|
Gilbert, governing development review in
<br />the urban fringe area. For example, the cities
<br />agree to waive their extraterritorial review
<br />of subdivisions in rural and agriculturally
<br />zoned areas, while the county agrees to
<br />waive its review of subdivisions in the urban
<br />services area. The result should be a stream-
<br />lined, less redundant approval process.
<br />WASHINGTON: GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREAS
<br />The agreements discussed above have a
<br />somewhat improvised quality, since they
<br />exist without an overarching state policy
<br />framework. Such a framework can be found
<br />within those states that have actively pro-
<br />moted growth management. UnderWashing-
<br />ton's Growth Management Act (GMA), high -
<br />growth counties work with cities to define
<br />their population distributions and the cities'
<br />Urban Growth Areas (UGAs).
<br />Underthe GMA, counties are responsible
<br />for choosing a reasonable 2o-year population
<br />growth allocation within the range of high and '
<br />low projections prepared by the state's Office
<br />of Financial Management. Within each county,
<br />the affected local jurisdictions must work out
<br />their own population as part of the regional
<br />planning process. Cities define their UGAs and
<br />must be prepared to ultimately serve these
<br />areas with utilities. However, the GMA states
<br />that while cities must propose urban growth
<br />areas, counties are ultimately responsible for
<br />designating those areas. This process, not
<br />surprisingly, can be challenging.
<br />Poulsbo
<br />One example of collaborative city- county
<br />planning is that between the city of Poulsbo
<br />and Kitsap County, located on the Olympic
<br />Peninsula on the west side of Puget Sound.
<br />Poulsbo is a small city, 18 miles by road and
<br />ferry from Seattle, with a charming small -
<br />scale downtown that reflects its strong
<br />REFERENCES
<br />City of Ames, Iowa. 2006. Ames Urban Fringe Plan.
<br />Available at http://www.cityofames.org/mod-
<br />u les /sh owd ocu m ent. as px ?d ocu m e nti d =
<br />City of Poulsbo, Washington. 2009. Comprehensive
<br />Plan. Available at http: //www.cityofpoulsbo
<br />.com/ planning / pia nn i ng_com p_plan. htm.
<br />See Chapter 2, Land Use.
<br />Kitsap County, Washington. 2001. Poulsbo Sub -
<br />Area Plan. Available at http: / /www.kitsapgov
<br />.com /dcd / com m u n ity_pla n /subareas/
<br />po u lsbo / p b -plan -web. pd f.
<br />League of Minnesota Cities. 2011. Handbook for
<br />Minnesota Cities. Available at http: / /www.
<br />lmc.org /page /1 /resource - library- search-
<br />results.jsp.
<br />Norwegian heritage. Beginning in 1998,
<br />Poulsbo and Kitsap County began develop-
<br />ing a subarea plan for the city's UGA with
<br />the goal of defining a 2o-year framework for
<br />annexations and urban services extensions.
<br />The plan, controversial at the time, was ad-
<br />opted in 2001 and has functioned effectively
<br />in conjunction with phased annexations to
<br />manage growth within the UGA.
<br />As the city's comprehensive plan
<br />explains:
<br />The Growth Management Act (GMA) makes
<br />annexations a part of the overall planning
<br />process and essentially eliminates much of
<br />the annexation decision- making process in
<br />cities because planning for growth occurs
<br />earlier, during the formation of the Urban
<br />Growth Area boundaries and the develop-
<br />ment of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
<br />decision about annexation is not whether
<br />to annex, but rather when. Important fac-
<br />tors that may influence the timing of an-
<br />nexation include population growth, the
<br />city's ability to provide urban services in
<br />a proposed area, and the current housing
<br />and economic market.
<br />The city defined a series of i8 annexation
<br />areas, alt of which were annexed sequentially
<br />during the 1996 -2011 period. The remaining
<br />land within the UGA is governed by a combina-
<br />tion of county and city standards; the city's zon-
<br />ing districts and the county's administrative and
<br />development review procedures apply. Much
<br />of this area is zoned as the city's "Residential
<br />Low" district, at four to five units per acre, and
<br />although the majority of it is currently split into
<br />larger semirurat lots, a majority of these lots
<br />remain in rural land uses or undeveloped.
<br />How can these areas be serviced with
<br />utilities while remaining outside the city
<br />boundary? The answer, according to Barry
<br />Berezowsky, Poulsbo's planning director, is
<br />that essentially they can't—the city requires
<br />Spokane County (Washington) et al. 2009. Collab-
<br />orative Planning: Implementation in Spokane
<br />County's Metro Urban Growth Area. Available
<br />at http: / /www.spokanecounty.org /boundary/
<br />co ntent. as px ?c =1434•
<br />Examples ofOrderlyAnnexation, Joint Planning
<br />Boards, and Interlacal Agreements
<br />City of Ames, Iowa. 28EAgreement Ames, Gilbert,
<br />and Story County. http: / /www.cityofames.org/
<br />i n d ex. aspx ?p age -1323.
<br />City of Mankato, Minnesota. Annexation Agree -
<br />ments. See http: / /www.mankato- mn.gov/
<br />PlanningAndZoning /Annexation.aspx.
<br />City of Mason City, Iowa. Zoning and Subdivision
<br />Ordinances. See http:/ /www.masoncity.net/
<br />pView.aspx ?id- 1356 &catid =58.
<br />annexation prior to extension of water,
<br />sewer, and solid waste services. In other
<br />words, the UGA primarily functions as an
<br />urban reserve prior to annexation --a pro-
<br />cess that is generally initiated by landowner
<br />petition. Land can be developed without
<br />annexation into the city, but only at rural
<br />densities or on existing legal lots of record.
<br />So, for all intents and purposes, an efficient
<br />development pattern requires annexation.
<br />Perhaps the most salient feature of the
<br />UGA is its relatively small size. Prior to the
<br />city's recent annexations the unincorporated
<br />portion was about 1,200 acres, and in 2011
<br />it was 376 gross acres. Therefore, approxi-
<br />mately 824 acres have been annexed into
<br />the City of Poulsbo. The capacity analysis
<br />conducted by the city in its 2009 Compre-
<br />hensive Plan update concluded that only 119
<br />of the remaining 376 acres are developable.
<br />Poulsbo uses a variety of smart growth
<br />techniques or, as the city calls them, "reason-
<br />able measures" to prevent unnecessary ex-
<br />pansion of the UGA. These include maximum
<br />lot sizes, accessory dwelling units, cottage
<br />housing, and mixed housing types to achieve
<br />urban densities while preserving the city's
<br />small -town character. In fact, as of 2009, the
<br />average net residential density for new devel-
<br />opment within the city was about seven units
<br />per acre. The city's 2009 Comprehensive Plan
<br />was awarded a VISION 2040 award from the
<br />Puget Sound Regional Council and the 2011
<br />Governor's Smart Communities Award for
<br />Comprehensive Planning.
<br />Berezowsky reports that while the eco-
<br />nomic downturn has reduced the pressure
<br />for annexations, the city continues to see
<br />considerable development activity within
<br />its current boundaries, including infill and
<br />redevelopment. The next review of the UGA
<br />is scheduled for 2013, through a coordinated
<br />process with Kitsap County.
<br />City of Poulsbo, Washington. Annexation Informa-
<br />tion. See http://www.cityofpoulsbo.com/plan-
<br />ni ng /planning_an nexations. htm.
<br />City of Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. Orderly Annexation
<br />Areas /JointPlanning Boards. See http : / /www
<br />.ci.sauk- rapids.mn.us/ under "Orderly Annexa-
<br />tion Areas."
<br />Greater Bemidji (Minnesota) Area Joint Planning
<br />Board. See www.jpbgba.org, "Zoning Ordi-
<br />nance, Maps and Agreements."
<br />Linn County, Iowa. City /County Strategic Plans and
<br />Village Plans. www.linncounty.org /content
<br />.asp ?Page_id =1o85 &Dept_Id =25.
<br />Snohomish County, Washington. Snohomish County
<br />Tomorrow: A Growth ManagementAdvisory Council.
<br />wwwi.co.snohomish.wa.us/County_Setvices/SCT.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 1.12
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (page 6
<br />
|