Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutesSeptember 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: LU07-04-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Heights -Hillcrest Planning District Location: 300 & 310 North Van Buren Request: Single Family to Mixed Use Source: Stephen Niswanger, Niswanger Law Firm PLC PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights -Hillcrest Planning District from Single Family to Mixed Use. Mixed Use represents a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses. The applicant has applied for a short form Planned Commercial Development to allow the conversion of an existing single family home to be used as a residence and a nail salon with three to four employees. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The amendment area is currently zoned R-2 Single Family District and is occupied by two single-family residences. The surrounding area west, north and east of the amendment area is also zoned R-2 and is occupied by single family and two family residences. South of the amendment area is zoned R-2 for a single family house and zoned Planned Commercial Development for Arkansas Prosthetics. Northeast is zoned R-4 Two Family District for some duplexes. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The amendment area is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. The plan shows Single Family for everything along Van Buren Street between B and G Streets. South of the amendment area on both sides of Van Buren is shown as Single Family and Suburban Office. Beyond the Suburban Office is shown as Office and Commercial at the intersection of Markham and Van Buren. Ordinance 19422 was approved November 1, 2005 to amend the Plan at A Street from Single Family to Suburban Office for future development. Ordinance 19095 was approved May 18, 2004 to amend the plan at University and Markham from Office to Community Shopping for the proposed Midtown Mall. MASTER STREET PLAN: North Van Buren is shown as a Minor Arterial with reduced standards on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont. FILE NO.: LU07-04-01 been converted to non-residential uses or demolished and this trend appears to be moving north along Van Buren. This is not one of the non -conforming uses nor is it adjacent to a non -conforming use. This would in effect create another small island of non-residential uses on Van Buren. The Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan specifically calls for "no net loss of residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses." This goal is supported by the two objectives directing specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood and establishing design standards consistent with the neighborhood's character. Van Buren Street is still mostly comprised of single family homes in good repair. The addition of new zoning and land use categories further north into the neighborhood could be seen as encroaching on these single family homes. Staff feels the single family residential nature of North Van Buren Street needs to be protected and upheld. While a change to Mixed Use would still require a Planned Development, Staff does not recommend this change. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood association: Hillcrest Residents Association. Staff has received two comments in opposition from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2007) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission covering the Future Land Use Plan in the area, existing non -conforming businesses in the area (of which this is not one), comments from the neighborhood action plan and appropriate locations for non-residential uses. Donna James made a presentation of item 17.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item N. See item 17.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Nails by Kimmie Short -from PD -C. A motion was made to approve the item and was denied with a vote of 1 aye, 6 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 3