Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUP17-01 Staff Summary PBZ17-07 Staff Summary Page 1 of 5 STAFF SUMMARY OF LUP17-01 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: LUP17-01 Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map place type designation of a 27.77-acre property from General Residential to Community Mixed Use Applicant: Property Owner(s): Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions Tesla Park Apartments, LLC Location: Acreage: 4404 S. College Rd./4504-4524 Tesla Park Dr. 27.77 acres PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R07100-003-049-000 and R07100-003-222-000 General Residential Existing Zoning and Land Use: Proposed Comp Plan Place Type: R-15 / High Density (288-unit) Apartment Complex (1996) Community Mixed Use Z17-07 Staff Summary Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND This application is the first request the County has received to amend the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, adopted unanimously in July 2016. This plan was the result of over three years of public input and community meetings and includes a Future Land Use Map. It lays out the location of different future development types—called place types—throughout the unincorporated areas of New Hanover County. The Future Land Use Map incorporated the results of an analysis of population growth and environmental constraints, community input on development patterns, alternative regional development scenarios, and coordination with regional partners. The place types are not intended to be parcel-specific like a zoning district. They are instead representations of future development patterns that will help create the type of communities desired for New Hanover County’s future. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan also serves as New Hanover County’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) plan and was certified by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission in February 2017. It replaces the 2006 CAMA Plan, including its land classification map, which provided a different slate of future land use designations that were more geared to the availability of urban services and/or presence of environmental resources. REQUESTED AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting to change the Future Land Use Map place type designation for the Tesla Park Apartment complex from General Residential to Community Mixed Use. According to the applicant, the primary purpose for the amendment request is to allow the property owner to apply for a high density development special use permit to add additional units to the existing apartment complex. Per the “bridging ordinance” adopted by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners on September 6, 2016, a property must have a place type designation of Employment Center, Urban Mixed Use, or Community Mixed Use in order to qualify for that type of use. This ordinance provided a method to extend the existing zoning regulations under the new Comprehensive Plan until the completion of the Unified Development Ordinance (anticipated for 2018). The applicant states that the community mixed use place type is more appropriate for the subject property because of its focus on small-scale, compact development and the plan’s goals of encouraging infill and greater density. During the Comprehensive Plan process, Community Mixed Use place types were generally applied along highway corridors and to undeveloped tracts where greater density and a mix of uses would be appropriate. General Residential place types were generally applied to existing residential neighborhoods. Z17-07 Staff Summary Page 3 of 5 DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY The current use of the subject property is a 288-unit apartment complex. It was originally approved in 1996 before high density developments required a special use permit. According to the original application, the CAMA land use classification of the property at the time was “Transition,” a designation for areas of future intensive urban development on lands that have been or would be provided with necessary urban services. By the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA Plan Update, it was classified as “Urban,” meaning urban services were in place or scheduled for the immediate future and mixed use, cluster, and higher density development might be appropriate. The development currently has an approved density of 10 units/acre and building heights of 3 stories. SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE PLACE TYPE North Residential (Georgetowne Subdivison) General Residential East Residential (The Gardens Condominums) Community Mixed Use/ General Residential South Undeveloped (Georgetown HOA Common Area) General Residential West Residential (Georgetowne Subdivision) General Residential Z17-07 Staff Summary Page 4 of 5 PLACE TYPE COMPARISON General Residential Community Mixed Use Definition/ Purpose Focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial services. Housing for the area is typically single-family or duplexes. Commercial uses should be limited to strategically located office and retail spaces, while recreation and school facilities are encouraged throughout. Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. These areas share several qualities with higher-intensity mixed use place types, including first-floor retail with office and housing above, wider sidewalks, and an emphasis on streetscaping. Types of Uses/Projects  Single-family residential  Low-density multi-family residential  Light commercial  Civic  Recreational  Office  Retail  Mixed use  Recreational  Commercial  Institutional  Multi-family residential  Single-family residential Development Intensity Building Height: 1-3 stories Ideal Density:  Multi-family: 2-6 units/acre  Single family: 1-6 units/acre Building Height: 1-3 stories Ideal Density:  Multi-family: 12-15 units/acre  Single family: +/- 8 units/acre Example Areas Middle Sound, Myrtle Grove, Castle Hayne, Porter’s Neck, Wrightsboro, Masonboro Loop Castle Hayne, Sidbury Rd., Carolina Beach Rd., North Chase Z17-07 Staff Summary Page 5 of 5 STAFF ANALYSIS The 2016 Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map, was the result of three years of community input and analysis. It sought to balance a need for higher density and greater mix of uses with protection of existing neighborhoods’ character. The plan did not intend to apply place type designations on a parcel-by-parcel basis but instead sought to show areas where different development patterns would be appropriate. Higher-density Community Mixed Use place types were deemed appropriate along highway corridors and on undeveloped tracts. General Residential place types were determined to be appropriate for areas with established residential neighborhoods. The subject property does not lie directly along a major highway corridor and is immediately adjacent to a single-family residential subdivision. While it’s current density is greater than the ideal density for the General Residential place type, it is not as dense as is intended for residential development in Community Mixed Use areas. Extending the Community Mixed Use place type farther away from the S. College Rd. corridor would have a greater effect on existing residential neighborhoods than the pattern currently laid out on the Future Land Use Map. The Community Mixed Use place type is not envisioned by staff to lead to primarily residential development, even at higher densities. Instead, this place type is intended to be a development pattern where a mix of commercial, retail, and higher density residential uses are appropriate and encouraged. In addition, amending the Future Land Use Map to benefit a desired individual development undermines the purpose of a comprehensive plan. A major purpose of long range planning is to weigh competing community needs in advance, involving widespread public participation, to reduce the risk of piecemeal development requests creating a community pattern not in keeping with the public’s best interest. Approval of a Future Land Use Map amendment for this reason would weaken the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s guidance as a policy document. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested amendment to the 2016 Future Land Use Map. Staff concludes that: 1. The Community Mixed Use place type is not appropriate for the subject property because it encourages a mix of commercial, retail, and higher density residential uses, which would not protect the adjacent neighborhoods’ character as intended by the existing place type designation; and 2. Amending the Future Land Use Map to benefit a desired individual development is not in keeping with the intent and goals of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it increases the risk of piecemeal development requests creating a community pattern not in keeping with the public’s best interest.