Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Good evening. Uh, we will call our October 13th planning meeting to order. Good evening, commissioners. I'll call the role. Shane Banks, present. Mariah Bishop, Ralph Carson, present. Philip Jefferson, here. Jihan Hodgees here, Ben Mills here, Michael Hoen here. That's six members present. Thank you so much. Um, uh, this is our time for our invocation. Um I will probably that for us we thank you for this day this time to be present to do the work of town of Garner to represent our residents and to do the good work for the town. We ask that we have a time to listen, be aware and present for the work that is good for us, helping to grow the town, and be mindful of all the needs of our residents. We thank you in these things we are here this evening. We ask for presence of patience and understanding as we go forth for our meeting this evening. Thank you.

We are in the adoption of our agenda. Are there any items that need to be adjusted on our agenda this evening? If there are none, is there a motion to adopt our agenda as written? Mr. Carson, second, there's a motion on the floor to adopt the agenda. I'll call the vote. Shane Banks, I. Uh Ralph Carson. Hi. Philip Jefferson. Hi. Jihan Hodes. Hi. Ben Mills. Hi. Michael Voyand. I. That's six eyes. The agenda is adopted. Thank you so much. Um our meeting minutes are in front of you as well. If you've had a chance to review those, if there's anything that needs to be revised, this is our time. If there is none, is there a motion to approve our meeting minutes from September 8th? I I'll move that we accept them. I'll second. Thank you so much, Mr. There's a motion on the floor to approve the minutes. I'll call the vote. Shane Banks, I. Ralph Carson, I. Philip Jefferson, I. Jihen Hodes, I. Ben Mills, I. Michael Boland, I. Six eyes. The minutes are approved. Thank you so much. We've approved our meeting minutes. Um our first um item on the agenda this evening is CZ MP24005. Good evening, Chairman Jefferson and members of the commission and public. Good to see everyone this evening. I am Aaron Joseph and I will uh present the background information and presentation on this resoning request. Um as you all recall this case was continued from our September 8th meeting to allow the applicant to uh answer and address some

questions uh from and concerns stemming from uh that September meeting. Um so I'll give a highle overview background uh with of the presentation and the applicant is also here this evening and they have prepared a presentation as well. So again this is Ardan subdivision. It's located generally at the uh northeast corner of 1010 road and old stage road within the town's extr territorial jurisdiction. Uh the applicant is requesting a tier 2 conditional reszoning of 54.4 acres from residential agricultural to residential four conditional uh for the development of 136 single family detached units. They have narrowed the potential uses to one out of 14 only single family detached. They also um have conditioned the uh dimensional lot standards to 53 foot wide by 120 in length in lot dimension minimum um and a side interior minimum of 6 ft and a side corner uh set back at 10 ft. They have uh proper conditions that establish specific guidelines for site design, architectural standards, and open space. You do have their conditions uh the conditions within your packet, but I do want to draw your attention to what has changed since uh September's meeting. Uh the applicant has profered three additional conditions. Um the first is to uh address the storm water control. um measure uh mechanism. Um they are now proposing to design for a 100year storm event. The applicant has

also profered a condition uh that commits to uh green in infrastructure, a minimum of 60 linear feet of uh green infrastructure to address uh green street solution design. They're also profering a condition um that would allow the vegetative aquatic shelf of the detention basin to be native species only. You have the proposed master plan and I'll draw your attention to a key areas of the plan. You have one main access from 1010 road. You also have a one-way access from the adjacent White Croft subdivision from Hurst Drive and also an access from the Eagle Ridge subdivision um at Kakis and Sea Seastone Street. Uh they are proposing a main amenity area with playground, pickle ball courts, and other um amenities. 6-foot minimum pave trail throughout the site. and one storm water control measure with a comprehensive plan. Just to um identify this site is not within um an activity center. There is a it's categorized as a neighborhood uh character typology and the development intensity is level two area to strengthen. Overall with staff's review uh with consistency with the um comprehensive land use plan, this proposed development has strengths. Um but greater home options and improved access management for the corridor could improve

consistency. Uh the land use and community character consistency has shifted um due to the commitment of the uh green street solution and the green uh infrastructure. So staff has prepared a draft consistency statement based uh upon the consistency analysis. Um you do have in your staff report other options should you choose to um deliberate and go and uh recommend another option that's at your uh decision. But you have on the screen the highlighted option um from staff's consistency review and also a draft motion. But again, you have several options for motions in your packet um that reflects um whichever way you may determine uh best fit for this particular case. And your next steps this evening would be to uh determine findings of plan consistency and to make a recommendation to council whether to recommend denial or approval. Um and town council will take up the matter again and determine findings of reasonableness uh with the decision to approve or deny. And I will pass the microphone to the applicant if there are no questions for staff at this time. We have any questions for staff to hear from the applicant? Okay, we will hear from our Thanks so much. Please state your name and uh your address and affiliation for our record. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Hunter Winstead, Morning Star Law Group representing Homes. Um in this plan that I'm very excited for the town of Gardner. Um, address of our firm is

434 Fateville Street, sweet 2200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601. Um, with me tonight is our team from McAdams, who the commission met last month. Um, I've got Miss Sarah Van Ever, who's our case planner, Mr. Nick Williamson, um, who is our site civil engineer, Daniel Weebkkey, um, with Stormwater at McAdams, and for transportation, we have Mr. Tyler Blang from Exalt Engineering. There was um a very fruitful discussion last month as I'm sure the commissioners remember um a two-hour meeting that left us with some homework. Um we have completed that homework and I've separated it out into really three main tasks that we saw and it's my belief that we've completed it in such a way to merit this commission's recommendation of approval tonight. And so what I'll do um is just briefly walk through the three main points um that we have completed on this homework assignment. um the three conditions that that Aaron mentioned. First, with respect to storm water, we've incorporated a new condition um that incorporates that 100red-year storm. Um what you see on the screen is a lawyer's mistake to put retention in there. It is just detention and our storm water representative can address that if the commission has question, but again, our our condition, and we can look at the language if we need to, um is for 100year storm detention. Second, the green street, as Aaron mentioned, um we've incorporated a condition to require a minimum of 60 linear feet of that green street infrastructure within the development. And we've got a slide to just show a few pictures of of what that looks like, the green street infrastructure. And then third and finally, there was questions from the commission last month about the sewer capacity and we did some research there and the study has been approved by the city of Raleigh. So just

to provide the update to the commission there, folks, that's the homework that we've done. Happy to address any questions. For the more technical questions, I'll send it to our McAdams team and Exalt team. Um but again, happy to address any any general questions that the commissioners may have. Um, I have one. Um, at least in in the minutes from last meeting and as I best recall, one of the major concerns was lack of progress on the development agreement with the town regarding frontage and road improvement along 1010. Um, I didn't see that listed in your three issues. Can you address that? Happy and thank you for bringing up um bringing that up. So, we have submitted a draft development agreement um to the town attorney. We've gotten comments back that are very minor, non-s substantive comments that we are largely okay with. Um and I can ask Miss Jones to address maybe the status um if she deems appropriate, but we're essentially right there at the end of having that agreement put together. Okay. Thank you. Um any any questions for staff or for the applicant at this time based on the items that they presented? I have one one other comment that come up last month. Uh one of the concerns was there was you only show one uh egress uh point on 1010 road and that still appears to be the case. So there's no consideration for putting in a second point. Do you mean um it might be hard to see the pointer, but the so the property owners here um our client has tried significantly um to work out a way that we can make something work at this

stage of the application. Um and we just haven't been able to to come up with an agreement with the the owners of that property. And so what we've done here is stuff and I just I want to make sure I'm addressing your question right is this stub here that goes in the direction of 1010 for for future development here. I know it's hard to see the pointer. Yeah. Is that the area you're talking about? I can't see from here. Yeah, I know what you're I can't even see the pointer, but the it's just the stuff the stuff that goes out in the direction of 1010. Um, that's all we can do at this time is stub out for future development. Is is there a reason um one of the concerns I have is the irregular boundaries on the south side of this project. um it's going to make it impossible for future infill or to add a street in here. Is there some reason that they couldn't square off those properties? And I recall that a lot of the homeowners there are somewhat related, but is there a reason they couldn't square that off instead of leaving something that is really going to prohibit development in the future? You mean on the um on the south side of the eastern bound this the south the the direction of 1010en? Yes. Yeah. Um I believe that's just how how the ownership shakes out with his family who who's got there's a large family um that's owned a thousand different ways and I believe that's just the the boundary that that we were able to make work. Okay. Other questions or comments? Yeah. I'm not sure if it should go to the developer or the town, but are there any updates on the potential for a traffic signal at Seastone Street and Old Stage Road? I'll defer to the town or unless I'll let you're an address person. David, did you Oh, okay.

Oh, okay. Check as track engineer. Okay, sure. I'll pivot to you all. Let the expert. Hey, good evening. I'll introduce myself again. My name is Tyler Blang with Exalt Engineering located at 203 West Milbrook Road, Sweet 200 in Raleigh, North Carolina. Um, in regards to the the signal at Seastone Street in Old Stage Road, um, that was a recommended improvement from our TIA that we developed. Um, that signal that's going in there, we were informed by NC DOT that they are in the process of installing that signal and it should be complete by the end of this year. Thank you. Yep. Mr. Carson, if I could just go back to your question um briefly on the boundary. Um so the the kind of jagged boundary you see follows the parcels as they are. Um I just wanted to flesh that out and one of the reasons that we can't bring it out to be consistent is because there's family buried in some of these areas and so the current boundary is just to respect where those folks are buried. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Do do you have a a document that perhaps designates where those sacred areas are in this site plan that you've shared with us? Do we have that? Thank you. Good evening. Sarah Van Evy, McAdams, 621 Hillsboro Street, Raleigh 27603. Um so it is as I understand um family rem so uh cremation remains right that have been buried on on site. So I believe there we go. Okay. Yeah. It is hard to see. Okay. So I can I believe they're sort of wait is it

around in here or was it back in here? I know it's not where a road start to between the pond and between the pond. Okay, thank you. So, sort of over in this area. I'm just following along just so that they can see it on their screen. So, I was noticing that mouse pointer earlier. It's very very handy. So, yeah, sort of in this general area. Has that been surveyed and in some physical location? And the reason I asked that is because with with any potential agreement to connect the this development tool to 1010 to give us the street frontage we need to meet our guidelines. There are areas where you won't be able to connect. Am I to assume see because of burial areas that you can't move through. So the current roadway design doesn't doesn't impact that area. Right? So and and what I mean also by the current also then how that is set up for the future roadway design. Right? So this right here is would be conceptually end of roadway terminus and would then continue on as future right of way all the way south to 1010 road for future development. So there's so there's not any thought that this roadway here as generally depicted would shift significantly that it would be in that area that we're discussing. So right now the family, the sellers would like to remain, you know, and have that area not only remain here on site, but also then have that special sacred property to their family still be available to their family. So it's it's set up so that it's not impacted by current or future

roadway design as it's as it should be. And there should be, you know, a really good buffer considering where there may be other potential locations. Um, so you know, my main concern at the moment is not having enough street frontage for this development on 1010 road. And without a, you know, some type of change that shows that to our layout, it's hard for I can't speak for the rest of commission, but I can only speak for me. hard for me to understand how this might or would or is going to actually provide that connection that meets our our standards. Um and and so that's that's really hard. So it sounds like we're in a process to set up an agreement. Um but I don't know what that looks like. Is there a time frame that this would occur where we would you would connect to 1010 and have another access point that would then increase our street frontage for this property and development or and I want to make sure I'm understanding your question, Mr. Jefferson. Are you referring to the widening of the of 1010 or the only connection? So, not the development agreement. I'm referring to the connection to 1010 because right now we really only have one entry point which is our concern to 1010. Did I say old stage? No, you said 1010. No. Yeah. Yeah. One one one connection to 1010, one connection to Seaside. Um and then one ingress from the the street up up on Hurst. Um but that's right. Currently, there's there's one one connection to 1010. And no, there there's no agreement right now as to how that street is going to connect to 1010. It's it's just a step for future development. The ag the development agreement is for the widening of 1010. The improvements. That's what the development agreement

is. the widing but not for not for not for the not for the connection. That's right. Is is there any additional land acquisition that's required for the widening along there from these property owners or is this all within the rightway? I believe it'll be there's there's easement required um that's contemplated in the development agreement. Miss Jones, correct me if I'm wrong there, but that's my understanding. Is the um requirement to dedicate the rightway town's requirement or y'all are y'all just proposing that? Sorry. Is it a town requirement making the rightway dedication or is that something y'all just given? It's it's just a proposed condition through that's essentially fleshed out in the development agreement. Okay. Y um I know we talked about last time traffic was the main issue. Not much has changed in terms of traffic. Uh last meeting I talked about we really need two westbound lanes um instead of just you know a crossed out lane going um you know east to westbound uh due to the traffic backing up mainly going to westbound. Eastbound not an issue. westbound. That's where all the traffic backs up at and you would really need that to connect to the DOT's um wing project they have that's going to generate break ground. Um I don't I don't see any changes of that. So it's I can't see much of an improvement and that's still a big issue for us. Yeah. Tyler, do you want to talk about the the improvements that are part of the development agreement just to Yeah. So it so as part of the developer agreement, we have the uh the eastbound and westbound turn lanes going into the

development. And uh again coming out of the development, we have the one egress on 1010 road. Um and also kind of to touch on the there only being one egress on on the 1010 road. Um the level of service during the AM peak hour at the the 10:10 egress there during the AM peak hour is a C level of service and during the PM peak hour it's a D. And uh level of service D is considered acceptable per NC do nationwide standards and uh even if if level of service D doesn't doesn't sound great. That's that's the standard. um the threshold for it to become level of service from C to a D is 25 seconds in delay. So if it's you know less than 25 seconds delay it's a C over 25 it becomes a D. Um and the delay that we had at the 1010 the the site egress on a 1010 was 25.7 seconds. So really it's only.7 seconds from becoming level of service C. Um if that puts any kind of better perspective there. Um we also have you know connection on to See Street considering that another egress with the signal being added there. Um that comes out to a level of service B during the AM peak hour and level of service C during the PM peak hour. So with with all those egresses combined there's there's definitely a lot of extra capacity to to handle the traffic from this development along with other traffic um kind of coming through from other directions. Uh for your your question, um again, we per the developer agreement, we have the the eastbound and westbound turn lanes going into the development. There's also the DOT project going on at Old Stage Road and 1010 Road that is adding the the eastbound right turn lane, northbound right turn lane that that helped um improved, you know, delay at at that intersection as well. But in terms of uh you know extending a a westbound turn

lane across our back to old stage road, we we do not have that as a condition or recommendation as part of RTIA. And I think that would help out more than just adding a crossed out lane that's going to be good maybe 20 years or 10 years from now when it gets built out instead of um having a gap now between two projects. Mhm. Um I would even, you know, be fine with half of the rideway uh dedication not shown and connected to the gap that's to the DOT project and um where your uh the community entrance is going to be development entrance. So I'll just repeat that from the last meeting and I'll let other people comment if they have anything to comment. Mr. Jeff, I just want to make one more point on the the future extension here to here to 1010. Um, our folks want to see that insight that that infill site right there developed just as much as the town does. Um, and we're going to continue to push to make that happen. Obviously, we recognize my client recognizes um that that that portion connecting to 1010 is going to be valuable for the folks for for the town and for the folks that are living in the subdivision as well. Um, we're going to continue to push to to do that, but our understanding now is the folks that live there have lived there for a long time. Again, their family's been cremated and spread there. They just they don't want to leave at this time. Um, that's where we are. And so, it's not to say that it's never going to be developed. It's it's in our interest. Our client wants to develop that um wants that portion to be developed and to connect to 1010. I just wanted to make that clear for the record. Mr. Jefferson, well, I think it would be a little bit different if if that was if if if that was an open wooded site and there were no existing homes and and there were no barriers. I don't think there should ever be a time where we push residents out of their sure

living spaces in order for development. I I I I can't I can't I can't align in something like that. That's one thing if the existing owners want to relocate and sell that to be developed but you know I have a you know kind of the word pushing towards development is very difficult for me to align I can't align around that. Sure. Yeah. I just want to again reiterate that we you know we meet the current UDIO standards with our connection to 1010 our connection to um seesaw on that side. I just I wanted to address your question since you raised it. Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Treesburg, what what is our go what is our criteria for street frontage for developments? Like what percentage of the development needs to be connected to a rightway like this street, this one rightway access to 1010, this one entry point. Yeah. So there's not a there's not a specific frontage length requirement. Um there are access requirements which they are meeting. I asked another follow-up question um and and it might be maybe you can answer it might be a question for Miss Jones but with the development agreement and having to get additional easement Is there agreements in place with the owners uh for that easement? Either they're donating it or compensation, but have those owners all agreed to in principle to have this easement in their property? So, the short answer is I I don't believe we have formalized agreements with those owners currently and and M. Jones may be in a better position to walk through the terms, but I understand

the terms of development agreement allows um our client to use commercially reasonable efforts to effectuate that um is essentially step one of the development agreement. And again, um I'll let Miss Jones walk through the if she if she feels necessary, but that's contemplated within development agreement at least. So that roadway access is the agreement you're still working on, not the access, just the widening of 10id just the widening of 1010, which means for new Yeah. the the development agreement does not have anything to do with access. Would you like me to jump in now? Yes, ma'am. Sure. Terry Jones, town attorney. We're working on the development agreement. Um, just want to explain a few things. So, they have very little actual current frontage on to 1010. they would have to dedicate to improve that to the cross-section. Now, because some of these parcels have not yet been subdivided, the applicants are the property owners that have frontage. So, in these situations, council is looking for that full dedication. Um, however, my understanding is their agreements to purchase this is only the back or the the off-road frontage portions of the property. So with development agreements um in these situations and this is a trend of council to want to um because the the development is now occurring off the road behind existing houses to get those road improvements if possible with the development. Um so the way the development agreement would be structured is that the developers of this project would have to seek to acquire that right ofway so that they're able to construct the road improvements. If they are not, then the town would agree to use its power of eminent domain to make that happen. And then as a default um somewhat in some of these

agreements, if if that can't be effectuated, then the developer would pay some kind of fee in loo uh for future road improvements along the frontage. Does that help? I guess I have some heartburn that if they can't reach an agreement that the town would then use eminent domain. It's like we're going to try our best to acquire it, but if not, the town's going to come in and take part of their property for compensation. But I mean, right. So, and the developer would pay all of those costs of the town so that it wouldn't be a burden on the taxpayer to do this. But no, I'm I'm just I'm just nothing solidified. Um potential for imminent domain uh having to take people's land because they can't come to an agreement. It just sounds like this thing is still not jelled yet to where it really needs to be, right? in my opinion and that may be a reason why development agreements like this have to go through a separate public hearing process before um council can approve that and enter into this contractual arrangement. Yeah, Mr. Carson, I kind of align with that. I have huge issues with us, you know, removing property owners from land that they have ownership of. So, so just to be clear, these property owners, if this were not being subdivided off, they would be required to dedicate that road frontage to the town as part of the development project. So, it's not an option. What are you saying?

Right. That's that's a typical requirement on any development. Whatever frontage you have, if it is not if the road is not um to its ultimate cross-section, David may have to help me with all the correct language on this, but if it's not, then they they at least have to dedicate that right ofway as part of the subdivision site plan process. So this is a little bit un you know there was a pro project on Creech Road where those properties had already been subdivided um prior to the development of the the portions in the rear being developed. Right. But again it was similar to to that where council was concerned about acquiring the road frontage. Uh a different arrangement was made in that instance. Um but but it is an ongoing theme of council to to look to make or to put the burden of road improvements on the developers whenever possible and to get that ultimate cross-section available for the construction to happen. Again, it would be better to improve all of this at one time, all of this furniture at one time than peace meal as these other properties might develop in the future, right? and that we just don't know. I I have a question uh for staff. Um what is the plan down the road for widening 1010? Is it going to be four lanes? Is it going to be divided four lanes or four lanes with a turning center lane? So, does this impact that future plan? Is are they getting enough right ofway now on that side of the property or are they going to have to take more later on when they widen this road out again?

So that widening is currently already part of um both our local plans and Campo's Metropolitan Transportation Plan for that four lane plus facility. Um so at this point when the subdivision rules would kick in for that to be dedicated, it would be the uh the full the full cross-section. So, and this being one side of the road, it would be half of that. So, typically that's going to be 100 ft. It might be 110 in some cases. Um, so there's probably 60 ft out there now if it's actually been dedicated. Um, some of these parcels may still go to the center line of the roadway. Um, so in that case, it could be an actual dedication of anywhere from additional 20 to the full 50 feet. But the um south side still has to dedicate the 1010. Correct. Where the houses are right on the road, right? And there's no timeline on um to widen 10, right? There's no funding. It's probably 15 years out from now. Yeah. I mean, it's it's in the MTP. I'd need to pull it up and see. It's it's probably either in the probably in the 2045 horizon year. So yeah, there's pieces of it that are closer. Um, you know, they're doing some minor minor widenings a little closer to 401, but I think the full the full length of 1010 from, you know, 401 back to Benson is is out there still probably 15 years. Um, and this agreement with the owners, how I mean what what is the time frame on actually having an agreement for that

right away? Do we know? I mean like f finalized that still has to go to if I may. Excuse me. I just want to come in and and kind of clarify one thing in in the hopes that this that I'm helping bridge what I I see might be a gap. So, um, sort of what what we're sort of referring to is, for lack of a better term, sort of this infill piece, looks like one piece that exists between 1010 Road and this site. So, this is fiveish I think property owners that are existing currently. So some will say if five is the correct number, four out of five of these property owners are selling off a portion of their existing property. So in regards to the timing of when they want to so so right so they want to stay but they also want to they don't need to be able to to maintain that much of their land. So, um, this is an opportunity for them to to still stay where they've where they've lived and where they've grown up as they age out and not be right. So, it's they're making this choice to stay and then we'll leave when they find that time to be right. So, no one's just just wanted to clarify that we're not forcing anyone out, but we we too would like to see this all come in as as one to be more cohesive. So we hope that we can continue those conversations so that when these folks are ready, we can be there to pick up and continue this in a very cohesive um format. So just wanted to to hope that clarify that piece that there is no pushing that part we understand. Okay. It's the connection to 1010 and access points to 1010 that I think we have a lot of problems like concerns with

because we don't know when that will when that would be. Does that make sense? Correct. That correct. That would be when these folks here are ready. Right. And and there's still some agreements with the rightway at the access points to be finalized that we don't have in writing at current moment. Right. Just the access point would just be the one on to 1010 road where the existing property is. the others would be determined at the time of future development. So you would see this again. So essentially, right, you would say all this comes back, it would have to come back for a reasonzoning. You'd see this, you'd see those access points at that time and they would be based on where those stubs are and where those plans are in the development review process and where they've been vetted with staff and meeting all the UDO requirements. So staff would guide us on where those need to be as well. And that part I I think we understand that as well, but it's the current access point that we don't have an agreement with yet. Right. You do have we have you have that access. Yes. Yes. So is the I know misunderstanding. Yes. We we have the access on the top of the screen to 1010 that we have sufficient access currently to 1010. It's the second it's the second access. Yeah. For that one street you have access. That's right. For that yes to the entire site. We have access to right it's the second one that you see stubbed on the bottom kind of middle of the screen agreement. Yes. But just to be clear, we we have sufficient access as it stands under the UDO requirements to 10. It's just that traffic backs up all the way there. It backs up. It really does back up. Can I ask a question for staff? What would what's staff's opinion on two westbound lanes connect and connecting

to the DOT project? So traffic doesn't back up as much going westbound and is able to flow out so they can actually turn into their um you know the road into the development. Um I'm just, you know, I think that's a sticking point for me right now. It's great to have all that rightway dedication. Um but it's it's going to stay like that for for years and there's something that could be done now to alleviate the traffic going through there. So, I'm just curious um town staff's opinion on that when they were, you know, working with the developer to get aou or developments agreement for that portion or if that's even an option if we could, you know, if there's interest of both sides looking at that now. So you're talking about a second westbound lane from the DOT project up to the subdivisions entrance. Is that pretty much and just you know for now the rightway gets dedicated except you shift the striping over maybe an offset. So I don't know if DOT would be fine with that. Right. Yeah. That that'd be a conversation that we'd have to have with them. I you're you're realistically probably not going to get that second lane in there without the rightway dedication. Um Yep. Which I think we're fine with the rightway. Just you'd be restriping and shifting stuff over. Mhm. Um instead of having a striped out lane. Yeah. I mean, I I think it's a conversation we could have with with DOT on how to do it, but the taper the taper coming from that into the second lane would be a probably be the biggest issue with them. And then

even then, you're still I think you're going to run into issues with rightway if you're trying to put in the sidewalk and stuff. Um yeah, I think there's some more dedication between, you know, going westbound that gap area right at the school on either side. Mhm. I think it's about 150 ft maybe. I I can't remember. I measured it last meeting. Yeah, I think I think the rightway is going to be the trickiest thing in this area because some of it's some of the rightway you're going to get as part of the subdivision, but then there are other parcels along here that will not get subdivided. So you will not have the right away from those which is where the developers agreement theoretically comes in imminent domain if they can't acquire it. I just like to clarify. Um so are you saying eastbound coming from Old Stage Road to the development or do you mean eastbound going towards? Yeah. Sorry about that. I got the direction. Yep. Eastbound. It's kind of flipped around. I just want to confirm that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bowman. I will admit that my head is spinning right now a little bit. The applicant says that a development agreement is close. Am I correct? Yes. And and thank you for I wanted to jump back in because I think Mr. Jefferson had a question about the development agreement must be finalized before we go to council to the status of the development agreement between the town and the applicant must be finalized before council and the the town attorney's office agrees that it's close. Yes, I I'm not going to speak for Miss Jones. I think so. Yeah, I've sent comments to developers

attorney. Um we haven't finalized that draft. I would agree it's close with respect to if you consider all of this that's in front of this subdivision, but if we're now talking about other parcels that we might need road right away from, that's they're not reflected in that. So, if the recommendation would be that there needs to be even more off-site um dedication for road improvements, um that would have to get added in before we go to a public hearing if that would be planning commission's recommendation. So, it sounds to me like the development agreement that comes forward will have some ifs in it in terms of what the property owners along 1010 will do or want to do. some ifs or if so then probably the the latter the developer would be responsible for trying to acquire the right of way so that they can construct the road improvements as required. Now again that's one half of the right ofway. It's not the other side of the road. Um and then if they are not able to voluntarily acquire that come to a negotiated price with those property owners then the town could exercise its ability to do eminent domain to to acquire that right of way so that the road improvements could be done or could accept a fee in lie. Okay. Uh however we we'd prefer to get the right of way you know earlier than later in the process and then not knowing the timing of some improvements a fee in l sometimes doesn't cover all the costs in the future. Okay. Thank you. I was a drift there for a minute. So if they if they did a fee in lie of and they're looking at a possible time frame of 2045 to widen

this road, land values are going to go up substantially. So if more dedicated easement or rightway was required, it's going to cost the town at that point substantially more money if if they did the fee in lie of. So it's it's they got to if I understand this correctly. So they're going to go to the homeowners, the property owners, say we'd like to buy your land and two of them say no. And then if it doesn't go any further, then it has to go to eminent domain or fee in lie of which could cost the town a lot more money 20 years down the road. So, I I don't like anything that has the potential to have eminent domain taking land away from property owners. I I just I don't I just don't think this this is fully baked yet. That's that's my two cents. Now, I I do have I'm looking at the uh traffic study and trying to determine what the lane configuration is of street B uh where it meets 1010. Is that going to be a a right turn in and a and a left or is it going to be a three lane coming in and out? So, you're going to have a right turn, a left turn, and then a turn coming in. Because that looks fairly narrow, but if I'm reading the traffic study right, it it appears it might have just two lanes. Yeah. So, yeah, along 1010 will have the the turn both turn lanes from east and west coming into the development. And the egress lane will be one lane where you can turn left or right and then one entrance lane. So, it'll be two lanes total, one coming out, one coming in. So if if somebody wanted to turn left, they could potentially hold the traffic

hostage until traffic clears on 1010. They could, but from our from our traffic study, we you know, we we modeled that intersection with the full buildout in place. And during the AM peak hour, it was level service C, which is beyond acceptable. During the PM peak hour, again, busiest hour of the whole day, PM peak hour, it was level service D, and it was only.7 seconds away from being level service C. still acceptable per NCDOT standards. I I I understand that the heartburn that I have is the traffic study you're adding 1340 trips and your study says that you're going to have 11 foot difference at one time of the day and on 10 10 13 ft. That makes no sense. I I I just you you've got one lane coming out. So whether you're turning left or you're turning right and you're adding 1340 trips and a 13 ft additional stack and you're saying you're off by 7 if that's what the computer says, but I don't believe the computer because common sense says you're going to have traffic back in a lot more than that to try and get out of that subdivision with one point of egress. Yeah, I can touch on um so this slide here kind of talks on that the the trip generation from this development. Um it does show the 1340 trips. Again, that's the entire daily amount of trips. So if you look at the AM and PM peak hours, that's 99 total trips during the AM peak hour and 133 total trips during the PM peak hour. uh we then kind of drop a distribution percentages uh for all possible you know directions vehicles could go from this development and those are based on existing existing traveling directions from from existing traffic counts and traffic movements. So in our distribution um kind of start with old stage road we you know distribute we

distribute 37% of the development traffic to be using going north on old stage road. So of that 37% of the AM peak hour which is 99 trips that equates to 36 trips in AM peak hour which kind of equates to one vehicle every 40 seconds. Um during the PM peak hour that's 49 trips one one vehicle every minute and 13 seconds. Uh if you look at 1010 road that we were discussing um we distributed 38% of vehicles going west on 1010 road um that equates to 38 trips during the ammp hour and 51 trips during the PMP hour. So the 1340 it it does look like a scary number but that again is throughout the entire course of the whole day. um where and then we take that and we model the AM and PM peak hours which are the two busiest hours of the day and this kind of breaks it down to how much traffic that really is creating during those AM and PM peak hours. So how did you come up with the percentages for the site traffic assignment? Because it looks like you basically split it a third a third to third a little bit going white. It almost appears that the traffic assignment was assigned to come up with the lower numbers. And I don't I don't see 30% of the traffic exit from this project exiting on Seastone. That's a high number going through Seastone and going down through that subdivision. Um I think your your Seastone is going to be much less. I think your 1010 road is going to be much higher. That's my opinion and that I'll just leave it at that. Um I the way we develop these numbers is by looking at existing traffic counts. So before we even start our study, we get existing traffic counts at all of our study intersections. Um so in this case it's all the study intersections listed there. We look at the movements during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, which

direction they're going. We take those trips from each direction and we that's how we determine our our distribution percentages based on existing traffic counts that we we collected prior to performing the study. Okay. I I get that. I just I don't know how you're determining based on a project that's not developed and you're going to assign percentages of which exit they're going to use. Um, logic logic says you're going to take the easiest route out, which would be the route to 1010. Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, we So, for going up Old Stage Road, based on existing traffic in the in that area, 38% um of the traffic counts are going north up Old Stage Road. And I mean, based on travel times and routes available, um we assumed it's much faster to just cut right on to to Sea Stone Street that our development connects to. you can take Seastone Street right out. There's going to be a signal at Seastone Street as well that provides uh you know ample capacity versus taking the proposed site drive all the way down to 1010 having to turn left, wait at the the signal at Old Stage and 10, turn left there and then go north on Old Stage. So, it kind of provides a an extra cut through traffic piece onto Se Street is what what we came up with in our RTI based on existing traffic counts. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions or for applicants for staff? Seeing none, in order for us to make some decision or have further discussion, do we have any motion to do we need to have other people speak for Oh, yeah, we do. Do we? Thank you, Mr. Carson. There's so much going on on this

one. Do we have anyone in our audience that would like to speak in favor or against the proposal? Okay. So, see none. Okay. Now, um do we have uh a motion from the commission for us to make some uh decision about this case? I'll make the motion. See where it goes. Um, I'm going to find this project as consistent, but I'm going to recommend denial. I move the planning commission accept the consistency statement drafted herein as our own written recommendation regarding the consistency of the requests of the town's adopted land use plans but recommend denial of case CZMP24005 to the town council because of inconsistent boundaries which may limit future development to the south. Um the traffic that is going to be added to 1010 road that's not fully developed out yet. And um no, I think that's I think traffic is probably the biggest thing. And and the one entrance way off of 1010. So for those three reasons, I recommend denial of this project. So just to clarify, Mr. Carson, you are um

finding it's consistent but recommending. Okay. Finding that the consistency statement is not consistent. Well, it's it's consistent with the requirements of the town and it meets the bare minimums, but I'm recommending denial because of the traffic uh and the one uh entrance off of 1010 and the inconsistent boundaries. And also, I guess I'll add to that, the lack of formal agreements uh for the the development agreements not being accepted by the homeowners yet. So, for those four reasons, uh Mr. Jefferson, I'm going to clarify as well. So, Mr. Carson, you're going for um draft motion number three. Yes. Which is to find it consistent and recommend denial. Your statement about why you're choosing that is because of the fourth option parts of um you your your reason must be uh based within these five choices here. So if you can uh you're you're not wrong in stating what you're saying um and your belief on this project but uh you're giving specifics beyond transfer transportation infrastructure um that would be suitable and adequate for the proposed uses is not available. So the more formal um draft motion would refer to transportation infrastructure wholly um that would be suitable and adequate for the proposed use.

That'd be under draft motion four. Uh draft motion four is inconsistent and recommend denial. Thank you. So I thought the four Okay. Sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. The four boxes that are right. Okay. Okay. So, we're still under draft motion three under the uh due to the transportation uh infrastructure. So, so we can we can that will be your motion. Um, you move that the planning commission accept the consistency statement drafted herein as your own written recommendation regarding the consistency of the request with the town's adopted land use plans, but recommend denial of case CZMP250005 to the town council because transportation infrastructure is not suitable and adequate for the proposed uses. Correct. And is not available. Is that your Yes, that's your motion. That that kind of covers all the topics that I had noted, I guess. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Yeah. Thank you for that. No, that's that's fair. That's why we give you four motions as well and and you have leeway in um how you choose to come to those motions. Okay. We have a motion on the floor um to find consistent and recommend denial. Do we have a second? I will second. Mr. Voilan has seconded that. Is there any other discussion before we There is none. I believe we are ready to Sure. So the motion on the floor is to find the um the uh find it consistent and recommend denial um based upon uh transportation infrastructure um is not suitable and adequate. So that's the motion that we're voting on. I'll call the vote. Um, Mr. Banks, I. Excuse me. I, um, Mr. Carson,

I, Mr. Jefferson, I, Miss Hodes, I, Mr. Mills, I, Mr. Voyand, I. That's six eyes. The motion passes. Thank you so much. We have approved our motion for this case. [Applause] [Applause] We now move into our reports for the planning director and uh and planning commission. [Music] Uh yes, real briefly. um activity on different cases and topics since your last meeting of September 8th. Um at the regular meeting of September 16th, uh ZTA 2401, I think I've given you a little bit of a heads up about that text amendment package um which is focusing on implementing uh portions of the comprehensive plan related to residential development. uh that was continued. We needed a little more extra time to work on graphics. Um and we are recommending um that it be continued again uh to allow council members a little more time to get familiar with the package because it is a fairly indepth broad package. So my best guess at this point is that it may come to you in December. um outside chance that maybe that gets pushed to January, but more than likely one of those two months that will be showing up uh for y'all. Um also at that meeting,

CZ2501, which was the conditional zone tier 1 for uh the project Cougar site out there on Rainer Road, that was approved. Then um at the September 30th work session uh there was a presentation I think I mentioned this last time that that would be coming up um that we had a presentation from go Raleigh on the bus rapid transit. So if you didn't get a chance to see that I believe that was first on the agenda that day. Um so again the September 30th work session feel free to check that out. Then on October 7th, um our new senior planner, Mr. Julian Griffy, uh presented the contract and scope of work for the transportation plan to the council. uh it was received uh positively and so we do have it on the upcoming council agenda of the 21st for um uh approval to direct the manager to go ahead and execute the contract that will be on the consent agenda. Um so unless that gets pulled, there won't be any further discussion about it at that meeting. So um looking to get that process moving forward. Um and then also on the 21st um we do have ten uh we do have on the calendar a presentation from Duke Health. Um Duke Health will be speaking to the council about their property at the corner of Timber and 50. Um so I know you you all have asked about that. So John gave me a heads up uh to let you know that there will be a presentation to the council that day. So if you're interested in hearing about that, please tune in. Um and then related to the transportation plan, just also kind of

wanted to give you a little bit ahead of a heads up. We we pretty well um I think have settled with the consulting team as to how we're going to approach the involvement of you know citizens and the various committees and the council. And at this point we are anticipating just so you are thinking about it um that there will be essentially a policy committee which would be a committee of the whole again uh kind of like what we did with the the land use plan. So we we will be moving in that direction for both the planning commission and the council to be wholly involved in those meetings. At this point I think we're looking at three four max of those. Um, so not a huge commitment. We we do have tenatively until next December is when we're kind of looking the end of the year next year for final plan adoption. Um but then we also will be having an advisory committee which will be a little more um a little more overarching and inclusive um just to kind of you know have a sounding board for the consultant to make sure that they're heading in the right direction with the plan. Um so for that committee we do anticipate having appointees um from various boards and this would again move beyond just planning commission and just the town council. Um could be other town uh commissions as well as members of the public. Um so do be thinking about that. We could have two or three um folks from planning commissions. So again, if you're interested in being a little more involved, um again, probably three meetings, um four at the max. So between the two shouldn't be too taxing hopefully, um but maybe a meeting every

other month on average um for those two committees. So just be thinking about that. We are we'll probably be asking for a little more uh definition in terms of appointees for that maybe in December. Um the consultant will be doing as I think I mentioned before a lot of uh data crunching and data work to start um so that the committees can kind of have something to dig into when they start to meet. Um, so it's kind of our impression that those committees will probably pick up more so after the holidays. Um, so just be thinking about that between now and then if you if you're interested in talk amongst yourselves and that's all that I have. Okay, that's actually really good to hear. That's both really really important and necessary. I'm glad that we're getting our process started with our transportation plan. So so very important especially as our bus rapid transit comes through our through our corridor like we're the ones that have kind of think about that and uh so that's that's really great. I definitely would like to participate however I can and Duke Health that's the 21st you said right? Yes, 21st. And just a heads up, if you do need to get in touch with planning staff the rest of this week, just in case, um about half of us will be um out of the office at conference. Um this week, it's our annual uh planning conference this year. It's in Charlotte, and it's not just the North Carolina chapter, but also the South Carolina chapter. It's the first time ever that I'm aware of that we've done a joint conference. Um, but we will have, like I say, at least half, if not a little more than half of us still here. Um, but just be a

little patient if it takes takes a little bit to get back to to you or anyone else. Okay. You like to see us being represented in the whole. So, thank you for doing that work representing town of Garner. Uh, Mr. Drezenberg, question. Um there was a news release uh might have been today or Friday about the November 4th Wake Med groundbreaking over uh across from well over Timber Drive. U has that is there any part of that that needs to come before planning commission? I I've seen some drafts of the layout, but is that uh since they're doing groundbreaking? Yeah, at this point there is not um due to the uh some of the amendments that were passed um we did give an a we did address the change there for hospitals and similar uses um to exempt them from having to go through the special use permit process. Of course, that would have just gone to council. Um but as far as the zoning goes, um there is not a need for a reszoning for that particular project. Um, it's possible though that there could be other portions of that quadrant around the hospital site. Um, that could depending on on what what kind of uses they they're looking at. Um, but most of that is I think zone commercial mixed use. So, okay. Thank you. Any other um anything else from commission, Mr. Boing? Um, a little off topic. shameless promotion. Uh I'm a member of the Garner Police Department's volunteer team, the CAP team, and next Sunday there's a fundraiser for that team at Lorraine's

Coffee House. And uh Lorraine's bluegrass band will be playing uh as the opening act to my band. So if you are interested, tickets are sold at the door and I have a few flyers here. It's all to raise money for the volunteer effort. Thank you so much for sharing that with us. It's really important. We have to support our That's the 26th. The 19th. The 19th. This Sunday. Okay. The next Sunday. I'm like, is it the one that's coming or the ne the next next? That's what I was asked. Next Sunday. 4 to 7. The next upcoming Sunday. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you so much for that. any other um any other information from the commission that likes to be shared? Okay. Well, that being said, we will call our meeting. [Music]