Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutesDecember 19, 2002 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: LU02-10-06 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Boyle Park Planning District Location: South University just south of Boyle Park Road RRequest: Office to Commercial Source: Marc Yelenich PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Office to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the areas that they serve. The applicant wishes to develop the property for self -storage and retail strip development. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 10 ± acres in size. Most of the land to the north consists of houses zoned R-2 while the property along University Avenue is occupied with small businesses and eating establishments zoned C-3 General Commercial. The land to the east across University Avenue is wooded land north of the Cooperative Extension Service building which is zoned R-2. The land to the south and west consists of property zoned R-2 and developed with single-family houses. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Singe Family to Park/Open Space at W. 14th Street and Pierce Street about a'/z mile northeast of the application area to recognize Oak Forest Park. On October 17, 2000 multiple changes were made from Public Institutional and Multi - Family to Commercial and Light Industrial at the intersection of Fair Park Boulevard and Asher Avenue about 1 mile southeast of the property in question to recognize existing conditions. The applicant's property is shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan. The area to the north is shown as Single Family with Commercial shown along University Avenue. The land to the east of University is shown as Public Institutional. The remainder of the land to the south and west is shown as Single Family. December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C [Cont.] _ FILE NO.: LU02-10-06 MASTER STREET PLAN: University Avenue is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is buill to a four -lane width. Half street improvements would be needed to improve this section of University Avenue to Principal Arterial design standards. There are no Bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: There are four parks shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001 that are located within an eight -block distance of the applicant's property. Boyle Park, located at W. 35th Street and Boyle Park Road, is shown as a 50+ acre Large Urban Park located west of the applicant's property. University Park, located at W. 12th Street and Leisure Lane, is shown as a 20-50 acre Community Park northwest of the study area. Boyle Park provides a mixture of active and passive recreational opportunities, while University Park is the site of the Raymond Rebsamen Tennis Center. Oak Forest Park, located at W. 14th Street and Pierce Street, is shown as a mini -Park under 5 acres northeast of the property in question and is designed specifically to serve the needs of the Oak Forest neighborhood, which surrounds the park. Curran -Conway Park, located at W. 241h Street and Monroe Street, is shown as a as a 20-50 acre Community Park located east of the UALR campus and is located the furthest distance from the amendment area. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There is not any historic districts near -by that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property is located in an area that is physically separated from the neighboring Single Family uses based on the street pattern. The only practical access to the property in question is from University Avenue. The neighboring houses are oriented in such a- way that the back yards face the applicant's property. The Commercial uses to the north face University Avenue. The wooded lot is accessed from University Avenue. The street pattern of the area isolates the applicant's property from the neighboring residential areas. The effects on the neighborhood would include four issues: traffic, topography, scale, and massing. Commercial development on this property could increase traffic on a K December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU02-10-06 portion of University Avenue that is not built to Principal Arterial design standards. Construction on this property would result in the alteration of the hillside on which this property is located. Development on this property would also need a sufficient buffer between any buildings and parking lots and the neighboring single-family residences to compensate for the scale and massing of future buildings built on the property. Without sufficient buffers, the neighboring properties would be impacted by Commercial uses on the applicant's property. Although there is a change in topographical elevation between the site and the surrounding neighborhood, this application would allow development that could result in a non-residential intrusion into the neighborhood. The massing, scale, visual impacts, and noise generation of any development on this site should be minimized to isolate the affects of any non-residential development on the neighboring single-family development. Most of the land shown as Commercial located along the west side of University Avenue is on average about 150'+ deep. This application would allow the development of Commercial uses on a piece of property that is about 605' ± deep. This increase in depth could change the character of the neighborhood and allow the development of a large area shown as Commercial on University Avenue that is located about half way between the intersections of the arterials at W. 12th Street and Asher Avenue. The thin strip of land shown as Commercial north of the applicant's property separates the houses to the west from the traffic on University Avenue while no such barrier is provided for the houses to the south. Most of the businesses to the north are small neighborhood businesses. Any turnover in the businesses to the north would accommodate room for another small neighborhood oriented business to move in. The application area is large enough to accommodate a larger Commercial use that would draw customers from a larger market area that might not be oriented toward the neighborhood. Currently, this portion of University Avenue acts as a buffer between the University to the east and the residential area to the west. Commercial uses at this location would erode that buffer. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Broadmoor Neighborhood Association, Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association, College Terrace Neighborhood Association, Point O'Woods Neighborhood Association, University Park Neighborhood Association, Westwood Neighborhood Association, Curran -Conway Neighborhood Association, and Oak Forest Neighborhood Association. Staff has not received comments from area residents at the time of this report. 3 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU02-10-06 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A change to Commercial would extend the strip of Commercial development to the south and intrude into the residential area to the west. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 2002) The applicant was notified that only seven members of the Planning Commission were present. The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the November 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 14, 2002) The applicant was notified that only eight members of the Planning Commission were present. The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the December 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the December 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The item was approved with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 2002) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Donna James, City Staff, made a presentation of item C.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item C. See item CA for.,a complete discussion concerning the Long Form Planned Commercial Development. Commissioner Obray Nunnley asked if staff was opposed to the zoning change and a discussion followed concerning staff recommendations on the two items. Ms. James stated that staff opposed the Land Use Plan Amendment and the PCD as filed. Mr. Minyard stated that the Plan Amendment was driven by the PCD application. Mr. Jim Lawson, Secretary to the Planning Commission, stated that staff opposed the Plan Amendment because the Commercial category is too broad in terms of the future uses that could occur on the property in question. The PCD application is specific in 4 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: LU02-10-06 terms of what uses are allowed on the property and that staff was concerned about the land alterations that could result from the PCD as filed. Commissioner Nunnley asked why staff was opposed changing the land use category to Commercial for the property in question. Mr. Lawson stated that the site is not appropriate for all of the uses allowed in the Commercial Future Land Use category. Mr. Lawson stated that staff supported limited commercial uses on the property but that the current PCD application was too intense and that staff was concerned with cut and fill issues. Mr. Marc Yelenich, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Mr. Yelenich gave a brief description of the history of the property and stated that the most of the property owners abutting the property supported his proposal. Mr. Maury Mitchell, representing the current property owners, spoke in support of the application and stated that this application would allow new development on University Avenue. Mr. Arthur Connerly, a member of the family that owns the property, spoke in support of the application and stated his family's desire to sell the property. Mr. Connerly added that he opposed past for developing the property but stated that the current application would provide security for the property with the construction of a fence that would keep vagrants off of the land. Ms. Andrea Hooten, President of the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the application and stated that Mr. Yelenich did not survey enough residents of the neighborhood to properly obtain the opinions of residents. Ms. Hooten stated concerns about the possible storage of hazardous materials, security, traffic generation, noise and light pollution, destruction of trees, and questionable retail uses. Ms. Hooten closed her remarks by stating that the types of retail businesses that would locate at this property would be undesirable. Commissioner Norm Floyd asked Ms. Hooten what the proper use for the property in question would be. Ms. Hooten stated that Single Family would be a proper land use for the property. A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, 1 abstention, and 2 absent. 5