Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1989-055FILE REF: 03 -89:ZT INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: PLANNING DATE: 6 -1 -89 1 ORDINANCE NO. 89 -55 2 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY 3 ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITED TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS IN PLANNED 4 UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM 5 DENSITY ZONES 6 WHEREAS, Semiahmoo Private Golf Course Limited Partnership has applied for a text 7 amendment to Title 20 to allow limited transient facilities in planned unit 8 developments within the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium zones, and to 9 clarify the language regarding multiple units in planned unit developments in all 10 residential zones; and 11 WHEREAS, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Deputy SEPA 12 Official on May 12, 1989; and 1 13 WHEREAS, legal notices were published in the Westside Record Journal on May 3, 14 1989, and in the Bellingham Herald on May 6, 1989; and 15 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on this matter 16 on May 16, 1989; and 17 WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was favorable with one additional condition 18 regarding traffic generation; and 19 WHEREAS, after accepting public testimony and due deliberation the Planning 20 Commission developed findings and conclusions and unanimously moved to recommended 21 to Council to approve the requested text change with the added condition proposed by 22 staff; 23 WHEREAS, the Council held a public meeting on June 15, 1989 to consider the 24 Planning Commission recommendation. 25 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL: 26 1. Title 20 is hereby amended as follows: 27 MODIFY 20.85.053 (1) AND (2) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 28 (1) For the Urban Residential, Residential Rural and Rural zones, multi - family 29 dwellings consistent with the density requirements of the underlying zone except 30 as that may be modified by the provisions of Section 20.85.108. this vrr, chapter. r. 31 The number of units attached may be greater than would otherwise be allowed by 32 the underlvinq zoning. 33 (2) For the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium zone, those uses allowed 34 in the Neighborhood Commercial zone are appropri are also permitted. In 35 addition both resort and non - resort oriented transient accommodations, such as 36 inns or hotels may be permitted provided that: 37 a. 38 39 FILE REF: 02- 89:I70 Page 2 0 b. 1 2 3 c. 4 5 6 2. The Council finds the public health, safety and general welfare are promoted by 7 the above change. 8 3. The Council adopts the following findings and conclusions developed by the staff 9 and the Planning Commission: 10 FINDINGS 11 A. The present Planned Unit Development language suggests that attached units of 12 any number is appropriate assuming the density does not exceed that allowed by 13 the zone plus any bonus considerations. The code has been administratively 14 interpreted this way, but the text is not absolutely clear. 15 B. There is an apparent market for transient units associated with golf courses or 16 other attractions that would be part of a Planned Unit Development. 17 C. Allowing a percentage of transient units in a Planned Unit Development is the 18 type of mixed use that a Planned Unit Development can accommodate without 19 creating compatibility problems with surrounding uses if they are properly 20 incorporated into an overall plan. 21 D. The review process in a Planned Unit Development allows adequate review to insure 22 compatibility problems do not exist. 23 E. Potential off -site traffic impacts are another concern. In general transient 24 units representing 20% of the total dwelling units allowed should not create a 25 problem and may even generate less traffic than conventional residential 26 development. However, because resort hotels in the normal definition are high 27 traffic generators additional safe guards may be needed. 28 CONCLUSIONS 29 A. Clarifying the language regarding attached units will simplify future review of 30 PUDs as no policy interpretation will be required or need to be explained. 31 B. If additional language is added regarding off -site traffic impacts allowing 20% 32 of the units in a PUB to be transient increases the flexibility of a planned 33 development with no negative effect on surrounding properties. 34 4. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this 35 Ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the Ordinance as a whole 36 or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PASSED this 15th day of June , 1989. ATTEST: /1�1� /9w c Clerk of the Council FILE REF: 02- 89:IZO Page 3 HATCOM COUNT IL W COM COUNTY, W H NGT N 'Donald G. nsey Cha rperson QAPPROVED , l ( ) VETOED Shirley Van Za en, Cou y Executive 8 APPROVED AS 0 FORM: �� 'q 9 Date i 10 11 Da ottingham 12 Civil Deputy Prps uting Attorney 13 Published and 1989. 14 This Ordinance becomes effective 1989. May 25, 1989 File Ref: 06 -89:ZT WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY REPORT IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE 20, ) THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, ) FINDINGS, REASONS TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITED TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS ) AND MOTION IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE URBAN RESI- DENTIAL AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES ) WHEREAS, Semiahmoo Private Golf Course Limited Partnership has applied for a text amendment to Title 20 to allow limited transient facilities in planned unit developments within the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium zones, and to clarify the language regarding multiple units in planned unit developments in all residential zones; and WHEREAS, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Deputy SEPA Official on May 12, 1989; and WHEREAS, legal notices were published in the Westside Record Journal on May 3, 1989, and in the Bellingham Herald on May 6, 1989; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on this matter on May 16, 1989; and WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was favorable with one additional condition regarding traffic generation; and WHEREAS, after accepting public testimony and due deliberation the Planning Commission developed findings and conclusions and unanimously moved to recommended to Council to approve the requested text change with the added condition proposed by staff; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. A quorum of Commission members was present during the hearing and subsequent discussion. 2. Statutory requirements were met regarding legal notice and SEPA review. 3. The Planning Commission accepted the findings and conclusions as developed by staff. 4. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to make the following recommendation: 1 May 25, 1989 File Ref: 06 -89:ZT MODIFY 20.85.053 (1) AND (2) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (1) For the Urban Residential, Residential Rural and Rural zones, multi - family dwellings consistent with the density requirements of the underlying zone except as that may be modified by the provisions of Section 20.85.108. this- Ghap The number of units attached may be greater than would otherwise be allowed by the underlying zoning. (2) For the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium zone, those uses allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone are appropriate are also a. The total number of sleeping units shall not exceed 20% of the total number of dwelling units that would be allowed on the property by the underlying zone regulations. b. Each sleeping unit shall count as one dwelling unit for the purpose of determining the total number of dwelling and sleeping units in combination permitted on the property. C. It can be demonstrated that the overall development will not generate more traffic than conventional residential development at the density allowed in the zone. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION David Simpson, Chairman CLki u - a Daniel W. Taylo I Secretary Commissioners present at hearing: SIMPSON, BAIJOT, HEERINGA, ERNST and SHINTAFFER Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Draft Ordinance File #06 -89:ZT May 8, 1989 -- Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT APPLICANT: SEMIAHM00 PRIVATE GOLF COURSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUEST The applicant is requesting a change to the permitted use provision of the Planned Unit Development chapter of the Official Zoning Ordinance of Whatcom County (Title 20 WCC) by amending sections 20.85.053(1) and (2) to read as follows: (1) For the Urban Residential, Residential Rural and Rural zones, multi - family dwellings consistent with the density requirements of the underlying zone except as that may be modified by the provisions of Section 20.85.108. this Ghap T The number of units attached may be greater than would otherwise be allowed by the underlying zoning. (2) For the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium zone, those uses allowed in the Neiqhborhood Commercial zone are appropr4ate are also a. The total number of sleeping units shall not exceed 20% of the total number of dwelling units that would be allowed on the property by the underlying zone regulations. b. Each sleeping unit shall count as one dwelling unit for the purpose of determining the total number of dwelling and sleeping units in combination permitted on the property. LOCATION This text change would potentially affect any property in the Urban Residential or Urban Residential Medium Density zones. It also clarifies intent in the Residential Rural and Rural zones. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the Westside Record Journal on Wednesday, May 3, 1989, and in the Bellingham Herald on Saturday, May 6, 1989. A SEPA determination will be issued prior to Council action. REGULATORY EFFECTS OF THE REQUEST The language change being proposed to Section 20.85.053(1) is primarily a housekeeping item. The proposed language is intended to better reflect the File #06 -89:ZT May 8, 1989 -- Page 2 meaning of that section and as a consequence the provisions of the section will not change if the proposed amendment is adopted. The proposed amendment to Section 20.85.053(2) will change the provisions of that section by permitting an applicant to propose transient units as part of an overall Planned Unit Development in the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium Density zones. ANALYSIS The amendment to Section 20.85.053(1) is being proposed to clarify what is believed to be the intent of this section, that the number of attached units permitted in a multi- family structure can exceed the number permitted by the underlying zone provided that the overall density is maintained. The Urban Residential district presently permits up to four units attached and the Rural Residential district permits up to two units attached. By definition therefore, multi - family dwellings are already permitted in those districts. For Section 20.85.053(1) to have any meaning in the context of adding land use activities to these districts as the introductory language of that section would suggest, the words "multi- family dwellings" would have to mean some other type of multi - family dwelling than would otherwise be allowed in those districts. Since the only real distinction in the zoning ordinance between types of multi- family dwellings is by the number of units attached, one can assume that the intent of this section is to allow a greater number of attached units per multi- family structure, i.e. a different type of multi - family dwelling, than would normally be allowed provided that the overall permitted density is maintained. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the number of attached units is primarily a design issue. Allowing greater design flexibility is appropriate and consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development regulations. The amendment to Section 20.85.053(2) is being proposed for the purpose of permitting a limited amount of resort and non - resort oriented transient accommodations such as inns and hotels to be included, along with other permitted residential uses, in Planned Unit Developments that locate in the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium districts. The applicants wish to develop a residential Planned Unit Development on 470 acres near the Semiahmoo Resort on land zoned UR -4. The residential units will be clustered around a private 18 -hole golf course. As an accessory activity to the development, the proponents would like to include resort - oriented transient accommodations for members of the golf club who do not reside or own property in the development, and their guests. In addition the facility would also be available for guests of the residents of the community and for golf tournament participants and their guests. From a land use perspective, a limited amount of inn /hotel type facilities would be compatible with the type of residential /golf course development they have in mind and would not be injurious to the surrounding uses if properly incorporated into an overall plan for the site. File #06 -89:ZT May 8, 1989 -- Page 3 The effect of the amendment would be limited to simply allowing an applicant to propose and the County to consider transient accommodations as part of a residential Planned Unit Development. The design, development and compatibility standards of the PUD regulations would still apply and the appropriateness of that use in that particular PUD would be examined in the context of those standards. If the design of the Planned Unit Development with transient accommodations is able to satisfy those standards then there would be no reason from a land use standpoint not to allow that mix of uses in the development. The proposed revision is consistent with the overall intent of the Planned Unit Development regulations to allow greater design flexibility consistent with good planning practices than would otherwise be allowed by the zone district regulations. The PUD regulations would allow neighborhood commercial use activities in Planned Unit Developments in the UR and URM district to provide a wider range of use activity options than would otherwise be permitted. The addition of limited transient accommodations to the list of permitted use activities would make an additional activity available to the project proponent. This would allow the proponent a greater degree of flexibility in selecting the appropriate mixture of use activities and design configurations to enhance the market appeal of the development. The Planned Unit Development standards were also established to encourage development that provides a variety of living, working and recreational environments in a manner harmonious with surrounding on and off -site land uses activities. The addition of transient accommodations to the list of activities allowed offers an additional opportunity to create a more varied mix of living environments and increased access to the recreational amenities of the development. Compatibility with on and off -site land uses will be a function of the site design and as such will be controlled by the standards of the PUD regulations. Aside from the compatibility issue controlled by the PUD approval itself, the only other off -site impact that might be relevant is traffic. Reviewing the trip generation tables developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers provides some insight regarding this issue. Hotels typically generate their major traffic at off peak hours which is an advantage. However, in trying to analyze the number of trips the pattern is not as clear. The following table compares single family dwellings, residential planned developments and golf courses to various types of transient accommodations. These have been listed by frequency of trips on weekdays. File #06 -89:ZT May 8, 1989 -- Page 4 AVERAGE DAILY TRIP ENDS PER DWELLING UNIT, ROOM OR ACRE Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Residential condominum unit 5.9 5.7 4.9 Low rise apartments 6.6 7.2 6.1 Residential PUD /du 7.4 6.4 5.0 Golf course /acre 8.3 7.5 8.0 Hotel /room 8.7 7.5 4.6 Motel /room 10 8.8 7.7 Single family house 10 10.1 8.7 Resort hotel 18 16 12 source: 1987 Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation The residential PUDs assume some retail and recreation facilities. Motels assume a restaurant, hotels assume a restaurant, cocktail lounge, meeting and banquet halls or convention facilities and retail services and shops. The resort hotel caters more to tourists than to conventions, but is otherwise similar to hotels. Using single family dwellings as the norm for the zone it can be seen that all uses listed generate less trips than a single family house with the exception of the resort hotel which generates considerably more. In making comparisons the lowest generator on the list is actually the golf course as a typical urban residential zone allows four dwelling units per acre which means residential housing attracts almost five times as much traffic per acre as a golf course. The proposal as requested is intended to allow a use that does not really fit any of the categories, but does have the potential to represent a worst case situation that would approximate a resort hotel. The particular request is stemming from the desire to have a transient facility for club members who wish to use a private golf course. This would probably be the typical application of this text amendment. In which case the trips generated for the transient accommodations may be lower than indicated for a traditional resort hotel and the overall trips for the project could be significantly lower than for a conventional single family subdivision. Given that only 20% of the units may be for transient use it would seem to be a safe assumption that off -site traffic impacts will be no worse than for normal developments in a zone and can be covered by normal project review. However to cover the worst case scenario additional language regarding traffic impact my be appropriate. A final consideration is whether the language should be expanded to cover planned unit developments in any residential zone. There is a very conceptual proposal to have houseboats on Squires Lake, in a Rural Residential zone, which could be rented out as summer homes or for weekend accommodations for fishing. There are a number of considerations before such a scheme could be a reality, but a broader File #06 -89:ZT May 8, 1989 -- Page 5 text change could eliminate one obstacle. On the other hand allowing transient units in Rural or Rural Residential zones in any greater numbers than presently allowed by Bed and Breakfast establishments seems a radical departure from the intent of the zones. While it may be appropriate, it certainly needs more analysis than time permits in the present review. Therefore this concept will be left for future consideration. FINDINGS 1. The present Planned Unit Development language suggests that attached units of any number is appropriate assuming the density does not exceed that allowed by the zone plus any bonus considerations. The code has been administratively interpreted this way, but the text is not absolutely clear. 2. There is an apparent market for transient units associated with golf courses or other attractions that would be part of a Planned Unit Development. 3. Allowing a percentage of transient units in a Planned Unit Development is the type of mixed use that a Planned Unit Development can accommodate without creating compatibility problems with surrounding uses if they are properly incorporated into an overall plan. 4. The review process in a Planned Unit Development allows adequate review to insure compatibility problems do not exist. 5. Potential off -site traffic impacts are another concern. In general transient units representing 20% of the total dwelling units allowed should not create a problem and may even generate less traffic than conventional residential development. However, because resort hotels in the normal definition are high traffic generators additional safe guards may be needed. CONCLUSIONS 1. Clarifying the language regarding attached units will simplify future review of PUDs as no policy interpretation will be required or need to be explained. 2. If additional language is added regarding off -site traffic impacts allowing 20% of the units in a PUD to be transient increases the flexibility of a planned development with no negative effect on surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends adoption of the following proposed changes to Title 20: File #06 -89:ZT May 8, 1989 -- Page 6 MODIFY 20.85.053 (1) AND (2) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (1) For the Urban Residential, Residential Rural and Rural zones, multi - family dwellings consistent with the density requirements of the underlying zone except as that may be modified by the provisions of Section 20.85.108. Ws rhap The number of units attached may be greater than would otherwise be allowed by the underlying zoning. (2) For the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium zone, those uses allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone are apprepriate are also permitted. In addition both resort and non - resort oriented transient accommodations, such as inns or hotels may be permitted provided that: a. The total number of sleeping units shall not exceed 20% of the total number of dwelling units that would be allowed on the property by the underlying zone regulations. b. Each sleeping unit shall count as one dwelling unit for the purpose of determining the total number of dwelling and sleeping units in combination permitted on the property. c. It can be demonstrated that the overall development will not generate more traffic than conventional residential development at the density allowed in the zone.