Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2992 Interim Regulations - Overlay/Special Height Overlay District ZoningOrdinance No. 2992 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO LAND USE AND ZONING, ADOPTING INTERIM REGULATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IN CHAPTER 17.26 AND THE SPECIAL HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT IN CHAPTER 17.28, AND PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING APPLY IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN; AND PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF THE INTERIM REGULATIONS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION OF INTERIM REGULATIONS RECITALS: 1. Two provisions of the PTMC relating to overlay zoning and building height limits are in conflict. Pending review of the matter, the Council determines to adopt interim regulations that set height limits based on the more restrictive of the height limits in the underlying zone or the height overlay district, with the exception that the interim regulation should not apply to a pending development proposal. 2. Chapter 17.26 -Overlay District and Chapter 17.28 -Special Height Overlay District are in conflict. Chapter 17.26 -Overlay District of the PTMC, originally adopted by Ordinance 2216 in 1990 and re-adopted in Ordinance 2571 (1997) provides in part that "In any case where the provisions of an overlay district conflict with the provisions of the underlying zone, the overlay district provisions shall apply." PTMC 17.26.020. 4. Chapter 17.28 -Special Height Overlay District of the PTMC, also originally adopted by Ordinance 2216 in 1990 re-adopted in Ordinance 2571 (1997), provides for height limits for certain blocks and lots in the Original Townsite of Port Townsend, which limits are generally less that the height limit allowed by the underlying zoning, and provides that: "In any case where the provisions of the special height overlay district conflict with the provisions of an underlying zone, the more restrictive height limitation shall apply." PTMC 17.28.040. 5. There are only two instances where the height limits for private (non-public) property in the Chapter 17.28 -Special Height Overlay District provide for a Page 1 Ordinance 2992 height limit greater than the underlying zone. In all other instances, the height limits for private (non-public) property in Chapter 17.28 -Special Height Overlay District provide for a height limit less than the underlying zone. 6. The two instances where private property has greater limits in the Chapter 17.28 - Special Height Overlay District than the underlying zone are as follows: For Block 93, C-II is the underlying zoning with a height limit of 35.' The height limit for Block 93 in the Special Height Overlay District is 43'. For Block 100, R-II is the underlying zoning with a height limit of 35'. The height limit fox Block 100 in the Special Height Overlay District is 43'. If the provision cited above in PTMC 17.28.040 (Special Height Overlay District) were applied to determine height limits, the height limit in the underlying zoning would prevail (namely, 35' for both Blocks 93 and 100). If the provision cited above in PTMC 17.26.020 (Overlay District) were applied, the height limit in the Special Height Overlay District would apply (namely, 43'). 8. The intent of the above provisions may have been that the height limits in the Special Height Overlay District would apply, even if the limit was greater than the underlying zone. 9. However, if this result were applied to Block 100, zoned residential (with a 35' height limit in the zoning code), then Block 100 would be the only residential property in the City with a special height limit above the underlying zoning (in this case, 43' per the overlay). The City Council determines that if this is the result, it was likely a mistake when adopted and would be a mistake if applied now. 10. The purpose of the Special Height Overlay District in Chapter 17.28 was to "protect the visual and physical prominence of the bluff which is a unique and dominant land form of the city." PTMC 17.28.010. The Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan, adopted by the City Council in 1990, and incorporated by reference into the City's GMA comprehensive plan adopted by Ordinance 2539 (1996), adopted polices and guidelines relating to view corridors: "View corridors identified in the Waterfront Plan should be maintained ...." Design Guidelines, City Connection, 2.2 View Corridor, page 67. "Designs shall protect views to the water and the Bluff through compliance with the Shoreline Master Plan, the Special Height Overlay District Regulations set forth in Chapter 17.yy of this Code, and the other design guidelines established in this chapter". Guideline, p. 67. The map at page 67 in the Waterfront Plan shows view corridors to be protected. One corridor is from a point where the bluff intersects Monroe Street (between Franklin and Clay Streets) extending both generally southerly (across Memorial field) and easterly (generally, to the north of the buildings in Block 93 (Old Navy Building, Fleet Marine). Page 2 Ordfnance 2992 11. Block 100 sits in part at an elevation higher up on Monroe Street than Block 93. Block 100 is generally within the view corridor identified on the map in the Waterfront Plan, that is, development on Block 100 interferes with the identified view corridor in the Waterfront Plan. To allow Block 100 a higher height limit than the limit applicable to residential zones would increase view blockage, and is therefore inconsistent with the purpose of the Special Height Overlay District (to "protect the visual and physical prominence of the bluff..." and to protect view corridors.) It is unlikely the City Council in 1990 and 1997 intended to single out one block of residentially zoned property from all the residentially-zoned property adjacent to the downtown area, and grant it a special height limit increase in an ordinance and plan that were designed to protect views. 12. On the other hand, to allow Block 93 (adjacent to Block 100 but lower in elevation) to have a height limit of 43' as identified in the Special Height Overlay District does not block views identified for protection in the Waterfront Plan. It maybe that the City Council in 1990 and 1997 believed Block 93 had a zoning height limit of 50' (the height limit for C-III-Historic Commercial), and that the height overlay of 43' actually limited the height for Block 93. The Council takes note that the height of the Old Navy Building (in Block 93) is approximately 43', so allowing other development on Block 93 to be limited to 43' would be consistent with existing development. On the other hand, allowing a height limit of 43' for Block 100 (the residential property) represents an increase in height over existing development in Block 100. 13. It is unlikely that the City Council in adopting Ordinance 2571 in 1997 intended to grant a special height limit above the zoning code height to only one block of residential property in the City, particularly where to do so would increase view blockage contrary to the purpose of the Special Height Overlay District. Likely, Block 100 was included in the Special Height Overlay District by error. 14. The Council determines to review, and to hold public hearings to obtain testimony and evidence from the public, on the situations in the zoning code where the height allowed in the Special Height Overlay District is greater than the underlying zoning, as is the case for Blocks 93 and 100 (privately owned), and other lots and blocks that are in public ownership. 15. The City needs additional time to consider properly and carefully review these situations and the potential effects of allowing building heights to exceed building heights allowed by the underlying zoning. 16. While the review is pending, the Council determines it is appropriate to preserve the status quo and to prevent the vesting of any new applications for development with a height greater than the underlying zone that are or maybe inconsistent with the City's comprehensive plan or the outcome of the pending planning effort, with Page 3 Ordinance 2992 the exception that a pending development proposal for Block 93 should not be affected by the interim regulation. 17. The pending development proposal on Block 93 is for construction of a new 43' high marine trades manufacturing building. It would be unfair to apply the interim ordinance to this applicafion and owner, who relied on the overlay height (43') and based development plans on these provisions. 18. While the Council reviews the appropriateness of height limits that exceed building heights allowed by the underlying zoning, the Council determines it appropriate to limit new applications for development on Block 93 that exceed the underlying zoning, except for the pending proposal which is underway. 19. RCW 35A.63.220 relating to Code cities like Port Townsend and 36.70A.390, a section of the Growth Management Act (Ch. 36.70), authorizes the City to adopt interim regulations to preserve the status quo while new plans or regulations are considered and prepared. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWN5END, WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Interim Regulation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter 17.26 PTMC -Overlay District or Chapter 17.28 -Special Height Overlay District, the City Council hereby imposes an immediate six-month interim regulation and prohibition on the acceptance of permit applications for any development that exceeds the height limit of the underlying zoning district, except as set forth in Section 7. Where the height limits in the Special Height Overlay District are less than the height limit in the underlying zoning district, the more restrictive height limitation shall apply. All such applications that conflict with this section shall be rejected and returned to the applicant. Section 2. Pumose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to allow the City time to consider properly and carefully review the conflict in the zoning code and the potential effects of allowing building heights to exceed building heights allowed by the underlying zoning. Additional time is needed to fully explore the options available to the City. Section 3. Duration of Interim Regulation. The interim regulations imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the interim regulations and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the interim regulations (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), the interim regulations shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, Page 4 Ordinance 2992 or at the time all of the tasks described herein have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the interim regulations by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred. Section 4. Public Hearine on Interim Reeulations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.22Q the City Council shall hold a public hearing on these interim regulations within sixty (60) days of its adoption. Immediately after the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of these interim regulations and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the interim regulations. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Declaration of Emer ency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council. Without immediate interim regulations on the City's acceptance of applications as set forth in this Ordinance, such applications could become vested, leading to development that could be incompatible with the codes eventually adopted by the City. Therefore, the interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of applications to the City in an attempt to vest rights for an indefinite period of time. Section 7. Vested Rishts; Pending Development Proposal. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights, and does not affect the pending development proposal by Sea Marine, LLC, for construction of a 6,912 SF boat repair/construction building at the Sea Marine site as identified in documents already submitted to the City, which may proceed with processing and development. Any changes of use of the building is not allowed unless it conforms to the height limits of the underlying zone. Section 8. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 6, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. Page ~ Ordinance ?992 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a regular meeting thereof, held this sixth day of October 2008. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, MMC, City Clerk Michelle Sandoval, Mayor Approved as to Form: f .~~ C John P. Watts, City Attorney Page 6 Ordinance 299?