Garner delays vote on 82.9‑acre Rock Quarry rezoning after council seeks clearer ‘vertical mixed‑use’ commitment
Loading...
Summary
Council continued an 82.94‑acre tier‑1 rezoning (CZ2046) to March 3 after lengthy debate about condition 3, which the applicant had written to reserve 10 aggregate acres for 'nonresidential or vertical mixed uses.' Council sought clearer language requiring both nonresidential acreage and at least one vertical mixed‑use building with minimum form requirements and asked staff and the developer to secure property‑owner signatures on revised conditions.
Garner’s Town Council on Feb. 17 declined to act on an 82.94‑acre Tier‑1 rezoning known as the Rock Quarry or Rockford assemblage (CZ2046), instead continuing the item to the March 3 meeting after an extended debate over the wording of a key condition.
Staff and the development team described a complex, three‑pod concept for the site that includes civic amenities, public plazas, public art, and an emphasis on concentrated, vertical mixed‑use development along Rock Quarry Road and East Garner Road. The developers said they have revised conditions after feedback from staff and the planning commission (which recommended approval unanimously) and cited economic factors: building sewer across a railroad and Highway 70 will require heavy infrastructure investment that the development must underwrite. The development team said the proposed sewer extension would unlock roughly 700 acres for future development.
The council’s discussion centered on condition 3, written by the applicant as: “a minimum of 10 acres in aggregate of the site will be reserved for nonresidential or vertical mixed uses within 400 feet of Rock Quarry and East Garner Roads.” Several council members — most prominently Mayor Pro Tem Damien Dellinger — warned that the word “or” could allow developers to meet the commitment with only horizontal commercial uses (for example a strip of standalone commercial uses) and still claim compliance, rather than the vertical, mixed‑use character the Garner Ford plan envisions. Staff confirmed the current wording would allow the 10‑acre area to be satisfied either by nonresidential uses or by vertical mixed‑use buildings; it would not, as written, require both.
Council and staff discussed compromise wording that would preserve flexibility but add a measurable guarantee: reserving 10 aggregate acres for nonresidential uses and requiring at least one vertical mixed‑use building within that area. Council members and staff discussed further refinements (for example a minimum of two stories and at least two distinct uses in the vertical building). Developers said they would attempt to secure the written signatures required by state law from all property owners if council agreed to the revised language.
After more than an hour of questions, comments and negotiation, Mr. Dellinger moved to continue CZ2046 to the March 3 meeting so staff and the applicant could finalize clarified wording for condition 3 and obtain property‑owner signoffs; the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Council emphasized the project’s promise and the need to ensure the words of the ordinance will produce the intended form of development rather than an unintended low‑intensity outcome.
