BELOW are revisions to Plan Goals and Policies based on public comments on the PRELIMINARY DRAFT of the Plan.
7/14/09 - Verbatim comments from Pete Sullivan, County planner
RWIP Language Eliminated
“LAND USE POLICY B1 and LAND USE GOAL A
I don’t think RWIP* language is going to stay in because the RWIP process is on hold for many reasons outside of the community planning process and it would be inappropriate for us to form new policy on a program of the County that is still very much in the under-development stage and has a longer way to go. So, we thought it was on a faster timeline and as of now it’s not. It’s on its own timeline, so it wouldn’t be appropriate to keep RWIP language in [the Plan].”
*RWIP - Rural Wooded Incentive Program - County Land Use zoning under consideration for Kitsap County large land holdings - to provide incentives to land owners for preserving open space. Likely will entail allowing increased density (more homes) in areas in exchange for keeping open space. This impacts our area because of Pope Resources large local land holdings. Learn more HERE
“Gateway to Recreation” Eliminated (?)
“ECONOMIC POLICY A3
That’s the one where promoting Hansville as a recreation gateway. I think we need to take another look at that. I can be convinced both ways – that leaving Hansville as it is and promoting visitation to Hansville have positive effects for the community; just look at other places that have benefited from businesses adjacent to tourist attractions or, I shouldn’t even use that word, but a natural resource amenities and things like that can provide perhaps some desirable economic development for downtown Hansville. There’s two sides of a coin right there, but I don’t think we’ve done a sufficient job of taking the pulse fo the greater Hansville area citizens as to what it is they really want in terms of promoting this area or not promoting this area, so I think it’s premature at this time to leave a policy element like that in now and perhaps on another track through other GHAAC or outreach efforts, we can see what the people in the area really think about whether or not to promote this area. I didn’t think the Futures Profile did a sufficient or [I mean] the Futures Survey really geared in on that one essential question and that is becoming a more important question, especially as the parks in this area and movement up here is just becoming increasingly more valuable. So, I don’t think that language is going to stay in.”
Downtown/Village Master Plan – Wait for Norwegian Point Park Planning Process
“ECONOMIC GOAL A
That speaks to a potential downtown Master Plan and/or Village Core Plan including a cultural center, restaurant and those kind of things. I think we need to take a look at that too because, since Norwegian Point Park planning is so tied to the overall downtown or village center feel, we shouldn’t really specify what specific amenities or businesses or things of that nature we want to see there until Parks & Rec. has had their opportunity to complete the Norwegian Point Park planning process, so we can study the area more, but I don’t think we need to zero in on specific elements that we want to see until that process is done. We don’t want to be in conflict with their process.”
Single Zip Code Eliminated
“Also, the single zip code policy is gone.”
Filed under: Public Input
