity center. Its character typology is mixed use. So this area is intended to support a blend of residential, commercial, and service uses that complement the nearby regional commercial node that's most notably anchored by Costco. According to North Carolina Department of Transportation, the 2024 annual average daily trip for this area is approximately 36,000 vehicles per day that travel along that US 401 and 1010 road intersection just north of that 1010 road and 401 intersection. Now the developer has proposed a conditional rezoning. Commercial mixed use would be the base general district. They are proffering several conditions. They have also committed to a narrowed list of permitted uses, 16 out of 62 permitted uses, which they have divided into four pods, and you'll see that on the screen. within this exhibit, the four pods laid out across the site. And you'll also note that the text that's in the brownish color, that indicates that the conditions have been updated since the public hearing and town council's review. So now they have 27 proffered conditions. There were initially 25. They have at the request of council during the public hearing was to add a condition that prohibits property owners' future development from utilizing the affordable housing tax exemption, which is also known as the Blue Ridge loophole. So they have included that as a condition. They've also made adjustments to uses within the pods. There's a breakdown of uses within the pods. They've increased the minimum height of the buildings to four. And they've restricted the number of uses as far as residential uses. They've limited it not to exceed 450 units. So you do have in your agenda packet the conditions. I won't run through all of them, but we have included the red-lined version of the conditions so that you can see the changes that have been made. They also added the term cottage to their conditions. During the course of the review process, just want to note some of the items of discussion that we've had with the developer and the applicant team. Number one is to always ensure that the zoning conditions are meaningful and that they go above UDO minimum standards. There is a discussion for consideration for the inclusion of affordable housing, the lack of commitment to vertical mix use, and also to think about including a sign easement for a welcome garner sign, given that this site abuts right up to the Fuquay-Varina jurisdictional boundaries. Some transportation notes for the development. There was a TIA that was conducted in July of 2025. The proposed development, which included, let me see, it was up to 450 senior multifamily units, 20,000 square feet of medical office, 10,000 square feet of retail, and 8,000 square feet of restaurant, fast food restaurant. So those were the uses that were considered within the TIA. And so this development based off of that TIA is expected to generate 3,107 trips on an average weekday. And during those peak hours, in the morning peak hour, 308 trips. During the evening or PM peak hours, there's 310 trips expected to be generated from this site. The figure on the screen shows the future build-out lane configuration. NCDOT has recommended a right turn and left turn into the site. There are three points of access that are shown at the site currently. We have this first access here. This access here, which is the right in and right out, this one is a full movement. And then you have that connection piece at the Costco driveway as a full movement. We did note that the congestion management unit of NCDOT did not recommend an access point at Lake Wheeler Drive and 1010 Road. So this is the scenario two based upon NCDOT's recommendation. So it's not shown on that figure. The applicant also held a neighborhood meeting. It was held back in November of 2025. there were 13 people in attendance, and you have that neighborhood meeting packet in your agenda as well for full details about that meeting. The development team also met with town council on two separate occasions. This year, council has started a new format, so they were one of the first to take the opportunity to meet with council during a work session where they could present the development proposal before council in an open meeting and receive feedback, a Q&A. So they had that opportunity back in March and then they followed up with the mayor and Mr. Matthews and Mr. Vance to other council members for further discussion about the proposal. Looking at the proposal, staff does note that this being a tier one rezoning, that the plans, adopted plans and policies that are typically reviewed against this type of proposal is the Garner Forward Comprehensive Land Use Plan. And so staff truly evaluates the proposal based on the permitted uses listed in the table and then the written profit conditions. The staff has analyzed the proposal with the Garner Forward Plan. Within that, the framework consistency, the growth framework, there were five criteria that were evaluated. Overall, the project aligns with the community activity center, the mixed use character type, as well as the development intensity matrix at an area to transform. And so it rated strongly, predominantly strong. The transportation choice was rated modest support. That's usually typical for a tier one because we do not have that layout, that site-specific plan that gives you the finer details about transportation. So we just rate it based on what's existing. Within the land use and community character consistency, there were 21 criteria that were used to evaluate the proposal. And there was a mixed pattern, as you can see in the pie chart there, with several criteria did align well with Garner Forward's goals, particularly for mixed use activity centers the expansion of housing choices, and also the commitment to the trail within the site, so improved pedestrian connectivity. There were six criteria. that received a modest non-support. Staff did meet with the development team after the public hearing, and so their score has adjusted slightly. And so now there are six criteria that have received that modest non-support given their adjustment to some of their conditions and further evaluation. But there were three that received a strong non-support. and primarily due to the absence of commitments related to architectural detailing, public realm activation, and the lack of a commitment for green street stormwater features. Overall, there were no strong non-supporting criteria within the growth framework consistency. And given the land use and community character consistency, staff feels that This proposal has an overall finding of consistency, but always there are opportunities during this process to refine those zoning conditions, particularly related to architectural cohesion, public activation, could support an even stronger finding of consistency as the project continues to move forward. As mentioned briefly earlier, there was a public hearing on July 21st. There was some general feedback and then there was some pointed comments made by council. There was general appreciation for the senior residential development aspect of the site. There was concern about the traffic impacts given that the NCDOT's request to remove access point four, that Lake Wheeler 1010 road connection, and what that impact could potentially, how that removal of that access point could potentially impact the site, the traffic flow, as well as the TIA figures. There were several comments from council that were sort of rose to the top of their concerns. The Blue Ridge loophole which the developer has addressed. There is a strong preference for a tier two with conditional rezonings to include a site specific master plan. Of course this one does not so that preference for a tier two rather than a tier one. As well, even further on that, the drawbacks of a tier one, particularly the unknown tax revenue generation, the lack of affordable housing commitment, concerns with ambiguous language of the conditions some of that has been addressed and modified but um there's still some um tweaks that could be made on their uh on the conditions um and there also was a concern with the building height limitations which again the the developer did increase the minimum to four stories rather than uh five i mean excuse me three So this pretty much concludes my presentation of the proposal. Staff has prepared a draft consistency statement for your consideration and also a draft motion for your consideration. What you see highlighted on the screen is the results of staff's analysis. However, you do have options within your staff report that gives you options if you seem to vote a different way. And so the next steps for this particular case is this evening for planning commission to review findings of plan consistency and make a recommendation to town council whether to approve or deny. The case will then return to town council for findings of reasonableness and a decision to approve the rezoning or deny the rezoning. The applicant is here this evening. They have prepared a presentation and staff is on standby to answer any questions that you all may have as well. Thank you.

Do we have any questions for staff? Ben or Shane?

Yes, I have a question. When the TIA was completed, did it include the Fuqua development across the street?

Ben, can you speak up just a little bit for us?

Yeah, sorry. When the TIA was completed, did that include the Fuqua development across the street of 1010?

I believe it did, but the applicant has their traffic engineer here that can speak specifically to how they conducted their TIA. Okay, thank you.

Hey, this is Shane. I've got one additional question, if you don't mind.

Go right ahead.

Thank you. Erin, is there any preference as to why tier one versus tier two, given the size and kind of the moving pieces of the puzzle for this project?

Yes, so the option to choose a tier one over a tier two, oftentimes a developer may choose a tier one If they do not have all of the details known of the site as far as utilities, as far as end users, it may be more open-ended. And so in order to gain entitlement to the land, sometimes it it the developer may choose a a tier one approach um given that they don't have all the details to the site at that one time however um it can like i said it can be open-ended and council has expressed um hesitation um and and typically has more questions about what ultimately will be developed at that site, what the the net benefit to the town as far as cost of services and tax revenue generation. So so given that the tier one may not answer some of those larger questions that council may have. Council has expressed the preference for a tier two to help better understand what that development will actually look like once it comes out of the ground and the potential tax revenue that it will bring.

Thank you, Erin.

Yes, you're welcome.

Aaron, I have one more question. This has been. Um, during the or during your discussions with the developer, did y'all talk any about? Any intersection improvements at Lake Wheeler in 1010?

I can't think of anything that stands out as far as improvements other than having the standard improvements, the standard road frontage improvements as far as widening sidewalks. things like that. But nothing stands out in particular about that Lake Wheeler and 1010 road for anything above what's outside of the typical requirements from the town.

And the typical requirement is just dedication to right-of-way and pretty much adding a sidewalk. There's no turn lane improvements or anything like that?

They would have to, yes, right-of-way dedication, if the road is not built out to the ultimate section, then they would have to build half of that ultimate section. And so NCDOT will usually recommend laneage as far as turn lanes and what type of movement at the intersection. But, yes, as far as the town standard, it's usually sidewalks or multi-use path, curb and gutter, lights, and things like that. And so, yes, there wasn't anything that I can recall. And I don't know, Jeff, if I've missed anything outside of that.

I was going to mention Dave.

Oh, okay, yeah, and David Talbert, our assistant town engineer, is on, and he may be able to speak in more detail to that as well.

Okay, yeah, I had, it seemed like to me there should be some, I guess, turn lane improvements at the intersection, but we can talk about that a little bit later, further in the meeting, and then my other question was, was there any discussions about across the street on 1010, the three single family properties where the road was not, there needs to be right-of-way dedication. I realize that's in Fuqua's jurisdiction and I'm Garner's, but was there any discussion around that?

I don't recall if there was any discussion about that in particular. Again, with a tier one, you don't have all of those driveway access points and things like that where you're really getting a little deeper into driveway connections and access points, things like that. So it's not at that finer level.

Yeah, thank you. Most welcome.

I did. Okay, and Erin, I noticed that at the beginning of your presentation, you mentioned that staff mentioned the lack of commitment to vertical building. Was that for the whole site, like including if there was like a senior center, or is that just, excuse me, or is that just for the commercial?

We've really looked at it across the entire site, given that it is a mixed-use note. So if there were opportunities to include vertical mixed-use, that came up in discussion. Was there a possibility to have, even with the group care or the assisted living facilities commercial on the bottom and the residential units on top? And so... if there was an opportunity to have that in the site, that was discussed across the site. You're welcome.

I just wanted to go back to the tier one and tier two. So was this being presented as a tier one? I just want to understand, because of the limited opportunity that the developer had, to assess the property to then go towards a tier two or just for more so timing or potentially just benefit to keep it at a tier one.

Generally all of those things are considered when a developer chooses that tier one route. They may not have all of those details. They may not know specifically what the uses will be and that's sort of what was reflected in their TIA. They've had several different uses um that could potentially be there um you know um sometimes working out the utility uh the sewer i know that was um extension was one of the early constraints for this property um you know when you go under a contract um with um with your with the buyer seller sometimes you're under a time frame for that and you may not have the time and the details to work out all the specificity of a tier two and so giving that option within our development code to have a tier one where there's some flexibility built into it knowing that with development there may be unknowns but you may need to gain entitlement through with the rezonings and land use and things like that to secure and move forward to the next step. So that's sometimes what we'll see, especially with mixed use developments and if there is a greater assemblage. But it's typically a case by case basis. I don't wanna say every scenario applies, but that's generally what we've seen when we've seen cases that will come before the town as a tier one versus a tier two. You're welcome.

Any other questions for now for the staff? From the developer? Okay. If you'll please state your name and address.

Good evening, Planning Commission members. My name is Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners. My address is 4509 Creedmoor Road in Raleigh, 27612. I'm here on behalf of Liberty Senior Living, who is the contract purchaser and the rezoning applicant. Thad Moore is here to represent Liberty Senior Living. Also joining us are Heather Massasso with Klein Design and Morgan Cook, our traffic engineer from Kimley Horn. Morgan will give a detailed summary of the TIA in just a few moments. Liberty has requested this zoning map change to commercial mixed-use conditional so that it can build an age-restricted active adult community. The rezoning would also facilitate skilled nursing, office, and commercial uses that surround this new active adult community. It would allow for 260 of those active adult multifamily units, which are all age-restricted. It would allow up to 40 townhome-style cottages, which are also age-restricted, 150 group care units, and 69,000 square feet of non-residential development. This rezoning would add new housing to Garner's existing housing supply, particularly for senior citizens. It would increase the commercial uses that are currently concentrated at the 401-1010 Road intersection anchored by Costco. And we would also have significant improvements to 1010 Road and its intersection with Lake Wheeler. I will touch on why we chose Tier 1 and the changes that we've made since the public hearing. When Liberty Senior Living initiated this rezoning, there was a lot of debate as to whether Pod B, which I will explain shortly, whether that was best suited for a medical office building or whether that was best suited for a skilled nursing facility. And those two uses have very different layouts, very different building footprints, and so the Tier 1 offered us the flexibility to try to put parameters on this development while maintaining that flexibility as we move forward. That being said, after conversations with town council members and after the public hearing, we decided to move forward with the skilled nursing use in pod B. And as I will show in just a few minutes, I think we have put significant conditions in place, meaningful conditions in place that do provide that predictability as to what will be developed in each of these four pods. Now that more will come up and provide an overview of Liberty Senior Living and its parent company, Liberty Healthcare.

Good evening. My name is Thad Moore. I'm the Development Director for Liberty Senior Living. We're located at 2334 South 41st Street in Wilmington, North Carolina. However, I live in the Triangle and work full-time in Raleigh, focusing on our communities in and around the Triangle. Locally, we have developed the Templeton in Cary and Hayes Barton Place in Raleigh. Both are life plan communities. Our newest 55-plus active adult community is in Briar Chapel in Chapel Hill. We currently own and operate 24 senior living communities throughout the southeastern US. We have one under construction in Charleston, South Carolina, and 16 more properties in our development pipeline. Every community is different, just as every site is different. We want our buildings to fit in with the existing architecture of the area and our product offerings to best serve the area. liberty healthcare is a fourth generation north carolina family-owned company that's currently in its 151st year of operation liberty senior living living is the division responsible for the development and operation of our life plan communities and our active adult communities liberty is proposing a 55 plus active adult community here with other commercial uses in garden Specific to this site, we've had a great working relationship with the current landowners. They have supported us at every juncture in the development process. One of these challenges was sewer access, which was never extended to this site by neighboring developments. Liberty met on many occasions with our neighbors, and I'm happy to report we have secured exclusive sewer access through easement agreements with these neighbors, getting us one step closer to bringing a high quality active adult community to Garner. Thank you.

Thank you, Thad. So now just to get into more of the meat and potatoes of the presentation. So I wanted to put an area overview slide up from 2021 just to highlight the changes in this area over the last four or five years. The subject parcel is outlined in red. The key takeaway here is that I-540 had not yet been completed through this portion of Garner. And then you compare that to the latest aerial that IMAPS offers from 2025. You can see the construction of the Costco. You can see plenty of new homes and commercial out parcels. And you can see the completed stretch of I-540 and its interchange with Fayetteville Road, which is the driver of this new development over the last five years. The property today, or as most people have probably remembered it, is operated as Porter Farms. It currently has a single-family home with other structures around it. There's a produce stand. You can see the Costco site immediately to our east, and you can see the Royal Creek Apartments on the south side of 1010 Road in Fuquay. So we are at the western edge of Garner's planning jurisdiction. The undeveloped areas are bordered by Lake Wheeler and 1010 Road. The majority of the developed properties in this area are zoned CMX or CMX conditional. This rezoning would extend that CMX zoning to the intersection with Lake Wheeler Road. Other zoning districts include Multifamily A and Multifamily B, so certainly an area and intersection that has seen significant residential and non-residential growth. And then comparing Garner's zoning to Fuquay's. Again, our property is outlined in red. From Lake Wheeler all the way to 401, the predominant zoning for Fuquay is either mixed use or general commercial. So Fuquay's land use pattern is mirroring Garner's land use pattern in this area. Now to the policy maps. This is the general framework map. As Ms. Joseph noted, we are within a community activity center, which is recommended to include a mix of land uses that serve multiple nearby neighborhoods. It recommends apartments, condominiums, townhomes, and a host of office and commercial uses. costco serves as the anchor tenant for this community activity center but this project includes various housing types apartments townhomes skilled nursing which falls under the group care use and it also permits a number of office and commercial uses that can serve as out parcels to that costco anchor tenant Now looking at the character typology map, we are designated as a mixed use area. And again, that's a recommendation for a wide variety of uses, residential and non-residential uses. So again, we think that our rezoning, the conditions that we've included, the uses that we have permitted are consistent with the character typology recommendations. And then lastly, the development and intensity change map. We are within the level 4A, areas to transform, low rise designation. So the text reads that these are areas that provide opportunities to reimagine Garner's future and to introduce new energized activity areas and provide key locations for new employment areas. It, again, recommends a mix of uses, non-residential and residential, with building heights between three and five stories. Our zoning conditions limit the active adult community to a minimum of four stories and a maximum of five stories, so we think we are meeting the intent of the development and intensity change map as well. So now turning our attention to the zoning exhibit that is provided with our application, this breaks the entire site into four distinct pods. And I did want to run through what each of these pods represents briefly. So, Pod A, the only permitted use in Pod A is multifamily, and this is where the active adult community is planned. That's a maximum of 260 dwelling units, and all of those units are age-restricted. In Pod B, only two uses are permitted. One is group care, which is the larger use that the skilled nursing facility would fall under. The second use that we've permitted is upper story residential. And truth be told, we permitted that because we thought it was going to help with our consistency analysis. But the plan for Pod B is to build a skilled nursing facility in that location. that skilled nursing would facilitate up to 150 dwelling units for those patients. Pod C, excuse me. This is where we plan to construct the age-restricted cottages. These would take the form of a townhome, so they would be attached. We do not know whether they would be individually platted on their own lots or whether multiple cottages would be platted on the same lot. That's why we've allowed both townhome uses and the multifamily use in that pod. But again, the goal that we're trying to achieve there is for those age-restricted cottages, which have a height limit of one livable story and 25 feet. So we want to make sure that the tenants or the owners that live there have all of the living space that they need on the first floor. They don't need to climb stairs every day to go to their bedroom. And then pod D, which is closest to the Costco. This is where we are permitting our variety of non-residential uses. This includes office, retail, service uses. And again, we think this is a great place for new commercial to compliment the Costco. All of these pods are connected via an internal street and pedestrian network, allowing people to move from one pod to the other, from one use to the other. I did want to provide some examples of other projects that Liberty has done. As Mr. Moore mentioned, their most recent project is Inspire Briar Chapel, which is in the Chapel Hill, Pittsburgh area. As Mr. Moore mentioned, every active adult community that Liberty Senior Living builds is different. There is no cookie cutter model here. They're not dropping this style, they're not dropping other styles into Garner. It will be developed with Garner in mind. But we did want to highlight some of the high quality architecture that Liberty has provided in other locations. Here you can see the entrance to the active adult building. This is a four-story product as well. And then this slide, still at Briar Creek, you can see some of the amenities that Liberty provides. There's large indoor gathering spaces and an outdoor pool area. Liberty emphasizes high-quality amenities for all of its residents. Now looking at another community, active adult community. This is Inspire Brunswick Forest. This is in Leland, North Carolina, towards the beach. Again, here you can see a different type of architecture. It does not look like the Briar Chapel. This has more of a beach feel to it, but still high quality architecture, which is Liberty's calling card. Similar to Briar Chapel, Brunswick Forest also emphasizes amenity space for its residents. Large workout rooms, a living room gathering area, and that sort of interior located pool. These line drawings here are from the upcoming skilled nursing facility that is being built at Briard Chapel currently. Just to give an example of what these skilled nursing facilities look like, you can see the architectural detailing around the main entrance on the top portion of the slide. And then dormers changing roof lines add to that architectural interest for both motorists and pedestrians that may be walking by. I did want to summarize the zoning conditions that we've offered. This is not an exhaustive list, but those that I think are most important or most impactful to our case. So as mentioned, our maximum residential development is 450 dwelling units. 260 of those would be in the active adult community, all age-restricted. All of those units are served by elevators and air-conditioned corridors. The minimum maximum height is four and five stories. 40 of those units would be in the townhome-style cottages in Pod C. Those are also all age-restricted. We've prohibited vinyl siding, which is consistent with the town's regulations for multifamily and non-residential development. We've capped building height at one livable story and 25 feet to emphasize that ground floor living. And then a condition that provides for architectural detail for any of those garage doors. Lastly, 150 units in the group care in Pod B. We've permitted up to 69,000 square feet of non-residential development, which would be located in Pod D. We have committed to a 10,000 square foot clubhouse, which would be located within the active adult building. We've committed to an eight foot wide trail system to connect the amenity areas throughout the development and a six foot wide pedestrian path to connect the pod where the trail otherwise does not. we are dedicating 10.5% of the entire property as open space. That number, if just developed according to each pod, would be lower than 10% because in pod D, there is no open space requirement. At least 50% of our active space must be designed for active recreation purposes and must include an indoor fitness center, outdoor pool, and outdoor exercise area and courts. We have limitations on vehicular surface parking between 1010 Road and any buildings in pods A, B, or D, which are those closest to 1010 Road. We want to bring those buildings closer to the street. We don't want to see of parking as people drive by 1010 Road. And as mentioned at the public hearing, we have offered a condition that waives any rights to utilize the nonprofit organization tax exemption, otherwise known as the Blue Ridge Loophole. Some of the changes that we've made since the town council public hearing, we have removed all potential uses effectively but group care from pod B. As I mentioned, we have upper story living permitted in pod B, no plans to develop upper story living that would exclusively be for the group care skilled nursing use. We have removed the potential for group care in pods A and C. We had 50% of the cottages age-restricted. We are now age-restricting all of those cottages. We've limited the height of those cottages to one livable story and 25 feet, and we have limited the active adult community's building height range to four or five stories. In the public hearing, we had a limitation of three or five stories, so trying to make sure that we're maximizing building height where we can. And now Morgan Cook with Kimley Horne will walk through the traffic impact analysis.

Thank you, Worth. My name is Morgan Cook with Kimley Horne, the traffic engineer who prepared the TIA for this study. We analyzed six intersections.

Sorry to interrupt. Can you please state your address as well?

Oh, I'm so sorry. My address is 421 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh. um north carolina um suite 600 27601 if you need on it so uh perfect so we went ahead and looked at six study intersections along 1010 road going from lake wheeler road all the way down to us-401 all of the study intersections with our site traffic were expected to operate acceptably with exception of the intersection of us-401 at 1010 those were expected to operate at level service e in the amp gower you know with or without the proposed development but really overall if you look at the delay between our traffic and the future without the site traffic. It's really just an increase of about five seconds of overall delay with our site traffic added on. So fairly minimal impact overall along the 1010 corridor and fairly minimal impact specifically at all of the other city intersections and site driveways. This figure shows our recommendations for the TIA. So as you can see, kind of going from the Costco driveway there all the way west to Lake Wheeler Road, we're proposing some frontage widening that ultimately ends as a full length right turn lane there onto Lake Wheeler Road from 1010 Road to also accommodate that geometric change we are recommending a signal modification since we're now introducing that exclusive right turn on 1010 road going north toward lake wheeler road this does show the right in right outside driveway on lake wheeler road Originally, NCDOT did recommend against it. Since the last meeting that we had with you all at the Town of Garner, we've reached out to NCDOT and they have actually verbally given the okay for this right in right out driveway on Lake Wheeler Road. I expect we could have that in writing by the next commissioner's meeting. Just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention as well. It's fairly recent discussions had with them. Regarding any questions with looking at things with and without that access point on Lake Wheeler Road, our scenario two in our TIA analyzed the study intersections without that Lake Wheeler Road access. So, as you can see here, our scenario one is including that site driveway four. If you kind of compare delays between scenario one and scenario two for our build-out conditions of future traffic with our site traffic added on, can see that the delays are generally better with that additional lake wheeler access there without the lake wheeler access you're looking at it's a difference of 10 cars going in that would have gone into that right in right out driveway that now could go into three different access points so it's fairly spread around um in relation to you know where we were expecting those certain nursing uses to be so generally as you can see acceptable delays with exceptions like we talked about that us 401 at 1010 road intersection but you can see that increase in delay for either scenario is fairly um fairly minimal so with that i'm happy to answer questions later on but i'll give it back to worth to wrap this up

thank you morgan just to conclude and highlight sort of the benefits that we feel that this rezoning brings to the town so first again as i mentioned this rezoning would facilitate new housing particular particularly senior housing Along 1010 Road, it would facilitate different types of senior housing, whether that be sort of that independent cottage living or that active adult multifamily living in Pod A. The rezoning is consistent with the adjacent zoning districts along 1010 Road and the 401 intersection. That includes the zoning in Garner as well as the zoning in Fuqua. it's a rezoning that is facilitating a development that's compatible with the existing development around it the rezoning is consistent with the policy maps that are put forward in the garner forward comprehensive plan and for these reasons we think the request is reasonable and in the public interest we appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on this application and we are happy to take any questions and receive your feedback this evening thank you

Thank you. I'll start off by just saying, one, I do like seeing a plan like this. I think it's important for the community to have a continuum of care living situation, especially in our area where we have, I think, two skilled nursing facilities that serve our area, one across the street here at the Laurels and then Bella Rose. So there really isn't this type of development in this specific region. You typically do have to go to Cary or Raleigh to see this. I do know, you know, People do prefer to stay where they are, especially once they reach those ages and they're more likely to get the care that they need if they can stay there and just kind of go through from a pod to the skilled nursing or assisted living. I do have some concerns with the traffic especially need for emergency vehicle usage and getting out on 1010. But we can, I'll ask some more questions to that a little later. But yeah, otherwise I'm gonna turn it over if we have some questions for the developers.

Yeah, I wanna ask a quick question. As far as some of the conditions, I noticed that there was a lot where it's a maximum condition, but say as far as like commercial, is there a minimum amount of commercial you guys know you're gonna do? Is there a minimum amount of cottages that you guys plan or know that you're gonna commit to?

We have not included any minimums on that. I think part of that is, you know, as Aaron mentioned, some of the unknowns, particularly in that Pod C area where we've got some environmental features that we're going to have to traverse just to get back there. Sort of the developable area back there is a little bit of a question mark. We think 40 would be fantastic. If we can make that fit, we would absolutely do that. We have not included any minimums for the non-residential component either. I think the primary driver of that is there haven't been any tenants identified or end users identified at this point, but wanted to, again, create as much development in that pod as we think is feasible and can be parked sort of within that pod deep.

I'll go. So yeah, I definitely see the need for a senior center and definitely applaud you all for coming up with the design and everything. But just to echo what's been said, so the traffic signal kind of does sound a little bit like a nightmare just because I know we do have a lot of traffic that funnels through that area. I don't know if it could be considered maybe not having like a left turn and maybe having like a turnaround further down and down the street where, or also having like seniors try to make left turns and I.

Sure, which one are you referring to? Let's see.

Driveway 1. Driveway 1. Yeah, so I guess as you turn out of the site onto 1010 Road. Would that be site one or site two? Site one.

Yes, site driveway one is that full movement driveway. Yes, that's understood. So we had kind of also thought, you know, with the connectivity to the Costco driveway for those folks wanting to travel more toward 401, another option for them is to get to that signal right there that is currently for the Costco. So they could hop out that way on Side Driveway 3 and use those two dual left lanes to turn left if they want us to travel east on 1010.

And then for the Driveway 3, is there also, I guess, a sidewalk that connects to that Costco?

That would be a question.

To a concert at Greenfield Lake Amphitheater?

Oh, yeah. David, I think you're not on mute.

I've never actually been to a show there, so. David.

I don't know. Can you mute them?

Yeah.

Okay, perfect. They can.

Oh, yeah, so I guess, again, my question. Okay. A question that we talked to.

So I'm going to see if on our aerial we can identify whether there is any side, well, hard to see. I don't know that we have offered a condition that would include a sidewalk for that connection, but I may have to ask Planning or Transportation just if that would be a requirement as part of sort of extending that Stub Street into our site. My suspicion is that there's a sidewalk requirement for any street extension there. If we need to add that condition, we certainly could.

Okay, great. Yeah, I definitely think it would be very beneficial to have a sidewalk that connects to Costco just to help reduce some of the traffic. No point of driving just a couple feet away. And then my next point, how many stories, I guess, is the commercial use side, so pod D?

We have not put any parameters around the height of the commercial in Pod D. And I think, again, that goes back to not having an end user identified, whether that is a restaurant or a bank or an office. I think the end user will probably be what dictates building layout and building height. So we have not included any sort of parameters on a minimum or a maximum building height in that location.

my last question i guess as far as the connectivity um within the different pods is there i guess a sidewalk or some sort of trail for everyone to kind of get easily to different sections within each pod uh yes ma'am so in our conditions we have a commitment to building that eight foot wide trail that links the amenity areas throughout the site so you have

some stand-alone pedestrian connectivity. At the same time, we also offered a condition that maybe where the amenity trail does not maybe connect a pod, then we would have a six-foot-wide pedestrian path to ensure that each of those pods is connected without having to get in your car. So you could walk or bike from pod B to pod D. Got it.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Before you sit down, I want to ask a quick question. As far as the cottages, I think we said those are town homes and they'll all be one level. Do you have any idea exactly how many will be attached?

Would it be like, because I'm assuming- So what our conditions contemplate are sort of, well, maybe three total options. You may have... a townhouse building that only has three or four units as part of that building, that's a distinct use within Garner's UDO. We may have a building that has five townhome units connected to one building, and that's a separate use. Um, in the so we wanted to make sure that we included both of those. So you may have a situation where one building has three. Building has four building has five just because we haven't been able to fully flesh out what that layout is going to be. And then we also included the multi family use within pod C for the possibility that. all of these units could be platted on a single lot. That would likely lend itself to more of a rental situation. And I suspect, given that all are age-restricted, that's probably the way that these are headed. But we wanted to preserve sort of both options, whether to individually plat them or to locate sort of one building, multiple units on one lot, which then sort of kicks us into the multifamily use.

Okay, so just my understanding, it's headed in the direction where all the units may be rented and not for sale?

Correct, and that's sort of the idea is to sort of bring those units into the active adult senior living so that they're sort of being operated and managed by one entity.

Is the max amount that could be attached five? Is that the most that would be?

I'd have to defer to Mr. Joseph. I think you can exceed five, but I'll have to have planning confirm that.

And I know you said that I think as far as for pod B, you guys recently decided to go with the group home versus the medical office. Do we know yet if it's going to be skilled or assisted? I think if I'm not mistaken, maybe skilled is like 24 hour care where assisted is more

I think Liberty's intentions there is for that skilled nursing. We did not age restrict the skilled nursing facility because you often see patients who aren't 55 that need that skilled nursing as well. But Yes, the change that we made from the public hearing to now was to remove the possibility of just sort of that standalone medical office and just say this is where we're going to build the skilled nursing facility.

And when do you guys expect to start construction?

I might have Mr. Moore come up and give a breakdown of that. Thank you. Thank you.

Starting construction would be a great thing. Typically in projects like this, you're talking about 12 months of civil and architecture planning that would come after the rezoning process and closing of the property and the rezoning process.

so an estimate could be in the neighborhood of anywhere from to start construction from you know say 12 to 18 or 20 months somewhere in that gotcha in that area thank you thank you so along with that um is gonna be for um about traffic the study that was done we're looking at starting breaking ground and late 2027, early 2028. The traffic study that was done, it looks like it was done for traffic through 2027, is that correct?

That's correct. that's not uncommon though for developments to get pushed back and have built out years that just so happen to be later than what we're analyzing the tia um it just happens with different things that may happen in the project timeline if it gets delayed past that is there any type of trigger that maybe we need to do another traffic analysis not necessarily i think it kind of depends on different municipalities or DOT. I mean, DOT's reviewed it, accepted it. Beyond going from, if it's not constructed in 2027, it's constructed in 2028, you're looking at some growth that we may have missed in that one year, but we tend to be fairly conservative when we're looking at our background growth anyway, from when we picked up the counts to 2027 we put a two percent growth on that so that can account for any approved developments in the area that we didn't include in the study or you know maybe some extra background growth that may just happen naturally we did also make sure that we waited until the New interchange came in before we got counts, and traffic was kind of getting used to that new interchange as well. So, just something else to note.

Another question for you. Yeah. So the NCDOT notes that the site driveway three is close to the 1010 Road Costco driveway. Intersection access may need to be restricted if there's operational issues develop there. What types of restrictions could that mean in practice?

It would depend. It could mean, you know, maybe instead of allowing traffic to go through to the Costco or turn left, some restriction may happen there just to avoid any kind of backup going into the site or backup. from Costco going toward our site as well. So, you know, you could be looking at those minor street approaches there. I don't anticipate there to be much issues there looking at the analysis myself.

I mean, yeah, I could see, like, I were there. I'd cut across your property to get on the dealer. Sure. So I could see that being, like, you know, for the developer being an issue trying to avoid 1010. But then that would. Sure. And then you see, I mean, even with our plan that we have here, you know, it's not a straight shot to Lake Wheeler.

So it is kind of an inconvenience and slight delay, even though it could be seen as that cut through. right it's kind of more to be served as intended for that that body which could be that that commercial use you know we could see people going from the Costco across the street to some sort of use like that was a traffic light or roundabout considered for driveway one I can take a look at that over here and while I do that I can kind of answer your question for uh some member like concerns with you know access and emergencies on 1010 the reason we kind of pushed for that right in right out on lake wheeler is to kind of serve as an access point for emergency vehicles to enter and exit our site not necessarily on 1010.

Yes, and I when you presented that that kind of helped because you can get to 540 because I'm thinking you know your closest it's probably going to be Wake Med and Garner and that's a tough to get down 1010 can be just access and that but if you do have that Lake Wheeler the DOT can put that in writing that'd be great.

definitely and that's at the end of the day that's what we were like okay if we can't have that as regular right and right what about an emergency you know I think we were kind of thinking along those lines but as far as the traffic light goes because you can kind of see the distance there between the Lake Wheeler signal at 1010 to our site driveway one. It's fairly close and closer than what DOT may want to see distance wise for a signal. So that's why we didn't necessarily look at it as a signal. We did look, okay, in the event that for whatever reason, that driveway could be restricted you can't take a left out of that driveway for site driveway one to the east again we we looked internally okay can folks make a u-turn at the westbound left turn movement to go east on 1010. And you can do that. It adds, you know, some cues. You're adding more cars to that movement, of course, a little slightly more delay. But you can, that is a possibility. But again, we... felt as though because of the distance and how the delays were looking. Again, if we see here, Freeside driveway one there. There are some long delays, but it's not typically uncommon for those minor street approaches at roads that are as heavy as 1010 Road. And you do have alternate means of egress. So they could go to the Costco light you could U-turn there at the signal of delivery or Lake Wheeler at 1010 Road.

Was the U-turn considered? Not a U-turn, sorry.

Roundabout. So the trouble with the roundabout is... right of way and needing some of that there also for roundabouts you kind of want traffic volumes to be a little bit more even than heavy roads such as 1010 the traffic on there could benefit more from widening than it could from a roundabout there which we saw by adding that widening how delays and queues decreased

Ben or Shane, let me give you the opportunity. I know it may be a little bit difficult. Do you have any other questions for staff or the developer?

Yeah, I can have a few questions or comments. Let's see. So I guess first of all, I'll say that the use that's proposed, I appreciate it. And I think it's a good fit for the area. And even some of the senior housing may be a lighter traffic load than if it was all apartments or townhomes for that. Have y'all did an analysis on that existing pond if the dam is in good shape or do y'all plan to breach it and see what forms afterwards or have done a stream determination out there?

Good evening, Mr. Mills. We have not done any sort of analysis on that pond. So sort of. Plans and how that will be incorporated. You know, we'll have, we would have to determine that sort of a site development plan.

Okay, do you. So, has there been a stream determination been done out there or that's still you're saying you haven't done that yet.

Let me see if I can confirm with Mr. Moore. Yes, we have not done a stream determination for that stream flowing east from that pond as well.

And there may be, I mean, I guess you'll get to it in the drawings, but maybe having the road on top of that dam or right below it may be a concern, any type of public road right below a dam like that. But I guess we'll see how it gets filled in. My other two or other comments are mainly transportation related. So it looks like the right-of-way dedication on Lake Wheeler Road is pretty much just for the right-in, right-out, correct? There's not going to be any other intersection improvement there?

Yeah, there's no modification, just a right-turn lane into that right-in, right-out driveway there.

Okay. I'll say I'll drive through here probably daily and the turn lane as you're coming down Lake Wheeler to 1010 if you're trying to take a left is pretty short in comparison to what's across the street. I think across the street is 200 or something, maybe less. We only have 100 there and typically every day there are people waiting to take a left turn there and maybe And sometimes it can get dangerous, too. They'll drive over top of the double yellow line to try to scoot over some. There's really not enough lane stacking there. So I'm a big concern of that. It's going to be hard for me to vote yes or no tonight or maybe consider tabling it if that lane is not extended out. Did doing your traffic impact analysis, did you see any of that?

sure so yeah uh sure thing so as far as that turn lane goes we're adding about 15 to 17 cars at that movement we didn't see queuing concerns necessarily from our end of course you know you're out there you see it every day it could be slightly different what we found was when we're adding in that right turn there for the westbound approach we were going to modify the signal timing so that's something that we could be looking at as well when modifying the signal to maybe you can give that left turn a little bit more green time um to allow more cars to turn left onto 1010 road um signal modif signal timing modifications are always you know kind of done with any kind of signal plan changes and so once that signal plan is modified that's something that a signal plan team would be focusing on to take a look at all the movements based on all the volumes that we would be projecting in the future. So does that answer kind of your question and maybe some concerns?

Well, I don't think the issue is the time you can take a left turn there. It's just getting into the left turn lane.

you can really only fit like i don't know five to eight cars there maybe sure off the top of my head yeah rule of thumb is you know about 25 20 25 feet per car so about four to five cars there yes um definitely so that's something that um the team would take a look at, you know, you're looking at the intersection as a whole when you're modifying any kind of signal plan. So those engineers would take a look at that and see those volumes and see how it could accommodate the intersection as a whole, not just this new movement that we're also adding there.

Yeah. So when you did the traffic impact analysis, I guess there's a lot less, there's a lot more COs that came across the street in the Fuqua development. Is that factored in somewhere else besides the traffic count, maybe? Or is this a lower traffic count? Sorry.

yes so that development taking a look back at the study that was not included however we do have some traffic volumes coming from that royal creek drive as part of our existing counts those were grown to the future year like i said with that two percent growth rate And we should note that our assumptions for any kind of traffic study are always approved by NCDOT. And so that wasn't added even as part of NCDOT taking a look at that.

That might be something the Town of Garner staff may want to look into as well. So I guess for the purpose of tonight, you wouldn't consider adding in or extending that lane for tonight.

Well, NCDOT also did take a look at our analysis, and they didn't recommend extending that left turn lane either. But again, when you're taking a look at that signal and modifying that signal, it's something that we're taking a look at the intersection as a whole, wanting to make sure we're improving the whole intersection, not just improving that one movement that we're adding there.

Theoretically, do you have enough, is there enough right-of-way dedication to extend out the left-turn lane and have that right-turn

Um, I would need to take a look at maps for giving you an answer on that.

So, that's that's 1 of my major concerns tonight for voting, voting on this. Rezoning the other 1. If you kind of go to the well, it kind of shows here, but not really the, uh. The three single-family properties on 1010 Road where there's no road improvements, and this serves as some choke point through the area. A lot of it's coming from the 401 and 1010 intersection, and I think we all saw the level of services of the intersections, and they're not A or B, right? So there's a lot of traffic flowing through there. But have for better, I guess, development, have you all talked to the three property owners right there about having them dedicated right away so you could help with traffic in the area?

No, there haven't been those discussions.

Okay. And again, I realize that's in the town of Fuquay and maybe Not even in the town limits of Fuquay 2 as well. So that's another, you know, having 1010 Road not fully built out on this section, I guess, from Lake Wheeler to 401 is another, you know, I feel like it's going to be another issue too as well. And that's something, you know, I hope Town of Garner staff is looking at too as well. of coming up with an idea to fix that issue. So I guess for the purposes of tonight, since we don't have definite answers on those two, it's going to be, I'll just reiterate, it's going to be tough for me to vote yes tonight on that issue.

sure and i think to reiterate too with the amount of widening that we're doing on our side frontage too um you know we're restriping that uh right turn through right turn lane there um kind of from east of that costco driveway and going all the way to lake wheeler road and ending that there is that that full right turn lane so we're providing you know a whole new through lane essentially um on this corridor to help alleviate all these through volumes um so to the best of our ability in in that direction you know we are you know like you mentioned we are limited you know on that frontage and right of way on that other approach, but to the best of our ability on that frontage there, we're trying to provide that widening.

Okay. I understand that too as well. The only thing I'll say again for my fellow commissioners is to possibly table an issue so we can, the developer can look at the three single family properties with the Town of Garner staff and maybe nailing down some intersection improvements at Lake Wheeler and 1010. Thank you.

Does staff have any information they'd like to share, especially with the concerns that were brought up?

So, transportation improvements are, in terms of any requirements, are bound by what the development's impact is to the surrounding network. So if there's already a problem, it may exacerbate the problem, but that difference may be so small that the improvement would be beyond the project's impact. So that's what, being that these are DOT roads, that's how DOT is reviewing the traffic impact study. That doesn't mean that we can't talk about improvements. Again, often what DOT, I have seen them do is, for example, if there's another improvement that cannot be done, they will look at other things that can be done. So for instance, if there was an improvement on 1010 that couldn't physically be built, but this project would have an impact that really would suggest you needed it, they could then look at a situation like a turn lane on Lake Wheeler that's not really triggered by the impacts of this development, but it is buildable. So they can make trade-offs based on what is actually buildable. We cannot require to anybody to go get right of way from a piece of property that's not theirs. That's part of the buildability portion of it. So it's, You know, it's a balance. It's great to, you know, I think talk about some of the things and we as staff can go back and raise these issues with DOT and see what their plans might be. There are, there is at least one project that they have in development that is for kind of this stretch of 1010 Road. We're looking into the feasibility of that because again, the right-of-way constraints are very tight. There was a particular improvement that was going to make more of 1010 like the Super Street or whatever they call it now. Unfortunately, Fuqua approved, I think it's the Wake Med building that is on their side. It is so close to the right-of-way that it inhibited the ability of that particular improvement to be done. So there's a lot of factors at play, but that's kind of what I can probably offer to you right now is that we can certainly bring that turn lane issue to DOT's attention see if there's, you know, if they have anything in the works that could be done to improve that situation. I don't know if that helps or hurts, but.

Yeah, thanks, Jeff. I understand.

Any other comments, questions?

Hey John, this is Shane. I have one last question, possibly for Jeff. If we recommend approval of the rezoning tonight, what decisions regarding kind of the eventual development of this could potentially? Would it make its way back to the Planning Commission for review once we have a site plan etc?

So only if there were a major modification. So in the UDO, there is a section called, I think it's called design modifications. And in there is a list of about seven, I think, major thresholds. And so if, as this would develop, it triggered one of those, in this case with the tier one, you're really just talking about, I think, access points, depending on how some of the conditions are worded. that could trigger a new public hearing process, which the commission would be then again invited to review and weigh in on.

So can we just add the one condition of having like a sidewalk that connects the site to Costco, a pedestrian walkway?

I WOULD OFFER THAT UP AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER OFFERING. ALTHOUGH I THINK I WILL SAY THAT THE ORDINANCE WILL PRETTY WELL REQUIRE THAT. I WAS LOOKING AT THAT. THERE IS A SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THAT INTERNAL ACCESS DRIVEWAY. SO AT A BARE MINIMUM WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT CONNECTION THERE.

So do we have a motion?

Move forward with the motion. 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 recommended approval of case number CZ-26-002 to the Town Council.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, the motion to adopt the consistency statement and recommend approval of case CZ26002 to town council, and I'll call the vote. Chris Frederick?

Aye.

Shane Tapper?

Aye.

Shane Banks?

Aye.

Mariah Bishop? Aye. Ben Mills?

Nay.

Gian Hodges? Aye. That is six ayes, the motion passes. That is five ayes, one nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you for your time. Want to continue? Oh, I did. I didn't ask the public, but I think there was someone who wanted to speak. Alright, so we will move on to Okay, here we go. We're going to move on to zoning text amendment request number ZTA-26-002, funeral homes in the neighborhood mixed-use district.

All right, thank you. So this request is a zoning text amendment for our unified development ordinance to add funeral homes to the neighborhood mixed use district. Just a little bit of background on how this zoning text amendment came about. So staff met with a business owner, an owner operator of one of the existing funeral homes within the town of Garner on Benson Road. That owner operator was intending to do some site improvements to their location in Garner. but it was noted during that meeting that funeral homes are not allowed in the NMX district, which that particular funeral home is located within, as well as another existing funeral home that's located on Creech Road, as well as is located within the NMX district, but our current UDO does not allow funeral homes within the NMX district, thereby making both of those uses non-conforming uses. And so staff believes that that was an omission that occurred during the 2022 update, Garner Ford UDO update, and that it was missed to include funeral homes within the NMX district. So that's how this text amendment started. So staff wanted to bring this forth to correct that error. And again, back when the UDO was adopted in 2003 and revised up to 2001, funeral homes and crematoriums were included within the permitted use table as one single use. Crematoriums were an accessory to the funeral home use. And so they were allowed funeral homes and crematoriums as an accessory, were allowed in the neighborhood office, office institutional, as well as other non-residential districts. And before the update, the two existing funeral homes were in the OI zoning district. So when the Garner Forward UDO was adopted in 2022, some of the zoning districts were consolidated. And so the NO, neighborhood office, neighborhood commercial districts, along with some of the districts of the office institutional were consolidated into the NMX district, the neighborhood mix district that we have today. And just to note, the intent of the NMX district is to support low intensity commercial uses that primarily serve nearby residents, providing convenient access to goods and services within the surrounding neighborhood. It also serves as that transitional district between residential and our higher intensity commercial mixed use district. So some of the uses that you typically see within the NMX district include office, professional services, and small scale retail. And currently, under our UDO, funeral homes are permitted by right within the CMX district and the light and industrial or LI zoning district. Crematoriums were separated out as their own use. As we did some background for this zoning text amendment, we took a look at some of the jurisdictions within and around Wake County to see what type of standards were included in their development code for funeral homes and what districts they were allowed in. So when we looked at Clayton and Fuqua-Varina, they did include such as setbacks, storage, screening, accessory uses such as cemeteries as an accessory use in crematoriums. Within Apex, Holly Springs, and Knightdale-Wake Forest, there were no use standards. Within the town's UDO for Garner, We do not have any use standards other than the parking ratios today as it stands for funeral homes. So the proposed amendment would add funeral home by right to the NMX district and as well as add standards to the use. We did work with and talk with the existing owner operator for the Brian Lee Funeral Home and so you'll see highlighted in this brown color we discussed changing the word from burial to disposition because the deceased are not always buried. So just to keep up with industry standards and how the deceased remains are handled so we added that as well as two standards for the use and so all storage shall take place within enclosed buildings and also any display of headstones or memorials must be screened from any public right-of-way, greenway, or any lot that abuts a residential district. And it must be screened by a continuous OPEC screen that reaches a minimum height of six feet. And so there is a combination of how that screening can be achieved, either with evergreen plantings, that would provide year-round opacity, solid fencing, decorative masonry wall, and as I stated, any combination thereof could satisfy that standard. There was also a public hearing held on July 21st. The owner of the Bryan Lee Funeral Home spoke during that hearing and noted the ongoing conversations with staff. They do have a crematorium. their site that would be a non-conforming use so there there's an intention to propose a future text amendment to allow crematoriums and funeral homes within the same district but that will be handled at a later date And also appreciation was expressed by council for staff working with local business owner to correct the development code incongruency. With zoning text amendments, the planning commission is charged with making a written recommendation regarding consistency of the proposed text amendment with the town's comprehensive plan. But council will review plan consistency, but they are not required to make a statement of reasonableness as specified in general statute. And so for the next step for this case, Planning Commission will determine findings of plan consistency and recommendation to Council to approve or deny, and the case would be referred back to Council for a final decision of approval or denial. And that's all I have for my presentation. Happy to answer any questions you all have. Thank you.

So are both funeral homes currently operating under special use permits or are they just out of compliance?

They're legal non-conforming uses. So they don't have a special use permit. As long as they continue operations as they have continued before they became legal non-conforming uses, then they can continue to operate as such. knowing that they are out of compliance with the UDO, knowing that it was an omission during the 2022 update, staff feels that it would be prudent to correct that omission at this time.

and just to confirm assuming that we recommend approval one of the funeral homes will remain non-conforming but will still be able to operate as usual they won't their business won't be impacted until maybe they decide to do some type of expansion i guess and that's when they may come in for the amendment or prior to that

Yes, so the funeral home, the Brian Lee Funeral Home, they do have a crematorium on site. So that would be a portion of the site that is non-conforming. This text amendment addresses the immediate need. The property owner and operator has expressed that They do not want to have a non-conforming use. It's not something that is as needed today because they would have needs to expand the funeral home. So they don't have any intentions of expanding their crematorium at this time, but would like to ultimately expand remove that non-conforming use so we've spoken with them and had conversation with them about this process and staff fully intends to move forward do some research on crematoriums um you know um the um a more holistic approach as to how we can rectify that situation as well

Thank you.

Yes.

What categories are funeral homes in presently?

Currently, funeral homes are permitted by right within the commercial mixed use district and the light industrial district.

Would it be possible just to give these two businesses special use permits without having to change anything, just give those businesses the ability to keep running and stay in compliance?

Well, the text amendment would do that. A special use permit, it wouldn't satisfy, wouldn't be the appropriate process to rectify the non-conforming use. So once this proposed text amendment passes, they don't need to change their zoning districts, they don't need to do anything because they are currently zoned as NMX. So if we allow the funeral home to be permitted by right within the NMX district, then it covers their site and does not remove the, and it removes the non-conforming use of funeral homes. and like i said crematoriums will be handled separately that's a separate use on the permitted use table it's not something that we are considering today however we will address it in the future is there another avenue that we can go beyond text changes that would bring them into compliance without having to go that route

So just to be clear, in the first question, I think you were asking if we couldn't just do a special use permit. If it's not marked as a P or an S in the use table, you can't even get to the special use permit process. So there has to be, the text amendment route actually has to enable something for that district, if that makes sense.

Yes. They're grandfathered in essentially right now. Right. So they can keep doing what they want. But if they wanted to expand on their current given property, Do they have a means where they could just go about that without having to? No. If they shovel in the ground, they would be in violation at that point?

Correct.

I'm just worried about opening up a can of worms by adding something in.

That kind of leads to my question. Were there any NMX locations where staff identified compatibility concerns with allowing a funeral home by right?

within general and in town. Not anything site specific, but we thought that adding that standard, because you do have NMX adjacent to residential districts, So to accommodate that, to have that screening, funeral homes typically operate low intensity. And so they don't have, they're more neighborhood serving and things like that. So it wasn't... as much as a concern, but adding that standard for screening of memorials and headstones, including all storage must be within enclosed building, attempts to address any district conflicts.

So assuming funeral homes is added to NMX, will they also remain in commercial mixed use as well, funeral homes? Yes. They will, okay.

Yes.

Ben or Shane, do you have any questions for staff, comments? Go ahead, Ben.

Thanks. So, I guess my only question is, so the screening of the memorials or anything like that, I tried to do a satellite image. They don't have any of that at these funerals, correct? They don't have any memorials or tombstones or anything?

I'm not sure if they do or not. It would apply to any new storage, so if they do, or a new funeral home, it would apply.

What about for graveyards for churches?

The standards would apply specifically to a funeral home. So if there's a church that operates, maybe they have a funeral home or there's a chapel within the funeral home, it would be specific to that funeral home use. But it's not necessarily addressing churches. or places of worship that have, I'm not sure if we have any standards, any screening. I would have to look to see if there are any standards for screening for places of worship.

There's a question about cemeteries.

Yeah, I guess memorials, cemeteries, tombstones, whatever. Yeah.

Okay, so a church with their cemetery is going to be governed by the religious institution use and then cemeteries as a customary accessory use.

So that I'm not... Yeah, so I guess I was just thinking of driving by, maybe they're mostly churches, seeing a lot of tombstones next to the right-of-way, and it may seem like a lot to screen that. Especially if the tombstones are on a hill above the right-of-way, then it would almost be impossible to screen it from the right-of-way.

This would just be for the sale of new tombstones, not existing or in place within a cemetery.

Thanks, Jeff.

Okay.

Thank you, Jeff.

Any other comments or questions? Do we have a draft motion?

I didn't include a draft motion. There's one in your staff report.

I'm sorry, I didn't include one in the presentation.

Can I do it too?

Okay, so 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 ZTA-26-002 to the town council as appropriate and in the public interest.

I'll second that.

There is a motion to adopt the consistency statement and recommend approval of KCTA 26002 to town council as appropriate in the public interest. And I will call the vote. Chris Frederick.

Aye.

Shane Tapper.

Nay.

Shane Banks.

Aye.

Mariah Bishop. Aye. Ben Mills.

Aye.

Keon Hodges. Aye. That is five ayes, one nay, the motion passes.

Do we have any reports? Sure. Go for it.

Not a lot of activity lately on terms of any final votes on development proposals here, but a few things of note. We originally had tentatively, we're thinking that we might have that final policy committee meeting THIS MONTH, WE ARE PUSHING THAT BACK TO ALLOW THE CONSULTANT A LITTLE MORE TIME OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE STAFF TO PUT THEIR KIND OF FIRST DRAFT OF THE PLAN TOGETHER PRIOR TO THAT MEETING AND THE REST OF THE OUTREACH, PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENT PERIOD STARTING. so we're tentatively looking at October so it would be the work session potentially the work session before the council work session in October so be the same time I think we were doing four o'clock if I'm not mistaken but we'll get you Julie and we'll get you that date once we get a little closer but do pencil that in for that fourth Tuesday or is it last Tuesday last Tuesday of October, in case there's five. Then at the most recent meeting of the council, if you want to tune in and take a listen, Julian and I both did a presentation to the council on a microtransit implementation feasibility study. So we had some money in the budget on our operating budget last year that we could combine with a little bit of other unspent that we had to pull off a microtransit feasibility study. So we have entered into a contract with a company called Via. they have pretty extensive experience all over the world and also right here in the Triangle area they've done several studies for other municipalities here in the Raleigh area and Campo has has endorsed them as a good company for doing so. And so that's going to be going on here over the months of August, September and October. There are going to be some stakeholder outreach opportunities. So we may be reaching out to you, if not for your participation, for also maybe some suggestions of people that you may know. that would be good to weigh in on potential use of microtransit here in Garner. So everybody familiar with the term microtransit or not?

Explain away.

So the easiest way is probably just to say that microtransit is kind of like a public Uber. It can use anywhere from a typical SUV or minivan up to the kind of the small truncated buses. But basically it's an on-demand service. So it can help make connections into the more... less densely populated areas of Garner. You know, we've got our bus service kind of here on the north end of town. But this would be a service that could enable somebody to either connect to those bus lines or if their destination is within Garner to get to their destination from wherever they're at in Garner. You think about places like the VA Medical Center or even Amazon, they're not on currently any kind of fixed route service, so they're difficult for some folks probably to access. So we're looking to microtransit as potentially a method to fill that gap. So this was something that we identified back in 2016 when we did the transportation plan back then, but it was still very much in its infancy. but it's something that the current transportation plan has already recognized as something we would be wise to look into to help parts of our community have access to some kind of transit service. So that's kind of it in a nutshell and what we hope to accomplish and get some insights from the company. They will look at ultimately producing for us a recommendation on WHAT THE BEST METHOD WOULD BE, POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, WHAT FAIR IMPLEMENTATIONS MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND WHAT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE. SOME OF THAT WE COULD APPLY TO WAKE TRANSIT WITH POTENTIALLY SOME OF THE MONIES FROM THE WAKE TRANSIT PROGRAM TO GO TOWARDS OPERATIONS. There's a 70-30 kind of matching grant that's available through there if we qualify. So they will be looking at probably two or three at least different options, but ultimately coming to us with a preferred recommendation at the end of it.

Are these like one person use or can multiple people be in the vehicle at a time, like from different destinations?

yes at the very least um two folks so even if you had an suv that was wheelchair compliant you can usually at least get one wheelchair and one regular rider in at a time and so that is kind of the other the other advantage of this is that they can deviate the route um you know because if it is a pretty lengthy route if somebody's down in the colors and they want to get over to white oak and another request comes in that's not far off the off the track that they're on they can stop and pick up additional folks and that's just one way of it being door-to-door there's other ways of organizing but we're particularly interested in what they have to say about door-to-door service ben i think had a either a question or a comment go ahead

Thanks. That's cool. Jeff, that's cool to see Garner's looking into that. You know, we did that in Morrisville, went through the process five years ago, and it's pretty much, you can't keep up demand. It just keeps growing and growing. But I'm curious now, it's been some time since we did it, but do they ever look at like, you know, Waymo was going to come to Raleigh, the driverless taxis? Is anything like that, you know, kind of on the radar nowadays? Like just driverless, I guess it'd be driverless taxis or shuttles or anything like that?

We're starting to hear a little more discussion about that. I don't know that anybody's really actively pulling the trigger on that yet. Some of it does kind of depend on how your roads are physically structured. But yeah, there's a lot of debate on that right now. I know when I was out in California and San Francisco earlier this year visiting my sister, um the waybos were out in full force while i was driving around town um but she did mention to me that they have had some recent events where they've kind of had to pull back on where they can deploy those um but you know like any technology it continues to evolve and and improve but um Yeah, I'm sure we will continue to hear more about that. And I would think if Raleigh is able to make some headway, then I'm sure the rest of us in the area will learn and see how we might be able to tap into that.

Yeah, I was just curious. And for the record, I don't know if I would hop in a Waymo or not.

Yeah, the jury was out definitely while I was there. I didn't venture.

Going back to the microtransit, so is it like, do individuals, are they the drivers or is it like the town owns all the cars and they...

So again, there's multiple ways to implement that. For instance, in Wake Forest, they lease vehicles through VIA. They're branded kind of as the town of Wake Forest service. They actually call theirs Go Wake Forest. But the vehicles are leased. So VIA actually... owns the cars um up there and then they actually run the operations as well and they hire the drivers um but then there's other places um and ben i don't know if more i think in morrisville you guys actually own the vehicles and probably hire the drivers but then there may be somebody else that actually handles the software component in terms of the scheduling and the app so it can run the whole gamut okay nice

And do you have to be a Garner resident? Because I know like Cary, they have like the Go Cary. And I think you have to be a resident there, like in Cary.

So some of it will be in how we set up the service area boundary. And then you can structure the fares accordingly. And that just really depends. So we can have, you know, we could have a fare for Garner residents. We could have a fare if you're not a Garner resident, but you're in the ETJ area. So we're looking, they're gonna study the whole jurisdiction regardless of corporate limits. But yeah, that'll be something that we look at as well. LOTS OF GOOD QUESTIONS. THE LAST THING I HAD IS JUST THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME TEXT AMENDMENT PACKAGES COMING UP FOR YOU. THE FIRST ONE IS GOING TO BE A, I THINK I MENTIONED, MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS TO SOME OF YOU, IS THE RECODIFICATION TEXT AMENDMENT PACKAGE. some errors in how the ordinance was codified when we were working on it to rewrite it a few years ago. Just naturally, I think, from having multiple people working on different sections, there were some things that just didn't get really streamlined and harmonized between the two different authors. And in some cases it was just a matter of using a different, some style settings probably in Word that were set slightly different on one computer than another. So it just led to some misnumbering of things. There were more than I think we thought. So we have been taking time to go through it meticulously and including just the minor edits. A lot of them are punctuation, sometimes it's extra words or repeated words within a sentence, things of that nature. But the good news is that we will have it in a single document. to manage instead of multiple files and we'll hopefully improve our ability to make amendments going forward and we'll be able to get you all a new fresh copy in print and then it'll also of course be available electronically as well. That's going to be the first one. And then we will also have a package that I will be working on with the legal department. There's been a number of bills at the state legislature that have made their way into law that are impacting what we can and cannot do. in terms of zoning and subdivision rules. So there's a number of updates that we'll be packaging together. We're trying to get those hopefully ready for adoption prior to January because that's when the biggest bulk of those go into effect. And we're trying not to have any time period where we're regulation less um so just wanted you to be aware of that that there are a couple of big packages that are becoming shortly and that's all i have um make a motion to adjourn the meeting second

Looking ahead. Not yet so far. Okay, just curious. I'll still keep it on the calendar.

Thank you.