AGENDA #7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Castalia at Meadowmont – Application for Master Land Use Plan Modification
DATE: September 11, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 19, 2006, regarding a Master Land Use Plan Modification to modify the Meadowmont Master Plan. The proposed modification would relocate dwelling units and floor area in order to change the proposed use and increase the amount of floor area at the Castalia site. The Meadowmont Development is located on the north and south side of NC Highway 54 at the County line.
Along with this application, the applicant has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit which proposes to construct a 76,000 square foot mixed-use building including 52,000 square feet of office space and eleven residential units. The proposal includes a three-story building with access along West Barbee Chapel Road. Please see the accompanying memorandum for the Special Use Permit application.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Master Land Use Plan Modification application. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
BACKGROUND
On October 23, 1995, the Town Council approved a Master Land Use Plan for the 435-acre Meadowmont development located on NC Highway 54. The approved Master Land Use Plan authorized 1,298 dwelling units and 785,100 square feet of non-residential floor area. A minor modification of the Master Land Use Plan in 1999 reduced these figures to 1,061 dwelling units and 765,600 square feet of non-residential floor area.
The minor modification approved in 1999 allocated 52,000 square feet of floor area on the proposed Castalia site (17,333 square feet of commercial floor area and 34,677 square feet of office floor area).
KEY ISSUE
Based on the review of this development application by Town Advisory Boards and the Town staff, we believe that the key issue that has been identified pertains to the proposed increase in square footage. This issue is discussed below.
Floor Area: The Master Land Use Plan allocates 52,000 square feet of commercial and office floor area for this site. The proposed Castalia plan differs from the approved Master Land Use Plan in the amount of floor area and the proposed land uses. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the commercial land use component and replace it with a residential component. The applicant is also proposing to modify the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan to increase the allowable floor area by 24,000 square feet. The submitted plans propose constructing a building with 76,000 square feet of floor area.
Comment: The application does not propose to increase the total number of residential units authorized by the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan. The number of residential units will remain the same; however, the location would change for the proposed 11 units.
We believe the increase in floor area, in conjunction with the change of land uses, minimizes the traffic impact. The application indicates the projected traffic impact will be less than the approved Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
The standard for review and approval of a Master Land Use Plan Modification application involves consideration of three findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Master Land Use Plan Modification. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the three required findings for approval of a Master Land Use Plan Modification. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the three findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Master Land Use Plan Modification shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.
Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the three findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Master Land Use Plan Modification.
Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 1).
We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application, part of Attachment 1.
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
Finding #2: That the use would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.
We believe the evidence in the record can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of the Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 1).
We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application, part of Attachment 1.
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
Finding #3: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
We believe the evidence in the record can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of the Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 1).
We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application, part of Attachment 1.
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
SUMMARY
We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, our recommendation is that the Council could make the three findings necessary in order to approve the application. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summaries of Action for the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and Parks and Recreation Commission are included in Attachment 1, the June 19 Public Hearing Memorandum.
Manager’s Recommendation: That the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the Master Land Use Plan Modification application with conditions.
Resolution B would deny the Master Land Use Plan Modification application.
ATTACHMENTS