[00:00:04]
OKAY,[I. CALL TO ORDER]
CALL TO ORDER OF THE NOVEMBER 14TH, CITY OF NEW BERN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING.UM, WILL YOU PLEASE ALL RISE AND STAND FOR THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OUR COUNTRY? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
UH, ANDREW, CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES, SIR.
I'M GONNA START OFF WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER KYLE DEER HERE.
BOARD MEMBER DANIELLE PEOPLES HERE.
HERE, CHAIRMAN BRAD JEFFERSON.
HERE, BOARD MEMBER RUSTY ENG HERE.
JUST LET THE RECORD SHOW SHE'S ABSENT.
AND BOARD MEMBER THOMAS BRUNO HERE AND BOARD MEMBER MARSHALL BALLARD AND LET THE RECORD SHOW MR. BALLARD IS ABSENT AS WELL.
BUT MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE COURT.
[IV. APPROVE AGENDA]
A MOTION ON APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.WE APPROVE THE AGENDA AS IS SECOND APPROVE ON A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
[V. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS]
UM, MOVING ON TO CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS.WE DID HAVE THE, UM, CONSULTED FOR LAND USE ORDINANCE BACK, UH, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
THEY DID A SERIES OF FOCUS GROUPS, UH, SO FAR I HAVEN'T SEEN MINUTES FROM THOSE, BUT UH, I UNDERSTAND THOSE WERE SUCCESSFUL.
UM, AND THEY SHOULD BE BACK IN NOVEMBER, LATER THIS MONTH OR DECEMBER.
WHEN ARE THEY COMING BACK? UH, I'M HOPEFUL THAT MAYBE DECEMBER.
ALRIGHT, SO DECEMBER WE'LL BE GOOD.
UM, GIVEN THAT I'M GONNA OPEN WITH COUPLE, UM, THINGS HERE ABOUT THE BOARD, UH, FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, JUST LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT TO THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.
UH, THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD THIS EVENING INCLUDE APPROVAL OF GENERAL AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLOTS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN CONCERNING ZONING, TEXT, AND MAP AMENDMENTS.
UH, SEVEN MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN AND MUST RESIDE IN THE CITY.
EACH MEMBER IS APPOINTED BY THE CRAVEN COUNTY.
UH, ONE MEMBER IS APPOINTED BY THE CRAVEN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND RESIDES WITHIN THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING AREA.
THIS BOARD IS AN ADVISORY AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD OF ALMAN.
THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN ACTS AS ITS LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY AND FOLLOWS VOTING PROCEDURES AS PART OFFICIAL MEETINGS.
THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN IS NOT BOUND BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.
WITH OUR FIVE ACTION ITEMS THIS EVENING, WE WILL HAVE A STAFF REPORT.
WE WILL THEN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND THEY WILL HAVE APPLICANT REMARKS.
THIS ORDER AND PUBLIC HEARING PROTOCOL REFLECTS THE BOARD'S RECENTLY ADOPTED RULES AND PROCEDURES AND JUST A BRIEF COMMENT ON PUBLIC COMMENT.
AGAIN, COMMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE BOARD AND CITY STAFF AND BE RELEVANT TO THE ACTION ITEM BEING DISCUSSED.
GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, NEIGHBORHOODS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS MAY APPOINT ONE SPOKESPERSON TO PRESENT THEIR POINTS OF VIEW TO THE BOARD.
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A COMMENT PERIOD, SO THE BOARD IS NOT TAKING OR RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS DURING THIS STEP.
[VI.A. Craeberne Crossing Phase 3, Section A, B, and C (General Plan)]
UM, AND HAVING SAID THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ACTION ITEMS. UH, SIX, A CRAYON CROSSING PHASE THREE, SECTION A, B, AND C GENERAL PLAN.ALRIGHT, GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND GOOD EVENING TO THE BOARD.
UM, THIS IS THE FIRST ITEM HERE FOR CRAYBURN CROSSING PHASES THREE, SECTION A, B, AND C.
AND THIS IS FOR A GENERAL PLAN.
THIS IS ALSO A MAJOR SUBDIVISION.
THE APPLICANT IS PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING INC.
AND OWNERS ARE MCCULLOUGH FARMS, L-L-C-B-R-E-L, RABURN FOREST, LLC AND MR. LAND AND TIMBER, LLC.
THE LOCATION IS SAVOY DRIVE, UH, NEW NORTH CAROLINA.
AND THE EXISTING ZONINGS ZONING DISTRICTS THAT APPLY ARE RESIDENTIAL SIX.
UH, THE EXISTING ZONINGS UH, ZONING DISTRICTS ARE RESIDENTIAL.
UH, IS AN ABBREVIATION RESIDENTIAL 10 OR R DASH 10 RESIDENTIAL 10 A OR R DASH 10 A.
THE SIZE IS 2 68 OR EXCUSE ME, 268.72 TOTAL ACRES.
UM, THERE'S A PORTION OF IT ESSENTIALLY THAT'S BEING USED AND I BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S 117.36 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED
[00:05:01]
DEVELOPMENT.AND THE PROPOSED HERE IN THE OVERVIEW, UH, IS A SUBDIVISION FOR 351 LOTS.
THIS IS TO BE SEPARATED BETWEEN 161 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, UH, DWELLINGS AND 190 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TOWN HOMES.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY ZONED, AGAIN, RESIDENTIAL SIX, UH, RESIDENTIAL 10 AND RESIDENTIAL 10 A.
UH, THESE ARE ESTABLISHED DISTRICTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF, UH, NEW BURNS LAND USE ORDINANCE.
AND THE PURPOSE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, UM, AS ALWAYS BEFORE IS FOR COMFORTABILITY, UH, PROMOTING HEALTH AND SAFETY AND ESSENTIALLY A PLEASANT ENVIRONMENT TO LIVE.
AND FIRST WE HAVE THE VICINITY MAP HERE.
AND THIS IS JUST REFLECTING THE DIFFERENCES OF PARCELS THAT ARE, UH, FOR THE ACTUAL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE BUFFER MAP.
THE BUFFER MAP IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY FOR US TO TAKE A HUNDRED FEET OF BUFFER AROUND THE PROPERTY LINES TO SERVE AS THE MAIL NOTICE TO THE DIFFERENT ADJACENT OWNERS.
SO ANYBODY WHO'S INCLUSIVE TO THAT 100 FEET SHOULD HAVE ACTUALLY GOT A NOTICE, UM, FOR OUR MAIL NOTICES REQUIREMENT.
AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE AERIAL MAP.
AND THE AERIAL IS JUST GIVING YOU AN INDICATION AS TO WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.
AND THEN YOU HAVE HERE THE ZONING MAP, WHICH REFLECTS THE DIFFERENCES IN DISTRICTS BASED ON COLORS.
SO THE RS, AGAIN, A RS SIX, THE RS 10, AND THE RS 10 A.
ESSENTIALLY THE GENERAL PLAN IS HERE FOR REVIEW AS WELL.
SO JUST HOPEFULLY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN DEFER SOME OF OR PLACE SOME OF THOSE TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, BUT THE PLAN WILL BE ON VIEW AFTER, UM, JUST SO THAT THEY CAN COMMENT ON IT.
STAFF'S EVALUATION, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BRANCH LINE USE ORDINANCE, AND ALL COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ADD, JUST SO TO CLEAR ANY CONFUSION, THERE WAS, UM, SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE ENTERTAINED BETWEEN PUBLIC WORKS, UH, AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, THOSE ITEMS. AND I GUESS CONVERSATIONS HAVE ADDRESSED ALL THE CONCERNS AND THE DRC COMMENTS THAT CAME FROM BOTH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS.
SO I, THERE'S EMAILS THAT WERE PROVIDED 'CAUSE WE WERE ALL INCLUSIVE INTO THE CHAIN TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, AND THEY BASICALLY STATED, UH, THESE ITEMS ARE GOOD TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO AS FAR AS FOR KRAMER, SORRY, AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME.
BOARD, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? KENDRICK? JUST A CLARIFICATION, WE'RE APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN, NOT THE FINAL PLAN.
DOES THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK TO US FOR THE FINAL PLAN? YES, MA'AM.
KENDRICK, I, I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE FOLLOWING THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE DETAILED GENERAL PLAN AND THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE, UH, AREA THAT PROPOSED IN IN THE LARGER BLOCK.
YOU SAID THERE WAS 117 ACRES IN THE GENERAL PLAN? YES.
SO BASICALLY THE FOCAL POINT IS THE 117.36 ACRES.
THERE WAS SOME ISSUES INVOLVING A SECONDARY ACCESS THAT NEEDED TO BE WORKED THROUGH.
SO THE INCREASE IN ACREAGE CAME FROM THOSE PROPERTIES.
ESSENTIALLY, IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S THE SECONDARY ACCESS THAT WAS REQUIRED THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR COMMENTS.
SO THE HUNDRED, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE CURRENT FOCUS FOR THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT.
BUT EVEN, EVEN IF I LOOK AT THAT IN THE GENERAL, IN THE AREA MAP THAT YOU SENT US, THE PROPERTY LINES ARE HARD TO FOLLOW AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE LITTLE DIP DOWN IN HERE, I CAN FOLLOW IT OFF OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS AND THEY'LL TURN AND THEN IT DIPS DOWN INTO IT MAKES A INCURSION INTO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT NEVER SHOWS UP IN THE, UM, GENERAL PLAN, NOT, SO THERE'S EITHER SOME MISSING LAND OR THERE'S SOME LAND THAT'S, I WOULD HAVE TO TRY EXCLUDE FROM THAT.
I WOULD HAVE TO TRY TO DOUBLE CHECK TO SEE IF THAT IS MISSING.
BUT IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT THEY SUBMITTED, IT SEEMED ACCURATE BASED ON WHAT WE REVIEWED.
BUT, UM, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DOUBLE CHECK AND ALSO I CAN LET THE APPLICANT TRY TO YEAH.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? SO KENDRICK, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PARCEL MAP PLEASE? SURE.
UM, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AREA THAT THE RED AREA THAT COMES FROM LIKE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY UP THE PAGE, ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM.
MM-HMM,
YEAH, IT, IT EXTENDS SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BASICALLY.
[00:10:02]
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD ABOUT THIS WAS, UM, IT SEEMS THAT IT DEPENDS, I GUESS ON WHEN THE, UH, THE, THE HIGHWAY IS GONNA GO IN THE EXTENSION 43.TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS SHOULD NOT BE DEFENDANT ON THAT.
THAT WAS A CONCERN WITH MR. GASKINS, THE, UH, GENTLEMAN WHO WORKED FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UM, I, YOU HAVE TO EXCUSE ME, I DON'T KNOW A SPECIFIC TITLE, BUT THAT WAS WHAT WAS BEING ADDRESSED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SECONDARY ACCESS FOR THIS PARCEL IF IT WAS A LARGE CONCERN.
SO HE WAS ACTUALLY IN, WORKS WITH THE APPLICANT THROUGH AND THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE EASEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND THAT HAS ALL BEEN PROCESSED.
AND I BELIEVE I INCLUDED THAT IN THE PACKET.
SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS SETTLED OUT PROPERLY.
WELL THAT'S THE FIRE AND SAFETY ROAD THAT GOES DOWN, RIGHT, AS A SECONDARY INGRESS EGRESS POINT.
UM, AND I GET ALL THAT, UM, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA BE USED FOR RESIDENCE, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
UM, SO NOW YOU'VE GOT 600 LOTS ALL GOING OUT THROUGH SAVOY DRIVE, RIGHT.
IN ONE AREA AND THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC UNTIL THAT 43 CONNECTOR GETS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE A TIA, UM, REALLY REALISTICALLY, THE ONLY ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF WOULD BE N-C-D-O-T.
BUT IF IT'S A CITY OWNED ROAD AND IT'S PERTAINING TO THE CITY, WE DON'T, WE STILL DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY.
SO WE CAN'T MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT.
UM, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THERE WAS SOME DIFFERENCES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
UM, THAT'S WHY PARTIALLY THIS WAS ENCOURAGED HIGHLY FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND REQUIRED THROUGH THEM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT RESIDENTS WON'T NECESSARILY BE ACCESSING THAT AS A POINT OF ENTRY, BUT IF IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, AT LEAST THERE'S A SECONDARY ACCESS.
MS. BULLOCK, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE LAND USE UPDATE THESE TRAFFIC STUDIES? IT'S SOMETHING I HEAR ALL THE TIME UP HERE IS THE, THERE'S A TRAFFIC PROBLEM, THERE'S TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ADDRESS TO REQUIRE? CERTAINLY IN THE FOCUS GROUPS THAT ARE COMING OUT, UM, THAT ANY OF YOU ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN, YOU CAN EXPRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
UM, WE'RE CONSTRAINED ABOUT THE TYPES OF STANDARDS THAT WE CAN PLACE IN OUR LENDING USE ORDINANCE BY STATE STATUTE.
UM, BUT IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IN WHAT WAYS WE CAN USE OUR, OUR TOOLS THAT ARE IN THE TOOLBOX TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC, THE APPROPRIATE VENUE TO ADDRESS THAT WOULD BE IN THOSE FOCUS GROUPS.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL GET YOU THE SPEAKER LIST AS WELL.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? NO.
UM, WHILE KENDRICK'S DOING THAT, UH, I, UH, MEANT TO READ ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS ITEM.
UM, THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE DECIDING HERE.
THIS BOARD, SO THIS ITEM FALLS UNDER MAJOR SUBDIVISION GENERAL PLAN APPROVALS.
THE BOARD HAS THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE ACTION.
REFLECTING THE PLAN SATISFIES THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE ORDINANCE OR DENY THE ACTION INDICATING THE PLAN FAILS TO SATISFY THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE ORDINANCE.
IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ONE OR MORE REQUIREMENTS TO THE CITY'S LAND USE ORDINANCE, THE MOTION MUST STATE THE DEFICIENCY AND THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE APPROVED.
AND THAT WOULD GO FOR ITEMS, UH, SIX A, B, C, AND DI BELIEVE.
SO JUST, UH, AS A OVERHEAD HERE.
UM, OKAY, SO I'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
TWO OF THOSE, ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE APPLICANTS.
BUT I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP A PUBLIC, UM, NOT A PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON THIS ITEM.
I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DELIBERATION.
I HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, OH, WELL, THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK.
KI KI SAVES ME FROM TIME TO TIME.
MY NAME IS ALLISON ENGBRETSON.
I AM A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LAND PLANNER WITH PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING.
I ALSO HAVE WITH ME THIS EVENING, UH, TIM KLINK SCALES WITH PARAMOUNT AND JACK ROSSETT WITH THE DEVELOPERS, UH, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER, ALSO LANDOWNER OF PHASE THREE.
SO I THINK I CAN ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD.
SO LET ME START WITH THE SECONDARY ACCESS, UH, IN THE ACREAGE QUESTIONS.
SO THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE UP ON YOUR SCREEN, YOU SEE THE DARK, UH, PORTION THAT'S SHADED ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN.
THAT IS WHAT WE CALL PHASE FOUR.
PHASE THREE IS THE PIECE THAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.
THE REASON THAT BOTH OF THESE ARE BEFORE
[00:15:01]
YOU ON THIS PLAN IS THAT WE CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD A YEAR AGO AND GOT APPROVAL ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.SO WE ARE ONLY COMING BACK TO MAKE MODIFICATION TO PHASE THREE.
PUTTING PHASE FOUR TO THE SIDE ONLY SHOWED IT FOR REFERENCE FOR ANYONE THAT MAY REMEMBER IT COMING THROUGH LAST YEAR.
SO THE, THE REASON THAT WE ARE HERE MAKING A MODIFICATION IS WE HAD A MULTIFAMILY PORTION OF THE SITE IN THE UPPER, UH, PORTION OF PHASE THREE.
OUR DEVELOPER DOES NOT WANT TO DO MULTIFAMILY AND HAS MOVED FORWARD WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND ATTACHED HOMES THAT YOU SEE HERE.
SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE.
THAT IS THE REASON FOR SOME OF THE ACREAGES LOOKING A LITTLE OFF.
WE SHOW A TOTAL ACREAGE OF ALL OF THE PARCELS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, THE CURRENT ONE 17 THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING HERE TONIGHT FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
AND THEN OF COURSE THE SECONDARY ACCESS IS THE REMAINDER OF THAT ACREAGE.
THOSE TRACKS ARE QUITE LARGE AND LONG AND SKINNY, SO IT ADDS UP TO QUITE A BIT OF ACREAGE.
SO I HOPE THAT HELPS CLARIFY, BUT IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, CERTAINLY LET ME KNOW.
LORD, HAVE QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'M, IF WE GO BACK TO KENDRICK, IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE, THE RED AREA MAP, THE, THERE'S A WHITE BLOCK THERE ABOVE THE CROSS HATCHED THAT IS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THIS REDEVELOPMENT.
I MEAN IN THE, UH, PLAN THAT WE'RE THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH YOU, ARE YOU TALKING ON THE NORTHERN SIDE? NO, TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE, ABOVE THE TWO, UH, CROSS HATCHED RED CROSS HATCH AREAS, I THINK IS WHAT KIPP'S REFERRING TO.
YEAH, THIS, THIS BLOCK RIGHT HERE IS ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT HATCHED.
IT'S NOT HATCHED, IT'S HASHED AREA.
SO, UH, WHAT IS HAPPENING? THERE ARE TWO PARCELS IN THE, WHAT WE CALL PHASE FOUR, WHICH IS TO THE LEFT OF PHASE THREE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS EVENING.
THAT PHASE FOUR PIECE ON THE BOTTOM, THAT PARCEL THAT IS ON THE BOTTOM IS THE ONE THAT PROVIDES A SECONDARY ACCESS ROUTE THROUGH THE MR. TIMBERLAND, UH, TO THE SOUTH.
SO IT IS INCLUDED MERELY FOR MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY THAT NEEDED TO BE NOTIFIED WAS NOTIFIED, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE ADVERTISING IT PROPERLY.
UM, THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT GOING ON THERE.
I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE, THE WHITE AREA ON TOP.
THE WHITE AREA ON THE TOP IS PART OF PHASE FOUR, BUT IT IS A SEPARATE PARCEL AND NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THE SECONDARY ACCESS DOES NOT GO THROUGH THAT.
NO, IT, IT'S THIS BLOCK OF LAND RIGHT HERE.
UHHUH,
AND THAT'S NOT HAS TO, BEING PART OF IT IS NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT PHASE FOUR AT ALL TONIGHT OTHER THAN FOR SECONDARY ACCESS.
UH, WELL THE PLAT THAT WE ARE GIVEN FOR THE GENERAL PLAN, IT SAYS GENERAL PLAN ON IT INCLUDES THAT PIECE OF LAND UP THERE.
IF I MIGHT RECAP, UM, THE, SO SHOWED IT ONLY FOR REFERENCE IN CASE ANYONE WAS CONFUSED ABOUT OUR PREVIOUS BRINGING FORWARD PHASE THREE AND FOUR.
SO IT'S SHADED OUT ON OUR PLAN AND NOTED AS NOT PART OF THE PHASE THREE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, WE HAVE SOME NOTES ON THERE.
UM, IF CAN I APPROACH AND JUST GET A CLARIFICATION HERE? HONOR, PLEASE.
I'M, I, I MUST I, I'M CONFUSED THAT, LEMME SEE, I HAVE A FULL SIZE, I HAVE A FULL SIZE COPY HERE THAT I CAN POINT TO AND IT'S PROBABLY JUST ON INFORMATION WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED THAT THAT'S CAUSING THE CONFUSION.
CAN YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
YOU'RE JUST FOCUSED ON PHASE THREE.
EVEN IF THE NORTHERN PARCEL LOOKS TO BE INCLUDED, IT'S NOT INCLUDED AND I'M SO SORRY IF WE MADE THAT CONFUSING.
[00:20:03]
SHE'S SAYING WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THIS, THIS WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON THE GENERAL PLAN, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH THIS.WE'RE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THREE, WHICH IS WHY THIS IS ONLY SHADED.
BUT THEN IT'S SHADED, IT'S SHADED ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH THERE TOO.
THIS IS, WELL THAT'S JUST FOR THE FIRE AND SAFETY, THAT'S JUST FOR, THAT'S ONLY ON THERE BECAUSE OF THE, RIGHT.
SO I DO HAVE THE FULL SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND I CAN OUTLINE, YOU KNOW, IN THE BREAKOUTS HERE OF THINGS THAT MAY FURTHER CLARIFY FOR YOU AND SHOW THE EXHIBITS OF THE SECONDARY ACCESS.
WOULD YOU LIKE FOR HER TO DO THAT KIT? I, I MEAN IF SHE, WHAT SHE DREW OUT ON THIS, I MEAN, WHY DID WE GET THIS WHOLE SHEET, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION THAT, THAT CAUSES ALL THIS CONFUSION.
SO THE ENTIRETY OF RABURN CROSSING WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
SO ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE COMING IN TO MODIFY PART OF THAT PREVIOUS APPROVAL.
THAT'S WHY WE SHOWED THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT WAS, OH, NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS AND, AND PHASING DEVELOPMENT, BELIEVE ME.
BUT, UH, AT THIS, WHEN WE GET THESE DOCUMENTS AND LOOK AT 'EM THERE, THERE'S QUESTIONS AND, AND THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT WE SEE THAT THIS CAUSED A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION.
DID YOU RECEIVE THE ENTIRE PACKET OF DRAWINGS? OH, NO, THIS IS WHAT WE GOT.
THAT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE CONFUSED.
UM, SO WE HAVE A A ABOUT 167 PAGES THAT WE SUBMITTED TO HELP CLARIFY ALL THAT.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH ANYTHING THAT WILL FURTHER CLARIFY IT FOR YOU.
UM, BUT IT IS THE, THE ZONING LINE THAT YOU SEE IN THE, THE PARCEL.
I'LL BRING HER UP HERE AND SHOW YOU WHATEVER YOU WANT.
NO, I MEAN, YOU WANT, I MEAN, WHAT YOU DREW OUT HERE, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF WHAT OKAY.
WE, WE HAVE TWO CONFLICTING MAPS, I SHOULD SAY THAT YEAH.
HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US THAT CALLED THAT LITTLE CALLED THE QUESTIONS.
UNDERSTOOD, UNDERSTOOD, UNDERSTOOD.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF I COULD TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS QUESTION? SURE, OF COURSE.
SO WE DID ACTUALLY COMPLETE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THIS.
THE NUMBER OF TRIPS, UH, THAT 351 LOTS GENERATES DID REQUIRE US TO DO, UH, A TIA AND IT IS APPROVED AND WE DO HAVE THAT WITHIN OUR PACKET AS WELL.
AND THERE ARE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO, UH, TO PUT IN ON A, A PHASED SCALE AS, UH, THOSE LOTS GO THROUGH AND I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THOSE WITH YOU IF YOU'D LIKE.
UH, WHO IS THE TIA APPROVED BY? UH, SO IT WAS A JOINT EFFORT BETWEEN THE MPO AND DOT AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE HIGHWAY 43 WAS PART OF THE, THE CONSIDERATION, WHICH I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IN A MOMENT, UM, IT ALSO WENT UP TO RALEIGH'S, DOT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AND THROUGH THEIR OFFICE, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN A LOT OF TIAS GO THROUGH.
UM, SO YES, I I THINK WE CAN SAY IT'S BEEN VETTED ON A LOT OF LEVELS, UM, FOR THAT.
SO THAT, THAT TIA DESCRIBED THE TRAFFIC OF THE 351 UNITS PLUS THE UNITS THAT ARE TO THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST, BECAUSE YOU'RE BASICALLY, UNTIL THE 43 CONNECTOR IS COMPLETED, YOU'RE BASICALLY TAKING ALL THAT TRAFFIC THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO LET ME TALK ABOUT THAT A MINUTE.
IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
IT WAS THE TIMING WAS STUDIED AS WELL AS THE UNITS AND IMPACT, UH, FOR THE FULLY SCOPED AREA.
UH, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT IS HIGHWAY 43 IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED TO BE ON THE SAME CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE AS THIS PROJECT.
THE IDEA IS THAT THAT, UH, SECOND ENTRANCE ONTO 43, THE ACTUAL FULL SERVICE ENTRANCE MM-HMM.
SO THEN THAT HELPS ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
NOW, OF COURSE, IT'S A DOT PROJECT.
WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THE REASON THAT WE HAVE THE SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PART OF ALL THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE GONE ON AROUND THAT, JUST WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS KEPT SAFE.
I I'M SURE THE FUTURE LAND OR PROPERTY OWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES YOU'RE SELLING WOULD BE, HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT IF IT WASN'T EXACTLY THE SAME.
IT'S IF, IF RALEIGH APPROVES IT, SAME.
AND WE CAN ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
WE'VE GOT OUR CIVIL ENGINEER AND AND DEVELOPER OWNER HERE FOR YOU.
[00:25:01]
APPRECIATE THAT.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? APPLICANTS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALRIGHT, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD.
OKAY, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN OF CRAVEN CROSSING PHASE THREE SECTIONS A, B, AND C AS PRESENTED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
[VI.B. Scott & Donna Unkel Subdivision, (General Plan and Final Plat) ]
ON TO ITEM SIX B SCOTT AND DONNA ORKEL, SUBDIVISION KENDRICK.AND UH, THIS IS THE NEXT ITEM HERE, SCOTT AND DONNA ONEL SUBDIVISION.
UH, THIS IS A GENERAL PLAN AND A FINAL PLAT, WHICH I KNOW MAY SEEM A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
UM, HOWEVER, BASICALLY THEY, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
UH, THE OBJECTIVE, ONCE I COMPLETE THE PRESENTATION HERE, YOU'RE GONNA VOTE ESSENTIALLY ON THE GENERAL PLAN FIRST AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA PROCEED TO VOTE ON THE FINAL PLAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER.
SO, UH, THIS IS FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION 0 0 2 9 7 4 20 24.
UH, THAT'S GENERAL PLAN NUMBER.
AND THE FINAL PLAT IS MAJOR SUBDIVISION 0 0 2 9 7 5 20 24.
REQUEST SUMMARY HERE IS FOR SCOTT AND DONNA UNKEL.
THE LOCATION IS THREE 10 NORTH FIRST AVENUE, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL 10 OR R DASH 10 AND SIZE IS 10 POINT 15 TOTAL OR SO ACRES, THE LOT THAT THEY'RE ANTICIPATING TO CUT OUT IS 0.65 ACRES.
THE OVERVIEW, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS FOR THE CREATION OF ONE ADDITIONAL LOT AND THERE WAS NO SPECIFIED USE, UM, SPECIFIC THAT THE APPLICANT MENTIONED.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DIS DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION.
THEY CAN CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD THAT.
UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY, AGAIN ZONED R DASH 10.
UH, THIS IS ESTABLISHED AS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CITY OF NEW BRUNS LAND USE ORDINANCE.
THE PURPOSE, UH, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ONCE MORE IS FOR COMFORTABILITY, HEALTH SAFETY AND JUST PROMOTING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO LIVE.
HERE IS THE FIRST MAP, WHICH IS THE VICINITY MAP AND THE PARCEL, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED HERE, UH, IS WHAT IS SHOWN TO ME.
UH, SUBJECT TO A MAJOR SUBDIVISION THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE BUFFER MAP, WHICH AGAIN TAKE THE PROPERTY LINES AND WE UTILIZE A HUNDRED FEET AROUND THE PROPERTY LINES TO MAKE SURE WE, UH, DO THE REQUIRED MAILED NOTICE.
SO ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT BUFFER SHOULD PROCEED THE LETTER AND FOLLOWED BY THE AERIAL MAP.
AND THAT'S JUST GIVING YOU A REFLECTION OF WHAT'S ON THE GROUND AND THE ZONING MAP, WHICH IS INDICATING THE CAR DASH 10 ZONING DISTRICT.
AND HERE IS THE GENERAL AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE, UH, SUBDIVISION.
AND IF YOU CAN SEE THERE, ESSENTIALLY TOWARDS THE END OF NORTH SECOND AVENUE, UH, TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN HALF, THERE'S A PARCEL THAT'S THERE THAT SHOWS OR IS BEING SHOWN TO BE CUT OUT 0.65, UH, ACRES.
SO THAT'S THE LOT ONE ESSENTIAL OR THE ADDITIONAL LOT AND STAFF'S EVALUATION, BOTH SUBDIVISION DOES MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S LAND USE ORDINANCE.
AND ALL, ALL COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT ON REVIEW COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND THE ACTIONS NEEDED ONCE MORE.
UH, YOU'LL BE FIRST TAKING A VOTE ON GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IS AGAIN, UH, THE MAJOR SUBJECT DIVISION ENDING IN 9 7 4.
AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, UM, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME.
BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS KENDRA? NO.
UM, WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES IT A MAJOR SUBDIVISION? SO UNFORTUNATELY WITH THIS SITUATION AND THAT WE RUN INTO IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE, ANYTHING THAT EXCEEDS FIVE ACRES ESSENTIALLY, WHICH THIS TRACK DOES BEING SUBDIVIDED, IT'S INITIALLY 10 POINT 15, IT AUTOMATICALLY TELLS US THAT WE CAN'T CONSIDER IT AS A MINOR.
SO ANYTHING THAT'S NOT A MINOR, IT MOVES AUTOMATICALLY TO A MAJOR.
THE MAJOR HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THUS FAR.
WE'RE HOPING TO LOOK AT THAT IN THE UPCOMING LANGUAGE ORDINANCE.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A MAJOR.
KENDRICK ON, ON THE REMAINING LOT THAT I JUST NOTED IN ON THE SURVEY THAT THERE'S A MOBILE HOME ON THERE IN R 10 DISTRICT, UM, NOT ON LOT ONE, BUT ON, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOT
[00:30:01]
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE 9.5 ACRES, RIGHT? YES, SIR.THAT'S ALREADY BEEN EXISTING FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S NOT NEW THAT I KNOW OF.
SO THE, THE PLAT ALSO SHOWS A CUL-DE-SAC BEING BUILT INTO PHASE, INTO PHASE TWO AND TO THE SECOND PART OF THE LOT IT, THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE CONSULTED THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ASSUME, BUT I'M NOT AWARE NECESSARILY HOW THEY'RE GONNA PROCEED IN THE PROCESS.
WE JUST FOCUS ON THE, THE SUBDIVISION PART OF IT.
SO ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE, WELL, THE, FROM, I GUESS WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT UNDER THE FINAL PLAT PROPOSAL AND HAVING ACCESS AND WHETHER TO BOND IT OR NOT.
YEAH, THAT WOULD, UNFORTUNATELY IT WOULD BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR PUBLIC WORKS.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT WERE SPECIFIC TO THAT.
I CAN TELL YOU AT LEAST THUS FAR, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT FROM THEM.
SO, SO IS THAT SOMETHING THOUGH, THAT'S USUALLY REQUIRED IF YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A CUL-DE-SAC OR A ROAD? SO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE DOES MAKE IT TO WHERE ANY LOT, UM, THAT ESSENTIALLY IS GOING TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOME SORT DOES REQUIRE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC IMPROVED STREET, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
SO ESSENTIALLY IF WE RECEIVE AN APPLICATION AND THE INTENT IS TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING, IF THAT ROAD IS NOT, UM, OR EXCUSE ME, THAT LOT IS NOT TOUCHING A PUBLIC IMPROVED STREET, THEN THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING UNTIL THERE IS ONE THAT IT HAS ACCESS TO.
NO, NO, I THINK MY QUESTION IS MORE, UM, I KNOW I'VE SEEN ON A LOT OF PLATS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE AND WHAT ARE THE LAYERS OF THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, THE, THOSE ALL THE, THE CURBING, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT STUFF AND WE DON'T WHAT THE RADIUS OF THAT CUL-DE-SAC ACTUALLY IS, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT.
I DON'T SEE THAT ON HERE FOR A FINAL PLAT FOR GENERAL PLAT.
BUT FOR FINAL IT'S NOT THERE, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT THERE.
UH, NO, NO ONE QUESTIONED IT THAT I'M AWARE OF AS FAR AS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR REPUBLIC WORKS.
UM, AND SURPRISING ESSENTIALLY I CAN'T HOLD ANYTHING UP BASED OFF OF THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE LAND USE ORDERS TO PREVENT IT.
I DON'T DEAL WITH THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE ROADWAY OR THE CULDESAC AS GO.
IF I LOOK AT THE AREA THAT YOU PROVIDED, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT CUL-DE-SAC IS ALREADY THERE, BUT IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT A HARD LINE ON THE, ON THE, AND AND THIS IS A 2021 AERIAL.
UH, I WISH I HAD A MORE RECENT AERIAL, BUT UM, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S PARTIALLY THERE IN THE AERIAL.
I'M NOT CERTAIN AS TO IF IT HAS FURTHER DEVELOPED OR NOT.
UM, BUT I WOULD UNDERSTAND THE INTENT IS FOR THAT CUL-DE-SAC TO BE COMPLETED MOST LIKELY.
AND THEN ESSENTIALLY IF THEY'RE GRANTED THE SUBDIVISION BASED OFF OF THE APPROVALS, THEN THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU PLACE.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR KENDRA? I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE APPROVING A FINAL PLAT THAT SHOULD HAVE THAT KIND OF DETAIL ABOUT WHAT THAT ROAD IS ALL ABOUT.
I, I'M A BIT RETICENT TO SAY I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I WOULD VOTE YES FOR THAT JUST BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED THAT KIND OF DETAIL EVEN THOUGH PUBLIC WORKS DIDN'T MAKE THE COMMENT.
UM, WHAT I WOULD LEAN ON IS THOSE FOLKS FROM THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES OR DEPARTMENTS TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHETHER OR NOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE COMPLETE OR IS NECESSARILY THERE OR HA OR THE MEANS TO ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISH IT.
IS THERE, I WOULD'VE EXPECTED A COMMENT WOULD'VE BEEN PRODUCED FROM WHETHER IT BE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR PUBLIC WORKS.
AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I, I DIDN'T RECEIVE ONE THAT WAS PRODUCED.
SO WHAT THAT TURNS INTO ON MY SIDE OF THINGS FROM ALAN'S OWN PERSPECTIVE, WE JUST HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY SAY THAT ALL THE COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED UNDERSTOOD IF YOU DON'T RECEIVE A CONCERN FROM THOSE AGENCIES OR DEPARTMENTS.
UM, ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR KENDRICK QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, UH, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE AND WOULD THEY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? MR. CHAIRMAN? I WILL ADD, UH, MY COLLEAGUE MS. DEANNA, SHE JUST ACTUALLY MENTIONED THAT THAT CUL-DE-SAC IS BUILT, ACTUALLY ALREADY IS BUILT.
I'M WORKING GENERALLY, I, YEAH, GENERALLY I GET TO DRIVE AROUND.
OKAY, SO THAT TAKES THAT OFF THE TABLE THOUGH.
[00:35:01]
THAT PROCEDURE, BUT I WILL DISCUSS THAT LATER.UH, WITH ALL THAT DONE, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD ON THE, UH, GENERAL PLAN.
I, I MOVE WE, UH, APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AS SUBMITTED FOR THIS ITEM.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ALL OPPOSED, THAT MOTION CARRIES.
UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON FINAL PLOT.
THAT WAY YOU APPROVE THE FINAL PLOT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ALL OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES AS WELL.
[VI.C. Craven 30 West Lot 1, (General Plan and Final Plat)]
ITEM SIX C.ALRIGHT, GENERAL PLAN AND FINAL PLOT.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, MY COLLEAGUE EMERSON BROWN, WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE, SHE'S GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS NEXT ITEM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THE BOARD.
I'M A PLANNER ONE AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HERE IN THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
UM, TODAY THE ITEM THAT I HAVE IS CRAVEN 30 WEST LOT ONE AND SIMILARLY TO WHAT KENDRICK JUST DID, IT WILL BE FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE FINAL PLA AT THE SAME TIME.
AND THE GENERAL PLAN NUMBER IS 0 0 2 9 8 0 20 24.
AND THE FINAL PLAT NUMBER IS 0 0 2 9 8 1 20 24.
FOR THE REQUEST SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS THOMAS ENGINEERING PA.
THE OWNER IS W HAER IN OUR COMPANY AND THE LOCATION IS AT WEST NEW BERN PARKWAY IN DOWNEY DRIVE IN NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
THE EXISTING ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL ONE OR I ONE, THE SIZE IS 9.46 ACRES OF A TOTAL OF 110 ACRES, 110.32 TOTAL ACRES.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS FOR THE CREATION OF ONE ADDITIONAL LOT.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE EXPRESSED THE INTENT TO ESTABLISH AN OFFICE ON THIS SUBDIVIDED LOT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED IN INDUSTRIAL ONE OR I ONE.
THIS IS ESTABLISHED AS THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
AS PER THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S LAND USE ORDINANCE.
THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSING, CREATING, REPAIRING, RENOVATING, PAINTING, CLEANING OR ASSEMBLING OF GOODS, MERCHANDISES AND EQUIPMENT.
HERE WE HAVE THE VICINITY MAP, WHICH MARKS IN TEAL, THE PARCELS, AND THE NORTH MOST, UM, PORTION OF THAT PARCEL IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE SUBDIVIDED OUT NEXT.
SIMILARLY TO KENDRICK EARLIER, THIS IS THE BUFFER MAP WHICH GIVES US, UM, THE A HUNDRED FEET OF BUFFER, UM, FOR THOSE MAILED NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT.
UH, THIS SHOWS US WHAT IS ON THE GROUND CURRENTLY ON THESE PARCELS.
LASTLY, WE HAVE THE ZONING MAP.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE THE PORTION THAT IS GOING TO BE SUBDIVIDED OUT IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ONE.
HERE WE HAVE THE FINAL PLAT AND THERE IS ONE PAGE, WHICH IS THIS PAGE.
AND THEN THE SECOND PAGE CARRIES ON OVER TO THIS SIDE AND I WILL LEAVE IT AT THIS LARGER PORTION.
THE, FOR OUR STAFF EVALUATION, WE DID, UM, DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S LAND USE ORDINANCE.
AND ALL OF THE COMMENTS WERE RESOLVED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
THE ACTIONS NEEDED ARE TO VOTE ON THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IS AGAIN THAT 0 0 2 9 8 0.
[00:40:01]
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME FROM A CITY EMPLOYEE STANDPOINT, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO ASK ME NOW.BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EMERSON? IS THIS ON THE GENERAL PLAN? YES, SIR.
YOU CAN DO THE FINAL PLAN TOO, IF YOU'D LIKE.
I JUST, IN, IN REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE WERE SENT, I NEVER SAW AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
SO THAT WAS INCLUDED MR. KIER FOR THE, FOR THE ACTUAL SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION.
THEY HAD CHECKED BOTH BOXES, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
UH, SO ESSENTIALLY IT WAS DONE THROUGH ONE APPLICATION FROM WHAT I CAN RECALL.
BUT, UH, NO, THE ONLY BOX THAT'S THAT'S CHECKED IS GENERAL PLAN AND THE LETTER FROM, UH, JOHN THOMAS FROM ENGINEERING JUST HAD THE FEE PAID FOR THE GENERAL PLAN.
I DO SEE THAT NOW I APOLOGIZE.
I KNOW THAT THEY DID SUBMIT FOR BOTH.
IT MAY JUST BE MISSED AND IF YOU CONFIRM IT, THAT'S FINE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR EMERSON OR CITY STAFF? OKAY, HEARING NONE.
OKAY, IT'S NOT TOO SCARY COMING UP AT ALL.
UM, UH, DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR THREE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT, SEE? NONE.
HOW ABOUT THE APPLICANTS THAT HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? GOOD JOB, EMERSON.
I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO WHAT EMERSON SAID.
UM, EXCEPT FOR WE HAD BEEN APPROVED ALREADY FOR THE SITE PLAN FOR THE, UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE SITE.
UM, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I REALLY HAVE TO ADD.
AND WE DID SUBMIT THE TWO APPLICATIONS, UH, THE THE FINAL PLAN AND THE GENERAL PLAN.
I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO.
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD, MAKE A MOTION.
WE APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN THAT'S SUBMITTED.
SECOND? SECOND, NO, SORRY, I HAVE MOTION AND WE'RE GONNA SAY THOMAS MADE THE SECOND.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ALL OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE FINAL IN DISCUSSION.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT AS PRESENTED.
ALL OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES AS WELL.
[VI.D. West New Bern Townhomes, (Final Plat - PUD)]
ITEM SIX D, WEST NEWBURN TOWN HOMES FINAL PLAT.AND MR. CHAIRMAN, MY COLLEAGUE DEANNA TROUBLE WILL BE PRESENTING THAT ITEM.
TONIGHT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE WEST NEWBURN TOWNHOMES FINAL PLAT, WHICH IS A PUD THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUB, UM, SUB, EXCUSE ME, TITLED 0 0 2 9 7 8 20 24.
THE APPLICANT IS WAREHOUSER AND OUR COMPANY REPRESENTED BY TIM JACKSON.
THE OWNER IS WAREHOUSER REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
THE LOCATION IS CLOCK ROAD IN NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA WITH AN EXISTING ZONING OF COMMERCIAL THREE C3.
THE SIZE IS 4.05 ACRES OF 40.94 TOTAL ACRES.
THE OVERVIEW, THE THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS TO ESTABLISH 48 LOTS OF SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TOWN HOMES.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL THREE OR C3.
THIS IS ESTABLISHED AS A COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT PER THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S LAND USE ORDINANCE.
THE C3 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED AS A DISTRICT FOR OFFICES, PERSONAL SERVICES, AND THE RETAILING OF DURABLE AND CONVENIENCE GOODS.
THE DISTRICT WILL GENERALLY BE LOCATED ON THE CITY'S MAJOR RADIAL ROADS BECAUSE THESE DISTRICTS WILL BE LOCATED ON HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC ARTERIALS AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW NOT ONLY OF LOCAL RESIDENTS, BUT TOURISTS AND OTHER NON-LOCAL MOTORISTS.
AMPLE OFF STREET PARKING, CONTROLLED TRAFFIC MOVEMENT, AND AN APPROPRIATE APPEARANCE INCLUDING SUITABLE PLANTING SHALL BE PROVIDED.
UM, THE FIRST MAP IS A VICINITY MAP AND THE PARCELS HIGHLIGHTED IN TEAL ARE THE PARCELS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING.
THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED IS ACTUALLY ON THE LOWER
[00:45:01]
OF THE LARGER, UM, TWO PARCELS.AND LIKEWISE THE, THE SURROUNDING AREA IN YELLOW, IT REPRESENTS THE A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFERS THAT WERE THE MAILED NOTICES THAT WE'RE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO SEND ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE CURRENT, UM, LAYOUT OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY TIMBERED.
UM, AND LAST LAST MAP IS THE ZONING MAP.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE, UM, THE SOUTHERN PORTION, IT IS THE SURROUNDING C3 AND THIS IS, UM, THE SUBDIVISION PLAT.
UM, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOWING THE TOWN HOMES FOR STAFF'S EVALUATION.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S LAND USE ORDINANCE.
AND ALL COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? NO.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIANE? CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PARCEL MAP PLEASE? SO THIS STRIP OF LAND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, UM, IS THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE PARCEL AS NUMBERED? SO IT'S ALL INCLUDED? 'CAUSE BASICALLY THE SUBDIVISION GOES UP IN THE TOP BIT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ARE THE, IS THE, UM, ALL THE ROADS AND EVERYTHING IN THIS FINISHED ARE THEY, ARE, IS THERE A BONDING PROCESS IN PLACE? SO I DID GO OUT WHEN WE POSTED THIS ACTUAL PROPERTY WITH THE SIGN.
THE ROADS WERE IN PLACE FROM WHAT I CAN RECALL.
UM, AND THEN WE JUST ESSENTIALLY POSTED THE SIGN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FINAL FLAT ADVERTISEMENT.
SO FROM WHAT I COULD TELL, YES, THE ROADS WERE IN PLACE.
THE MOUNTAIN AREA, THE, THE STRUCTURES DOWN TO THE SOUTHEAST, ARE THOSE RESIDENTS OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS? THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL TOWN HOMES? NO, I'M TALKING THAT THE EXISTING ONES THAT ARE DOWN OFF JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE, UM, WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN NOW.
THOSE, THOSE ARE, UM, RESIDENTIAL.
AND IF IT HELPS TO JUST, UH, MAKE THE BOARD AWARE, THE, UH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THEY GO OUT AND DO A FURTHER VERIFICATION, JUST AS YOU WERE MENTIONING ABOUT THE BOND WORK AND THINGS THEY HAVE.
BASICALLY IT GETS TRANSITIONED OVER TO THEM AT A CERTAIN POINT WHERE THEY ARE KIND OF, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THAT IS BEING FOLLOWED UP ON.
SO IF THERE'S ANY HICCUPS, THEY TYPICALLY WILL REACH OUT TO ME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR GON IS THIS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S GONNA GET ADDRESSED WITH THE LAND USE ORDINANCES THAT, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO YOUR POINT, RIGHT? YEAH.
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT HAS RESIDENCES ON THAT.
RIGHT? I KNOW THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
RESOLVING THAT'S A GOOD POINT TO MAKE.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, I HAVEN'T BEEN ENGAGED IN ALL THE CONVERSATIONS FOR IT.
UM, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, IN MY EXPERIENCE, WE'VE NOT SEEN, UH, RESIDENTIAL BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO COMMERCIAL MM-HMM.
SO I DO BELIEVE THEY'RE ACTIVELY DISCUSSING, UM, HOW THAT'S GONNA BE HANDLED.
WE, I KNOW THERE'S A MIXED USE CATEGORY WHICH COULD GET DICEY IF THAT GETS USED WAY TOO MUCH, BUT CORRECT.
WE'LL HAVE TO JUST SEE WHAT THE REST OF IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN WE GET THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FAIR ENOUGH.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? THREE MINUTES.
UM, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? MY NAME IS SCOTT ANDERSON.
IM WITH ART CONSULTING GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS.
UM, THE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS DOES MATCH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GENERAL SUBDIVISION PLAN.
UM, THE STREETS UTILITY STORM DRAINAGE, UM, HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.
UM, THE FINAL CODE OF ASPHALT IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUT DOWN ON THE STREETS TOMORROW, UM, PENDING
[00:50:01]
THE WEATHER, UM, AS SURETY BOND HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE FOR ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.SO AT THE TIME THAT WE PUT THE SURETY ESTIMATE TOGETHER WAS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY STARTED CONSTRUCTION.
SO THERE IS A FULL AS SURETY ESTIMATE FOR ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS EVEN THOUGH, UM, A LOT OF THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED.
SO WE, WE DO HAVE A BOND IN PLACE.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION.
I, I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE PLAN, THE FINAL PLAT FOR WEST NEWBURN TOWN HOMES.
ANY ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY? NONE.
[VI.E. US Invest, LLC Rezoning]
ITEM.ITEM SIX E US INVEST LLC REZONING.
AND WHILE KENDRICK'S COMING UP, I WANNA READ ON REZONING REAL QUICK.
UM, UH, THIS FALLS, THIS ITEM FALLS UNDER ZONING MAP AND ZONING TAX AMENDMENTS.
THE BOARD HAS THE DEC DECISION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO FINDING OF CONSISTENCY AND REASONABLENESS SIGNIFYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY COMPREHENSIVE OR APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS OR DETERMINED TO BE REASONABLE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR RECOMMEND DENIAL AND FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY AND UNREASONABLENESS, WHICH IS TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD OF ALLMAN.
DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BASED ON FINDINGS THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY COMPREHENSIVE OR APPLICATION LAND USE PLANS AND DETERMINE TO BE UNREASONABLE AND NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
UH, KENDRICK, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
AND THIS IS FOR REZONING 0 0 2 9 7 6 20 24.
THIS IS A US INVEST LLC REZONING AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY.
UH, THE APPLICANT OR AND OWNER, EXCUSE ME, UM, IS US INVEST LLC AND IN ES WE HAVE THE PERSONNEL THAT'S UH, ESSENTIALLY THE ATTENTION PERSON FOR IT, WHICH IS MR. KENNETH WENRICK.
UM, THE LOCATION IS WEST PLEASANT HILL DRIVE AND CURRENTLY THE ZONING IS AGRICULTURE FIVE.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SIX OR R DASH SIX.
UM, PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ARE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS EIGHT DASH 2 2 2 DASH 2 0 4 AND THE SIZE CURRENTLY IS 8.25.
UH, TOTAL ACRES AND THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
UM, JUST HERE, I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE BRIEFLY.
UH, AS FAR AS FOR THIS DISTRICT, EXCUSE ME, AGRICULTURAL, AGRICULTURAL FIVE OR EIGHT DASH FIVE, IT'S A DISTRICT THAT'S DESIGNED FOR AGRICULTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE AREAS, UM, JUST THE SAME WAY CLASSIFIED TO ALLOW FOR LOW DENSITY, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON FIVE ACRE MINIMUM LOTS.
UH, THE USES AND COURAGE UH, IN THIS DISTRICT ARE PRIMARILY AGRICULTURAL OR FORESTRY RELATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF FIVE UNITS FOR MORE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION PROVISION OUTLINED IN ARTICLE.
UM, I THINK THAT'S 12 IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE A FIVE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT IN PROMOTING THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SO TYPICALLY, UH, JUST VERY LOW DENSITY IS A BETTER SUMMARIZATION.
AND THE DISTRICT, UH, FOR RESIDENTIAL SIX AND THE R DASH SIX ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS HERE, RDAS SIX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR SINGLE TWO AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS WITH 6,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOTS FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT AND 2000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL UNIT FOR THE RDAS SIX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
UH, AND THE PROMOTION, THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE ARE SPECIFIC TO SOME OF THE INTENT HERE, WHICH IS TO ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND CERTAIN COMPATIBILITY, UM, FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PROCEED TO THE TABLE HERE FOR THE USE COMPARISON SO THAT YOU CAN KIND OF TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
UM, AND BRIEFLY MENTION THAT THERE WAS A PREVIOUS, UH, REZONING THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS EXACT ONE, WHICH WAS RECENTLY, UH, APPROVED AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND BY THE BOARD OF DERMAN JUST TO MAKE THAT REFERENCE.
UM, SO THE USES ESSENTIALLY ARE ONE AND THE SAME FROM FROM THAT PREVIOUS ZONING.
THAT CHART IS PARTICULAR TO THIS ONE BEING PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AS WELL.
UM, I'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE.
WE FIRST START WITH THE VICINITY MAP AND THAT HIGHLIGHTS, OR EXCUSE ME, THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED.
IT'S FOLLOWED ONCE AGAIN BY OUR BUFFER MAP AND I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD IT SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THIS IS TAKEN FROM A HUNDRED FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES TO GIVE MAILED NOTICE TO THE ADJACENT OWNERS AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE AERIAL MAP, WHICH AGAIN IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED.
I KNOW IT MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY DIFFICULT TO SEE, SO I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.
AND LASTLY HERE, THE ZONING MAP, WHICH INDICATES THE GREENISH COLOR TO SYMBOLIZE AGRICULTURE.
[00:55:01]
AND THE ACTIONS NEEDED BY THE BOARD ARE TO ADOPT THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT.UM, JUST DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN.
AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME.
BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT BUTTS UP TO A WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A HIGH POWER, A HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINE, CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DEPTHS OF IT.
I BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT IN SOME WAY THAT THERE IS A, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOME TYPE OF COMPANY OR POWER LINE OR SOMETHING TO THAT DEGREE THAT'S THERE EXISTING.
LOOKS LIKE IT'S, LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE TO UM, YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A DEFINITIVE TO GIVE YOU AND I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU.
UH, I KNOW WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POWER LINE LAST, LAST TIME WHEN WE RESIGNED THAT OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY, THERE'S ALSO A SUBSTATION RIGHT OF WAY IN MINE.
YEAH, THERE'S A SUBSTATION AT THE, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
I THINK I HEARD ABOUT A SUBSTATION.
I'M NOT, IT'S A SUBSTATION, RIGHT? GO TO THE, THE AERIAL VIEW IF YOU CAN THAT THE AERIAL THAT MIGHT, YEAH.
TO THE WANNA SAY, SO THERE'S PROBABLY TRANSMISSION LINES THAT COME FROM THAT DOWN.
IT'S ON THIS SIDE OF YEAH, IT'S ON THE, THE, IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT GROUND, NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD.
I WANNA SAY THAT MIGHT BE DUKE, BUT I'M NOT FOR CERTAIN.
YEAH, THEY GOT A CAPE DOWN THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR KEN? AND IS THIS PART OF THE 43 FOCUS AREA AS WELL OR 55 FOCUS AREA? I CAN'T REMEMBER.
I WISH I COULD RECALL THE STAFF REPORT.
I DON'T HAVE THAT READILY AVAILABLE.
I BELIEVE IT MAY BE 'CAUSE WE DID, WE DO LOOK AT THAT.
UM, AND IT'S NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT TYPICALLY AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF WHERE I THINK THE, THE, THE PARCEL AS YOU MENTIONED THAT WAS JUST APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDER AND THE REZONING THE ONE JUST TO THE RIGHT OF IT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE FOCUS AREA.
THEY MENTIONED I DID PUT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT IT IS PART OF THE FOCUS AREA, SIR.
THAT'S WHAT I I APPRECIATE THAT.
I WAS GONNA SAY I BELIEVE IT IS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE ONE LAST TIME.
YOUR LAST CHANCE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
UM, IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS SIDE AGAIN? MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME'S SCOTT ANDERSON HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
APPRECIATE TO PRESENT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS REQUEST TO YOU.
UM, AGAIN, MS. KENDRICK MENTIONED THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO OUR EAST WAS JUST REZONED, UM, BY THE BOARD THIS WEEK.
UM, WE ARE REQUESTING THE SAME ZONING SO THAT THE, THE DEVELOPMENT STYLE WILL MATCH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UM, THERE IS AN EXISTING, UM, POWER LINE ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE BACK TO THE SUBSTATION.
UM, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
DO YOU, UM, DO YOU THINK THAT A REZONING REQUEST IS, UM, MORE IN LINE WITH YOUR INTENDED USE THAN A SPECIAL USE REQUEST? UM, SO THE, THE REQUEST IS FOR THE SAME ZONING AS WHAT THE TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO OUR ESTAR.
SO WE THINK THAT KEEPING THE ZONING ALL OF THE SAME IS THE MOST CONSISTENT UM, PATTERN FOR DEVELOPMENT.
UH, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
AGAIN, WE'LL NEED A CONSISTENCY STATEMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ALL.
SO THE ACCESS OUT OF THIS PROPERTY IS COMING DOWN TO PLEASANT HILL, THE OLD BRICK ROAD.
AND DID WE EVER RESOLVE IN, IN THE PIECE THAT WE REZONED LAST, IT GOT REZONED LAST TIME WHERE THAT'S GOING TO.
SO I, I CAN TELL YOU, I CAN COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THAT.
THEY DID PRESENT AN EASEMENT, UM, THAT WAS RECORDED FROM WHAT I CAN RECALL.
UH, THE GENTLEMAN HAD, I DON'T KNOW WHO EXACTLY SHE WAS, SHE WAS REPRESENTING HIM AND SHE PROVIDED EASEMENT PAPERWORK THAT SHOWED AN ESTABLISHED ACCESS TO GET TO THAT PARCEL.
BUT AS I RECALL IT WAS A 50 FOOT EASEMENT RIGHT ON THE NORTH SIDE I RECALL ON THE NORTH SIDE TO WHICH IS INADEQUATE SIZE WISE FOR CITY STREETS.
I I WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY INVESTIGATE THAT FURTHER WITH PUBLIC WORKS, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN ON EXACTLY AND THAT THAT WOULD TAKE IT OUT.
DIRECT ACCESS ONTO HIGHWAY 43 RIGHT ACROSS FROM WHERE THE 140 SOME TOWN HOMES ARE.
AND THERE WAS A QUESTION AT THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN MEETING 'CAUSE I WAS THERE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THAT ROAD.
[01:00:01]
UM, AND IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT IT'S ONLY 30 FEET WIDE AND THEY APPROVED IT ANYWAY, JUST SO YOU KNOW.DOES THAT DISCUSSION TEND TO BE MORE RELEVANT WHEN IT'S A BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST THAT UM, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMMENT FOR YOU.
SO IN THAT CASE, MORE OR LESS IT WOULD PROBABLY STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UH, NECESSARILY HOW THAT'S GONNA BE ESTABLISHED, HOW THAT'S GONNA BE DONE.
UM, THEY'RE GONNA, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ADVISED TYPICALLY THAT HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO REZONE.
THAT MAY BE A, A CONCERN FOR YOU DOWN THE ROAD.
WE CAN'T PREVENT THEM FROM SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS TRY TO ADVISE THEM ON SOME CONCERNS OR ISSUES THAT THEY MIGHT FACE AND THEN WE TAKE IT THROUGH DRC AS WELL SO THAT THEY'RE INFORMED BY THE ACTUAL DEPARTMENT WHO'S IN CHARGE FOR THAT.
SO THAT'LL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE GENERAL PLAN PHASE.
WELL AT LEAST IN THIS CASE THERE IS A ROAD THERE.
IT'S NOT LANDLOCKED LIKE THE PREVIOUS LOCK PARCEL WE CONSIDERED.
ALRIGHT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.
DO WE HAVE A CONSISTENCY STATEMENT THAT WE CAN YES, I CAN ACTUALLY BRING THAT TO YOU.
I HAD IT ONCE BEFORE AND I LOST IT SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DID WITH IT.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FIND THE PROPOSED ZONING MAC AMENDMENT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2022 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE AND 2010 LAND USE PLAN AND THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN FOR APPROVAL.
ALRIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
[VII. NEW BUSINESS]
ON TO ITEM SEVEN, NEW BUSINESS.IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS FROM THE BOARD? UM, I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP, I KNOW A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A PARKING, UH, UH, WORKING GROUP.
I'M TRYING TO USE THE RIGHT WORDS HERE.
NOT COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE, PARKING, WORKING GROUP PERIOD, UH, MEETING.
UM, PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS I WAS ON VACATION, UM, AND UH, ADDITIONALLY IN THE FOCUS GROUP THAT I ATTENDED FOR THE LAND USE ORDINANCE UPDATE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AT LEAST REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING, YOU KNOW, PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING APPLICATIONS AND BUSINESS APPLICATIONS, ET CETERA.
UM, THERE'S ALSO BEEN OTHER DISCUSSIONS I'VE HEARD IN TOWN ABOUT CHANGES TO PARKING IN TOWN.
SO AS A RESULT, I DIDN'T REALLY THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT TIME AND WE SHOULD WAIT AND SEE HOW ALL THAT PLAYS OUT.
HOWEVER, I THINK IT PROBABLY DOES MAKE SENSE FOR US TO GET OUR WORKING GROUP TOGETHER AND AT LEAST ESTABLISH WHAT WE, WE PLAN TO DO AT SOME POINT, WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS TO BE.
SO I WILL TAKE THE ACTION TO SET UP A MEETING AFTER THANKSGIVING FOR OUR WORKING GROUP TO GET TOGETHER AND HAVE A CONVERSATION.
WE DID ONE BEFORE, BUT NOW WE'LL WE'LL MOVE ON FROM THERE AND TRY TO MAKE IT A MORE REGULAR MEETING AND MAKE SOME PROGRESS.
REST OF YOU, YOU COMMENTED AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT THE PARKING ISSUE.
WHAT AREA WERE, WAS THERE A FOCUS AREA THAT YOU WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT? SO THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IS THE FACT THAT THE LAST PARKING STUDY THAT WAS DONE, AT LEAST IN DOWNTOWN NEW BERN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN ONE DONE OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN NEW BERN, BUT THE LAST ONE DONE IN NEW BERN WAS IN 2007.
UM, AND I THINK IT WAS AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUS PARKING STUDY THAT WAS DONE.
I'VE READ THROUGH ALL THOSE PARKING STUDIES, 'CAUSE I GOT INVOLVED IN THIS TWO, THREE YEARS AGO.
UM, AND THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA THAT THEY ACTUALLY COLLECTED, IT'S VERY SERIOUS SCALED.
THEY WENT OUT THERE WITH A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN A COUPLE OF PLACES AND SAID, NOPE, THERE'S NO PROBLEM.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN ERON ABOUT, WELL, THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING.
AND THE ANSWER IS, YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING SPACES, BUT MORE THAN 50% OF THOSE PARKING SPACES ARE LEASED SPACES.
THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE.
THERE'S ALSO BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WE DON'T HAVE A PARKING PROBLEM IN DUBIN.
WE HAVE A WALKING PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACES AVAILABLE IN THE DIFFERENT BEAR, LOTS AROUND TOWN, BUT PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO USE 'EM.
THEY WANT TO PARK IN FRONT OF THE PLACE THEY WANT TO GO TO AND THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK VERY FAR.
UM, AND I THINK ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, AND, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S OTHER DISCUSSIONS GOING ON IN TOWN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IN THE MSD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATION OF PARKING AND
[01:05:01]
THINGS LIKE THAT.SO I THINK BE, AND I THINK WHAT BRAD AND I AND OTHERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS BECAUSE WE ARE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, WE SHOULDN'T JUST DO THE ZONING SIDE.
WE SHOULD ALSO START LOOKING AT PLANNING FOR THE CITY.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS PARKING.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT ENTAIL? PROBABLY GATHERING, ONE OF THE IDEAS I CAME UP WITH WAS GATHERING A BUNCH OF VOLUNTEERS AND PUTTING TOGETHER A STUDY AND HAVE PEOPLE GO OUT AND ACTUALLY MEASURE HOW MANY PEOPLE PARK IN THE RED BEAR LOT AT THIS TIME OF DAY OR ON A WEEKEND OR FOR A HOLIDAY OR FOR AN EVENT, OR, YOU KNOW, TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT.
DO WE HAVE AN ISSUE OR NOT? YEAH.
THE, THE THOUGHT WAS TO KIND OF START DOWNTOWN, WARD ONE, NOT JUST DOWNTOWN, PERHAPS EVEN OVER IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UH, ESPECIALLY YOU HAVE A LOT OF, RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH, UM, THE, UH, THE TEMPORARY RENTALS AND PEOPLE PARKING ON STREETS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.
AND SO IT, IT'S NOT, THE INTENT ISN'T TO BE NARROWLY TAILORED TO DOWNTOWN.
IT IS INTENDED TO BE BROADLY ABOUT NEWBURN.
UH, BUT THE START WOULD BE, UH, DOWNTOWN.
WHAT IS, IS THE THOUGHT DISCUSSION? WELL, IF 2007 WAS THE LAST STUDY DONE, I MEAN THE, THE WHOLE COMPLEXION OF BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN, EVERYTHING HAVE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
AND IT'S, UH, I THINK IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
AND, AND YOU KNOW, A LOT OF MEETINGS THAT I'VE GONE TO WHERE PEOPLE SAY, WE HAVE A LOT OF PARKING SPACES IN NEW BERN, SO PEOPLE DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY SAY IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND MAYBE IT ISN'T.
BUT I THINK BECAUSE WE ARE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE FOR US TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THERE IS A PERCEPTION, THERE IS A PROBLEM.
AND I'VE HEARD A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS OWNERS AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE DOWNTOWN, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE JUST FOR DOWNTOWN, BUT PEOPLE SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR EMPLOYEES NOT TO PARK ON THE STREET DOWNTOWN.
AND I KNOW THERE'S A THREE HOUR LIMIT NOW, AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS VERY WELL, UH, POLICED.
YEAH, IT IS VERY WELL POLICED, BUT IT STILL HAPPENS.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYEES TO PARK SOMEWHERE ELSE? YOU KNOW, ARE ARE THERE DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS AND MAYBE MAKE SOME CHANGES? UM, SO JUST AS PART OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO DO SOMETHING.
AND IF, IF, IF I MAY BRING UP SOMETHING ON, ON THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THINGS TOO, IS, UH, I WAS KIND OF OVERWHELMED WHEN WE GOT THE PACKAGE FOR THIS MEETING THAT 186 PAGES, UH, WAS, WAS DROPPED ON US.
AND, AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE ISN'T ANY, IF KENDRICK WOULD HAVE ANY INPUT INTO, UH, OR WE CAN HAVE ANY INPUT INTO WHAT WE NEED TO SEE VERSUS WHAT WE REALLY DON'T NEED TO SEE TO CUT BACK ON HIS WORK AND, AND OUR PRINTERS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND, AND, AND OUR EYESIGHT, UH, TRYING TO READ MAPS AND SO FORTH.
THAT, THAT, AND THAT WE COULD GET THE, WHEN YOU'RE DOING IT IN A DROPBOX, THAT WE COULD HAVE THE, HAVE A TABLE OF HOW, THE SEQUENCE OF THE MATERIALS THAT WE GET.
UH, BECAUSE SOMETIMES I KNOW IN, IN THIS LAST DROP, I HAD A HARD TIME BREAKING, FINDING THE BREAK POINT IN THIS FLOW OF INFORMATION TO THE NEXT PROJECT, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
AND I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE ANY, ANY, UH, DESIRE TO STANDARDIZE A, A, A PROCESS FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF THE INFORMATION FROM KENDRICK'S PARK.
AND I MADE THE COMMENT IN THE EMAIL THAT I LIKE THAT WAY OF DELIVERY VERSUS SENDING IT ALL IN AN EMAIL.
UM, BUT I WILL SAY I AGREE WITH MR. KIPP THAT 186 PAGES IN ONE DOCUMENT, MY, MY COMPUTER HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
SO, AND I WOULD, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER IF WE COULD BREAK IT UP INTO EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION AND I ABSOLUTELY, UH, SUPPORT BOTH OF YOUR OPINIONS.
UM, CURRENTLY, UH, THE DROPBOX REQUIRES LICENSE, I BELIEVE IT REQUIRES A LICENSE OR YOU HAVE TO SIGN UP AND PAY MONTHLY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, ALL BOARD MEMBERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE ACCOUNTS TO ACCESS SET ITEMS. 'CAUSE I APPROACHED THAT INITIALLY THINKING THAT THAT WAS A SOLUTION AND I WAS HOPEFUL, BUT IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE WE CAN'T SUPPLY THAT.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ALL WOULD FEEL ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE ACCOUNTS TO BE ABLE TO VIEW SET INFORMATION, BUT THAT'S ALL HINGING ON THE POINT OF PORTABILITY.
SO THIS WAS THE, THERE'S SECOND BEST GUESS
[01:10:01]
AS A IT GUY.UM, BUT I KNOW, I KNOW THE WAY THE GOVERNMENT WORKS AND THE WAY YOU GUYS HAVE EVERYTHING, IT'S DIFFICULT.
I WOULD BE OPEN TO IT FOR SURE.
UM, WELL I APPLIED FOR A JOB, I DIDN'T GET IT.
UM, I COULD HAVE CHANGED THOSE THINGS.
UM, WHAT IF YOU BROKE IT UP BY SIX A, SIX B, D SIX C? I COULD PROBABLY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT THE ONE BIG PDF IF YOU BROKE IT DOWN TO ALL THESE ITEMS ON SIX A OR IN THIS PDF AND ALL THE ITEMS IN SIX B OR IN THAT PDF DF OR EVEN JUST USING TABLES, I MEAN, UH, OR USE THE FUNCTION ALLOWS YOU, I'M ASSUMING THESE ARE MADE WITH THE DON BACK AND MR. DEERING JUST THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
AGAIN, WE DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO, I WAS GONNA SAY I HE MORE LICENSE EVERYTHING.
IT REQUIRES LICENSE IN THIS PAYMENT UNFORTUNATELY.
SO WHAT I COULD APPROACH WAS, I GUESS DIS SIMILAR, WHICH IS THE POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO DO BECAUSE SOMEBODY MAKE A DONATION FOR YOU TO GET A LICENSE TO T AN OPTION THOUSAND BUCKS A YEAR, IT MAY VERY WELL BE AN OPTION.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, IT'S JUST, JUST AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHERE I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANOTHER MEANS TO PUT IT TOGETHER.
ARE YOU STILL AGREEABLE TO A STAND? WHAT WE NEED TO SEE IF WE, IF WE NEED TO, IF YOU HAVE A PROPOSED LIST OF THE SPECIFICS, I TRY TO INCLUDE ANYTHING THAT MAY BE IMPORTANT FOR ALL PRIOR TO THE MEETINGS BEING ENGAGED FOR THE DIFFERENCES OF ITEMS. SO ANY NEED LIKE EASEMENT RECORDINGS AND THINGS THAT YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ON, I WANT YOU TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE.
SOMETIMES WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE MULTITUDE OF EMAILS IS IT EXCEEDS THE SIZE.
AND SO THEN I HAVE TO EVEN ESTABLISH MORE EMAILS AND THEN REPLICATE THAT FOREWARN YOU THAT THERE'S MORE COMING AND IT'S A, IT'S A WHOLE PROCESS OF DIFFERENCES, BUT I'M OPEN TO ANYTHING BETTER.
ME I WOULD BE, AND THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COME UP WITH.
WE, WE DECIDE, YOU KNOW, FOR REZONING REQUESTS, THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD GET FOR GENERAL, UH, FINAL PLAN APPROVALS.
THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE TO OUR DISPOSALS THAT WE KNOW WHAT TO USE.
AND THAT'LL BRING ANOTHER INSTANCE UP.
LAST, LAST TIME WHEN WE DID THE GENERAL PLAN ON THE WEST NEWBURN TOWNHOUSES, YOU COVERED IN JUST A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH.
WHEREAS TONIGHT WE GOT THE WHOLE THING AGAIN WITHOUT IDENTIFYING JUST WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH.
THIS IS SOME LITTLE, LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT TO, TO CREATE LESS CONFUSION AMONGST US.
THAT, AND I DEFINITELY DON'T CONFUSED EASILY.
I DON'T TRY TO, UM, CONFUSE OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU REPORT AS MUCH INFORMATION BUT RESPECT TO WHAT YOU NEED AND WHAT'S PERTINENT SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE YOUR DECISIONS, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
ESSENTIALLY BOTH BASED OFF OF THE INFORMATION YOU GIVEN.
WELL, I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT 168 PAGES OF DRAWINGS AND WE DIDN'T GET THAT IN OUR INBOX AS WELL.
THOSE WERE MORE OF THE EXTENSIVE, THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.
SO THERE WAS NO RELEVANCE OUTSIDE OF WHAT ACTUALLY WAS BEING, UH, PRESENTED FOR THIS BOARD.
SO MAYBE, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU COULD MAKE A REQUEST TO A COUPLE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO COME UP WITH A LIST SINCE WE CAN'T, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO PUT TOGETHER EMAILS FOR TO EVERYBODY AND AMONGST OURSELVES BECAUSE I WOULD NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC.
I WOULD TAKE ANY INPUT THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER HAS SENT TO ME AND I COULD THEN QUITE A IDEA IDEA, EITHER SUMMARIZE IT OR SOMETHING AND WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
QUITE A IDEA, IDEA, I COULD WORK WITH THAT WITH NO PROBLEMS. IF YOU OKAY.
PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER, I COULD DEFINITELY GO OFF OF THAT.
I MEAN OBVIOUSLY WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT.
COULD YOU, YOU GUYS GOT A LOT GOING ON OVER THERE AT UH, UH, IN, IN CITY AND SO, UM, YEAH, MAYBE THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING AND SPENDING TIME ON THAT MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO SEE OR WHATEVER.
UM, THAT'S SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA.
UM, WE CAN MOST CERTAINLY DO THAT.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF ORGANIZING ON THIS BOARD IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS.
UH, ANYTHING ELSE IN NEW BUSINESS? HEARING NONE.
[VIII.STAFF COMMENTS]
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, STAFF COMMENTS? SO THE ONLY REAL COMMENT, I'M HOPEFUL, UH, AS LONG AS THERE'S NO UNFORESEEN I GUESS THINGS THAT COME ABOUT, BUT IT APPEARS, ONE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEETING IN DECEMBER, SO PLEASE MAKE SURE TO TAKE NOTE OF THAT.AND IT APPEARS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING IN JANUARY EITHER.
AND NOT RECEIVE ANY ITEMS, UH, ON THIS LAST SUBMITTAL FOR REVIEW THAT WERE PERTINENT TO THIS BOARD.
SO IT APPEARS THAT TWO MONTHS YOU'LL GET ARIE, ESSENTIALLY, UM, FEBRUARY, WE'LL PROBABLY CIRCLE BACK.
IS THAT SUBJECT TO CHANGE? NO.
UM, AND I WILL SAY THAT THE, THE ONLY THING I GUESS THAT'S ON THE LINE, WHICH UH, MADAM ATTORNEY BROUGHT UP WAS CALENDAR FOR I GUESS THIS NEXT COMING YEAR.
SO THAT DOES STILL HAVE TO BE ADOPTED.
UM, SO MAYBE POTENTIALLY FOR ONE ITEM.
SO, UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE A RELATIVELY SHORT MEETING IF IT WERE TO TAKE PLACE.
[01:15:01]
SO WELL WE COULD DO A MEETING FOR THAT AND A MEETING FOR WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH THE REORGANIZATION, DISCUSS OF THAT DISCUSSION AND MAYBE A PARKING SOMETHING, MAYBE WE TALK ABOUT PARKING.UM, WHERE WE WOULD, WOULD WE LEAN AND WOULD IT BE PROPER TO SAY IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN DECEMBER, WE PUSH TO JANUARY, UM, THAT'LL LET US GET A PARKING MEETING AND THEN MAYBE SOME MORE LAND USE STUFF THAT WE COULD ALSO PERHAPS DISCUSS AT THAT MEETING.
SO UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WHY ME IF THERE'S NOT SOUNDS LIKE SOLID PLAN.
AND I WOULD ALSO, UM, JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO DEFER OR GO TOWARDS MR. GOFF.
HE'S ACTUALLY MORE ENGAGED IN THE LANDUS MEETING, SO I, I APOLOGIZE.
I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU, IT'S A DATE SPECIFIC, BUT THE PROJECTION I THINK IS DECEMBER, BUT IT COULD LEAN IN FURTHER TO DIFFERENT MONTHS AS WELL.
SO JUST GET IN CONTACT IF YOU COULD REACH OUT OR EMAIL HIM, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE DEFINITIVE.
AND MR. CHAIR, I, I'M HEARING SOME CONVERSATION THAT YOU ALL MIGHT BE INCLINED TO HAVE A MEETING IN JANUARY TO DISCUSS SOME OF THESE ITEMS. MM-HMM,
UM, I THINK CUSTOMARILY THIS BOARD MEETS THE THIRD THURSDAY OF THE MONTH.
UM, WHICH ACCORDING TO MY CALENDAR WOULD BE JANUARY 16TH.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO HAVE A MEETING ON JANUARY 16TH.
DO, DO, DO WE WANT TO, I WILL SAY THAT I WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT.
I'LL BE ON THE COUNTRY FOR THAT DATE.
BECAUSE THE 15TH IS MY BIRTHDAY.
HOW ABOUT THE WEEK BEFORE? YEAH, THE WEEK BEFORE.
DO WE WANNA SET THE CALENDAR FOR THE WHOLE YEAR OR YOU WANT TO WAIT AND DO THAT LATER? WE WOULD DO THAT AT THAT MEETING.
YOU CAN DO THAT AT THAT MEETING AND KENDRICK CAN BRING A FULL CALENDAR, UM, AND THAT WAY YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR HOLIDAYS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
WE WOULD ALSO WAITING THE HOLIDAY, UH, I GUESS CALENDAR OR HOL HOLIDAY PORTION FROM THE BOARD OF ALMOND CITY HALL, ESSENTIALLY TO PROCESS ALL THAT TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES OF HOLIDAY DATES.
DOES CITY STAFF STAFF HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO DOING IT A WEEK EARLIER THAN NORMAL? IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR I WOULD OBJECT.
AND WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING THAT UP, MR. ATTORNEY, WE WOULD ALSO BE VOTING ON THE CHAIR THAT MEETING, RIGHT? 'CAUSE WEREN'T WE DOING YEARLY CHAIR ELECTIONS? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THAT THING.
BUT THAT SHOULD BE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UH, CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
WE SHOULD ALSO DO, 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ONE OF THOSE EITHER.
SO IS IS THE INCLINATION OF THE BOARD TO MEET THE SECOND THURSDAY IN JANUARY? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MEET THE SECOND THURSDAY IN JANUARY OF 2025, WHICH IS JANUARY THE NINTH.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? DANIELLE? LOOKS A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT ONE.
UH, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND KENDRICK WILL EMAIL US OUT SOMETHING BEFORE YOU.
UH, ANYTHING ELSE? HEARING NONE.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.