|
Snohomish County
<br />Other regions in Washington have formulated
<br />their own approaches to cross- boundary coor-
<br />dination. Snohomish County, on the east side
<br />of Puget Sound north of Seattle, established an
<br />interjurisdictional forum, Snohomish County
<br />Tomorrow (KT) in 1989 to respond to growth
<br />pressures and establish a regional growth
<br />management framework. SCT, which includes
<br />cities, towns, and the Tulalip Tribes, gradually
<br />assumed responsibility for developing the
<br />countywide planning policies required by the
<br />GMA and continues to serve as an indispens-
<br />able venue for discussing regional issues.
<br />SCT is currently engaged in an update of the
<br />countywide policies within the larger frame-
<br />work of the Puget Sound Regional Council's
<br />Vision 2040 plan.
<br />The county has established a series of
<br />interlocal annexation agreements with many
<br />of the cities that establish policies in areas
<br />such as development review, transportation
<br />improvements, and mitigation of impacts to
<br />either or both jurisdictions.
<br />Spokane County
<br />Spokane County, which includes the city of
<br />Spokane and a cluster of smaller satellite
<br />cities, undertook an intensive effort in 2006
<br />to encourage collaborative planning. A lack
<br />of interlocal agreements in the region had
<br />resulted in annexation disputes and pending
<br />lawsuits. A state grant led to a pilot project
<br />to examine the degree of consistency and
<br />conflict found in the land -use regulations
<br />and development practices ofthe adjacent
<br />jurisdictions. The study found that while the
<br />neighboring jurisdictions used generally
<br />consistent densities and zoning categories,
<br />inconsistent subdivision regulations and
<br />street standards resulted in differing street
<br />patterns, from more urban grids to more sub-
<br />urban cul -de -sacs and private roads. It also
<br />found that the process for reviewing applica-
<br />tions rarely considered the standards and
<br />requirements of neighboring jurisdictions.
<br />Spokane County and the participating cit-
<br />ies agreed in 2008 to collaborate on a second
<br />phase ofthe study. As part of that effort, partic-
<br />ipants examined the fiscal impacts ofannexa-
<br />tions on the county's revenues and delivery of
<br />services. Implementation of the study's rec-
<br />ommendations is now underway. The county
<br />has revised its subdivision standards to foster
<br />consistent road design and street connectiv-
<br />ity. Several interlocal agreements have been
<br />negotiated, including an agreement on a set of
<br />principles for collaborative planning. The most
<br />significant issue for the county has been the
<br />pending annexation of Spokane International
<br />Airport by the cities of Spokane and Airway
<br />Heights. Through an interlocal agreement,
<br />the annexation was postponed until 2012 to
<br />mitigate the impacts to county revenues. The
<br />participants are also considering options for
<br />maintaining the county's fiscal health by elimi-
<br />nating overlaps with city services and possibly
<br />through revenue sharing.
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />This brief survey has traced a path from Min-
<br />nesota, a state that manages the annexation
<br />process without much encouragement of
<br />cross- boundary planning, to Iowa, which
<br />encourages a broad range of intergovern-
<br />mental agreements without a regional plan-
<br />ning structure, to Washington, which ac-
<br />tively manages growth, giving counties the
<br />final say on the urban growth boundaries.
<br />While none of these processes are free from
<br />controversy, it appears that the stronger the
<br />regional framework, the better the chances
<br />of an outcome that is based on verifiable
<br />data and sound planning principles.
<br />While few states have gone as far as
<br />Washington in establishing a framework for
<br />growth management, or in assigning deci-
<br />sion- making powers to counties, improved
<br />cross - boundary planning could be achieved
<br />in any region through a number of steps:
<br />O Enabling and encouraging interlocal agree-
<br />ments between neighboring jurisdictions
<br />• Providing models for such agreements
<br />and assistance in developing them
<br />• Providing incentives for coordination, such
<br />as priorities for funding or technical assistance
<br />O Establishing criteria for urban growth
<br />areas that are based on reasonable regional
<br />population and employment projections,
<br />rather than optimistic expectations
<br />O Striving for consistency with urban devel-
<br />opment standards, particularly in street and
<br />block standards, for areas slated for even-
<br />tual annexation
<br />VOL. 29, NO.
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $95 (U.S.) and $12o (foreign).
<br />W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Chief Executive Officer;
<br />William R. Klein, Arcp, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548- -0135) is produced
<br />at APA. Jim Schwab, MCP, and David Morley, AICP,
<br />Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor;
<br />Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact
<br />Customer Service, American Planning Association,
<br />205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago,
<br />IL 60601 (312- 431 -9100 or customerservice©
<br />planning.org) within 90 days of the publication
<br />date. Include the name of the publication, year,
<br />volume and issue number or month, and your
<br />name, mailing address, and membership number
<br />if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©2012 by American Planning
<br />Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave,, Suite 1200,
<br />Chicago, IL 60601 --5927 The American Planning
<br />Association also has offices at 103015th St., NW,
<br />Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005-1503;
<br />www.ptanning.org.
<br />AR rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
<br />any means, electronic or mechanical, including
<br />photocopying, recording, or by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system, without permission
<br />in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50 -7o%
<br />recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 1.12
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipagc 7
<br />
|