Loading...
2014-12 December 4 2014 PBM Page 1 of 12 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board December 4, 2014 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Edward “Ted” Shipley, III, Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Lisa Mesler Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Tamara Murphy Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Anthony Prinz Jordy Rawl David Weaver Chairman Ted Shipley opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Ted Shipley reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of November 2014 Planning Board Minutes Tamara Murphy made a motion to approve the November Planning Board minutes. Donna Girardot seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the November 6, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-936, 12/14) – Request by Paramounte Engineering to rezone 20.0 acres from R-15, Residential District, to R-10, Residential District. The subject property is located at the terminus of E. Lake Emerald Drive off of Gordon Road and classified as Urban according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff report:  Paramounte Engineering is petitioning on behalf of property owners Jay and Melissa Warshaw to rezone 20 acres from R-15 residential district to R-10 residential district.  The subject property is located off of Gordon Road at the end of East Lake Emerald Drive, and adjacent to Smith Creek Park. The site is classified as Urban according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.  The site is currently undeveloped and can be accessed from three public streets: East Lake Emerald Drive, Tupelo Drive, and Big Gum Road. Page 2 of 12  The recent SUP request for the Smith Creek Village apartment project is nearby  The existing Smith Creek Park area is located to the north of the site, and the area to the west of the site will serve as an extension of the park in the future. Aside from the park, surrounding land uses are mostly single family residential.  Future development of the site could provide a great opportunity for interconnectivity between Weaver Acres and the road network to the east of the site.  The site is currently zoned R-15, and the request is a general map amendment to R-10. The zoning in the area is mostly R-15, as well as some R-10 to the east of the site. These residential districts were applied when the area first received zoning in 1972.  There are stubs to the property at the end of Big Gum Road, at Tupelo Drive, and at the end of East Lake Emerald Drive.  Notices of tonight’s public hearing were sent to the surrounding community, and a sign was posted on the site a few weeks ago. Staff has received some calls about the project, with callers mainly asking questions. Some concerns were expressed about traffic on Gordon Road, and how the future development may contribute to congestion on Gordon Road.  Regarding traffic, the TIA that was performed for the Smith Creek Village apartment complex earlier this year and showed that the traffic lights on Gordon Road currently function at a Level of Service of C, with the exception of the light at Market Street and Gordon Road, which currently functions at an LOS of F. However, current transportation projects including the Military Cutoff Extension are expected to alleviate some of the traffic on Gordon Road.  In summary, staff supports this rezoning request, finding it consistent with the zoning ordinance and supported by several policies in the Land Use Plan, including Policies 5.7 and 4.1.  Staff has provided a suggested motion for the board to consider, including descriptions of why the request is consistent with the land use plan and why it is reasonable and in the public interest to approve the rezoning. Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Chairman Shipley asked if board members had questions for staff. Vice Chair Donna Girardot commented that Mr. Andrea had indicated the property to the west which is zoned R-15 is owned by New Hanover County and will be an expansion of the park. Mr. Andrea confirmed the County-owned property is zoned R-15 and the intent of the parcel is for future parks and recreation use involving more passive recreation type opportunities; however, the Parks Department would still be planning the stages of that section of the park. Vice Chair Girardot noted Mr. Andrea had indicated that rezoning the parcel would allow for an opportunity to connect Weaver Acres to Harris Road and White Road and asked him to point out on the map where those connections would happen. Mr. Andrea pointed out Weaver Acres includes Shaw Drive and the streets running north to south, such as Blount, Rogers, and Lake Emerald, but there is currently not a way to get from Page 3 of 12 these streets over to the street network, which includes Harris Road and White Road and eventually connects to Murrayville Road and Market Street, without getting back on Gordon Road. He explained there could potentially be an opportunity for connection through the site from East Lake Emerald Drive connecting to either Tupelo or Big Gum or both, depending on how the street network is designed when a development plan is submitted. Anthony Prinz had no questions for staff at that time, but offered some information to supplement the staff report. He explained that earlier that morning the NC Department of Transportation had released the latest State Transportation Improvement Program, which is the investment program for roadway improvements throughout the state. He noted Mr. Andrea had mentioned that Military Cutoff Road Extension is scheduled for construction over the near term. The state program reflects a 2018 construction date for that project and right-of-way is currently being acquired. In regard to this proposal, he felt it was more pertinent that the area is included in the first phase of the two-phase Gordon Road widening project, and is scheduled for right-of- way in 2018 and construction in 2019 so there will be a lot of transportation improvements in that area that will help with some of the traffic congestion. Hearing no other comments from the board, Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Dan Weeks of Paramounte Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated the CAMA Land Use classification for the tract is Urban, which provides for intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. Upon review of the existing conditions of the adjacent properties, you will see things have changed tremendously since 1972, for example Smith Creek Park to the north, existing R-10 residential properties to the east, R-15 properties to the south, and the County-owned property, which is planned for the expansion of Smith Creek Park. The majority of the tract, the perimeter of it, is R-10 zoning and the existing and proposed portions of the property remain as County-owned park space. Water and sewer are available to the site. The site has three stub-outs at Big Gum Road, Tupelo Drive, and Lake Emerald Drive, which promote pedestrian connectivity in addition to vehicular connectivity and hopefully will be a natural transition to the existing neighborhood. Mr. Weeks reported that a wetlands consultant has visited the site to evaluate the conditions and no wetlands were found on the property. The applicant believes that this request is an extension of the existing R-10 properties to the east and firmly believes it will be in harmony with the existing and surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Weeks thanked the board for their time and consideration of the request and offered to answer any questions they may have. Chairman Shipley inquired if board members had any questions for Mr. Weeks. Hearing none, Chairman Shipley stated no one had signed up to speak in regard to the item and asked if anyone present would like to speak in opposition to the rezoning. No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Chairman Shipley closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Page 4 of 12 David Weaver commented that the rezoning makes sense. He likes to see tighter, more dense development, which makes more efficient use of land, as opposed to spreading out all over the place and this proposal seems to be in that vein. Hearing no other comments from the board, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval, as the planning board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 20 acres from R-15, Residential District to R-10, Residential District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purpose and intent of the “Urban” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the Urban classification allows for intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. The subject site is adjacent to a residential neighborhood and in an area of focused urbanization of the county. The rezoning proposal supports Policy 5.7 of the CAMA Land Use Plan by preserving the character of the area’s existing residential neighborhoods and quality of life; and 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the character of the area is urbanized and many similar and compatible uses exist adjacent to and nearby the subject site. Chairman Shipley informed the applicant regarding the consequences of a denial of the rezoning and asked if the applicant wished to proceed with the matter or continue the item. Dan Weeks confirmed the applicant’s desire to proceed with a vote on the rezoning application. Tamara Murphy seconded Mr. Prinz’s motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-936. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-937, 12/14) – Request by Darden Road, LLC to rezone 8.61 acres from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) R-15, Conditional Residential Zoning District, for a 21 lot residential subdivision at 7320 Darden Road. The subject property is classified as Watershed Resource Protection according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff report:  Darden Road, LLC, is requesting to rezone 8.61 acres from R-20 to CZD R-15.  The subject property is located off of Darden Road, which connects Wendover Lane to the roundabout at Middle Sound Loop Road. The site is classified as Watershed Resource Protection according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.  The site is currently undeveloped and can be accessed from Darden Road, which bisects the property. Just south of the nearby roundabout on Middle Sound Loop Road is Ogden Elementary School. Other land uses in the area are mostly single family residential. Page 5 of 12  The property is currently zoned R-20, and the request is to rezone to R-15 Conditional Zoning District. Zoning in the vicinity is largely R-20 and R-15, as well as B-2 along the Market Street Corridor.  When zoning was first applied to this area in 1970, the subject property was zoned R-15 along with other areas in the Middle Sound community. After the Middle Sound/Ogden Small Area Plan was adopted in the 1980’s, a community organization petitioned to rezone significant areas of R-15 to R-20, including the subject site.  The proposal includes a 21 lot residential subdivision that is subject to review by the county’s Technical Review Committee.  Prior to application, the petitioner presented the concept to the TRC at one of their regularly scheduled meetings and received some preliminary feedback.  The plan proposes to use the .47 acre area on the west side of Darden Road as undeveloped passive open space.  A stub for future connection to the property to the northeast has been provided.  Access to the private road serving the residential lots would be from a new driveway from Darden Road, which would be subject to NC DOT driveway permitting requirements.  In regard to traffic projections, the weekday AM peak hour generation is 16 trips, and the PM generation is 21 trips. Saturday peak hour trip generation will be 20 trips.  Notices of tonight’s public hearing were sent to the surrounding community, and a sign was posted on the site a few weeks ago. Prior to the application submittal, a community information meeting was held by the petitioner on October 6th, which resulted in minor changes to the site plan. Staff has received some calls about the project, with callers mainly asking questions. Two callers specifically had questions about drainage of the lot. One caller who represents the company that owns lot numbers 4 and 5 on the mail out map could not attend the public hearing, but asked staff to convey his message that if the property is developed in accordance with the applicable regulations, particularly regarding stormwater management, he has no problems with the request.  In summary, staff supports this rezoning request, finding it consistent with the zoning ordinance and supported by several policies in the Land Use Plan, including Policies 5.7 and 4.1.  Because of the Watershed Resource Protection land use classification, Staff included a recommended condition to limit the impervious surface coverage for the project to 25%, excluding the areas within the right-of-way for Darden Road. The condition was based on the language in Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Plan, which recommends a standard to limit impervious coverage to 25% in the Watershed Resource Protection areas.  The condition was discussed with Mr. Hilla and after calculating the total impervious areas including the road pavement and the sidewalks that would be required, the proposed impervious surface coverage would be closer to 30%.  Staff has provided a suggested motion for the board to consider, including descriptions of why the request is consistent with the land use plan and why it is reasonable and in the public interest to approve the rezoning. Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to address questions from the board. Page 6 of 12 Chairman Shipley inquired if the board had any questions or comments related to the staff presentation. Vice Chair Girardot asked Mr. Andrea to clarify if staff recommended 30% impervious surface versus 25% impervious surface. Mr. Andrea stated a few options could be considered by the board. Considering that Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Plan recommends impervious surface coverage be limited to 25% and understanding the intent of that recommendation is to protect the tidal creek, Pages Creek, the impervious coverage limit could be 30% or perhaps the board may consider some sort of trade- off as far as what may be required of impervious surface, such as sidewalks that may bring that number closer to the 25% limit. In response to an inquiry from David Weaver, Mr. Andrea confirmed that a development with 25% impervious surface and a development with 30% impervious surface would be required to meet the same stormwater standards in terms of retention and discharge. Mr. Weaver commented that a 30% development would probably be more highly engineered and need more drainage infrastructure as opposed to the 25% development. Mr. Andrea agreed with Mr. Weaver’s comment. Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Daniel Hilla of 622 Timberlake Lane spoke on behalf of the applicant, Darden Road LLC and his partner, Barbara Lambert. He stated the property is located on Darden Road and is currently zoned R-20. The requested R-15 conditional zoning would add five lots to that property, which can be developed by right with 16 lots. He reiterated the petitioner is asking for five additional lots. A neighborhood meeting was held and was attended by 15 or 16 neighbors, who mostly asked questions about stormwater, product, prices, and those types of things because the development will be built close to their neighborhoods. Mr. Hilla reported that Phil Tripp is their project engineer. In regard to impervious surface, they have run the calculations for this neighborhood and would request a 30% impervious surface instead of the 25% impervious surface. He pointed out they will be held to the stormwater permit, which will really limit the impervious surface amount and the development will be held to the state requirements as well. Mr. Hilla noted the developers had taken advantage of the courtesy TRC meeting which they were allowed to sit in on, and had made a few of the changes suggested by the TRC, for example, bringing the cul-de-sac to the property line and several other things that made access to neighboring property a little easier. Mr. Hilla concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Anthony Prinz inquired about the impact of taking away 5% of the impervious surface. Page 7 of 12 Mr. Hilla explained the impact would be significant. It would be the difference between 3,000 square feet of impervious surface left after you put in your roads, sidewalks, etc. and 4,000 square feet, which is really what is needed for this project. In response to another question from Mr. Prinz, Mr. Hilla confirmed the impact would be roughly the footprint of one house. Seeing no one present to speak in opposition of the proposal, Chairman Shipley closed the public hearing and opened discussion by the board. He inquired if anyone had any comments particularly pertaining to the 25% impervious surface requirement. Anthony Prinz commented the CAMA Plan is a guiding document, not a regulation requiring compliance. Applicants are required to comply with the state stormwater regulations, which basically determine what must be done to treat stormwater to prevent it from impacting adjacent neighbors. From his perspective, the difference between 25% and 30% is nominal and if it makes the project lucrative for the developer, and doesn’t have significant impacts on transportation, traffic congestion, the character of the neighborhood, etc. he was in favor of the 30% as opposed to the 25%, recognizing that it’s within the tolerable limits of that policy document or within 5% of the goal provided in the policy document. In response to a question from Mr. Weaver, Mr. Andrea confirmed the CAMA Land Use policy specifically refers to 25%. He read the following section for the record: (a) Impervious surface coverage shall be limited to 25% in the Watershed Resource Protection and Conservation Areas. Mr. Andrea noted the policy goes on to state that projects that can conform to adopted exceptional design standards for enhanced stormwater controls may exceed 25% in these areas. He noted staff had struggled with that section of the Land Use Plan because the County has not adopted exceptional design standards aside from the EDZD zoning district, whereas the City has adopted standards and has a mechanism to utilize that subsection. The County doesn’t have that mechanism at this time. Mr. Weaver explained he was seeking a reason for the board to allow the development to move forward. Mr. Prinz agreed, noting the rationale should be that the proposal is within the tolerable range. In his opinion, the 25% impervious surface is a target. If the developer was proposing 50% impervious that would be much different than the 30% impervious surface being proposed. He felt the board had to look at the plan as a policy recommendation. It is not a regulation. If the board sees it the way he does, a project that is 5% on either side is reasonable and within a tolerable range of that policy recommendation. Chairman Shipley clarified he was not as keen on the stormwater issue; then inquired what the maximum amount of impervious surface would be if the site remained R-20 and whether it would also be 25%. Page 8 of 12 Mr. Andrea explained if the site was developed by-right with the R-20 zoning, the 25% or any language in the CAMA Plan wouldn’t be applicable because the CAMA Plan isn’t a factor when a subdivision is being reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. That committee reviews the subdivision proposal for its technical merits and to ensure it is meeting the letter of the ordinance itself; whereas in a rezoning case, the Land Use Plan serves as that policy document to help guide the board in making a decision. He was unsure if the 25% from the County’s perspective would be applicable in the case of a by-right development. In response to Chairman Shipley’s inquiry regarding whether a by-right development could be 40% impervious surface, Mr. Andrea stated he would be comfortable saying if the project was developed by-right, the developer would have to conform to the County’s stormwater regulations, as well as the state’s stormwater regulations, but he was unsure what that figure would be. Vice Chair Girardot offered an alternative to keep the 25% impervious surface requirement, but exempt the sidewalks, roadways, and any type of outdoor patio type items that would perhaps make the difference between the 25% and 30%. She asked staff if that would be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Andrea stated staff would be comfortable with the alternative proposed by Vice Chair Girardot. Vice Chair Girardot commented the board would not be deviating from the rule with that alternative. In response to Chairman Shipley’s request for clarification, Vice Chair Girardot confirmed the exemption in this particular rezoning case would apply to sidewalks, roadways, patios, etc. Mr. Hilla asked if Vice Chair Girardot was suggesting the board exempt the sidewalks and the streets from the impervious surface requirement. He didn’t think the sidewalks would make up for the difference needed on each lot unless some of the other things were also exempted. Vice Chair Girardot confirmed she was suggesting streets be exempted and asked staff if that was acceptable. Mr. Andrea stated it was the discretion of the board in considering the policy in the Land Use Plan, which offers some flexibility. The document doesn’t specify whether the recommended 25% is based on the lot or the entire development proposal. As Mr. Prinz mentioned, it is a guiding policy document. Vice Chair Girardot commented the proposed subdivision is very small. Mr. Prinz commented he would prefer 30% impervious because he didn’t know if the board had the authority to grant that type of waiver. He thought only the Technical Review Committee had the authority to grant that type of waiver. He felt it was out of the Planning Board’s reach to exempt that particular requirement, but noted the Board of Commissions may have the authority. Page 9 of 12 Mr. Andrea clarified that Ms. Girardot was suggesting exempting those areas from the 25% maximum rather than exempting the project from being required to construct sidewalks and other improvements. Dan Hilla stated either option would be acceptable because the applicant would be able to do what is needed to complete the project. Mr. Weaver stated he didn’t know if the board could exempt or pretend the impervious surface of the street and the sidewalks aren’t there. He asked Mr. Hilla to elaborate on the extra engineering and infrastructure items needed to handle the extra 5% for a project with 30% impervious surface. Mr. Hilla replied that their original plan for design and construction would handle the extra 5%. He didn’t think they would need to do additional stormwater work because the County’s requirements for stormwater are so high and over and above the State’s requirements. Mr. Weaver commented he would use Mr. Hilla’s comments as the rationale for not going along with the policy as written at 25%. The proposed development will accomplish the same thing whether it is 25% or 30% and will also accomplish the intent and meaning of the policy. Planning Manager Ken Vafier offered another suggestion for consideration. With CAMA permits and other items that have such a limit on impervious area, it is possible that the board can give credit for extra percentage of impervious area as best management practices. In this case, the board may want to consider that the extra 5% be some type of best management practice with pervious concrete or a similar BMP. That probably couldn’t be applied to the streets or driveways since they are travel ways and may not be considered as pervious area, but perhaps that extra 5% could be made up within the sidewalk area. Mr. Hilla might have to redo the calculations, but that is a way they could technically have 30% of impervious surface with the extra 5% being a best management practice to mitigate that coverage, and the proposal would be within the intent of the policy and the land use plan. Mr. Hilla commented he wouldn’t be able to determine those calculations at that time and wouldn’t know exactly what they would need to do to meet that option. Tamara Murphy stated she’d feel most comfortable with the 30% discussed earlier instead of 25%. With the current site plan, the board has no idea what size the patios and sidewalks will be, and as Mr. Hilla said, he can’t provide us with the pervious pavement information. It might be best to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible and keep the 30% impervious surface as opposed to the 25%. Mr. Prinz commented he had made the last motion, which was lengthy and explained he had read the suggested motion verbatim at the advice of the county attorney. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated Mr. Prinz had done a fine job with the last motion and asked board members to read staff’s suggested motion when making a motion if in agreement with it. Page 10 of 12 Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 8.61 acres from R-20, Residential District, to CZD R-15, Conditional Residential Zoning District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Watershed Resource Protection” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the “Watershed Resource Protection” classification allows for residential developments that minimize impervious surface areas and provide for stormwater impact mitigation per Policy 3.12. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest to provide for increased density in areas best suited for development while not impeding the quality of life of the existing residential community. The motion is made with one Condition: 1. Impervious surface coverage shall be limited to thirty percent of the total site area, excluding areas within the NC DOT right-of-way for Darden Road. Vice Chair Donna Girardot seconded the motion. David Weaver offered an amendment to the motion to include under the CAMA Land Use Plan a statement that reads “This project as designed will accomplish the same level of stormwater control as a 25% impervious development”. Mr. Prinz accepted the amendment. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-937, finding that the request for a zoning map amendment of 8.61 acres from R-20, Residential District, to CZD R-15, Conditional Residential Zoning District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Watershed Resource Protection” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the “Watershed Resource Protection” classification allows for residential developments that minimize impervious surface areas and provide for stormwater impact mitigation per Policy 3.12. The project as designed will accomplish the same level of stormwater control as a twenty-five percent impervious development. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest to provide for increased density in areas best suited for development while not impeding the quality of life of the existing residential community. One condition was recommended as part of the approval: 1. Impervious surface coverage shall be limited to thirty percent of the total site area, excluding areas within the NC DOT right-of-way for Darden Road. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman addressed the decision to offer suggested language for motions passed by the planning board, noting one of the County Commissioners had also asked for a clarification at their most recent meeting. The board member should read the motion as written if it is the intent of the board member making the motion to agree with the staff recommendation. A board member is also free to make a different motion; however, the board member will need to create some language in a rezoning matter as to whether it is or is not consistent with the land use plan and why it is or is not consistent, and also how it is reasonable and in the public interest. She explained that verbiage is needed because a recent rezoning was overturned by the North Carolina Court of Appeals because a motion was made, but the board member did not read out all of the verbiage. The rezoning was overturned even though all of the Page 11 of 12 language was included in the package and was discussed by the board. The simple fact that the motion did not include all of the language caused the court to overturn the rezoning. For that reason, staff will provide the proper wording for motions by the board going forward. Technical Review Committee Report (November) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of November and reviewed three (3) preliminary site plans. Village at Motts Landing: Phase 2B (Performance Plan) The Village at Motts Landing is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction and is classified as Urban & Transition on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. Site plan attributes of the project include:  R-15 Residential Zoning  89 lots  35.6 acres  Public sewer (CFPUA)  Private water (Aqua of NC)  Road Designation: Primarily private In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the site plan for 89 lots for a period of two years with five conditions which are detailed in the meeting package. Maple Ridge (Revised Performance Plan) Maple Ridge is located in the northeastern portion of our jurisdiction and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The purpose of the revised plan was to downsize the project from 47 to 30 residential lots in response to the proposed right-of-way widening of Military Cut-Off Extension (U-4751). Site plan attributes include:  R-15 Residential  30 lots  12.12 acres  Public sewer and public water (CFPUA)  Road Designation: Private In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the revised site plan for 30 lots for a period of two years with three conditions, which are included in the meeting package. Beau Rivage Apartments (Performance Plan) Beau Rivage is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction and is classified as Transition on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. Access to the project will be Page 12 of 12 from the primary entrance of Beau Rivage Drive and Carolina Beach Road. Site plan attributes include:  R-15 Residential Zoning  120 apartment units  11.53 acres  Private water and private sewer (Aqua of NC)  Road Designation: Private In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the site plan for 120 units for a period of two years with seven conditions, which are included in the meeting package. Other Business (2015 Meeting/Workshop Schedule) Chairman Shipley asked if board members had any comments or concerns regarding the proposed 2015 regular meeting schedule and quarterly workshop dates of February 15, May 15, August 14, and November 13. As in the past, a particular workshop may not be held due to lack of agenda items. Hearing none, he announced acceptance of the proposed 2015 workshop dates. Ben Andrea asked for suggestions from board members on topics for the February 15 workshop. Vice Chair Girardot suggested an update on the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Vafier stated they would provide an update on the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the ongoing bicycle and pedestrian projects in the northeastern part of the county. Mr. Prinz suggested a quick update on the long range transportation plan now that the transportation improvement plan has been released and an update on the WMPO projects. With no further business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn. David Weaver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Lisa Mesler seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.