HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-002 Code Enforcement PrioritiesResolution 10-002
Code EnfoYCement Priorities
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 10-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND,
WASHINGTON, SETTING FORTH CITY COUNCIL CODE ENFORCEMENT
PRIORITIES
RECITALS:
A. The City Council determines by this Resolution to provide direction and guidance
to the City Manager and City Administration with respect to code enforcement
priorities relating to private uses of the residential rights of way.
B. On September 8, 2009, the City Council requested the Community Development
and Land Use Committee (CD/LU) of the City Council undertake a review of
code provisions and policies relating to private uses in the City rights of way.
C. At meetings on October 8, 2009, November 19, 2009, December 10, 2009, and
January 22, 2010, the CD/LU Committee reviewed potential private use of rights
of way in residential districts, including, landscaping and tree planting (and
removal), and fences and other structures. City code allows for minor landscaping
in the rights of way, but does not provide a definition of the extent minor
landscaping is allowed. PTMC 12.04.070. City code does not allow any private
structures to be located in the right of way in residential zoning districts. PTMC
17.68.030 (adopted by Ordinance 2571 in 1997) explicitly prohibits fences in the
rights of way, unless a permit is obtained pursuant to Chapter 12.10 PTMC.
(However, Chapter 12.10 of the PTMC was repealed in 1997, meaning, there has
not been a process for issuing any permits for fences in the right of way since
1997).
D. The CD/LU Committee recommends the Council hold a workshop(s) to
discuss issues relating to private uses of the rights of way and the type of
public process that should occur in Council's consideration of the issue.
E. During its review of these issues, the CD/LU Committee learned from the
Development Services Department (DSD) Director, the Public Works
Department Director, and the City Attorney that Council direction on code
enforcement priorities was needed to assist staff in responding to
residential street use code enforcement issues.
F. Commonly, if code enforcement is undertaken against the placement of a
new use that is prohibited in the right of way (for example, construction of
a fence or other structure), the person complained against responds by
pointing out other situations of unpermitted use of the right of way, and
claims he or she should be allowed to make use of the right of way
because "everyone does it."
Resolution 10-002
Code Enforcement Priorities
Page 2 of 4
G. In another common situation, code enforcement involves a neighborhood
issue. One neighbor complains (perhaps on the basis of aesthetics) about
another neighbor's use of the right of way (which use may have been long-
standing), and wants the City to require that the use be abated.
H. Currently, City code enforcement practice is to require that new uses that are not
allowed in the right of way to be abated. Code enforcement also seeks to respond
to complaints of other private uses of the right of ways (that the person
complained against may point out). However, staff resources for code
enforcement are limited and staff cannot respond effectively to all reports of
violations. Therefore, the Council determines it should provide guidance to the
City Manager and City Administration with respect to prioritizing code
enforcement concerning violations and structures already established in the right
of way.
The Council appreciates that over the last hundred years or snore many such uses,
particularly fences, have been located in the public rights of way. These may have
been located in rights of way because others had done so, or because of
uncertainty over property lines from lack of survey, or because in the past the City
did not enforce any restriction or prohibition against their location. Soiree uses
may have occurred with explicit City permission although records for such uses
may no longer exist.
J. The Council states that, following further review of what private uses should be
allowed in the right of ways, certain uses may be entirely appropriate and add to
Port Townsend's and its residential neighborhoods' character and livability. On
the other hand, private uses may inappropriately interfere with preserving rights of
way for a variety of public uses.
K. Currently, adopted City polices do not support private uses of the rights of way
(except for permitted use for access and utilities), with the exception of allowing
private use of the right of way for minor landscaping. For example, the
Engineering Design Standards, adopted by the City Council in Ordinance 2579
(adopted in 1997)), states "the currently platted street rights of way should be used
not only for motor vehicle travel, but should also be preserved and utilized for a
variety of other public uses including:
• Non-motorized pathways and connections
• Greenways and open space connections
• Neighborhood stormwater retention facilities
• Preserving environmentally sensitive areas
• Wildlife corridors
• Traffic calming and diversion
• Utility lines."
Resolution IO-002
Code Enforcement Priorities
Page 3 of 4
The list does not include private structures or enclosing space in rights of way for
private use. Buildings in the rights of way serve a private use only and do not
have the same public benefits as (say) minor landscaping. Minor landscaping
helps achieve green space. It preserves vegetation for floral and faunal values and
reduces the potential for increased impervious surface. It provides for natural
filtering of runoff.
L. By this Resolution, the Council provides direction that the highest priority
regarding code enforcement for illegal uses in the rights of way (other than for
uses which present a safety issue) should be given to abating structures which
create safety issues and to preventing new illegal uses in the rights of way.
M. By this Resolution, the Council also provides its direction for code enforcement
that those uses established since 1997 should receive a higher priority of
enforcement than those established prior to 1997. In 1997, the City Council
adopted a comprehensive update of the zoning code (PTMC Title 17, by
Ordinance 2571, adopted April 7, 1997) and the street and sidewalk code (PTMC
Title 12 by Ordinance 2578, adopted Apri121, 1997). There regulations
implemented the comprehensive plan the City adopted in 1996 pursuant to the
requirements of the Growth Management Act. The 1997 regulations did not
provide for any uses of the residential rights of way for private structures
(including fences). The Council approves the use of the date of April 21, 1997
(the latter of the above dates) as a date that may be used to prioritize enforcement
in regard to structures in the right of way. Uses established since that date would
have a higher code enforcement priority than uses established before that date.
N. For uses or structures that were established before 1997, the Council provides
direction that code enforcement would not be prioritized for these uses, so long as
the use or structure did not present a safety hazard, was removed if it interfered
with City improvements, did not interfere with views from street ends, was not
intensified, and was removed if the property redeveloped. Such structures could
receive normal maintenance and repair, but could not be re-constructed. The 1997
date serves as an appropriate date to prioritize enforcement because the 1997
zoning code clearly prohibits private structures in the right of way.
O. In providing direction on enforcement with respect to long-established uses (those
established prior to 1997), the Council is not condoning their existence or
continuation. The Council is only stating its preference and direction that, given
limited staff resources available for code enforcement, a higher priority regarding
code enforcement for illegal uses in the rights of way should be given to
eliminating more recent uses over more long-established uses.
P. In adopting this Resolution, and setting priorities for code enforcement, the
Council states it intends to re-visit this Resolution after it undertakes further
review of what private uses should be allowed in the rights of way.
Resolution 10-002
Code Enforcement PYiot^ities
Page 4 of 4
Q. The Council by this Resolution provides its direction for code enforcement
priorities relating to private uses and structures in the rights of way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Port Townsend as follows:
A. Given limited staff resources available for code enforcement, the City Council
provides direction for code enforcement priorities relating to private uses and structures
in the residential rights of way as set forth in the following list. A factor higher on the list
would have a higher priority than one lower on the list. More than one factor may apply
to any situation. These are guidelines only and would be varied as circumstances require.
Established uses do not refer to parking of vehicles, which are governed by parking codes
(not street use codes).
1. Illegal uses or structures that present a safety issue or hazard.
2. New or recent illegal uses or structures would have a higher priority than older
uses or structures.
3. Uses that were established after Apri121, 1997 would have a higher priority than
uses that were established before that date.
4. Structures or uses that interfere with views from street ends would have a higher
priority than those that do not.
5. Structures (other than fences) would have a higher priority than fences.
6. Fences would have a higher priority than excessive landscaping.
7. More egregious violations would have a higher priority than less egregious or de
minimus violations.
B. For uses or structures that were established before Apri121, 1997, the Council
provides direction that code enforcement would not be prioritized for these uses, so long
as the use or structure did not present a safety hazard, was removed if it interfered with
City improvements, did not interfere with views from street ends, was not intensified, and
was removed if the property redeveloped. Such structures could receive normal
maintenance and repair, but could not be re-constructed.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend at a regular
meeting thereof, held this first day of February 201
Michelle Sandoval, Mayor
Attest:
i' 1 ~, ,r_.... -,
Pamela Kolacy, MMC, City Cle
Approved as to form:
John P. Watts, City Attorney