Loading...
05/15/2000 - Work Study - MinutesPort Orchard, Washington May 15,2000 Council of the City of Port Orchard, Washington, called to order for a Study Session by Mayor Weatherill at 7:30 PM at City Hall, 216 Prospect Street. Council members present: John Clauson, Robert Geiger, Carolyn Powers, and Rick Wyatt. Staff present: City Engineer Curies, City Planner Wenman and Deputy Clerk Merlino. Mayor Wealherill opened the Council Study Session meeting turned meeting over to City Planner Wenman. City Planner Wenman stated the purpose of this Study Session is to discuss Growth Management issues in the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and Urban Joint Planning Areas (UJPA) and also discussion on the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council's (KRCC) process to amend the county-wide planning policies and KRCC's process to allocate future population to urban areas. City Planner Wenman gave a brief history of the Growth Management Act in Kitsap County, relative to the formation of Kitsap Region Coordinating Council and background in the development of the County-wide Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Wen man presented a handout (Attachment "A") depicting the projected Kitsap County's population estimates from 1960 to the year 2017. It was noted the Urban Growth Areas and population allocation include the city municipal boundaries and the urban areas that surround the cities. For the Port Orchard area, the population numbers were allocated to the entire UGA and not to the city. It was further noted that the City of Port Orchard was shown to accommodate approximately 2,300 more people by the year 2012. City Planner Wenman illustrated by use of an overhead the County-wide Comprehensive Plan and highlighted the Urban Reserve Areas. The Urban Reserve Areas are zoned by the County at a low density to be able to accommodate urban densities once that area is included in the Urban Growth Areas. The lands designated as Urban Reserve are located south of Sedgwick Road and between the Port Orchard and McCormick Woods UGA's. City Planner Wenman discussed the Urban Joint Planning Areas (UJPA) relative to Jnterlocal Agreements. Mr. Wenman stated the lnterloca/ Agreements were intended to provide a means to achieve coordinated planning efforts between Kitsap County and the city. It was pointed out that the negotiations for these lnterlocal Agreements were never competed. The County-wide Planning Policies which were adopted in 1992 were discussed. These are policy guidelines for growth management in Kitsap County. They are being reviewed by the jurisdictions in an effort to amend them. Richard A. Brown, local real estate agent, called for the city to become more active in the Sidney/Sedgwick area and to include this area in the study being prepared for the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area. Jim Tracy, Land Use Attorney addressed Council and stressed the need for the city to focus on the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area, which is a Joint Planning Area of the city and Kitsap County. Mr. Tracy also stated that the city should be concerned that Kitsap County Planning is focusing on their rural sub-areas, rather than on a County-wide focus or resolving issues associated with the joint planning areas. May 15,2000 Page Two of Two Ron Rice, adjacent property owner located at Sidney/Sedgwick intersection, asked if the city received any provision for matching funds regarding Growth Management Act. Mayor Weatherill advised the Growth Management Act is mandated by state, but no grant funds are available at this time. In conclusion, City Planner Wenman stressed the importance of the City becoming proactive in their pursuit regarding the County-wide Planning Policies. The Study Session adjourned at 9:20 PM ~~ LESLIE J. WEATHERILL, MAYOR ~~ Michelle Merlino, Deputy City Clerk Council Study Session May 15th I. Background history of GMA in Kitsap County • Formation of KRCC - County-wide Planning Policies Population Allocations May 15, 2000 Attachment "A" • County-wide Comprehensive Plan versions: 1994, 1996, 1998* (*The 1994 and 1996 County-wide Plans were Invalidated by the Growth Management Hearings Board. The 1998 Plan was found to be in compliance, with an order to address issues regarding the County's Capital Facility Plan andre: the Port Gamble UGA. The County Plan is now in full-compliance. ) II. Urban Growth Areas/Population Allocations Includes the City municipal boundaries, and the areas surrounding the cities that are urban in character, or needed to accommodate 20 years of anticipated growth. General Policy of 2/3rds of the 20 yr. projected pop. should be located in the designated urban growth areas. Total anticipated population to be allocated by year 2012 is 62,824. No specific population number was allocated to Port Orchard, only to the South Port Orchard U GA. (Port Orchard has determined that they should plan to accommodate 2,300 people by 2012 within the city limits. ) No additional population has been allocated beyond the year 2012, pending new census population numbers, and completion of Buildable Lands Inventory work. (The KRCC has the ability to not allocate any additional population for 2017, and still keep within the range of population supported by the OFM numbers for 2012. *) * See attached population projection table. Urban Reserve (UR) Land likely needed to accommodate future growth is designated as "Urban Reserve". These lands are zoned at a low density to preserve the option to be able to accommodate urban densities once converted to an Urban Growth Area designation. (Lands designated as Urban Reserve are found south of Sedgewick Rd., and surrounding McCormick Woods) III. Urban Joint Planning Areas/Inter-local Agreements • Areas generally contiguous or adjacent to cities, which have been proposed by the city for inclusion in a city's UGA; as necessary to accommodate the growth of the city. • The UJPA is applied on the map for areas that are: 1. Designated as an UGA that would be beneficial to the adjacent city to address specific issues; and, to 2. Lands that are provisionally considered for inclusion to the UGA and mutual interest to the adjacent city. Council Study Session May 15,2000 Inter-jurisdictional Agreements for Urban Growth Areas May 15, 2000 Attachment "A" • The UJP A is intended to provide for inter-local agreements as a means to achieve coordinated planning between the county and city. • The Co. Comp. Plan states: No annexation of UJPAs will occur until completion of the joint plan and inter-local agreement. (lhe joint plan and inter-local agreement may be incorporated and embodied in the same document.) • It is assumed that additional planning is necessary to determine more specifically how each particular area should be configured, designed, serviced, fmanced, or governed. (The Anderson Hill/Berry Lake Study has been initiated to help sort through some of these issues. Issues to be addressed. may include protection of critical areas, plans for services and capital facilities, population to be allocated and anticipated densities) Inter-local Agreements may provide for: • Reciprocal notification of development proposals, as an opportunity to review and propose mitigation measures for impacts to services/facilities, or to adjacent land uses. • Level of Service Standards for Capital Facilities, i.e. roads, parks, utilities, etc.; • Revenue Sharing Agreements; • Standards for Development, i.e. roads, zoning, building/site design. • Capital Improvement Programming, i.e. Community facilities, roads, utilities • Strategies for Economic Development/Employment, i.e. S.K.I.A. IV. Process to Amend the County-wide Planning Policies Countywide Planning Policies were adopted in 1992 as policy guidelines for growth management in Kitsap County. The Countywide Planning Policies address: • The establishment of urban growth areas, including Kitsap County population forecasts and subarea allocations. • Promoting contiguous and orderly development and the provision of governmental services to such development. • Siting public capital facilities that are Countywide or Statewide in nature. • Countywide strategies for transportation facilities & services. • The need for affordable housing. • Coordination of planning by affected jurisdictions in urban growth areas. • Countywide economic development. • An analysis of the fiscal impact. • Coordination with tribal governments and federal government. • The role and responsibility of each member agency of the Council and special districts (including sewer, water, port and fire) in growth management and land use planning. • New fully contained communities and master planned resorts. 2 Council Study Session May 15,2000 Timeline to Amend other Portions of the County-wide Planning Policies: May 15, 2000 Attachment "A" The process to amend the CPP's will result in a rough draft by this fall and ratification by the local officials by February, 2001. The CPP' s will then be sent on to PSRC for certification February, 3'd week, 2001. PSRC is expected to adopt their Regional Update late March, 2001. (see attachment) Population Allocations At the reco=endation of the regional Planning Directors to the KRCC, the population allocation discussion has been put on-hold. At this time, the KRCC has agreed to wait for the updated OFM population numbers, and results of the Buildable Lands Inventory work prior to allocating any additional population. This work is dependent upon OFM and the Census numbers, which won't be available till most- likely the end of year 2001. As agreed upon, each jurisdiction has the ability to address the KRCC to allocate a portion of the anticipated 2017 population.* KRCC will consider allocating populations based upon results of planning studies underway up to the end of this year. * It is possible that with mounting pressures by jurisdictions that KRCC may support the allocation of population prior to the Buildable Lands Inventory work, based upon jurisdictions that do the work locally. The debate will still be how much work is enough to get the support of the KRCC. V. Other Regional Planning Studies Underway: • Suquarnmish Conununity Plan (AMIRD) -completed in 1999, not dependent upon an urban population allocation; • Kingston Sub Area Plan (UGA) -underway, population to be allocated; • Port Gamble Conununity Plan (AMIRD) -completed, not dependent upon an urban population allocation; • Manchester Conununity Plan (AMIRD) -underway, not dependent upon an urban population allocation; • Port Blakely Sub Area Plan (Indnstrial/Employment Center) -underway, population is a component of plan; • South Kitsap Industrial Area (Industrial/Employment Center) -underway, population is already allocated. • · Berry Lake/ Anderson Hill Study Area -may become a UGA, dependent upon population allocation 3 KITSAP REGIONAL May 15, 2000 : Attachment "A" COORDINATING' COUNCIL Updating the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Suggested Approach ancorporating Changes made at March 16, 2000 Planning Directors Wotk Gtoup Meeting) i Work on Various Topic Areas: March to August 2000 • By sub-committees, with planning directors involved May 23 or 25, 2000 (?): KRCC I • Monthly meetings of committee chairs & directors to provide sponsors overview meeting 1 I coordination & r<view inviting all Planning I • KRCC to coordinate meetings and work progress, info Commissioners and City Council assembly & scribe members· L See attached schedule pa:.e 2 l Synthesizing Process: I • Planning directors & committee chairs integrate draft material August ( • 30, 2000 \ into single package for KRCC • Identify SEP A review process I Note: additional work by subcommittees could be required for early ' fall ! Draft Countywide Policies for initial comment: To KRCC Policy Board: I : KRCC Policy Board September 6, 2000 All Kitsap jurisdictions, planning commissions. other I agencies, tribes Comments thru Oct. I I I Revisions bv Oct. 25 I Dovelop KRCC Recorrunended Version To KRCC Policy Board. November I, 2000 I Begin review process· November/December, 2000 I • Public Review i : SEPA DCTED (overlapping process wtlh other review is acceptable) l . PSRC ! Adoption (& Ratification) Process January/February 2001 I • Fmal r~visions made based on public and agency review . . KRCC takes final action & transmits to jurisdictions to ratify ! • Jurisdictions ratify I • Transmittal to PSRC for Certification (Feb 3rd week, 2001) j PSRC Certification March 2001 L PSRC Adoprs Regional Update Late March, 2 00 1 ~ . , 'I MARY McCI..URE. Pl'ltOGRAM 0JRE'C::TOR 25406 SOUTH KINGSTON ROAO, KlNOSTo~WA 98346 (360) 377·4900' ·. FAX: (360) 297-776Z www. Kl TSA p Rl GIONA I. c ou N c 11..0 1<.0 ' May 15, 2000 KITSAP REGIONAL Attachment "A" COORDINATING' COUNCIL Segment Would/Could Include: Notes: First Draft Com_plete bv: Transportation Seven policy areas KRCC TransTAC to propose June 15r policies ...lv-.1...;_ i ·--Rural Areas Establishing & maintaining rural Kitsap County to propose levels of service policies August I I "Pastoral areas" concept for consideration ! UGA's Designation process Sub-committee to include I Joint planning public works and planning Centers concept See below for suggested · July I committee compos/lion Contiguous & Annexation: procedures and Meetings: May 18 1:00-S:OO , Orderly gro\\th revenue sharing June 15 I :00 , 5:00 ~ l Rural service provisions June 28 1:00-S:OO Phasing_ concepts : Economic Telecommunications policy KRCC mail to KRCC 1 Development Compact corrununiti<s -ECC-Economic DeYelopment June l ! Work Group to request written comments (meeting in June if needed) J Housing KRCC mail to KCCHA, I Bremerton HA and BIHA to June I request written comments (meertng in June if needed) i Capital Facilities I Open Space I Kitsap County to propose August I policy language I !Uttification process KRCC Organization I Update process (e g. could be tied Committee to propose policy I to City/County Comp Plan update approaches to Planning August l J I cycle) Directors Forum RoleofKRCC Proposed Commiltee. Composition: Public Works & Planning staff from Kits<.~p County and four cities "to planning representative of Tribes and Port of Bremerton e.g .. (some or others, as per eachjurisdicti<m) Bmce Freelnnd John Yodopich Randy Casteel Dave Smith Glenn Gross Bill Duffy John Stephenson Rob Wenman Larrv Curies ' Phil Berry Bill Palmer Gen~ Sampley Randy Witt Stephanie Warren Jeff Jensen Ken Attebery Phil Dorn Scott Crowell . , :I MARY MCCL.UFte. PROGRAM 01FtECTOR 25406 SOUTH KINGSTON ROAD, KINOSTON WA S8346 (360) 377-4900: FAX:.(360) 2S7-7762 WWW.KITSAPREQIONALCOUNCIL.ORO : Kitsap County Population OFM Estimates 1960 to 1998 1961 to 1998 annual average OFM High Series Population projections 2001-2020 annual average 2.70% 2.00% OFM Medium Series Population projections 2001-2020 annual average 1978 to 1998 annual average 1.63% 2.81% OFM Low Series Population projections 2001-2020 annual average 1.10% 1962 to 1998 annual averaqe 1974 to 1981 annual average 2.31% 5.57% 93 to 98 annual average 1.82% 2017 PoPulation Projection at. 1.6% annual increase 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 229,000 233,122 237,318 241,590 245,939 250,365 254,872 259,460 264,130 268,884 273,724 278,651 283,667 288,773 2017 Population Projection ::!I 1.5% annual increase 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010. 2011 229,000 232,435 235,922 239,460 243,052. 246,698 250,399 254,154 257,967 261,836 265,784 269,750 273,797 277,904 · 2017 Population Projection at 1.3% annual increase 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 • 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 229,000 231,977 234,993 238,046 241,142 244,277 247,453 250,670 253,928 257,229 260,573 263,961 267,392 270,868 Kitsan countv Pooula!iQo E~iroal~ j£!20 12 :1S9~ Census Census 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1966 1969 1970 1971 1972 Resident Population 84,176 85,500 86,700 87,400 86,100 89,600 91,600 93,300 96,200 103,000 101,732 100,100 99,600 196il-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 197Q-71 1971-72 Annual Change 1,324 1,200 700 700 1,700 1,800 1,700 2,900 6,600 (1 ,268) (1,632) (500) Annual Percent Change 1.57% 1.40% 0.81% 0.80% 1.93% 2.00% 1.86% 3.11% 7.07% -1.23% -1.60% ..0.50% Census Census 1960 1981 1962 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Resident Population 147,152 155,660 156,730 161,021 163,495 166,709 167,429 172,008 179,365 183,150 189,731 196,500 205,600 1979-80 1980-61 1981-1!2 1962-63 1963-84 1984-85 1965-86 1966-67 1967-1!8 1968-89 1989-90 1990.91 1991-92 Annual Change 9,352 8,508 1,070 4,291 2,474 5,214 (1,279) 4,578 7,358 3,785 6,581 6,769 9,100 Annual Percent Change 6.79% 5.78% 0.69% 2.74% 1.54% 3.19% -o.76% 2.73% 4.28% 2.11% 3.59% 3.57% 4.63% 1·. May 15, 2000 Attachtnent "A" QEM High Medium Low 2012 2013 2014 293,971 299,262 304,649 2012 2013 2014 282,072 286,303 290,598 2012 2013 2014 274,390 277,957 281,570 1973 1974 1975 101,000 105,900 116,090 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1,400 4,900 10,190 1.41% 4.85%. 9.62% 1993 1994 1995 210,000 213,200 220,600 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 4,400 3,200 7,400 2.14% 1.52% 3.47% I \ J 2ll1l 350,762 322,284 2a6,950 l" op c. he-'""" "' 1Cf<t5 _u;>,, 2015 2016 2017 '1'2; 3'l'l' 310,133 315,715 321,398 / 2015 2016 20,17 71{1 '67-z::--"'i :.Zol' 294,957 2!19,381 303,872 2-l,<:,oo Z.OI'Z·Zc 2015 2016 2017 G,), (o'l5 2ll5,231 286,939 292,695 = 1976 1977 1978 1979 121,600 128,300 131,700 . 137,800 19{5-76 1976'77 1977-76 1976-79 5,510 6,700 3,400 6,100 4.75% 5.51% 2.65% 4.63% 1996 1997 1996 224,700 229,400 229,000 19P5·96 1!i96-97 1997-98 4,100 4,700 (400) 1.86% 2.09% -0.17% 4!16/99