CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 APPLICATION NUMBER: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CDP APPLICATION (PROJECT) NAME: 211 MIDLAND PLANNED DISTRICT APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER NAME: Onofrio Serra McKelvey Road, Maryland Heights, MO Onofrio Serra McKelvey Road, Maryland Heights, MO APPLICANT S REQUEST: Rezoning from R-5 Single-Family Residential District to MXD Mixed Use District to establish a banquet facility and other uses in the existing dwelling SITE LOCATION: PARCEL/LOCATOR NUMBERS: EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT: TOTAL SITE AREA: PLANNING AREA: Northwest corner of Midland Avenue and Smiley Road 13N R-5 Single-Family Residential District 9.85 acres East Residential Planning Area PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 23, August 25, and September 8, 2015 REPORT DATE: September 3, 2015 CASE MANAGER: OVERALL FINDING: Michael Zeek, AICP INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (See summary of findings on page 10)

2

3 COMPLETENESS REVIEW CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The following items were received in support of this application: 1. Application Form dated April 22, Project Narrative dated April 21, (see Exhibit A in the appendix). 3. Revised Conceptual Development Plan prepared by RWPowell Architecture, LLC dated August 19, 2015 (see Exhibit B). 4. Property History prepared by Esley Hamilton dated January 10, 1995 and January 28, 2011 (see Exhibit C). 5. Filing Fees and Review Escrow Deposit. FINDING: Onofrio Serra is an eligible applicant with legal standing in the application to rezone this site. The applicant s Conceptual Development Plan submittal meets the requirements of Section 25-6, Planned Districts, of the Zoning Code and is complete for review in the opinion of the City Planner. CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

4 MIDLAND AVE. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROJECT LOCATION Site Description: The subject site is located at the northwest corner of Midland Avenue and Smiley Road. It is 9.85 acres in area and developed with a single-family dwelling constructed in Portions of the site are wooded and a stream runs along the northern boundary of the property. According to the Conceptual Development Plan, the building has a footprint of 4,743 square feet. County records list the total living area as 6,966 square feet. The building and site have housed a number of uses including Koboldt s Estate Picnic Area and Normandy Athletic Club (see Exhibit C in the appendix for a complete history). Upon incorporation of the St. Louis County Zoning Ordinance in 1965, the site was zoned R-4 Residence District and the use operated as a legally pre-existing nonconforming use. In 1966, at the request of the owner, the property was rezoned to NU Non-Urban District but no Conditional Use Permit was granted so the site maintained its nonconforming status. Upon incorporation of the Maryland Heights Zoning Code in 1989, the site was zoned R-5 Single- Family Residential District and, again, the use was grandfathered as a legally pre-existing nonconforming use. Once the nonconforming use ceased for a one-year period, it was considered abandoned and vested rights were lost from a zoning perspective. Adjoining Land Uses: Abutting the site to the north are single-family dwellings in the Wylwood Acres subdivision zoned R-5 Single-Family Residential District. East of the site, across Smiley Road, are single-family dwellings zoned R-5 Single-Family Residential District. South of the site, across Midland Avenue, are single-family homes zoned R-4 Single-Family Residential District. Abutting the site to the west is a single-family dwelling on a large lot zoned R-5 Single-Family Residential District. SUBJECT SITE REFER TO APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS AND EXHIBITS MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

5 ZONING REQUEST The property owner requests to rezone the site from R-5 Single-Family Residential District to MXD Mixed Use District to establish a banquet facility in the existing dwelling. According to the applicant s original narrative, the banquet facility would cater to events such as wedding receptions, holiday parties, anniversary parties, graduation parties, and other family celebrations. Banquets would occur primarily on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. During holiday times weekday operation is also anticipated. The amended Conceptual Development Plan also shows other possible uses including a tea room/coffee shop, bed and breakfast, caretaker s apartment, wedding planning and photography, and rental to a small church congregation. The amended plan shows a total of 57 parking spaces. The first step in the creation of a Mixed Use District is the review and approval of the Conceptual Development Plan (CDP). The purpose of the CDP process is to evaluate the general consistency of the proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. This stage is intended to provide guidance to the applicant early in the zoning process to avoid undue expense or time delay. This stage is also intended to focus the discussion on key planning issues such as land use prior to considering the more intricate details of site and building design. In essence, the CDP process is used to decide whether the project is appropriate in the location at which it is proposed. If the CDP is approved, the applicant is authorized to submit a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) which involves much more detailed plans. CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

6 CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The first step in the Planned District process is to determine if the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The site lies within the East Residential Planning Area. While the Comprehensive Plan does not contain specific guidance for the future use of properties within this planning area, it does contain overall goals and objectives for commercial development. COMMERCIAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The proposed banquet facility is a commercial use. The Comprehensive Plan contains citywide goals for commercial use and development. The first goal is as follows: Encourage the expansion and strengthening of existing commercial areas and the development of new, identifiable business areas at locations which would not result in an encroachment of commercial uses into residential districts. Associated objectives include: Define the limits of future commercial development. Restrict the conversion of residential land to commercial use. Encourage a better/improved range of stores and services. Assess commercial potential/types of uses to be permitted along primary and secondary arterial roads. The property is currently zoned R-5 Single-Family Residential District and the applicant proposes a rezoning to MXD Mixed-Use District to allow a number of uses, but principally a banquet facility. The request could be considered an encroachment of commercial uses into a residential district. All surrounding properties are zoned R-4 or R-5 Single-Family Residential District and developed with single-family dwellings. The closest commercial development lies 0.3 miles to the east at the corner of Midland Avenue and Fee Fee Road, although dwellings and vacant properties 0.2 miles to the east are also zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District (a Zoning Map is included in the appendix). The current request is also at odds with the second objective which seeks to restrict conversion of residential land to commercial use. In this case, an existing residential structure would be converted for commercial use in addition to a portion of the land. A factor that could be considered, however, is that the non-residential uses of the building and site previously included Koboldt s Estate Picnic Area, Maryland Heights Country Club, and Normandy Athletic Club. According to The History of Maryland Heights by Paul Thompson, in addition to recreational uses the property previously hosted gatherings such as weddings, parties, dances, and bingo. However, these uses were abandoned many years ago and associated improvements, including an outdoor swimming pool, accessory buildings, and parking area have been removed from the property. It is difficult to say whether the proposed use would be more or less intense than these previous uses. From a zoning standpoint, staff would note that recreational uses such as privately-owned parks, recreation facilities, and athletic fields are conditional uses in the R-5 Single-Family Residential District. The previous uses of the property were nonconforming in this regard because no Conditional Use Permit was ever authorized. While recreational facilities sometimes host events such as parties/ banquets from time to time, that is not their primary or typical use. The predominant question before the Planning Commission is whether the proposed banquet facility is appropriate at this location. The Commission may or may not take into account the previous uses of the property that have been abandoned MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

7 The second goal for commercial development is: Implement appropriate measures/standards to minimize adverse impacts of commercial uses on surrounding properties. A banquet facility at this location has the potential to result in adverse impacts on surrounding properties from a noise, lighting, and traffic standpoint, especially since events could be held late at night. Noise is staff s predominant concern because it is particularly difficult to mitigate in a residential area. Experience has shown that landscaping alone is ineffective at lessening noise impacts. Sound walls are much more effective, but they have the potential to alter the visual character of the neighborhood if not well designed and/or supplemented with landscaping. Noise is, however, a quantifiable standard. The St. Louis County Noise Control Code establishes the maximum decibel levels permissible at the property line. These levels vary depending on their duration and the time of day as follows: Daytime Hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Tn * (db(a)) ** or less or greater Nighttime Hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Tn * (db(a)) ** or less or greater * Total Duration of Time Noise To Be Emitted From Noise Source During Period of Measurement (Minutes). ** A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level. During the daytime, a reading of over 55 db(a) at the property line would exceed the standard if measured for 60 minutes or more. Likewise, a reading of 70 db(a) measured for 2 minutes or more would exceed the standard. Readings of 71 or greater are only permissible if they are measured for under a minute. The Maryland Heights Municipal Code (Section ) also addresses excessive noise as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a radio, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier or other device at any time with volume louder than necessary for convenient hearing of persons in the room, vehicle, chamber, or outside of any enclosed structure where used. Audibility at a distance of more than one hundred (100) feet from such device between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. No decibel readings or tests have been conducted, but depending on the noise levels produced at the source, a disk jockey or live band with any significant amplification inside the banquet facility could exceed the County and City noise restrictions outside the building. In other words, it is unknown at this time whether the use would satisfy the regulations pertaining to excessive noise. The Police Department, rather than Code Enforcement, would be called upon to enforce any potential violations if the use were approved. CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

8 Lighting is another concern, particularly because there is no screening separating this property with the residential properties across Smiley Road. The revised plan shows low bollard type lighting which would result in a much lower impact than typical light standards. However, to effectively mitigate the adverse impacts of parking lot lighting, screening would need to be established along the east in the form of walls, fences, and/or landscaping. The applicant s narrative indicates that an earthen berm and tall landscaping would be provided along Smiley Road but no such improvements are shown on the revised plan. From a traffic standpoint, the proposed banquet center would obviously generate many more trips than a single-family dwelling. As most events would occur outside of the AM and PM peak hours, it is unlikely that the proposed use would create traffic issues from a roadway capacity standpoint. The concern here is the impact on adjoining properties of traffic entering and exiting the site, particularly movements performed late at night. The applicant proposes to mitigate the impact on Smiley Road residents by relocating the ingress/egress point to Midland Avenue. The impact on the adjoining properties along Midland Avenue would be mitigated by their elevation above the street. Depending on the exact location of the proposed entrance, the headlights from vehicles exiting the property would shine on the retaining wall across the street rather than the homes. Again, however, walls, fences, and/or landscaping would be necessary to screen the parking lot from the homes along Smiley Road. It is also likely that the vehicles exiting the site late at night would have adverse noise impacts on adjoining properties. Flooding and stormwater concerns were also expressed by residents at the public hearing. The property s location along the creek and resulting floodplain designation does limit what can be developed on site and how it must be designed. These concerns are typically addressed during the Preliminary Development Plan stage of the process if the Conceptual Development Plan is approved. Plans prepared by a Civil Engineer would be reviewed by the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District to ensure that stormwater quantity and quality regulations are satisfied, and by the City s Floodplain Administrator to ensure that improvements are designed and constructed to Federal Emergency Management Agency standards. With regard to the other uses proposed by the applicant, including a tea room/coffee shop, bed and breakfast, caretaker s apartment, wedding planning and photography, and rental to a small church congregation, all of them would likely have a lower impact on surrounding properties than the proposed banquet center. The only use that would could generate a similar amount of traffic and activity would be a small church congregation but the greatest impact would be on Sunday mornings rather than late at night. Finally, staff would note that the proposed Mixed Use District zoning affords the opportunity for the City to establish site-specific conditions on the development and operation of the proposed use to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Specific regulations with regard to parking, circulation, signage, landscaping, stormwater, hours of operation, etc. could be incorporated. Such controls would be considered as part of the Preliminary Development Plan process if the Conceptual Development Plan is approved. FINDING: The project is inconsistent with the goals related to commercial development in that the commercial use of the existing dwelling could be considered an encroachment of commercial uses into a residential district. However, the Planning Commission could choose to take the historic uses of the property into account. The Commission should also consider whether sufficient controls could be put into effect to control potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

9 CONSISTENCY WITH THE ZONING CODE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW While the Preliminary Development Plan stage of the review process would examine the project in detail for its consistency with the Zoning Code, it is necessary at this stage to identify any significant inconsistencies. The applicant submitted sufficient detail to examine the project s consistency with the parking and landscaping regulations of the Zoning Code. Section 25-14, Parking and Loading Regulations, of the Zoning Code contains requirements with regard to parking design while Appendix B, Land Use and Required Parking Matrix, contains the required number of parking spaces for each use. For banquet facilities, the code requires 1 space per 4 persons based on design capacity of the building, or 5 spaces per 1,000 sf of floor area, whichever is greater. The design capacity would be determined as part of the building permit/occupancy permit review, but in this case the calculation based on design capacity will most certainly be greater than that based on square footage. The Conceptual Development Plan shows a total of 57 parking spaces. That number of spaces would support a design capacity of 228 people. The total number of parking spaces required would be determined later in the zoning process when more definitive details are provided. Given the site s location in a residential neighborhood, the Commission may want to require parking over and above that typically required by the Zoning Code to ensure that sufficient parking can easily be provided on site without the potential for overflow. The site contains sufficient acreage to provide the necessary parking. Section 25-16, Landscaping Design Standards, of the Zoning Code requires installation of landscaping when improvements such as building additions or parking are being constructed. The amount of landscaping required is based on a point system. New paved areas and parking spaces generate a required number of landscaping points. 57 parking spaces would result in 23 points (0.4 points per parking space) The Conceptual Development Plan is not to scale so it is difficult to determine how many points would be generated by new parking perimeter. Sections and also require landscaped buffers between parking areas and residential properties. Compliance with these regulations would be examined as part of the Preliminary Development Plan process if the Conceptual Development Plan is approved. FINDING: The project is, or has the potential to be, consistent with the Parking and Loading Regulations of the Zoning Code. Landscaping, lighting, and other design standards would be reviewed on the Preliminary Development Plan if the Conceptual Development Plan is approved. CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

10 OVERALL FINDINGS Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the City Planner makes the following findings: 1. Onofrio Serra is an eligible applicant with legal standing in the application to rezone this site. 2. The applicant s Conceptual Development Plan submittal meets the requirements of Section 25-6, Planned Districts, of the Zoning Code and is complete for review. 3. The project is inconsistent with the goals related to commercial development in that the commercial use of the existing dwelling could be considered an encroachment of commercial uses into a residential district. However, the Planning Commission could choose to take the historic uses of the property into account. 4. The project is, or has the potential to be, consistent with the Zoning Code with regard to parking. 5. In light of the above findings and the information provided in this report, the Planning Commission must determine whether a banquet facility is appropriate at this location. REQUESTED ACTION The City Planner requests that the Planning Commission consider the above findings in rendering a decision on the Conceptual Development Plan. Upon review, the Planning Commission may: A. Approve the Conceptual Development Plan as submitted; B. Approve the Conceptual Development Plan with specific conditions to be addressed by the applicant on the Preliminary Development Plan; C. Deny the Conceptual Development Plan; or D. Request additional information from the applicant or staff. Michael Zeek City Planner MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

11 APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS AND EXHIBITS CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

12 MIDLAND AVE. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUBJECT SITE FIGURE 1 - SUBJECT SITE MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

13 R-5 MIDLAND AVE. R-4 FIGURE 2 - ZONING MAP CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

14 EXHIBIT A - APPLICANT S NARRATIVE MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

15 EXHIBIT B - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

16 EXHIBIT C - COUNTY HISTORIAN S REPORT MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

17 EXHIBIT C - COUNTY HISTORIAN S REPORT (CONT.) CONSISTENCY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 3,

18 EXHIBIT C - COUNTY HISTORIAN S REPORT (CONT.) MIDLAND SEPTEMBER 3, 2015