HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 04-007-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04- 00% -CC
An Ordinance Relating to Comprehensive Planning for Grant County in Accordance
with the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, Chapter 43.21.0 RCW), and the Final Decisions and
Orders of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; Amending
and Adopting Growth Management Act compliant Rural Areas of More Intensive
Development (RAIDs);
WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law
the Growth Management Act (GMA) as contained in SHB No. 2929 (Washington Laws, 1990 1" Ex.
Sess., Ch17), which was subsequently codified as, among other chapters, Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack
of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a
threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of
life enjoyed by residents of the state; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities in the
state to do some planning and the fastest growing counties, and the cities within them, to plan extensively
in keeping with state goals on: sprawl reduction, affordable housing, economic development, open space
and recreation, shoreline management, environmentally sensitive and natural resource areas, regional
transportation, environmental protection, properly rights, natural resource industries, historic lands and
buildings, permit processing, public facilities and services, and early and continuous public participation;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A RCW requires Grant County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that
meets specified GMA goals and addresses the mandated GMA elements; and
WHEREAS, Grant County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in October 1999 and a Unified
Development Code (development regulations) in October 2000, pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the GMA permits the creation of certain intensive development in the rural areas of
the County as part of GMA-compliant zoning and development regulation; and
WHEREAS, these limited "rural areas of more intensive development," known by the acronym
"RAIDs" are created pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d); and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan, the City of Moses Lake,
City of Ephrata, Town of Royal City and Town of Warden filed appeals with the Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board regarding, including but not limited to, the County's adoption of
Rural Areas of More Intensive Development; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, Washington intends to comply
fully with the orders and directives of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
issued in case nos. 99-1-0016 and 99-1-0019 and the Orders of Thurston County Superior Court; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, Washington initiated an appeal
of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's decision holding Grant County's
adoption of Rural Areas of More Intensive Development (RAIDs) to the Comprehensive Plan as non-
compliant with the County -wide Planning Policies adopted in 1993; and
WHEREAS, Thurston County Superior Court has remanded the Final Decision and Order of the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board regarding Grant County's Rural Areas of More
Intensive Development (RAIDs) back to Grant County in order to bring this element of the County's
Comprehensive Plan and County -wide Planning Policies (CWPPs) into compliance with the Washington
State Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planned Growth Committee amended the 1993 County -wide
Planning Policies to recognize and authorize rural areas of more intensive development as provided by the
GMA, and the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County adopted the amended County -wide
Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Commission and the Grant County Planning Department
have produced a proposal amending the RAIDs within the Comprehensive Plan that meets the specified
GMA goals and addresses the mandated GMA elements; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Commission completed an extensive public participation
process that meets or exceeds the requirements of Growth Management Act (GMA) pursuant to RCW
36.70A.020(11) and RCW 36.70A.140; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Commission compiled an extensive public record,
including documents and correspondence that was fully considered during review of the proposal to
amend the RAIDs within the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Commission relied upon best available data in specifying
proposed amendments to the RAIDs within the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the RAIDs was reviewed by affected State, federal and
local agencies and Tribes, and found, generally, to be in compliance with the requirements of the GMA;
and
WHEREAS, upon review of the comments provided by the State Office of Community Trade and
Economic Development (CTED) during the public hearing process, the Board of County Commissioners
directed staff to provide additional analysis of CTEDs comments; and
WHEREAS, the requested analysis resulted in staff supplementing the Boundary Analysis
provided by the Planning Commission which was provided to the Board of County Commissioners by
staff, dated October 28, 2003 and titled "Grant County Planning Department Rural Areas of More
Intensive Development Boundary Analysis"; and
WHEREAS, the comments and correspondence provided by the public, affected State, federal and
local agencies and Tribes, have been considered during review of the proposal to amend the RAIDs
designations within the Comprehensive Plan and in the preparation of the attached Additional Findings of
Fact; and
WHEREAS, Grant County, acting through its Responsible SEPA Official, conducted a thorough
SEPA review process which included a threshold determination, issuance of a Determination of Non -
Significance and Adoption of Existing Environmental Documentation on May 20, 2003 all of which was
reviewed and considered by the Grant County Planning Commission during its decision making process;
and
WHEREAS, following proper public notice, the Grant County Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on June 4, 2003, June 25, 2003 and August 6, 2003 to consider the proposed RAID
amendments and receive public comments; and
WHEREAS, upon public notice, the Board of Grant County Commissioners conducted a public
hearing on October 13, and 28; 2003; and November 7 and 13, 2003, to consider the proposed
recommendations of the Grant County Planning Commission along with other public comments
pertaining to the amendment of the RAIDS in the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Grant County Commissioners considered the entire public hearing
record including the Planning Commission's recommendation, and written and oral testimony submitted
during the Board of Commissioner's hearings; and
IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts the Grant
County Planning Commission's recommendations to amend the RAID and Land Use Designations as
findings of fact, except as modified or supplemented in the October 28, 2003 Boundary Analysis and as
annexed in the Additional Findings of Fact, Attachments B and D; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts the
amended RAIDS and Rural Land Use Designations (including all maps and technical appendices
referenced and included herein), adopts the Determination of Non-Significance,and Adoption of Existing
Environmental Documentation, adopts the attached Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
and accepts the record compiled by the Grant County Planning Commission; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners rescinds and
repeals in their entirety those portions of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan which conflict with the
changes adopted herein; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts the
"Harmonization of GMA Planning Goals & Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan," dated March
2002 and included as Attachment E, which establishes a written record explaining how the Rural Element
of the Comprehensive Plan and clarifies how the County's consideration of local circumstances in the
development of the Rural Element, including designation of RAIDS, harmonizes with the planning goals
of the GMA, consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a).
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or provisions of this ordinance or its
application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be effected; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that all prior policies, ordinances, resolutions and/or
regulations rescinded and/or repealed by the adoption of this ordinance, including without limitation,
Grant County's 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan, as amended, are hereby expressly revived in the event
that Grant County's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan is at any time hereafter declared in its
entirety to be invalid or of no effect by a reviewing body with jurisdiction, pursuant to RCW
36.70A.302(4); and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts all
recitals herein as findings of fact in support of this action; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the effective date of these amendments to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan are January 15, 2004; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners directs: (1) the
Planning Director to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan the changes delineated in the findings of
fact of the Grant County Planning Commission, except as modified or supplemented in the October 28,
2003 Boundary Analysis and as annexed in the Additional Findings of Fact, Attachments A and B; (2)
and to provide copies to the State Office of Community Development, Trade and Economic Development
(CTED) and to other agencies as may be required by law; (3) publish a Notice of Action Taken in
newspapers of record and the SEPA Register; and (4) provide copies to those parties specifically
requesting copies; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners directs the Planning
Director to prepare for the consideration of the Grant County Planning Commission and the Board of
Grant County Commissioners amendments to the Unified Development Code and the Oficial Zoning
Map to reflect the revised RAID designations.
PASSED by the Board of Grant County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata,
Washington, by the following vote, then/ �si 'ed by its membership and attested by its Clerk in
authorization of such passage this day of I j(p 21Q_`� 2004.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Yea Nay Abstain GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
12/ ❑ ❑ LcR�AI�, Chair
AT"TEST:
gwv W R ❑
Clerk of the Board
❑ Deborah Kay Moore, Member
❑o
Tim Snea , Memlfer
ATTACHMENT A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS:
1. Grant County was one of the first jurisdictions to incorporate the "rural areas of more intensive
development' provisions contained in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) during the adoption of its
Comprehensive Plan in 1999 and, as such, had little to rely on in terms of case law or agency
guidance with respect to establishment of RAIDS.
2. While Grant County attempted to the best of its ability to limit the vast number of historical
development patterns that exist in the County and contain the boundaries of more intensive
development, based on the broad nature of the GMA language authorizing RAIDS, the Eastern
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB) ruled that the RAID designations,
as configured, constituted an impermissible pattern of urban growth in the rural area of the County.
3. The EWGMHB further ruled that the County failed to explain how the RAID designations
harmonized with the planning goals of the GMA, and that the commercial and industrial
designations did not, in all cases, comply with the GMA exceptions for more intensive development
in rural areas.
4. Grant County and the Cities and Towns of the County reconvened the Grant County Planned
Growth Committee (GCPGC) in order to consider potential amendments to the 1993 County -wide
Planning Policies on issues brought forward by the members;
5. The GCPGC approved by a majority vote the incorporation of provisions of the Growth
Management Act (GMA), Revised Code of Washington 36.70A (as amended 1995-1997),
recognizing and including rural areas of more intensive development language into the CWPPs;
6. Based on the approval of the Planned Growth Committee, the Grant County Board of County
Commissioners adopted amendments to the County -wide Planning Policies as recommended by the
GCPGC, including language recognizing and providing for the necessary consistency between the
Comprehensive Plan, the CWPPs and the GMA as directed by the Final Decision and Orders of the
EWGMHB and the Growth Management Act;
7. Through the ongoing efforts of Grant County to comply with the Final Decision and Orders of the
EWGMHB and the Growth Management Act, a residential building and placement permit activity
report has been generated;
8. For the period from 1996 through 2000, the residential building and placement permit activity in
Grant County indicate that 73.9% of the building permit activity of the County occurred within the
urban growth areas. In contrast, for the preceding five-year period from 1991 through 1995, only
29.8 % of population growth occurred within the cities of Grant County. The population growth
allocation included in the Comprehensive Plan projects that —72 percent of total County population
would reside within UGAs and —28% within rural areas of the County by 2018. Based on the
residential building and placement permit activity trends since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan,
it appears that the population projections of the Plan are accurate, and that enough urban lands have
been designated to accommodate the projected growth.
9. The Growth Management Act provides for consideration of local circumstances in establishing
patterns of rural densities and uses, provided that a written record be developed explaining how the
rural element of the Comprehensive Plan harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and
meets the requirements of the GMA (36.70A.070(5)(a)];
10. Through the ongoing efforts of Grant County to comply with the Final Decision and Orders of the
EWGMHB and the Growth Management Act, Grant County has produced a document clarifying
how the County's establishment of Rural Areas of More Intensive Development in the
Comprehensive Plan harmonize the planning goals of the GMA consistent with 36.70A.070(5)(a);
11. Through the ongoing efforts of Grant County to comply with the EWGMHB Final Decision and
Orders and the GMA, a revised series of interim maps where produced which advanced compliance
of the Comprehensive Plan with the EWGMHB Final Decision and Order and the GMA,
specifically with regard to historical development patterns;
12. Grant County recognized that the interim maps did not yet fully reflect RAID outer boundaries that
were fully compliant with the GMA and the EWGMHB Final Decision and Orders. As such, and
after due consideration, the final outer boundaries have been further modified from the interim
boundaries in order to gain full compliance;
13. As directed by the Final Decision and Orders of the Eastern Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board and consistent with the GMA, Grant County prepared a work plan to review and
revise the Rural Areas of More Intensive Development as designated in the Comprehensive Plan;
14. Grant County has re-examined its RAID designations and outer boundaries through an extensive
work plan to bring the RAIDs into full compliance with the Final Decision and Orders of the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and the Growth Management Act;
15. In the County's efforts to comply with the Final Decisions of the EWGMHB, the County has taken,
including but not limited to, the following steps:
a) The County implemented a work plan to review and revise the Rural Areas of More
Intensive Development as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; and,
b) A revised series of interim maps was produced which advance the County's efforts in
establishing RAIDS with regard to historical development patterns toward greater
conformance with the GMA; and,
c) Based on the final recommendation of the Grant County Planned Growth Committee, the
County adopted amended County -wide Planning Policies which achieved the required
consistency between the Comprehensive Plan, the CWPPs and the GMA; and,
d) The building and placement activity report clearly indicates that the population projections
of the Plan are accurate, and that enough urban lands have been designated to accommodate
the projected growth; and
e) A written record has been produced clarifying how the County's establishment of Rural
Areas of More Intensive Development and the Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan
harmonize the goals of the GMA, as required under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a); and,
f) The Board of County Commissioners has completed their review and adopted Rural Areas
of More Intensive Development consistent with the EWGMHB Final Decision and Orders,
the GMA, in order to bring them into full compliance with the Growth Management Act;
and,
16. The October 1999 Comprehensive Plan designated Rural Areas of More Intense Development
(RAIDs), including Rural Communities, Rural Village, Shoreline Development, Recreational
Development, and Agricultural Service Centers to reflect and promote the variety of historical
development patterns found in the County.
17. The Comprehensive Plan contains an economic development element that provides a collective
vision of the County's economic future. The goals, policies and actions in the economic
development element are consistent with and support the goals of the GMA and the mission
statement of the Grant County Economic Development Council.
18. An economic assessment of the County's economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
was conducted and included participation of a Citizens Advisory Group on Economic
Development.
19. The economic development element strives to ensure an adequate supply of commercial and
industrial sites to provide opportunity for new and expanding businesses to locate or remain in
Grant County.
20. The implementation of the RAIDS as amended within the Comprehensive Plan will foster economic
development by:
• maintaining viable agricultural and other industries;
• attracting new employers;
• cultivating home-grown businesses;
• diversification of existing economic base;
• promoting tourism;
• managing growth;
• providing predictability of land use and development requirements;
• fostering intergovernmental cooperation, including the orderly provision of public services;
and
• striving to keep shopping dollars in the County.
21. The Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan promotes land uses that are considered "rural in
character" and provides responsible choices of location and lifestyle to Grant County residents,
balancing public service obligations, costs of those services, and the planning goals and
requirements of the GMA. The implementation of the RAIDS as amended within the
Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the rural character and rural settlement trands of Grant
County and the policies of the Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
22. To maintain a balance between growth, lifestyle preferences, economic development, and
protection of natural resources and the environment, the County established measures to govern and
contain rural development. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including these amendments to
RAIDS, protect and preserve the existing rural character of the diverse regions of the County be
protected by:
• Containing Rural Development through preservation of open space and low density rural areas,
the development and performance guidelines and safeguards of the Unified Development Code,
and establishment of logical outer boundaries for all RAIDS.
• Provision of Urban Services only in urban growth areas to ensure curtailing of low density sprawl.
• Assuring Visual Compatibility between rural areas and border urban growth areas, RAIDS, and
resource lands.
• Reducing Inappropriate Conversion of Undeveloped Land.
• Protecting Critical Areas and Water Quality.
• Protecting Resource Lands.
23. Development and redevelopment in RAIDS must comply with all provisions of the following provisions
of the Grant County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and Chapter 23.12, Development
Standards; each designed to establish reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental review of development
proposals;
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance, adopted to protect wetlands,
shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats, and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge
(groundwater), geologically hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and preserve the functions and
values of shoreline environments of both statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the public health, safety and
welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions.
24. Development and redevelopment in RAIDS must comply with all provisions of the Grant County
Code Development proposed within any of the Rural Communities will be reviewed in accordance
with the review procedures established for each of the above regulations. Critical area assessments
will be based on resource information and maps maintained by the County as well as
determinations made by site assessment professionals, resource agency representatives and affected
Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
25. The built environment, including water, sewer, power, earthwork and grading, structures, roads, rail
and other man-made facilities, was reviewed for each parcel within each RAID and documented by
Grant County as part of the Boundary Analysis contained in Attachment A.
26. To be considered for designation as a RAID, an area or use must have been in existence as of July
1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan under the GMA, or on the date the county
elected by resolution to plan under the GMA, or on the date that population or growth rate exceeded
thresholds established in the GMA. For Grant County, the date recorded by the Washington State
Office of Community Development is July 1, 1991.
27. In establishing logical outer boundaries for RAIDs, the Grant County Planning Department
considered existing conditions as well as local, historic context of both individual parcels and the
surrounding area. In addition, regulatory history (zoning and land use designations) of the parcels
and area were considered. Previous and current land use and zoning is but one factor for
consideration in establishing RAIDS and was not held as the sole reason to include or exclude a
particular parcel or area.
28. To determine logical outer boundaries for each RAID, the Planning Department used its
Geographical Information System (GIS) and several data sets to prepare maps. Data sets used to
document the presence of development as of July 1, 1991:
• Aerial photographic mapping prepared by the National Resource Conservation Service, dated
1996;
• "Improved Value," as reported by the Grant County Assessor as of December 31, 1990,
• Lots platted prior to 1991, as reported by the Grant County Assessor,
• "Construction Value," reported by the Grant County Assessor, and
• Photographic record of each of the RAIDS prepared by the Grant County Planning Department.
• Insofar as reasonably possible, the aerial photo was overlaid with parcel data, and the various
data sets applied using GIS techniques to define the built environment prior to July 1, 1991.
29. To determine logical outer boundaries for each RAID, the Planning Department used its
Geographical Information System (GIS) and several data sets to prepare maps and document the
presence and limits of the built environment as of July 1, 1991. Data sets included:
• property owner -provided information, public testimony and anecdotal evidence, to confirm the
outer boundaries for each RAID.
• local agency infrastructure records, including the Grant County Health District, Public Utility
District, and Grant County Public Works, to assess presence of pre -1991 infrastructure
improvements.
• Site reconnaissance to confirm existing conditions and infrastructure, observe visual character
of site and surroundings, and make a photographic record.
• zoning and land use history.
• built environment, including aboveground and belowground physical infrastructure and
buildings.
30. The designations of RAIDs contained in this amendment takes into account all GMA requirements
related to establishment of rural areas of more intensive development.
31. The County adopted measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within RAIDS and
containing those uses within logical outer boundaries.
32. The County delineated logical outer boundaries predominantly on the pre -July 1, 1991 built
environment. Logical outer boundaries satisfy the criteria established in the GMA, including:
• The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
• Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and land forms and
contours;
• Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and
• Maintaining the ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit
low-density sprawl.
33. The County received a letter from the Office of Community Development, the state agency charged
with evaluating proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, that contained suggestions, concerns
and recommendations regarding the designation of RAIDS and establishment of outer boundaries.
The County made revisions to its boundary analysis to incorporate the Office of Community
Development's comments.
34. Adoption of the proposed RAID amendments results in a reduction in the total area contained
within RAIDS from the 12,041 acres designated in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan to 6,482 acres, a
reduction of —46%.
35. Adoption of the proposed RAID amendments meets concurrency requirements for transportation
and other public services, since the reduction to total area of the lands included within RAIDs is
only —54% of that originally designated.
36. Adoption of the proposed RAID amendments is consistent with the goals and policies of all
elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
37. Adoption of the proposed RAID amendments does not materially affect land use and population
growth projections contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
38. Adoption of the proposed RAID amendments is consistent with the GMA and the County -Wide
Planning Policies.
39. Adoption of the proposed RAID amendments will require a change to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan text and tables, the Land Use Map, the Official Zoning Map and the Unified
Development Code.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT
(As amended and supplemented in October 28, 2003 Boundary Analysis)
The Board of Grant County Commissioners accepts the recommendations and findings of fact of the
Grant County Planning Commission except as modified or supplemented in the October 28, 2003
Boundary Analysis, as referenced as Attachment B and C, with the following amendments:
40. GCPC Recommendation Regarding May 6, Trinidad: The area known as "Trinidad" is designated as
a Rural Community having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions recommendation,
Attachment B. The boundary inadvertently excluded two (2) parcels that contain historical
development. As amended by the Planning Commission, the existing area and uses are contained
within the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern
of low-density sprawl. The existing areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical
boundary delineated predominately by the built environment with very limited cases include
undeveloped infill lands. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the area,
having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the
Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to the area
recommended by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment C and D.
41. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Man 8, Marine View Heights: The area known as "Marine View
Heights" is designated as a Rural Community having a boundary as shown in the Planning
Commissions recommendation, Attachment B. The boundary inadvertently excluded a portion of the
historically developed area known as the Curlew area. In addition, the adjacent RAID area known as
Marine View 1 is hereby incorporated within the Marine View Heights Rural Community. During
the public hearing process, area property owners substantiating historical development provided
additional data justifying the inclusion of Curlew area, which included the historical development of
water and power. The existing area and uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of the
existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing
areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical boundary delineated predominately by
the built environment with very limited cases also including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the
public record regarding historical development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard
to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners
finds that the boundary should be adjusted to include the Curlew area and Marine View 1 area as
shown in Attachment C and D.
42. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Man 13, Blue Lake Shore: The area known as 'Blue Lake
Shore" is designated as a Shoreline Development having a boundary as shown in the Planning
Commissions recommendation, Attachment B. In consideration of establishing a logical outer
boundary within the physical boundaries of the area, including the shoreline of Blue Lake on the west
and the Bluff to the east, the RAID boundary was modified to include a portion of the parcel located
within the shoreline corridor containing historical development. In addition, two parcels on the
northwest comer, which were bisected, are also included. As amended by the Planning Commission,
the existing area and uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use,
and thereby will not allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. Based on the public record regarding
historical development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the
GMA and minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary
should be adjusted to the area recommended by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment C
and D.
43. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 16, The Gorge The area known as "The Gorge" is
designated as a Recreational Development having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions
recommendation, Attachment B. The boundary excluded a portion of area lands that based on
proximity to the existing facilities and operations would logically be included within the outer
boundary of the Recreational Development designation. The existing area and uses are contained
within the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern
of low-density sprawl. The existing areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical
boundary delineated predominately by the built environment with very limited cases also including
undeveloped infill lands. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the area,
having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the
Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to include an
additional —145 acres as shown in Attachment C and D.
44. GCPC Recommendation Regarding May 18, Marine View 2: The area known as "Marine View
2" is designated as a Recreational Development having a boundary as shown in the Planning
Commissions recommendation, Attachment B. Based on information provided by area land owners,
State and Federal Agencies, the boundary inadvertently excluded portions south of the highway and
east along the shoreline which include historically developed lands from the Recreational
Development designation. The southern area includes Mardon Resorts water system (water tower)
and other support buildings. The eastern shoreline is a logical extension between Mardon Resort and
the State Park immediately abutting to the east. The existing area and uses are contained within the
logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern of low-
density sprawl. The existing areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical boundary
delineated predominately by the built environment with very limited cases also including
undeveloped infill lands. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the area,
having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the
Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to include the area
south and east of Mardon Resort as shown in Attachment C and D.
45. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 22 Ballards Cafe: The area known as 'Ballards Cafe"
is designated as an Agricultural Service Center having a boundary in the Planning Commissions
recommendation, Attachment B. The boundary inadvertently excluded a portion of the existing
tractor sales and service business, storage and parking facilities. As amended by the Planning
Commission, the existing area and uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of the
existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing
areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical boundary delineated predominately by
the built environment with very limited cases also including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the
public record regarding historical development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard
to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners
finds that the boundary should be adjusted to the area recommended by the Planning Commission as
shown in Attachment C and D.
46. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 24 McDonald Siding 2: The area known as
"McDonald Siding 2" is designated as an Agricultural Service Center having a boundary as shown in
the Planning Commissions recommendation, Attachment B. McDonald Siding 2 is a "new name" for
what previously was designated as Moses Lake 4, Moses Lake 5, Moses Lake 6, Moses Lake 8 and
Moses Lake 9. In order to identify logical outer boundaries, Moses Lake 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 where
consolidated and reduced in overall size by 272.9 acres. The existing area and uses are contained
within the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern
of low-density sprawl. The existing areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical
boundary delineated predominately by the built environment with very limited cases also including
undeveloped infill lands. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the area,
having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the
Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to consolidate
Moses Lake 4, Moses Lake 5, Moses Lake 6, Moses Lake 8 and Moses Lake 9 into McDonald Siding
2 and include the property currently developed with an industrial operation area as shown in
Attachment C and D.
47. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 26, Ballard 1: The area known as 'Ballard I" is
designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions
recommendation, Attachment B. The location contains the historically developed Interstate
Interchange that will provide necessary services for tourism and the motoring public. The proposed
RAID boundary bisects one of the parcels and supplemental information was discussed during the
hearing process identifying this location as having an area of approximately 40% of the originally
designated area as wetland that would significantly limit future development potential. In addition,
the property removed in the Planning Commission recommendation excluded the area developed with
commercial advertising. The existing area and uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of
the existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing
areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical boundary delineated predominately by
the built environment with very limited cases also including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the
public record regarding historical development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard
to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners
finds that the boundary should be adjusted to include the bisected area as shown in Attachment C and
D.
48. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 29a Crook Estates 1: The area known as "Crook
Estates" is designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary as shown in the Planning
Commissions recommendation, Attachment B. This RAID has historical commercial development
and was inadvertently excluded from the Comprehensive Plan. As amended by the Planning
Commission, the existing area and uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of the
existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing
areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical boundary delineated predominately by
the built environment with very limited cases also including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the
public record regarding historical development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard
to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners
finds that the boundary should be adjusted to the area recommended by the Planning Commission as
shown in Attachment C and D.
49. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 32. Ephrata 2: The area known as 'Ephrata 2" is
designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions
recommendation, Attachment B. The previously excluded area east of the proposed boundary is
undeveloped. The remaining area has historically developed lands with limited urbanizing
characteristics, however, the existing rural development is not at urban densities. Furthermore, the
characteristics of a racetrack and associated support facilities are generally not compatible with urban
residential development. Based on multiple discussions between the City of Ephrata and Grant
County, both parties are in agreement regarding the boundaries of the RAID. The existing area and
uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, and thereby will not
allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing areas are clearly identifiable and contained
within the logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment with very limited
cases also including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the public record regarding historical
development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and
minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be
adjusted to exclude the --42 acre area east of the RAID as shown in Attachment C and D.
50. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 59, Rocky Ford 1: The area known as "Rock Ford 1" is
designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions
recommendation, Attachment B. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the
area, having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area,
the Grant County Board of Comm ssioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to the area
recommended by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment C and D.
51. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 60, Rocky Ford 2: The area known as "Rocky Ford 2"
is designated as a Rural Industrial having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions
recommendation, Attachment B. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the
area, having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area,
the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to the area
recommended by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment C and D.
52. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Man 63, Royal 2: The area known as 'Royal 2" is designated
as a Rural Industrial having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions recommendation,
Attachment B. The boundary excluded a portion of the previous RAID designation. During
discussions, it was highlighted that there are currently a number of questions with regard to the
provision of services to this area. Based on previous phone calls with the property owner, it was
understood that once the service issues between the Town of Royal City and the Port of Royal City
where remedied, the property owner would not oppose a change in designation. The existing area and
uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, and thereby will not
allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing areas are clearly identifiable and contained
within the logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment with very limited
cases also including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the public record regarding historical
development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and
minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be
adjusted to include the —22 acre area as shown in Attachment C and D.
53. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Mau 64 Silica Road 1: The area known as "Silica Road 1" is
designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary in the Planning Commissions recommendation,
Attachment B. The proposed RAID boundary bisects several of the parcels within this RAID.
Additionally, supplemental information was discussed during the hearing process identifying this
location as containing the historically developed Interstate Interchange that will provide necessary
services for tourism and the motoring public. The location has a substantial wetland complex with
widely varying boundaries that will significantly limit future development potential of the historically
developed area. The existing area and uses are contained within the logical outer boundary of the
existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing
areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the logical boundary delineated predominately by
the built environment with very limited cases also including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the
public record regarding historical development in the area, having reviewed the proposal with regard
to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the Grant County Board of Commissioners
finds that the boundary should be adjusted to include —48 acre area as shown in Attachment C and D
54. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Man 67 Stratford Road 3: The area known as "Stratford
Road 3" is designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary as shown in the Planning
Commissions recommendation, Attachment B. The boundary included an undeveloped area. During
discussions'the landowner stated that negotiations with the City of Moses Lake have been initiated for
the provision of urban services as future development may require. The existing area and uses are
contained within the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, and thereby will not allow a
new pattern of low-density sprawl. The existing areas are clearly identifiable and contained within the
logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment with very limited cases also
including undeveloped infill lands. Based on the public record regarding histoncal development in the
area, having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area,
the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to exclude the
--10 acre area as shown in Attachment C and D.
55. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 70 Warden 2: The area known as "Warden 2" is
designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary as shown in the Planning Commissions
recommendation, Attachment B. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the
area, having reviewed the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area,
the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to the area
recommended by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment C and D.
56. GCPC Recommendation Regarding Map 73 Wheeler 3: The area known as "Wheeler 3" is
designated as a Rural Commercial having a boundary in the Planning Commissions recommendation,
Attachment B. The proposed RAID boundary is currently developed primarily with agricultural
operations. Based on the public record regarding historical development in the area, having reviewed
the proposal with regard to complying with the GMA and minimizing the area, the Grant County
Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to exclude the entire 304 acre
area as shown in Attachment C and D.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Grant County Board of Commissioners has a legal obligation to enact a Comprehensive Plan that
meets the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and the authority to amend said Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The Grant County Board of Commissioners has a legal obligation to satisfy the requirements of the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board Final Decision and Order in case nos. 99-I-
0016 and 99-1-0019 and the Orders of Thurston County Superior Court;
3. The Grant County Board of Commissioners has met these obligations by enacting Ordinance No. 99-
158 -CC. The 1999 Grant County Comprehensive Plan as amended and the associated environmental
review comply with the goals and requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 365-195 WAC,
Chapter 43.2 IC RCW, Chapter 197-11 WAC. And Grant County SEPA regulations.
4. The Grant County Board of County Commissioners has met the obligation of providing public input
into the decision-making process as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Attachment B
Grant County Planning Commission
RAID AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
"Grant County Planning Department
Rural Areas of More Intensive Development
Boundary Analysis"
(as amended October 28, 2003)
Y
Grant County Planning Department
Rural Areas of More Intensive Development
Boundary Analysis
Prepand for.•
GRANT COUNTYPLANNING DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 37
Ephrata, WA 98823
Phone: 509/754-2011
Fax: 509/754-0449
e-mail: sclark@grantcounty-wa.com
Prepared by:
ENTRANCO, INC.
10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-4405
Phone: 425/454-5600
Fax: 425/454-0220
e-mail: dcearns@entranco.com
October 28, 2003 e n r ra n c o..
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
Background.................................................................................................................................... 1
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Boards (EWGMHB) Final Decisions
andOrders Regarding RAIDs...................................................................................................... I
GMAProvisions Regarding RAIDs............................................................................................. 2
GMHBRulings Regarding RAIDs............................................................................................... 3
RURAL CHARACTER OF GRANT COUNTY
Introduction...................................................................................................................................4
RuralSettlement Trends................................................................................................................5
RuralCharacter and Vision..........................................................................................................5
RAIDDesignations.........................................................................................................................6
Grant County's Economic Development Policy..........................................................................7
Measure Governing Rural Development......................................................................................9
Consideration of Unique Circumstances....................................................................................10
RAIDANALYSES........................................................................................................................ 12
Introduction................................................................................................................................. 12
Work Plan to Revise RAlDs................................................................................................I...... 14
RuralCommunities..................................................................................................................... 15
Schawana
16
Beverly.................................................................................................................................... 16
Wheeler................................................................................................................................... 17
RoyalCamp............................................................................................................................ 17
ParkerSprings....................................................................................................................... 17
Trinidad.................................................................................................................................. 18
WampumVillage................................................................................................................... 18
MarineView Heights............................................................................................................. 18
WhiteTrail............................................................................................................................. 19
RuralVillages.............................................................................................................................. 19
DesertAire.............................................................................................................................. 20
Shoreline Developments.............................................................................................................. 21
McConiheShore.................................................................................................................... 22
MaeValley Shore................................................................................................................... 22
BlueLake Shore..................................................................................................................... 22
SunlandEstates...................................................................................................................... 23
Recreational Developments........................................................................................................ 23
CrescentBar........................................................................................................................... 24
TheGorge............................................................................................................................... 25
NorthSoap Lake.................................................................................................................... 26
October 2003 Page i
Table of Contents
Marine View 2
26
Agricultural Service Centers...................................................................................................... 26
Winchester.............................................................................................................................. 27
Ruff......................................................................................................................................... 27
McDonaldSiding 1................................................................................................................ 28
BallardsCafe.......................................................................................................................... 28
Stratford.................................................................................................................................. 29
McDonaldSiding 2................................................................................................................ 29
McDonaldFrontage 1............................................................................................................ 30
Commercial & Industrial. ........................................................................................................... 30
RuralFreeway Commercial. ...................................................................... ............................ 31
Ballard1...........................................................................................................................32
DodsonRoad 1.................................................................................................................32
GeorgeI...........................................................................................................................32
George2...........................................................................................................................33
George3...........................................................................................................................33
MosesLake 10..................................................................................................................33
SilicaRoad 1.....................................................................................................................33
MaeValley 4.....................................................................................................................33
Rural General Commercial....................................................................................................33
Coulee1............................................................................................................................34
George7............................................................................................................................34
O'Sullivan Shores 1.........................................................................................................34
Royal1..............................................................................................................................34
StratfordRoad 1 & 2......................................................................................................34
JetFarms 1.......................................................................................................................35
Warden2.........................................................................................................................35
Wheeler1.........................................................................................................................36
RockyFord 1....................................................................................................................36
Rural Neighborhood Commercial..........................................................................................37
Coulee3............................................................................................................................37
CrookEstates 1................................................................................................................37
Rural Recreational Commercial. ............................................................................................ 38
Ephrata2..........................................................................................................................38
MarineView 1..................................................................................................................39
MosesLake 2....................................................................................................................39
SoapLake 1......................................................................................................................39
RuralIndustrial...................................................................................................................... 40
Coulee2............................................................................................................................40
Ephrata3..........................................................................................................................40
George6...........................................................................................................................40
Mae Valley 1, Mae Valley 2 and Mae Valley 3.............................................................40
MaeValley 5.....................................................................................................................41
Royal2..............................................................................................................................41
Stratford Road 3/Park Orchards
Wanapum2 ...................................
Warden1 .......................................
October 2003 Page ii
Table of Contents
Wheeler3.........................................................................................................................42
Wheeler4.........................................................................................................................42
RockyFord 2....................................................................................................................43
Commerciabliulustrial RAIDS Proposed for Re-Designation..............................................43
Ephrata1..........................................................................................................................43
George4...........................................................................................................................44
George5...........................................................................................................................44
MallardHaven 1..............................................................................................................44
Mattawa1.........................................................................................................................44
Mattawa3.........................................................................................................................44
Mattawa4.........................................................................................................................44
McConihe1 .....................................................
Moses Lake 1 ...................................................
MosesLake 3....................................................................................................................45
Quincy1...........................................................................................................................45
RockyFord 3....................................................................................................................45
Wheeler2........................................................................................................................45
Small-scale Recreation & Tourism........................................................................................45
Home Occupations & Cottage Industries...............................................................................46
SUMMARY
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
RAID Maps
RAID Inventory
RAID Designation Criteria
Photographic Record
DCTED Review Letter (dated September 5, 2003)
........ 48
October 2003 Page iii
RURAL AREAS OF MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
BOUNDARY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
Background
The 1990 Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) required Washington
cities and counties to prepare comprehensive plans to guide future growth,
land development and other activities. In 1999, after several years of
planning and public involvement, Grant County adopted its comprehensive
plan. In October 2000, Grant County also adopted a Unified Development
Code, which created land development regulations that implemented the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Grant County's comprehensive plan includes a "rural element" that provides
opportunities to develop in rural County lands outside of cities and farmland.
The plan encourages development in rural lands that not only protects their
rural character and natural resources but also allows for various residential
densities and housing opportunities. Residential development densities
allowed in the plan range from one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres to 1 dwelling
unit per 40 acres.
In 1996, Washington's state legislature passed ESB,6094, which amended
the Growth Management Act (GMA). The amendments contained language
that better defined the range of rural uses and activities allowed under the
GMA. These amendments also permit counties to define "limited areas of
more intensive rural development" subject to a number of guidelines and
criteria (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)). In essence, these limited areas are
exceptions to the types of development generally permitted in rural areas.
These existing areas may be permitted to accommodate limited additional
growth through infill, new development, or redevelopment. These areas
may also contain public facilities and public services, which must be limited
to what is necessary to serve the limited area and which does not permit
"low density sprawl."
In accordance with the "rural amendments" to the GMA, the Grant County
plan allowed limited but more intensive development in rural areas, including
some commercial and industrial development. Several such areas were
designated and adopted in the plan. These areas are referred to in the plan
as 'RAIDS"— Rural Areas of more Intensive Development,
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Boards
(EWGMHB) Final Decisions and Orders Regarding RAIDS
The sometimes broad nature of the GMA's language authorizing RAIDs
has—over the 6+ years since adoption of the rural amendments—been
refined by cases brought before the respective Growth Management
Hearings Boards (GMHBs). Grant County was one of the first jurisdictions to
use the rural amendments and, as such, had little case law or agency
guidance to rely on in designating its RAIDs. In making its designations and
establishing "logical outer boundaries," Grant County, in some cases, may
October 2003 Page 1
RAID Boundary Analysis
have used criteria and drawn conclusions that were less conservative than
later interpretations of the GMA rural amendments.
Two petitions filed for review of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
included issues related to RAIDs. The State GMHB found the RAIDs to be
non-compliant with the GMA for a variety of reasons. The GMHB ordered
the County to review and revise its RAIDs, and the County is doing so. The
GMHB order included the following conclusions:
• RAID designations, as configured, constitute an impermissible
pattern of urban growth in a rural area. The RAID designations do
not satisfy the exception from the prohibition of urban growth in
rural areas. The County failed to explain how the RAID
designation harmonizes with the planning goals of the GMA.
• Industrial and commercial development is urban in nature and is
prohibited in rural areas, unless there is compliance with the
exceptions under the GMA. The County did not comply with the
statutory exceptions, and the industrial and commercial
designations are out of compliance.
The County appealed the EWGMHB's decision holding Grant County's
adoption of RAIDS as non-compliant; however, the Thurston County
Superior Court remanded the EWGMHB's Final Decision and Order back to
Grant County in order to bring this element of the County's Comprehensive
Plan into compliance with the GMA.
GMA Provisions Regarding RAIDS
The GMA in RCW 36.70A.070 establishes provisions for limited areas of
more intensive development within rural areas as follows:
• The infill, development or redevelopment of existing commercial,
industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized
as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers,
or crossroads developments. RCW 36.70A.070(i)
• The intensification of development on lots containing, or new
development of, small-scale recreational tourist uses, including
commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses,
that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include
new residential development. RCW 36.70A.070(ii)
• The intensification of development on lots containing isolated non-
residential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries
and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally
designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural
residents. RCW 36.70A.070(iii)
To be considered for designation as a RAID, an area or use must have been
in existence as of July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan
under the GMA, or on the date the county elected by resolution to plan
under the GMA, or on the date that population or growth rate exceeded
October 2003 Page 2
RAID Boundary Analysis
thresholds established in the GMA. For Grant County, the date recorded by
the Washington State Office of Community Development is July 1, 1991.
The GMA requires the County to adopt measures to minimize and contain
the existing areas of more intensive rural development. Each area must be
defined and contained by a 'logical outer boundary" that limits and contains
the extent of more intensive development. Lands included in these areas
should not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of the existing
area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low-density sprawl.
The LOB must be delineated predominantly by the "built environment," but
may include undeveloped land if limited. This pattern of more intensive rural
development, as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), does not constitute
"urban growth" as defined in the GMA.
GMHB Rulings Regarding RAIDs
Some prominent decisions regarding RAIDS are highlighted in the following
discussion to better define the current interpretation of the statutes and
determine areas of compatibility or conflict with regard to Grant County's
designated RAIDs.
The GMHB ruled that counties must `minimize and contain" existing areas
or uses of more intensive rural development. The concern is to prevent "low-
density sprawl" and proliferation of "urban" uses in an otherwise "rural" area.
While the GMA does not define "existing uses' other than to say an existing
use or area is one that was in existence on July 1, 1990 (July 1, 1991 in
Grant County's case). The GMHB did, however, state that:
"[Mien evaluating densities and uses in areas of more intensive rural
development, the question is not whether urban densities and uses are allowed.
The question is whether the allowed densities and uses reflect existing density
and uses contained with a specific [RAID]". ICCGMC v. Island County (No.
98-2-0023c) (FDO 6-2-99).
The definition of the "built environment" has also been clarified by the
GMHB. As it applies to more intensive rural development "built
environment" means:
"only those facilities which are 'manmade', whether they are above or below
ground". Durland, et al, v. San luan Counhl (No. 00-2-0062c) (FDO 5-7-01).
The built environment, then, is presumed to include surface or subsurface
improvements and facilities, such as:
• Clearing, grading, excavation, and/or placement of fill materials on
the parcel;
• Installation of above ground or underground utilities, including power,
telephone, water or sewer facilities, including on-site septic systems;
• Construction of private access roads or public roads to serve the
property;
October 2003 Page 3
RAID Boundary Analysis
• Construction of structures; and/or
• Other public or private investment in physical infrastructure intended
to serve development of the property.
Additional rulings that provide guidance in designating RAIDs in compliance
with the GMA include:
"Activities permitted in [RAIDs] must be dependent on a location in a rural
area, functional and visual compatibility with that area, and limits in size and
density to preclude need for future urban services". Dazoes v. Mason Counht
(No. 96-2-0023) (FDO 12-5-96).
"In rural areas a logical outer boundary delineated by the built environment
must preclude allowance of new lona-density sprawl, Public facilities and public
services can only be provided in a mariner that does not permit low-density
sprawl." Dawes v. Mason Counht (No. 96-2-0023) (CO 1-14-99).
Unfortunately, the GMHB has not clarified `low-density sprawl,"except as
reference to new development that requires the provision of "urban" public
facilities and services outside of an urban growth area.
Finally, a RAID need not limit the proposed use to exactly the use in
existence on July 1, 1990:
"It is clear that the Legislature intended the restrictionof such existing uses to be
one of a generic nature, rather than one of strictly limiting the [RAID] to exactly
the uses in existence on July 1, 1993." Mudge, Panesko, Zieske, et al. v. Lewis
Counht (No. 01-2-0010c).
RURAL CHARACTER OF GRANT COUNTY
Introduction
Most people have their own mental picture of what rural living is like. For some
it means the freedom to develop property where and when they please. For
others, it means protecting remote areas for future generations to enjoy. The
basic issue in defining rural is how to accommodate the demand for a rural
lifestyle without diminishing the rural setting in the process.
The Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan promotes land uses that are
considered "rural in character" and provides responsible choices of location and
lifestyle to Grant County residents, balancing public service obligations, costs of
those services, and the planning goals and requirements of the GMA.
Objectives of the Rural Element include encouraging a variety of development
while maintaining rural character and conserving rural features and resources
as well as assuring that public facilities, services, roads, and utilities are
consistent with rural character and lifestyles. Development choices in rural
areas provided for by the Plan are consistent with rural settlement trends and
rural character.
October 2003 Page 4
RAID Boundary Analysis
Rural Settlement Trends
Rural development patterns in Grant County stem from settlement trends
established decades ago. Many rural residential areas of the County were
originally settled as large -tract farmsteads that have been parceled off and
sold in smaller pieces over time. These smaller parcels were not large
enough to make a living at farming, but they did offer part-time farming
opportunities for people employed elsewhere and seeking a country lifestyle.
In recent years, many rural areas have been further subdivided into parcels
too small to farm. Many residents in these areas are simply looking for a little
"elbow room."
Rural residential development can be found scattered throughout Grant
County. They are characterized by a variety of development patterns largely
determined by density and services available. Patterns range from areas of
dispersed five- to ten -acre ranchettes on private wells and on-site septic
systems to more densely settled rural community centers served by public
water and/or sewer systems.
Rural Character and Vision
"Rural Character" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA as
follows:
"Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development
established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan:
(a) in which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation
predominate over the built environment;
(b) that foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and
opportunities to both live and work in rural areas;
(c) that provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural
areas and communities;
(d) that are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and
wildlife habitat;
(e) that reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development;
(t) that generally do not require the extension of urban governmental
services; and
(g) that are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows
and ground water and surface water recharge and discharge areas."
Rural areas are discrete, with each having a distinct environment and social
texture uniquely created by factors such as origin, history, period of
settlement, use capability of the land, and employment base of the
residents. While no one definition for rural fits everyone's personal
perspective, Grant County's "rural character" is defined by:
• Large areas of undeveloped land and open space;
October 2003 Page 5
RAID Boundary Analysis
• Scattered low-density, singly -family homes;
• Clustered, dense residential housing, often nearby a recreational
area;
• Dense clusters of houses along beaches or shorelines;
• Small-scale, recreational resorts;
• Many acres of agricultural lands and rangeland;
• Small, part-time farms;
• Agricultural industrial uses;
• Limited, low -intensity commercial uses; and
• Many State parks.
Based on the rural character of Grant County, the following "Rural Vision" was
developed to foster future land use patterns that preserved rural character:
• Preserve rural -based economies and traditional lifestyles;
Encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents;
• Foster opportunities for small-scale, rural -based employment and
self-employment;
• Permit the operation of rural -based agricultural, commercial, small-
scale industrial, recreational, and tourist businesses that are
consistent with existing and planned land use patterns;
• Foster the private stewardship of the land and the preservation of
open space; and
• Enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life.
RAID Designations
One of the cultural attributes and characteristics identified in the visioning
process was the belief in "strong rural communities." The settlement history
of Grant County documents the presence of numerous small school districts
and communities serving the rural area, and this settlement pattern still
exists in Grant County today. In part based on the visioning process, Grant
County established a designation to provide for continuation of the desired
small towns or rural settlement areas. These areas, called "residential areas
of more intensive development," can accept more intensive rural uses and
activities than in the other rural areas. However, the RAIDS are limited to
those discrete rural areas of Grant County currently characterized by "more
intensive development" either in terms of the types of land uses or density
and intensity of activities.
The County's policies embrace the enhancement of existing rural activity centers
in order to preserve their multiple use function and service to Grant County's rural
communities. The Plan contains a strong economic development element, which
includes policies to encourage diverse rural employment opportunities that satisfy
the socioeconomic needs of Grant County. The Plan further attempts to
October 2003 Page 6
RAID Boundary Analysis
maximize the positive economic impacts of tourism and recreational opportunities
in Grant County. The RAIDS designated under the County's Comprehensive
Plan accomplish all of these purposes.
Grant County's rural areas, including its existing small towns, rural
communities, crossroads commercial areas, agriculturally -oriented service
areas, freeway commercial areas, home occupations, cottage industries and
small-scale recreational and tourism areas, have provided a degree of
economic opportunity and a variety of necessary services throughout the
rural areas. Size, scale, intensity and other limitations that are included in
the County's Unified Development Code limits rural development and activity
consistent with traditional and historic intensity and demand on public
services and facilities.
From 66 potential candidate areas initially identified for designation as RAIDS,
the County applied specific criteria to determine whether a RAID designation
was appropriate. These criteria included a characterization of existing land use,
an assessment of the sense of place, and an evaluation of typical types of
existing commercial and public facilities, legal lot sizes defined by acres,
available public services (water and sewer), identification of a basis for defining
the outer boundary, and a determination of the number of existing and potential
households. Many of these potential candidate areas were eliminated when
applying one or more of these criteria.
Applying these criteria, the County made the following RAID designations
• Rural Community.
• Rural Village.
• Recreational Development.
• Shoreline Development.
• Agricultural Service Center.
In total, the County designated 22 existing rural areas as RAIDs. In addition,
home occupations, cottage industries and small-scale recreational and
tourism uses were recognized as essential components of the County
economy, and were permitted in all rural areas. Such a large number of
designated RAIDS is largely a function of the size of the County—the fourth
largest County in Washington at 2,675 square miles—and the dependence
on traditional agricultural communities to rely on home occupations and
isolated small businesses to a much greater degree than urban residents.
Such areas are essential to providing job opportunities for rural residents
without having to commute long distances or move to urban areas.
Continued reliance on small businesses in rural areas to achieve the
economic goals and policies of the GMA and Grant County is essential.
Grant County's Economic Development Policy
The Comprehensive Plan contains strong policies to encourage economic
development. Policy ED -1 specifies that Grant County will encourage
diverse employment opportunities that satisfy the social/economic needs of
its citizens. Policy ED -3 specifies that the County must ensure an adequate
October 2003 Page 7
RAID Boundary Analysis
supply of commercial or industrial sites will be made available to promote
this economic development. To facilitate these policies, Grant County
undertook an industrial land use inventory, guided by an advisory committee
of citizens, businessmen, farmers and others, by assessing sixteen distinct
subareas for both heavy and light industry. The Plan designates enough
land for expansion of existing industrial establishments, permitting several
establishments to be served in a single contiguous area. At the same time,
the Plan designates sufficient land to allow buffer areas to separate
industrial uses from any adjacent non -industrial areas.
The Final Adopted Policies of the Grant County Planned Growth Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the Countywide Planning Polices, or CWPPs)
were originally adopted in 1993 and amended in March 2002. Policy 7 of the
CWPPs calls for an economic policy that encourages, strengthens and
diversifies the County's economic base through emphasis on the agricultural
base and encouragement of environmentally acceptable industries. Further
the policy encourages employment opportunities through promotion of
locally produced goods, value added industries, strong economic
development promotion, and strong community leadership. The policy
encourages a focus on existing commercial and industrial developments to
attain such economic diversity, and calls for direction of commercial activity
towards existing regional and local transportation access.
Under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070(d)(i), areas of commercial and
industrial development are permitted in the rural areas, provided such areas
are minimized and contained within a logical outer boundary (LOB).
Industrial areas are not required to be principally designed to serve the
existing and projected rural population.
The intent of the rural industrial and commercial classifications is to
accommodate uses appropriate to the lower densities and land uses of rural
areas, such as independent contracting services, "resource-based
industries," industries requiring large, secluded parcels away from
population centers and not requiring urban services, and commercial
recreational uses.
In addition, Grant County is both a destination for recreational activities as
well as offering tourist attractions for people traveling through the County
along Interstate 90 to reach other parts of the State. Recreation and tourism
facilities and uses provide an opportunity for the rural residents of Grant
County to provide services to the traveling public and recreational and
wildlife enthusiasts. It also provides an opportunity to derive economic
opportunity and benefit from the traveling public. Consistent with measures
to protect the rural environment, preserve rural character, maintain rural
levels of intensity, and the ability of such facilities to operate with rural
infrastructure, such recreational and tourism is key to enabling economic
opportunity to rural residents.
Historically, a significant portion of employment activity in Grant County has
been dependent upon jobs located outside of urban centers. Such resource-
based employment is critical to the overall success of the Grant County
October 2003 Page 8
RAID Boundary Analysis
economy. The Comprehensive Plan and UDC provide for such opportunity
while minimizing and containing those areas. In short, it allows many
residents of Grant County to live where they work.
Measure Governing Rural Development
To maintain a balance between growth, lifestyle preferences, economic
development, and protection of these resources and the environment, the
County established measures to govern and contain rural development. The
Plan intends that the existing rural character of the diverse regions of the
County be protected by such measures discussed below.
Containing Rural Development: Preservation of Grant County's open space
and low density rural areas is a high priority in order to preserve the area's
rural character is essential. The Plan and subsequent Unified Development
Code provide development and performance guidelines and safeguards to
ensure that rural development does not result in unaffordable, nonfunctional
sprawl. Further, establishment of logical outer boundaries for all RAIDS fully
contains and minimizes more intensive rural development.
Provision of Urban Services: Rural development is also controlled through the
provision of urban services. Development and increased densities tend to occur
in areas offering easy access and full utility services. Currently, such amenities
are only available within the County's urban growth areas. Grant County's low
density rural areas are typically served by private water and on-site sewage
disposal systems. Access is provided by County roads with design standards
reflecting low volumes. By continuing to provide urban type services only in
urban growth areas, low density sprawl will be curtailed. Further, many of the
RAIDs are currently served by rural service providers, including private water
and sewer districts, as well as County -provided services such as road
maintenance and police protection.
Assuring Visual Compatibility: Rural areas in Grant County will typically border
urban growth areas, rural areas or more intensive development, or resource
lands. Often times, they are in a position of providing a transition between
these distinctly different types of areas. To assure visual compatibility, a
transition of uses and densities has been designated whenever possible.
Rural areas adjacent to urban growth areas and rural areas or more intensive
development are typically designated as Rural Residential with a density of
one dwelling unit per five acres. Rural lands adjacent to designated resource
lands are typically designated as Rural Remote with a density of one dwelling
unit per twenty acres.
Reducing Inappropriate Conversion of Undeveloped Land: Undeveloped lands
in the County are of significant value, primarily as resource lands, but also as
the low density, natural areas that characterize rural Grant County. Sprawling,
low-density development promotes an inefficient and unattractive use of
developable land and frequently destroys significant environmental, cultural,
historic, and/or natural resources. To reduce the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land, approximately 68 percent of the County's land area has
been designated as agricultural resource land. The maximum density has been
designated as one dwelling unit per 40 acres.
October 2003 Page 9
RAID Boundary Analysis
Protecting Critical Areas and Water Quality: Grant County hosts a wide variety
of natural resources and scenic wonders. Wetlands, shorelines, wildlife habitat,
and exceptional water quality are common features throughout the County.
These features not only help to define the region's rural character, but also are
the aspects of the area that residents treasure. Such features are often
historically taken for granted. These features were protected by the Grant
County Code Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted in 1993 and amended in 2000. This ordinance serves to protect
wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats, and frequently flooded,
aquifer recharge (groundwater), and geologically hazardous areas. The
ordinance provides the authority to regulate these critical areas, methods for
their identification, and protection standards. Protection is provided by
regulating allowable uses, providing mitigation and setback requirements, and
establishing minimum parcel areas.
The rural -based economy and development patterns authorized in Grant
County must comply with shoreline, critical area, and SEPA-based
regulations designed and enforced to protect the environment and sensitive
fish and wildlife habitat. This is accomplished through the land use permit
system and administration of development regulations, requirements for
concurrency (GCC 25.20), and the limitation of more intense activities in
rural areas to specific geographic locations, contained by logical outer
boundaries, and proper control of scale, size and intensity of such activities.
Under GCC 24.16, rural development may not occur within identified
floodways. In addition, the requirements of GCC 24.12 protect and preserve
the functions and values of shoreline environments of both statewide and
local significance.
Protecting Resource Lands: The Plan plays a vital role in protecting
resource lands. Rural residential development can create conflicts with
resource land operations and special attention is needed at the interface
between rural areas and other types of areas. Significant effort has gone into
preparing the land use map, both in identifying resource lands and
evaluating potential conflicts. Resource lands have been designated in large
blocks with changes of topography and other natural features used as
boundaries whenever possible. This eliminates ribbons and islands of
residential areas and potential incompatible development. The large blocks
also serve to isolate resource lands from rural residential uses so that roads
and utilities servicing development do not cross expanses of resource lands.
In addition, resource lands are protected under Grant County Code Chapter
24.08 and by the Natural Setting Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Consideration of Unique Circumstances
The Rural Element is a mandatory element of a Comprehensive Plan under
RCW 36.70A.070. The GMA states "Because circumstances vary from
county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a
county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record
explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals of the GMA.
In March 2002, the Grant County Planning Department produced a
document clarifying how the County's consideration of local circumstances
October 2003 Page 10
RAID Boundary Analysis
in the development of its rural element (including establishment of RAIDS), in
the Comprehensive Plan was "harmonized" with the GMA planning goals,
consistent with 36.70A.070(5)(a). An excerpt from that document follows.
"A myriad of local circumstances unique to Grant County recognized
as important to the rural character of Grant County were identified
during the extensive public participation process and preparation of
the Plan. These unique circumstances, among them Grant County's
prosperous agricultural economy, required that the Plan be tailored to
achieve the vision of its citizens and to ensure the long-term viability
of the County's agriculturally -based economy.
A surprising number of cities and towns (15) exist within Grant
County, 11 of which currently contain populations of less than 2,500
people. In addition, a large number of smaller, unincorporated
communities are located throughout the County, from recreational
communities on the Columbia River to historic small communities
serving the rural population and a growing tourism industry.
Much of the County's agricultural success is attributable to the Central
Basin Irrigation Project, which infgates approximately 552,000 acres of
Grant County's agricultural land. This irrigation project enables the County
to foster a diverse agricultural base that is strong in both specialty and
more traditional crops. Combined, Grant County is a diversified
agricultural production powerhouse in Washington State. In fact, one out
of every seven dollars in agricultural products in Washington State comes
from Grant County. The connection between agriculture and the economic
welfare of Grant County simply cannot be overstated.
Because of the strong role of agriculture in Grant County's economy, a
large numbers of migrant farm workers reside in rural areas. Generally,
these workers earn lower -incomes and are undercounted in population
statistics. The in -migration of these workers presented significant
challenges to Grant County's planning efforts, calling for further
emphasis on rural, low-income housing, and providing for in -filling of
existing residential areas in the rural areas.
Unlike in many western Washington counties, the citizens of Grant County
live where they work, in or near rural agricultural areas. This settlement
pattern is not new to Grant County since historically, a significant
percentage of the population has resided in the rural areas (at non -urban
densities) to provide support for existing agricultural industries.
These unique, local circumstances required that the Comprehensive
Plan be tailored to achieve the vision of its citizens. These local
circumstances were relied upon to craft a reasonable balance of the
GMA planning goals and achieve compliance with the GMA
requirements regarding the Rural Element."
October 2003 Page 11
RAID Boundary Analysis
RAID ANALYSES
Introduction
The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB)
found in their Final Decision and Orders that the RAID designations, as
configured in the Comprehensive Plan, "constituted an impermissible pattern
of urban growth in a rural area." As a result of the Final Decision and Order
of the EWGMHB, Grant County has prepared a work plan to review and
revise the RAIDS as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and is
implementing that work plan.
Subsequent to the EWGMHBs Final Decision and Orders (FDO) that found
the RAIDS to be non-compliant with the GMA—and the County's pending
appeal of that ruling—the Grant County Planning Department initiated
several actions intended to both implement necessary steps toward
compliance and regulate development within the RAIDS until such time as
compliance was achieved. The following actions were taken:
1. The Grant County Planning Department produced interim maps for
the RAIDS that prohibited development unless it could be
demonstrated by the applicant that the area of development met the
requirements for compliance with the rural amendments of the GMA,
largely focused on the issue of pre -1991 development.
2. Grant County and the cities and towns of the county reconvened the
Grant County Planned Growth Committee (GCPGC) to consider
potential amendments to the 1993 County -wide Planning Policies
(CWPPs) on issues brought forward by the members. The GCPGC
approved by a majority vote the inclusion of language taken verbatim
from the GMA (recognizing and including rural areas of more
intensive development) into the CWPPs. Based on the approval of
the GCPGC, the Grant County Board of County Commissioners
adopted an amendment to the CWPPs including language
recognizing and providing for the necessary consistency between
the Comprehensive Plan, the CWPPs and the GMA—as directed by
the FDO of the EWGMHB and the GMA.
3. In March 2002, the Grant County Planning Department produced a
document clarifying how the County's consideration of local
circumstances in the development of its rural element (including
establishment of RAIDs), in the Comprehensive Plan was
"harmonized" with the GMA planning goals, consistent with
36.70A.070(5)(a).
4. In March 2002, the Grant County Planning Department produced
interim maps for the RAIDS that provided an incrementally greater
level of conformance, again specifically with regard to historical
development patterns. The revised logical outer boundaries were
intended to suffice until such time as all relevant information had
been adequately considered. It was anticipated that the final
boundaries would potentially change from the interim boundaries.
Interim development controls included restricting residential densities
to one dwelling unit per five acres and prohibiting new commercial
development and new non-agricultural industrial development within
October 2003 Page 12
RAID Boundary Analysis
original RAID boundaries and outside the new, interim boundaries.
In preparing the interim outer boundaries, the Planning Department
relied upon aerial mapping prepared in 1996, together with parcel
data obtained from the Grant County Assessor for 1991, to assess
use and extent of development.
In establishing the interim LOBS for the RAIDS, the Grant County Planning
Department considered existing conditions as well as local, historic context
of both individual parcels and the surrounding area. In addition, regulatory
history (zoning and land use designations) of the parcels and area were
considered. Previous and current land use and zoning is but one factor for
consideration in establishing RAIDs and cannot be the sole reason to
include or exclude a particular parcel or area.
To delineate boundaries, the Planning Department used its Geographical
Information System (GIS) and several data sets to prepare maps. Data sets
used to document the presence of development as of July 1, 1991, and to
delineate logical outer boundaries included:
• Aerial photographic mapping prepared by the National Resource
Conservation Service, dated 1996;
• 'Improved Value," as reported by the Grant County Assessor as of
December 31, 1990,
• Lots platted prior to 1991, as reported by the Grant County
Assessor,
• "Construction Value," reported by the Grant County Assessor, and
• Photographic record of each of the RAIDS prepared by the Grant
County Planning Department.
Insofar as reasonably possible, the aerial photo was overlaid with parcel
data, and the various data sets applied using GIS techniques to define the
built environment prior to July 1, 1991. From the GIS analysis, the Planning
Department then crafted a boundary that reconciles the data while satisfying
the criteria established in the GMA for delineating boundaries, including:
• The need to preserve the character of existing natural
neighborhoods and communities;
• Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways,
and land forms and contours;
• Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and
• The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that
does not permit low-density sprawl.
In nearly all cases, the resulting interim LOBS were substantially reduced
from the original designation.
October 2003 Page 13
RAID Boundary Analysis
Work Plan to Revise RAIDS
On June 4, 2003, a preliminary analysis was presented to the Grant County
Planning Commission. It defined the methodology used to reexamine the
RAIDS and to modify LOBs, as necessary, to achieve compliance with the
GMA. Additional tasks completed since that date include:
• Re-examination of the "pre -July 1991" built environment and further
documentation, including property owner -provided information,
public testimony and anecdotal evidence, to confirm the LOB for
each RAID.
• Research and examination of local agency infrastructure records,
including the Grant County Health District, Public Utility District, and
Grant County Public Works, to assess presence of pre -1991
infrastructure improvements.
• Site reconnaissance to confirm existing conditions and infrastructure,
observe visual character of site and surroundings, and make a
photographic record.
• Preparation of RAID maps that show proposed LOBS, limits of the
July 1, 1990, built environment and annotations to support and
document the delineations.
• Preparation of this boundary analysis report that defines for each
RAID the existing conditions, local and historic context, zoning and
land use history, built environment, physical infrastructure and
buildings, and describes the areas proposed for inclusion.
• Establishment of new land use and zoning designations for those
parcels that lie within the original LOBS and outside of proposed final
LOBS.
A draft of this RAID Boundary Analysis Report was provided to the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) on
July 10, 2003 for review and comment. At about the same time, the GCPC
initiated a public hearing to receive input on the proposed RAID revisions
from Grant County Planning Department staff and consultant, and to hear
public comment on the proposed changes. On August 6, 2003, the GCPC
issued a recommendation for consideration by the Grant County Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC). Subsequently, the BOCC received a letter
from a CTED representative that contained suggestions, concerns and
recommendations regarding the draft RAID Boundary Analysis Report, a
copy of which is included in Appendix E.
Revisions to RAIDS are intended to minimize and contain existing areas of
more intensive rural development, guided by the overall objective to prevent
"low-density sprawl" and the proliferation of "urban" uses in an otherwise
"rural' area. Where "urban services" are not provided or presently planned
for within the LOBs of proposed RAIDS, this is considered to be a significant
limiting factor to economic development, and is also a significant factor in
limiting and containing development and ensuring that low-density sprawl
does not occur.
October 2003 Page 14
RAID Boundary Analysis
In conducting the work plan identified above, Grant County reexamined the
pre -1991 built environment and development using a deliberate planning
process in order to establish final RAID designations and LOBs. Provided
below are summaries of the analyses conducted to support the
recommendation for designation of RAIDs and establishment of their logical
outer boundaries. In order to establish the existence and extent of areas
considered for designation as RAIDs, Grant County relied primarily on aerial
photos and parcel -specific Assessor's data. Additional evidence related to
existing infrastructure was obtained from health department records for
water and sewer systems, existing mapping for roadways and railways and
anecdotal evidence obtained from property owner's, public testimony and
other persons considered knowledgeable about the area.
These analyses are intended to support the RAID maps included in
Appendix A. A RAID Inventory, a tabulation of data responsive to the criteria
for designation of a RAID as well as parcel and areal extent resulting from
the recommended LOB, is included in Appendix B. The RAID Inventory
includes data on land use history, platting and improvement history, and the
built environment, including water, sewer power, earthwork and grading,
structures, roads, rail and other man-made facilities. Full documentation of
the RAID Analyses is contained in the work files maintained by Grant
County Planning Department. The designation criteria for RAIDs contained
in the Comprehensive Pian is included in Appendix C.
Rural Communities
The purpose of this designation is to recognize the historic, unincorporated
communities that are characterized by more intensive densities and that may
offer some "urban services" such as community water, limited commercial
uses, and fire protection. Rural Communities are generally not self-sufficient.
The Rural Communities are generally small, compact, isolated rural centers
that primarily exist to provide housing, convenience goods, and services to
residents in and around the area. The Rural Communities are characterized
by activities including, but not limited to, single family residences, small-scale
industries and businesses, public facilities such as post offices, schools, and
fire departments, and recreational -oriented development. Industry and
businesses do not necessarily provide services to neighboring residents, but
do provide job opportunities for rural residents. In addition, the Rural
Communities provide services to the traveling public. It is intended that these
areas continue to be a mixture of land uses including residential, commercial,
and industrial. New residential development will be allowed at a maximum
density of one dwelling unit per acre provided the land can physically support
it without requiring public sewer or water services if not currently available.
The Rural Communities will also accommodate needed commercial and light
industrial uses.
Development and redevelopment in Rural Communities must comply with all
provisions of the following provisions of the Grant County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
October 2003 Page 15
RAID Boundary Analysis
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within any of the Rural Communities will be
reviewed in accordance with the review procedures established for each of
the above regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on resource
information and maps maintained by the County as well as determinations
made by site assessment professionals, resource agency representatives
and affected Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
The built environment, including water, sewer, power, earthwork and
grading, structures, roads, rail and other man-made facilities, within each of
the rural communities was reviewed and documented by Grant County. A
summary of the built environment is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in
Appendix B. A photographic record of each of the rural communities is
provided in Appendix C.
Schazuana (Map I)
Schwana is an historic plat of residential houses, a portion of which was
developed well before July 1991. The built environment within Schwana is
tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. Existing commercial
development includes a service station and an auto towing service. The
Schwana Water System serves the entire area. The area is surrounded by
Rural Residential 3 land uses. A 0.99 -acre commercially -zoned lot was not
included in the Rural Community in the GMA Comprehensive Plan and is
included in the proposed RAID. The final proposed LOB results in an increase
of 0.99 acre within the RAID, but results from a consolidation of a parcel
previously having a commercial land use.
Beverh (Map 2)
Beverly is an historic plat of mixed uses including about 30 single family
residential and 20 multi -family residential units, all of which were developed
well before July 1991. A 10 -unit apartment building, a church and a post
office are the predominate commercial development. Both residential and
non-residential development existed prior to July 1991. The built
environment within Beverly is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix
B. The area is surrounded by Rural Residential 3 land uses.
October 2003 Page 16
RAID Boundary Analysis
The interim boundary was revised to fully contain the area of development that
existed prior to July 1991 and exclude undeveloped parcels. The final proposed
boundary consists of the interim area plus two parcels on the north side, totaling
0.90 -acre, that contain two small residences constructed in 1910.
The final proposed LOB results in a decrease of 4.63 acres within the RAID.
Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as Rural
Residential 3.
Wheeler (Map 3)
Wheeler is an historic plat of mixed uses including single-family residences,
multi -family residential units, a church, a cafe and tavern, all of which were
developed well before July 1991. The built environment within Wheeler is
tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is surrounded by
industrial and agricultural land uses. The final proposed LOB results in no
changes to the RAID.
Royal Camp (Map 4)
Royal Camp is a plat of mixed uses including single-family residences, a
church and a agricultural supply business. It was originally developed by the
Bureau of Reclamation to provide housing in support of the Columbia Basin
Irrigation project. The built environment within Royal Camp is tabulated on
the RAID Inventory in Appendix B.
The interim boundary was revised to fully contain the area of development
that existed prior to July 1991 and exclude undeveloped parcels. The final
proposed boundary consists of the interim area plus two parcels on the west
side that contain the church, totaling about 4 acres.
The final proposed LOB results in a decrease of 38.6 acres within the RAID.
Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as
Agricultural Resource.
Parker Springs (Map 5)
The Parker Springs RAID is directly south of the "Ridge View Estates" RAID
designated in the GMA Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Parker Springs
RAID includes a 30.3 -acre vacant parcel that lies between Parker Springs
and Ridgeview Estates developments. Parker Springs was platted and
partially built prior to July 1991; Ridge View Estates to the north was platted
and built subsequent to July 1991. Both are nearly fully built out today and a
proposal for development of the 30.3 -acre parcel that lies between Parker
Springs and Ridge View Estates is currently being considered, The final
proposed boundary consists of the Parker Springs development plus the
30.3 -acre parcel on the north side. The Ridgeview Estates area is proposed
to be deleted from the RAID and redesignated as Rural Residential 3. It is
proposed for deletion since the area was not developed prior to July 1, 1991.
Inclusion of the 30.3 -acre area in the RAID will allow for infill development to
occur between the two areas of existing residential development, and will
result in a uniform, cohesive development. The LOB fully contains and
minimizes the development. The net result is an increase of 25.6 acres.
October 2003 Page 17
RAID Boundary Analysis
Trinidad (Map 6)
Trinidad is an historic plat of mixed uses including a general store, a trading
post, a mini -storage facility and several single-family residences, all of which
were developed before July 1991. The built environment within Trinidad is
tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The plat consists of small lots
that have been consolidated to provide adequate area for residential
construction served by on-site sewage systems. The area is surrounded by
Rural Remote land uses and the Crescent Bar Recreation Development area.
The interim boundary was revised to reflect the existing roads constructed
within the plat and to include several residences constructed along the bluff.
The final proposed LOB results in a slight increase of 7.2 acres within the
RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as
Rural Remote.
In it's deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
Commission recommended modifications to the LOB recommended by the
Grant County Planning Department staff. The GCPC added two additional
small parcels that contained an existing house and totaled 0.1 acre, resulting
in an increase of 7.3 acres.
Wanapum Village (Map 7)
Wanapum Village is a tax lot comprised of 30 single-family residences and a
park, originally developed to provide housing in support of the Wanapum
Dam project. The built environment within Wanapum Village is tabulated on
the RAID Inventory in Appendix B,. The interim boundary was revised to fully
contain the area of development that existed prior to July 1991 and exclude
undeveloped parcels to the south and north. The final proposed boundary
further eliminates a 1 -acre parcel on the north that was developed as a retail
use in 1996.
The final proposed LOB results in a decrease of 37.1 acres within the RAID.
Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as Rural
Remote.
Marine View Heights (Map 8)
Marine View Heights is a plat of mixed uses including a golf course, single-
family residences (predominately mobile homes), a camping facility, an RV
resort, a service station and a sport resort. The built environment within
Marine View Heights is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The
area is located adjacent to Potholes State Park. The area is served by the
Sunrise water system.
The interim boundary was revised to exclude two large parcels to the west
that are currently in agricultural use and to include two small parcels directly
across O'Sullivan Dam Road from the RAID that have historically been in
retail use. Over 50% of the plat was developed prior to July 1991, and over
80% of the plat is now developed. The final proposed boundary consists of
the interim area plus two parcels on the north side of O'Sullivan Dam Road,
totaling about 2.5 acres.
October 2003 Page 18
RAID Boundary Anal
The final proposed LOB results in a decrease of 121.4 acres within the
RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as
Agricultural Resource.
White Trail (Map 9)
White Trail is an historic plat of mixed uses including the Quincy Golf
Course, a truck parts facility, a 100 -unit RV facility, and several single-family
residences, all of which were developed before July 1991. The built
environment within White Trail is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in
Appendix B. The area is centered on the intersection of Road Q NW and
Road 5 NW, and is surrounded by Irrigated Agricultural lands. The area is
served by the White Trail Grange water system. A community drainfield
serves the RV park within the Quincy Golf Course.
The interim boundary was revised to exclude several large parcels along the
interim boundary that were not developed prior to July 1991. The final
proposed LOB results in a decrease of 55.55 acres within the RAID. Areas
removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as Agricultural
Resource.
Rural Villages
The purpose of this designation is to recognize the historic, unincorporated
communities that are characterized by urban type densities, are self
sufficient villages offering a full range of consumer goods and services, and
that may offer some urban services such as community water and fire
protection. The Rural Village typically does not offer public sewer treatment
services, but may have a community sewer system. This designation
provides for the infill, development, or redevelopment of lands within the
Rural Village boundary. The Rural Village is generally a compact, self-
sufficient town that functions as a small urban center and provides housing,
convenience goods, and services to residents in and around the area. The
Rural Village is characterized by activities including, but not limited to, single
family residences, small scale industries and businesses in a compact core,
public facilities such as post offices, schools, and fire departments, and
recreational -oriented development. Densities are limited by the capacity of
area soils to support on-site sewage disposal. Industry and businesses do
not necessarily provide services to neighboring residents but do provide job
opportunities for rural residents. In addition, the Rural Village provides
services to the traveling public. It is intended that these areas continue to be
a mixture of land uses including residential, commercial, and industrial. New
residential development will be allowed at a maximum density of four
dwelling units per acre provided the land can physically support such
development without requiring public sewer or water services if not currently
available. The Rural Village will also accommodate needed commercial and
light industrial uses.
Development and redevelopment in Rural Villages must comply with all
provisions of the following provisions of the Grant County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
October 2003 Page 19
RAID Boundary Analysis
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within the Rural Village will be reviewed in
accordance with the review procedures established for each of the above
regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on resource information
and maps maintained by the County as well as determinations made by site
assessment professionals, resource agency representatives and affected
Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
The built environment, including water, sewer, power, earthwork and grading,
structures, roads, rail and other man-made facilities, within each of the rural
villages was reviewed and documented by Grant County. A summary of the
built environment is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. A
photographic record of each of the rural villages is provided in Appendix C.
Desert Aire (Map 10)
Desert Aire is the only area designated as a Rural Village. Desert Aire is an
area of mixed uses including a hotel, service station, fire department, senior
care center, an RV park, an airport, a golf course, and many single family
residences, all of which were developed before July 1991. The built
environment within Desert Aire is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in
Appendix B. Water and sewer service is provided by the Desert Aire
Owners' Association systems. The area is surrounded by Rural Remote and
Dryland Agriculture land uses
It is intended that Desert Aire continue to be a mixture of land uses including
residential, commercial, and industrial. New residential development will be
allowed at a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre, which is
consistent with historical development patterns in the village. The maximum
density will apply to all future development, allowing the Desert Aire Rural
Village to infill at the predominant density of existing development.
The boundary of the Desert Aire Rural Village in the GMA Comprehensive
Plan includes an area larger than the original plat and the current PUD. In
late 2000, Grant County assembled an advisory committee and reexamined
October 2003 Page 20
RAID Boundary Analysis
the Rural Village boundaries and proposed uses. There was considerable
interest among the committee members and the citizens in attendance about
the boundaries. Two property owners specifically requested that their
property be removed from the area to preserve agriculture as the primary
use. They expressed concern that they be protected from encroachment
from incompatible uses. The committee noted that the Desert Aire Owners'
Association owned several parcels totaling some 70 acres on the east side
of State Highway 243. This property is the current site of the PUD's water
tank. In addition, additional property has been retained to allow for future
siting of a sewer treatment facility, should it become necessary. The
committee expressed a strong desire to retain this property within the
boundary. A reduced boundary has been recommended.
In compliance with the Desert Aire Rural Village plan, the interim boundary
was reduced to exclude the parcels south of the development and several
along the eastern border. The final proposed LOB results in a decrease of
658.5 acres within the RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to
be redesignated as Rural Remote and Agricultural Resource.
Shoreline Developments
The purpose of this designation is to recognize existing residential
development related to shorelines in rural areas. This designation provides
for residential development on parcels that are surrounded by smaller lots
and which can physically support such development without requiring urban
service levels. The shoreline development areas are characterized by
activities including, but not limited to, a predominance of existing small lots
with single-family residences (seasonal and year round use). Lands are
typically too far from the urban area to enable cost-effective provision of
public services nor do typical uses require provision of urban services. The
maximum residential density ranges from three dwelling units per acre to
one dwelling unit per two acres, based on the predominant density and
parcel size of the existing platted environment as determined by an analysis
of the 1998 Grant County Assessor's maps. Predominant parcel size is
defined as those parcels comprising at least 60 percent of the total parcels
within the logical outer boundary. The maximum densities will apply to all
future development, allowing the Shoreline Development areas to infill at the
predominant density of existing environment.
Development and redevelopment in Shoreline Developments must comply with
all provisions of the following provisions of the Grant County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development,
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
October 2003 Page 21
RAID Boundary Anal
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within any of the Shoreline Developments will be
reviewed in accordance with the review procedures established for each of
the above regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on resource
information and maps maintained by the County as well as determinations
made by site assessment professionals, resource agency representatives
and affected Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
The built environment, including water, sewer, power, earthwork and
grading, structures, roads, rail and other man-made facilities, within each of
the shoreline developments was reviewed and documented by Grant
County. A summary of the built environment is tabulated on the RAID
Inventory in Appendix B. A photographic record of each of the shoreline
developments is provided in Appendix C.
McConihe Shore (Map 11)
McConihe Shore lies along the west edge of Moses Lake and consists of
smaller parcels designed to take advantage of recreational and aesthetic
values in proximity to the shore. The built environment within McConihe
Shore is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. There are four
distinct areas of smaller parcels, each separated by lots that have yet to be
divided along the shore. The area is surrounded by Rural Residential 1 land
uses. The shoreline designation is intended to allow the vacant lots to infill at
the predominate density within the LOB. The final proposed LOB results in
no change from that designated in the GMA Comprehensive Plan,
Mae Valley Shore (Map 12)
The Mae Valley Shore RAID lies to the south of the McConihe Shore RAID
on the south shore of Moses Lake, and extends southward to abut the
Moses Pointe golf course. The built environment within Mae Valley Shore is
tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The original LOB contained
several large parcels that included some development prior to July 1991 and
a series of small parcels along the south shore of the lake that were not
developed. Because the majority of the area was not developed in 1991, this
RAID is proposed to be eliminated, and a portion of the lands redesignated
as Rural Residential 1 and a portion to Rural Residential 2. The final
proposed LOB results in a decrease of 922.4 acres within the RAID.
Blue Lake Shore (Map 13)
Blue Lake Shore was established as a RAID in the GMA Comprehensive Plan
along the eastern shore of Blue Lake, north of Soap Lake. The northern portion
October 2003 Page 22
RAID Boundary Analysis
of the area includes many small lots along the shore; the southern portion is
dominated by the Rimrock Cove private community. The built environment
within Blue Lake Shore is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B.
Water service is provided by the Blue Lake Resort system. Sewer service for
the southern portion is provided by the Rimrock Cove Homeowners'
Association wastewater treatment facility located at the south end of the lake.
On-site sewage systems serve the residences along the eastern shore.
Two additional areas along the southwestern edge of the lake and along SR
17 are proposed to be added to the RAID, together with the campground
and wastewater treatment facility area at the southern end and the King
Ranch shortplat. This will provide for a logical outer boundary along the
south end bordered by roadways and topographic features. The final
proposed LOB results in an increase of 82.9 acres within the RAID.
In it's deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
Commission recommended modifications to the LOB recommended by the
Grant County Planning Department staff. The GCPC included two new
areas: (1) those portions of three parcels lying west of SR 17 and (2) a
parcel lying east and south of the Rimrock Cove development. The GCPC's
recommended changes added 51.3 acres.
The inclusion of the parcels west of SR 17 will promote a more logical outer
boundary that is not bisected by the roadway. It will allow for appropriate
development west of the roadway, since there may not be adequate area
available for development between the roadway and the shore. Inclusion of
the parcel east of Rimrock Cove recognizes an existing short plat and an
existing mini -storage facility. It further allows for continuing the existing
shoreline development pattern along the east side of Moore Road NE.
Sunland Estates (Map 14)
Sunland Estates is an historic plat of mixed uses including a small general
store, a community pool and playground and about 485 single-family
residences, all of which were developed before July 1991. The built
environment within Sunland Estates is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in
Appendix B. The area is located at the foot of the bluff along the Columbia
River west of George. The plat consists of small lots served by on-site
sewage systems and the Sunland Estates Maintenance Company water
system. The area is surrounded by Rural Remote land uses and the
Columbia River. The final proposed LOB results in no change from that
designated in the GMA Comprehensive Plan.
Recreational Developments
The purpose of this designation is to recognize existing residential and
commercial development related to seasonal, resort -related, or tourist
activities in rural areas. Activities are often shoreline -related or centered
around an amenity such as a golf course or other outdoor recreational
activity center. This designation provides for commercial development,
including hotels, condominiums, vacation home rentals, retail stores,
restaurants, golf courses, marinas, open space, and similar recreational or
tourist activities. This designation also provides for residential development
October 2003 Page 23
RAID Boundary Analysis
on small parcels that can physically support such development without
requiring urban service levels. The maximum residential density is one
dwelling unit per acre. Lands are often too far from the urban area to enable
cost-effective provision of public services, nor do typical uses require
provision of urban services. Water service is typically provided by individual
or community water systems. Sewer service is typically provided by
individual, community, or public systems.
Development and redevelopment in Recreational Developments must comply
with all provisions of the following provisions of the Grant County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within any of the Recreational Developments will be
reviewed in accordance with the review procedures established for each of
the above regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on resource
information and maps maintained by the County as well as determinations
made by site assessment professionals, resource agency representatives
and affected Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
The built environment, including water, sewer, power, earthwork and
grading, structures, roads, rail and other man-made facilities, within each of
the recreational developments was reviewed and documented by Grant
County. A summary of the built environment is tabulated on the RAID
Inventory in Appendix B. A photographic record of each of the recreational
developments is provided in Appendix C.
Crescent Bar (Map IS)
Crescent Bar is an recreational area of mixed uses a resort, campground,
hotels and condominiums, mobile home parks, gated community and a
marina and fueling facility, all of which were developed before July 1991.
The area is located at the foot of the bluff on a Columbia River sand bar
west of Quincy. The built environment within Crescent Bar is tabulated on
October 2003 Page 24
RAID Boundary Analysis
the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is served by community sewer
and water systems.
The area is adjacent to Rural Remote land uses to the north and south,
although actual uses include some irrigated agriculture to the north, a golf
course to the south and the Columbia River. The agricultural lands to the
north abut sheer cliffs that rise up to the area of Trinidad and SR 28. Due to
the small area and the encroachment of the resort and recreational uses, the
financial feasibility of continued agricultural operations is severely restricted.
The final proposed LOB results in significant contraction to encompass just
the areas of existing development and to include the isolated area to the
north of the original boundary. The proposed boundary is largely delineated
by the sheer topography and the built environment. The final proposed LOB
results in a decrease of 288.4 acres within the RAID. Areas removed from
the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as Rural Remote.
The Gorge (Map 16)
The Gorge area was originally developed as a winery, then as the Gorge
Amphitheater, both prior to July 1991. Today, the area includes a vineyard
and the winery, the world-famous Gorge Amphitheater and an associated
campground. A single residence sits west of the Amphitheater. The built
environment within The Gorge is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in
Appendix B. Sewer services are provided by three separate community
drainfields; water services are provided by the Gorge water system.
The interim boundary was revised to exclude large parcels to the north and
south and to more closely confine the existing development. The final
proposed LOB largely follows existing parcel boundaries and includes the
existing facilities at the Gorge. The proposed LOB results in a decrease of
635.6 acres within the RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to
be redesignated as Rural Remote (116.9 acres) and Irrigated Agriculture
(518.6 acres).
In it's deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
Commission recommended modifications to the LOB recommended by the
Grant County Planning Department staff. The GCPC included a portion of a
160 -acre parcel immediately south of the campground area east of Road W.
This area is currently in agricultural use. The GCPC's recommended
changes added 80.4 acres.
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to inclusion
of this additional undeveloped area as part of The Gorge RAID be
investigated. As an alternative to its inclusion, commercial or industrial
development may still occur on this parcel provided it meets the
requirements for small-scale recreation or tourism, isolated small-scale
business, home occupation or cottage industry under RCW 36.70A.070 (ii)
and (iii). This authorizes the intensification of development on lots containing
isolated non-residential uses or new development of isolated cottage
industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally
designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
October 2003 Page 25
RAID Boundary Analysis
Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be
in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The requirements and restrictions for such
development are contained in GCC Chapter 23.08.
North Soap Lake (Map 17)
The North Soap Lake area is bounded by Soap Lake to the south and
Bureau of Reclamation lands and facilities to the north. The built
environment within North Soap Lake is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in
Appendix B. The eastern portion is occupied by the American Adventure
campground; the western portion includes a single-family residence. SR 17
forms the eastern boundary of the area. The area is surrounded by Rural
Residential 1 land uses with Agriculture and Rural Remote uses further out.
The LOB includes those parcels on which development existed prior to 1991
and which are bounded and constrained by public facilities. The final
proposed LOB results in no change from that designated in the GMA
Comprehensive Plan.
Marine View 2 (Map 18)
The Marine View 2 area is located on the south end of Potholes State Park,
and consists of a resort located north of O'Sullivan Dam Road, less than a
mile east of the Marine View Heights Rural Community. The resort includes
a marina, launch, cafe, service station, cabins, trailer and RV park and a
small grocery. The built environment within Marine View 2 is tabulated on
the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is surrounded by Open Space
land uses. Marine View 2 was designated as a rural commercial RAID in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the designation be changed to
Recreational Development to reflect its recreational and resort use along
Potholes Lake. The final proposed boundary consists of a portion of the interim
area plus a portion of the parcel adjacent to the west used as part of the resort,
totaling about 17.4 acres.
Agricultural Service Centers
The purpose of this designation is to recognize the historic, unincorporated
communities that are characterized by agricultural processing facilities and
limited agricultural support services that support local agricultural activities,
including small and large scale agricultural industries and businesses in a
compact core, single family residences, and open space. Residential
densities are limited by the capacity of area soils to support on-site sewage
disposal. Industry and businesses do not necessarily provide services to
neighboring residents but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
Commercial elements of Agricultural Service Centers are generally small,
compact, isolated businesses, such as restaurants, feed stores, farm and
garden supplies, groceries and drug stores, gas stations, and other small-
scale businesses, including residences in conjunction with such businesses.
The Agricultural Service Center typically does not offer public sewer
treatment services, but may have a community sewer system.
This designation provides for the infill, development, or redevelopment of
lands within the Agricultural Service Center boundary. It is intended that these
October 2003 Page 26
RAID Boundary Analysis
areas continue to be a mixture of land uses including agriculturally related
residential, commercial, and industrial. New residential development will be
allowed at a density of one dwelling unit per acre provided the land can
physically support such development without requiring public sewer or water
services if not currently available. The Agricultural Service Center will also
accommodate needed agriculturally -related commercial and industrial uses.
Development and redevelopment in Agricultural Service Centers must comply
with all provisions of the following provisions of the Grant County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within any of the Agricultural Service Centers will be
reviewed in accordance with the review procedures established for each of
the above regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on resource
information and maps maintained by the County as well as determinations
made by site assessment professionals, resource agency representatives
and affected Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
The built environment, including water, sewer, power, earthwork and
grading, structures, roads, rail and other man-made facilities, within each of
the Agricultural Service Centers was reviewed and documented by Grant
County. A summary of the built environment is tabulated on the RAID
Inventory in Appendix B. A photographic record of each of the Agricultural
Service Centers is provided in Appendix C.
Winchester (Map 19)
Winchester is an historic plat of mixed uses largely related to agricultural use
associated with the railroad. Uses include a "mini -mart' store, a few single-
family residences, and agricultural processing and warehouse facilities, all of
which were developed before July 1991. The majority of the development is
north of SR 28. The built environment within Winchester is tabulated on the
October 2003 Page 27
RAID Boundary Analysis
RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is surrounded by Irrigated
Agriculture land uses.
The interim boundary was revised to exclude large parcels to the east and
south. The final proposed LOB includes a portion of the historical plat area
north of the railroad, the developed parcels south of the railroad and north of
SR 28, and the existing residences south of SR 28. The proposed final LOB
results in a decrease of 177.3 acres within the RAID. Areas removed from
the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
RRW(Map 20)
Ruff is an historic plat of mixed uses largely related to agricultural use
associated with the railroad. Uses include a grain elevator and storage
facility, 16 silos, several defunct commercial structures and a dozen single-
family residences, all of which were developed before July 1991. The
residential development is located east of the railroad. The built environment
within Ruff is tabulated on the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is
surrounded by Irrigated Agriculture land uses.
The interim boundary was revised to exclude large parcels to the west,
south and north. The final proposed LOB includes a portion of the historical
plat area east of the railroad and the developed parcels west of the railroad.
The proposed final LOB results in a decrease of 49.3 acres within the RAID.
Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as
Agricultural Resource.
McDonald Sidin4 l (Map 21)
The area designated in the GMA Comprehensive Plan as McDonald Siding
was mapped erroneously and is recommended to be deleted and the area
within the LOB redesignated as Irrigated Agriculture. The proposed deletion
results in a decrease of 82 acres within the RAID. The correct location is
described below as McDonald Siding 2.
Ballards Cafe (Map 22)
Ballards Cafe area is an area of mixed uses largely related to agricultural
use associated with the railroad. Uses include An agricultural equipment and
supply company, a firehouse and a small cafe, all of which were developed
before July 1991. The built environment within Ballards Cafe is tabulated on
the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is surrounded by Irrigated
Agriculture land uses. The interim boundary was revised to exclude large
parcels to the east and south. The final proposed LOB includes the
developed parcels both east and west of Road U SE. The proposed final
LOB results in a decrease of 21.3 acres within the RAID. Areas removed
from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
In it's deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning Commission
recommended modifications to the LOB recommended by the Grant County
Planning Department staff. The GCPC included all of a 10.89 -acre parcel east
of Road U SE that is currently in use as an agricultural equipment repair facility
that supports the agricultural business within the RAID.
October 2003 Page 28
RAID Boundary Anal
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to inclusion
of this additional area as part of the Ballards Cafe RAID be investigated. As
an alternative to its inclusion, commercial or industrial development may still
occur on this parcel provided it meets the requirements for small-scale
recreation or tourism, isolated small-scale business, home occupation or
cottage industry under RCW 36.70A.070 (ii) and (iii). This authorizes the
intensification of development on lots containing isolated non-residential
uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-
scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and
projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job
opportunities for rural residents. Such uses need not be confined to a logical
outer boundary and need not be in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The
requirements and restrictions for such development are contained in GCC
Chapter 23.08.
In addition, allowable (permitted, discretionary and conditional) uses in the
Agricultural Zoning District provide for a broad array of agriculturally -related
commercial and industrial uses to support the agricultural economy of
County. White not all of the uses offered by the RAID designation are
allowed, many of those uses are.
Stratford (Map 23)
Stratford is an historic plat of mixed uses largely related to agricultural use
associated with the railroad. Uses on the north portion, along SR 28 west of
Stratford Road, are largely residential with a post office, hair salon and an
auto repair facility. Uses on the south portion, located along the railroad and
west of Stratford Road, are largely agricultural -related and include a grain
storage facility. The built environment within Stratford is tabulated on the
RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is surrounded by Irrigated
Agriculture land uses, with some Rural Residential 3 to the north.
The proposed final LOB includes only the northern portion and the southern
portion along the railroad. The proposed final LOB results in a decrease of
112 acres within the RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to
be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
McDonald Sidin4 2 (Map 24)
McDonald Siding 2 is comprised of several areas south of the Moses Lake
UGA that previously zoned as commercial or industrial. The area runs along
Road 1 SE and a railroad siding, and also along SR 17. Existing
development is largely related to agricultural support uses and activities
associated with the railroad. Uses include a seed, feed and fertilizer
business. The built environment within McDonald Siding 2 is tabulated on
the RAID Inventory in Appendix B. The area is surrounded by Irrigated
Agriculture land uses.
The proposed final LOB includes only the areas referred to as "Moses Lake
5", "Moses Lake 6", a portion of "Moses Lake 4", a small portion of "Moses
Lake 8" and "Moses Lake 9". All parcels include ongoing agricultural
activities. The proposed final LOB results in a decrease of 367 acres within
the RAID from the consolidated acreage of industrial or commercial zoned
October 2003 Page 29
RAID Boundary Analysis
land. Areas not consolidated in the Agricultural Service Center are proposed
to be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
McDonald Frontage 1 (Map 25)
McDonald Frontage 1 is comprised of eight parcels south of Road 1.3 SE
and a railroad siding. Existing development is largely related to agricultural
use associated with the railroad, including farm equipment and supply. The
built environment within McDonald Frontage 1 is tabulated on the RAID
Inventory in Appendix B. The area is surrounded by Irrigated Agriculture
land uses. This represents a new RAID, and the final proposed LOB results
in an increase of 22.6 acres.
Commercial & Industrial
In the GMA Comprehensive Plan, all areas that were at that time included in
a commercial or industrial zoning district were designated as RAIDs without
sufficient regard to the built environment. Based on rulings of the EWGMHB,
it is evident that previous zoning is but one factor for consideration in
establishing RAIDS and cannot stand alone as the sole reason to include or
exclude a particular area or parcel.
Under the provisions of RCS 36.70A.070(d)(i), areas of commercial and
industrial development are permitted in the rural areas, provided such areas
are minimized and contained within a logical outer boundary (LOB).
Industrial areas are not required to be principally designed to serve the
existing and projected rural population.
The LOB must be delineated predominantly by the `built environment,"but
may include undeveloped land if limited. This pattern of more intensive rural
development, as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), does not constitute
"urban growth" as defined in the GMA.
Designation of a commercial or industrial RAID does not require a
demonstrated demand for such land area allocation—as in the case for an
urban growth area. Neither do such RAIDs require allocation of projected
population growth, as commercial and industrial RAIDs are not designed for
residential population.
Development and redevelopment in Commercial and Industrial RAIDs must
comply with all provisions of the following provisions of the Grant County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
October 2003 Page 30
RAID Boundary Analysis
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within any of the Commercial and Industrial RAIDs
will be reviewed in accordance with the review procedures established for
each of the above regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on
resource information and maps maintained by the County as well as
determinations made by site assessment professionals, resource agency
representatives and affected Native American tribal representatives, as
required by GCC.
The built environment, including water, sewer, power, earthwork and
grading, structures, roads, rail and other man-made facilities, within each of
the commercial and industrial RAIDs was reviewed and documented by Grant
County. A summary of the built environment is tabulated on the RAID
Inventory in Appendix B. A photographic record of each of the commercial
and industrial RAIDS is provided in Appendix C.
Designation of the majority of the Commercial and Industrial RAIDs and
delineation of their LOBs is based solely on satisfaction of the criteria
established herein, largely whether they were determined to have had
existing development prior to July 1, 1991. They can be reviewed more
clearly using both the RAID inventory and mapping included in the
appendices together with the following narrative.
Rural Freeway Commercial
Grant County is realizing a growing economic dependence on
transportation -related activities and the traveling public that traverse the
State along Interstate 90. The areas around freeway interchanges with
County arterial roads are already impacted by and convenient to major
transportation facilities that accommodate such commercial opportunities.
Historically, these areas have provided convenient locations for vehicle
service, agricultural -related service requiring convenient access to
transportation facilities, services to the traveling public such as restaurants
and hotels as well as hubs from a variety of small businesses.
In addition, Grant County is both a destination for recreational activities as
well as offering tourist attractions for people traveling through the County
along Interstate 90 to reach other parts of the State. Recreation and tourism
facilities and uses provide an opportunity for the rural residents of Grant
County to provide services to the traveling public and recreational and
October 2003 Page 31
RAID Boundary Analysis
wildlife enthusiasts. It also provides an opportunity to derive economic
opportunity and benefit from the traveling public. Consistent with measures
to protect the rural environment, preserve rural character, maintain rural
levels of intensity, and the ability of such facilities to operate with rural
infrastructure, such recreational and tourism is key to enabling economic
opportunity to rural residents.
These intersections continue to provide a convenient location for commercial
and small industrial activities. These areas can be further developed and
infilled without need for further services, without impacting resource lands
and without impacting the rural character along the freeway. The areas
provide logical, reasonable locations for tourist and commercial services,
rural small businesses, and recreation and tourism uses.
Criteria for approval of development on such designated parcels is included
in the Comprehensive Plan and include limitations on size and scale,
mitigation of impacts, access requirements, prohibit extension of urban
services, requirements to prohibit sprawl and other design and development
standards. Further size limitations are included in GCC Section 23.04.520.
The following areas currently are zoned either commercial or industrial, but
are proposed to be designated as a Commercial land use, and subsequently
as a Rural Freeway Commercial zoning district. They meet the requirements
of the Comprehensive Plan for designation as "Rural Freeway Commercial'
areas, suitable for commercial uses associated with interchanges along
Interstate 90.
Portions of these areas have current development, but not all of them, except
for the public investment in Interstate 90 and its interchanges. This public
investment is a significant one, not only in its construction and maintenance,
but also in the limitations to development that it encumbered the property
owners with. Largely surrounded by agricultural land uses, the financial
viability of continuing to farm on these divided parcels is often greatly
diminished. In many cases the proximity to the interchange renders the
parcels best (if not solely) suited for serving the needs of the traveling public.
Ballard 1(Map 26)
Ballard 1 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 and Road U NE, and the 53 -
acre parcel is currently zoned industrial. The proposed RAID has been
reduced in area to provide frontage along Interstate 90 and totals 26.95 acres.
Dodson Road I (Map 30)
Dodson Road 1 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 and Dodson Road, and
the 20.64 -acre parcel is currently zoned commercial. The RAID provides
frontage along Interstate 90 and is currently developed with RV pads and has
been served with water, septic system and electrical power since 1974.
George 1 (Map 34)
George 1 lies at the intersection of SR 281 and SR 283, north of Interstate 90
and the 9.58 -acre parcel is currently zoned commercial. The area is
October 2003 Page 32
RAID Boundary Analysis
commonly known as Murphy's Corner. The area was developed prior to July
1, 1991, and currently contains a seasonal fruit stand and RV park.
George 2 Wap 35
George 2 lies at the intersection of SR 281 and SR 283, west of Interstate 90,
and the 5.58 -acre parcel is currently zoned commercial. The area is
commonly known as Murphy's Corner. The area was developed prior to July
1, 1991.
George 3 Ma 36
George 2 lies at the intersection of SR 281 and SR 283, west of Interstate 90,
and the 16 -acre parcel is currently zoned commercial. The area is commonly
known as Murphy's Corner. The area was developed prior to July 1, 1991,
and currently contains an auto and trucking fuel facility.
Moses Lake 10 Ma 56
Moses Lake 10 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 and Road O NE, and
the 30.7 -acre parcel is currently zoned commercial. Other than the Interstate
90 development, the parcel has been in agricultural use.
Silica Road 1 Ma 64
Silica Road 1 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90, Road U NE, and Silica
Road south of George. The 116.74 -acre area designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as a RAID is currently zoned commercial. The proposed
RAID has been reduced in area to provide frontage along Interstate 90 and
totals 69.05 acres. Other than the Interstate 90 development, the parcel has
not been developed.
In its deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
Commission recommended modifications to the LOB recommended by the
Grant County Planning Department staff. The GCPC included the entire
116.74 -acre area within the LOB.
Mae Valley 4 (Man 45)
Mae Valley 4 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 and Road B NE, and the
7.72 -acre parcel is currently zoned commercial. Other than the Interstate 90
development, the parcel has not been developed.
Rural General Commercial
Rural General Commercial areas are suitable for general commercial uses
having a variety of retail, office, personal and professional services, and
other commercial activities, and for more diversified business types including
non -retail commercial, light manufacturing, equipment sales and service,
and business uses which are primarily related to automotive traffic. Such
areas provide for a range of commercial uses and services to meet the
everyday needs of rural residents and natural resource industries, to provide
employment opportunities for residents of the rural area, and to provide
goods, services, and lodging for travelers and tourists to the area. These
areas are typically located along or adjacent to major traffic arterials.
October 2003 Page 33
RAID Boundary Analysis
Permitted uses are specified in Table 5 of GCC Chapter 23.04 and in
Section 23.04.500. New uses located on previously undeveloped parcels are
limited these areas are limited exclusively to rural recreational uses,
personal and professional services, residential care facilities, day care
facilities, and bed and breakfast residences. Therefore, even though Rural
General Commercial areas may contain vacant parcels within their LOBS,
development of such parcels is limited to infill with low -intensity or
recreational uses.
The following RAIDS are proposed as meeting the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan for designation as "Rural General Commercial" areas.
Coulee 1 (Map 27)
Coulee 1 lies at the intersection of SR 17 and US Highway 2; the 48.5 -acre
area is currently zoned open space. The area is commonly known as Dry
Falls Junction. The area was developed prior to July 1, 1991, and currently
contains a restaurant. The proposed RAID has been reduced in area to
provide frontage along SR 17 and US 2 and totals 2.85 acres.
George 7(Map 40)
George 1 lies at the intersection of Road Q NW and Road 1 NW west of
Murphy's Corner. The 6.3 -acre area is currently zoned .commercial. The area
was developed prior to July 1, 1991. The entire area is recommended for
designation as a Rural Commercial RAID.
O'Sullivan Shores I (Map 57)
O'Sullivan Shores 1 is a 0.21 -acre parcel located near the intersection of
Road J SE and Road 6 SE. It is currently zoned rural commercial and
houses a retail bait/tackle and convenience store. The entire area is
recommended for designation as a Rural Commercial RAID.
Ramal I (Map 62)
Royal 1 is located just west of the Royal City UGA and south of SR 26. The
area within the interim boundary included 2 parcels and totaled 16.78 acres.
The parcel to the west was developed prior to July 1, 1991 for agriculture -
related commercial uses. The parcel to the east was not developed until
1995. The final proposed LOB includes only the western parcel—a total of
9.75 acres. That area is proposed to be designated as a rural commercial
RAID. The area removed from the RAID is proposed to be redesignated as
Agricultural Resource.
Stratford Road I & 2 (Map 66)
Stratford Road 1 and 2 are contiguous parcels located along the east side of
Stratford Road north of Maple Drive NE. The area is adjacent to the City of
Moses Lake UGA. Stratford 1 and 2 includes 5 parcels totaling 12.65 acres. At
least two of the parcels were developed in 1990 or earlier and are currently in
October 2003 Page 34
RAID Boundary Analysis
retail use. The entire area of Stratford Road 1 and 2 are recommended for
designation as a Rural Commercial RAID.
Jet Farms 1 (Map 41)
Jet Farms 1 is a 12.8 -acre parcel located east of SR 243 near the area
known as Sand Hollow along the Columbia River. The area was purchased
and improved subsequent to July 1991 and prior to the County's adoption of
its GMA Comprehensive Plan. A significant investment in excess of
$200,000 was made by the owner to improve the property for subsequent
development or sale as a commercial lot. Improvements include acquiring
access rights from SR 243 and a power easement, bringing power to the
site, and construction of a fill pad. The improvements were constructed
based on the commercial zoning designation of the site.
While the site does not satisfy the criteria of the GMA for designation as a
RAID, in that the development did not exist prior to July 1991, the owners'
investment represents his expectation of property use. Therefore, Jet Farms 1
is proposed for designation as a RAID with the LOB shown on the mapping.
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to
designation of Jet Farms 1 as a RAID be investigated. As an alternative to
designation as a RAID, Jet Farms 1 may meet the requirements for
designation as an isolated small-scale business or cottage industry under
RCW 36.70A.070(iii). This authorizes the intensification of development on
lots containing isolated non-residential uses or new development of isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not
principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be
in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The requirements and restrictions for such
development are contained in GCC Chapter 23.08.
Warden 2 (Map 70)
Warden 2 is a 333.71 -acre, commercially zoned area surrounded by
irrigated agricultural lands southeast of the Town of Warden. County
Assessor records show that a portion of the area was improved prior to
1991; however, no construction value is recorded in 2002. The area is
bounded by Road 11 SE to the south and Road W SE to the east. Little
evidence of development prior to July 1, 1991 was reported. Therefore,
Grant County Planning Department staff recommended removal from a
RAID designation and redesignation as Agricultural Resource.
However, in its deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
Commission recommended modifications to the LOB recommended by the
Grant County Planning Department staff. The GCPC included the southern
portion of the original commercially zoned area. The GCPC's recommended
changes added 169.05 acres.
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to
designation of Warden 2 as a RAID be investigated. As an alternative to
October 2003 Page 35
RAID Boundary Analysis
designation as a RAID, Warden 2 may meet the requirements for
designation as an isolated small-scale business or cottage industry under
RCW 36.70A.070(iii). This authorizes the intensification of development on
lots containing isolated non-residential uses or new development of isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not
principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be
in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The requirements and restrictions for such
development are contained in GCC Chapter 23.08.
In addition, allowable (permitted, discretionary and conditional) uses in the
Agricultural Zoning District provide for a broad array of agriculturally -related
commercial and industrial uses to support the agricultural economy of
County. While not all of the uses offered by the RAID designation are
allowed, many of those uses are.
Wheeler I (Map 71)
Wheeler 1 is a 1.28 -acre parcel located northwest of the Wheeler Rural
Community and north of the Moses Lake UGA. It is located on Road N NE
just north of Road 4 NE. The site has been developed into a restaurant
subsequent to July 1991, yet prior to the County's adoption of its GMA
Comprehensive Plan, and the facility (Jonathan's) is currently in operation.
A significant investment was made by the owner to improve the property for
subsequent development or sale as an operating commercial facility. While
the site does not satisfy the criteria of the GMA for designation as a RAID, in
that it the development did not exist prior to July 1991, the owners
investment represents his expectation of property use. Therefore, Wheeler 1
is proposed for designation as a RAID with the LOB shown on the mapping.
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to
designation of Wheeler 1 as a RAID be investigated. As an alternative to
designation as a RAID, Wheeler 1 may meet the requirements for
designation as an isolated small-scale business or cottage industry under
RCW 36.70A.070(iii). This authorizes the intensification of development on
lots containing isolated non-residential uses or new development of isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not
principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be
in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The requirements and restrictions for such
development are contained in GCC Chapter 23.08.
Rocky Ford I (Map 59)
Rocky Ford 1 is located at the intersection of Neppel Road and SR 17 east
of Ephrata. The 4.99 -acre parcel is currently zoned as rural commercial, but
has never been developed. The Grant County Planning Department staff
recommends redesignation of Rocky Ford 1 as Rural Residential 1.
However, in its deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
October 2003 Page 36
RAID Boundary Analysis
Commission recommended designation of the area as a rural general
commercial RAID.
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to
designation as a RAID be investigated. As an alternative to designation as a
RAID, commercial or industrial development may still occur provided it
meets the requirements for small-scale recreation or tourism, isolated small-
scale business, home occupation or cottage industry under RCW
36.70A.070 (ii) and (iii). This authorizes the intensification of development on
lots containing isolated non-residential uses or new development of isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not
principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be
in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The requirements and restrictions for such
development are contained in GCC Chapter 23.08.
Rural Neighborhood Commercial
Rural Neighborhood Commercial areas provide for limited, small-scale
neighborhood commercial activity centers providing retail, service and office
uses where rural residents and others can gather, work, shop, entertain and
reside. These areas provide for a range of commercial uses and services to
meet the everyday needs of rural residents and natural resource industries,
to provide employment opportunities for residents of the rural area, and to
provide goods, services, and lodging for travelers and tourists to the area.
These areas are characterized by small buildings, low traffic generation and
operations with little late night activity.
Permitted uses are specified in Table 5 of GCC Chapter 23.04 and in
Section 23.04.510. New uses located on previously undeveloped parcels are
limited exclusively to rural recreational uses, personal and professional
services, residential care facilities, day care facilities, and bed and breakfast
residences. Therefore, even though Rural Neighborhood Commercial areas
may contain vacant parcels within their LOBs, development of such parcels
is limited to infill with low -intensity or recreational uses.
The following RAIDs are proposed as meeting the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan for designation as "Rural Neighborhood Commercial' areas.
Coulee 3 (Map 29)
Coulee 3 lies northeast of Coulee City and east of the area known as
Fordair. The 4.84 -acre parcel is at the northeast intersection of SR 155 and
US Highway 2. It was originally developed in 1934 and currently houses a
retail convenience/ fuel facility. The entire area is proposed to be designated
as a rural commercial RAID.
Crook Estates I (Map 29a)
During its deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
Commission recommended designating Crook Estates 1 as a RAID. Crook
October 2003 Page 37
RAID Boundary Analysis C SW. The
Estatnd
es is located along rook Road
SR 26
ands dest the irnate'd asfsedRu al Residential supply and
9 i in supe Y
single parcel is surrounded by 1 1991 The
GCPC's
is currently in agriculture related useas an rrtoJuly and p F
repair facility. The land was develop p
recommended designation adds 4.31 acres.
Rural Recreational Commercial Chapter 23.04 and in
G
Permitted uses are specified in Table 5 of CC
and generally provide for commercial uses related to the
Section 23.04.550, ortun'ties and scenic the
requirred natural ments
County's abundant recre RAIDS aonal re Proposed as meeting
The following ural Recreational
amenities. nation as R
Of the Comprehensive Plan for designation
Commercial" areas.
Mn 32) A total of
Enh� Mata ? p
Ephrata 2 is located adjacent to the Ephrata UGA south of SR 28 .
all of which are currently zone as
10 parcels are included in the area, parcels is that
Commercial. Seven of the parcels currently contain a residential use an a
commercial drive-through espresso stand o thThe largest of th, e east of the Raceway are
te
of the Ephrata Raceway Park; two p
across SR 28 to the north is a large WalMart store.
vacant. To the east of the area is a commercial sand and co
ncre
operation, Y their UGA
petitioned Grant County teort odwfners have is
The City of Ephrata recently P 2 area. The property
outcomes, to be
boundary to incorporate the Ephratae of the p
requested, perhaps without full knowiedg b the owner of the Raceway
public testimony y, able to continue, and
included in the UGA. Furlhemary interest is in being
Largely indicates il',at his racing
operation whether inside the UGA or in a RAID.
perhaps exp
operations and a desire to provideatible
Given the nature of the raceway P remain e a
appropriate buffer and separation of the operations from noway re
urban and rural land uses, it is recommended that the raceway sand and No
and the public benef t from separation. expansion
RAID outside of the UGA. Similar n the adjacent commercial
future exp
concrete operation, the raceway
aired at the facility; Ephrata and consideration
urban services are currently req to include the raceway.
plans, if any, may requireth UGArboundary ty i lu
at that time of expanding however, may benefit from
The seven parcels to the west of the raceway, parcels to the east of
Ephrata UGA to allow for a
and are recommended for incluse at onsin eT e vacant pa and are
broader range I fe commercial
been developed Prior to July
the raceway
recommended to be removed from the RAID and redesignated as Rural
Residential 1 land use. Planning
the
In its deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County
Ephrata Raceway
Department staff. The GCPC included two adddional
Commission recommendedPlemodifications iZ and ethe oasBt of mended Y
Grant County 43 8 acres south of SR 28
parcels totaling
Page 38
October 2003
RAID Boundary Analysis
Park. The GCPC recommended inclusion of this area to accommodate
future expansion plans for the raceway, including parking and camping for
recreational users of the facility.
Review comments received from CTED states that they do not recommend
establishing a RAID adjacent to a UGA. While nothing in the GMA appears to
explicitly preclude such a designation adjacent to a UGA, CTED opines "The
purpose of RAIDs is to recognize isolated areas of development in rural areas
that have occurred at urban densities. If an area has developed at urban
densities and is adjacent to an existing UGA, it should be included in the UGA.
If it has not developed to urban densities, then it does not meet the criteria for a
RAID designation and is more appropriately considered rural lands. "
However, the parcels of Ephrata 2 recommended for inclusion in the RAID
are currently developed as a recreational commercial facility—a commercial
and recreational racetrack operating since 1970—that requires a large
parcel separated from incompatible residential and business uses. SR 282
effectively isolates the area from other areas of the Ephrata UGA. The
Ephrata UGA already contains sufficient commercial lands for projected
growth during its planning horizon. In fact, the EWGMHB previously ruled
that the Ephrata UGA boundary contained more than enough area for its 20 -
year planning horizon. Ephrata 2 is significantly different from adjacent
development within the UGA. It is a commercial enterprise that has been
part of the rural landscape of Grant County for some time, and is not
compatible with other land uses in the UGA.
Marine View 1 (Map 48)
Marine View 1 is located southwest of Potholes State Park north of
O'Sullivan Dam Road and the Marine View Heights Rural Community. The
2.54 -acre commercially -zoned parcel contains a small grocery and
convenience store. Marine View 1 is recommended to be included in the
Marine View Heights Rural Community.
Moses Lake 2 (Map 54)
Moses Lake 2 is a 26.26 -acre area comprised of two parcels, one of which
had commercial development prior to July 1, 1991. It is located south of
Interstate 90 South Frontage Road, west of Road L NE and north of SR 17.
The area is currently zoned commercial, and currently houses a auto
wrecking and towing business. The entire area is recommended for
designation as a Rural Recreational Commercial RAID.
Soap Lake I (Map 65)
Soap Lake 1 is located just north of the City of Soap Lake. It is a 3.68 -acre,
commercially zoned area with two parcels divided by SR 17. The parcel
located west of SR 17 along the shore of Soap Lake is a resort campground
that has been in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The parcel to the east of SR
17 included support services for the campground area. The entire area is
recommended for designation as a Rural Recreational Commercial RAID.
October 2003 Page 39
RAID Boundary Analysis
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial areas provide heavy industrial or light manufacturing,
processing, fabrication and storage of products, wholesale, warehousing,
distribution and storage, equipment storage and repair, and other uses. These
areas also allow commercial uses that serve primarily the industrial area.
Permitted uses are specified in Table 5 of GCC Chapter 23.04 and in
Sections 23.04.530 and 23.04.540. New uses located on previously
undeveloped parcels are limited exclusively to resource-based (agriculture
or mining) industrial uses, or industrial uses requiring large secluded areas
away from urban growth areas and not requiring urban water and sewer
services. Therefore, even though Rural Industrial areas may contain vacant
parcels within their LOBs, development of such parcels is limited to infill with
resource-based uses.
The following RAIDs are proposed as meeting the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan for designation as "Rural Industrial" areas.
Coulee 2 (Map 28)
Coulee 2 lies east of the Coulee City UGA bounded by 36 NE Road on the
north and the railroad along the east. The interim boundary included 66.73
acres. The final proposed LOB includes only that portion of the parcel north
of the railroad and south of 36 NE Road—a total of 8.58 acres and which
was improved prior to July 1, 1991. That area is proposed to be designated
as a rural industrial RAID. The proposed final LOB results in a decrease of
58.15 acres within the RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to
be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
Ephrata 3 (Map 33)
Ephrata 3 is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of SR 283
and SR 28. The area is commonly known as Naylor's Junction. The 46.85 -
acre parcel was developed prior to July 1, 1991, and currently is in light
industrial materials sales use. The entire area is recommended for
designation as a Rural Industrial RAID.
George 6 Ma 39
George 6 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 Frontage Road and W.
Baseline Road. The 9.94 -acre area is currently zoned industrial. Portions of
the area were platted and improved prior to July 1, 1991, and are currently in
retail use (irrigation piping supply). The entire area is recommended for
designation as a Rural Industrial RAID.
Mae Valley I (Mao 42) Mae Valley 2 (Map 43) Mae Valley 3 (Man 44)
Mae Valley 1, 2 and 3 are contiguous parcels along Interstate 90 North
Frontage Road between Road D NE and Road E NE. Mae Valley 1 is
comprised of 3 parcels totaling 26.8 acres. Mae Valley 2 is comprised of 1
parcels totaling 13.49 acres. Mae Valley 3 is comprised of 4 parcels totaling
44.76 acres. All parcels with the exception of Mae Valley 2 were developed in
1990 or earlier and are currently in agricultural -related retail use. Mae Valley 2
October 2003 Page 40
RAID Boundary Analysis
is currently unimproved. The entire areas of Mae Valley 1, 2 and 3 are
recommended for designation as a Rural Industrial RAIDs.
Mae Valley 5 (Mao 46)
Mae Valley 5 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 and Road B NE, and the
10.4 -acre parcel is currently zoned industrial. The parcel was developed in
1980 and is currently an agricultural storage facility. The entire area is
recommended for designation as a Rural Industrial RAID.
RRoval2 (Map 63)
Royal 2 is located east of the Royal City UGA and south of SR 26. The area
within the interim boundary included 2 parcels and totaled 36.66 acres. The
parcel to the west was developed prior to July 1, 1991 for agriculture -related
industrial use (cold storage). The parcel to the east was not developed until
1996. The final proposed LOB includes only the western parcel—a total of
14.93 acres. That area is proposed to be designated as a rural industrial
RAID. The parcel removed from the RAID (21.73 acres) is proposed to be
redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
Stratford Road NPark Orchards (Map 67)
Stratford Road 3/Park Orchards are contiguous parcels located along the east
side of Stratford Road north of Kinder Road NE and west of Wenatchee Drive
NE. Park Orchards lies east of Wenatchee Drive and north of Kinder Road
NE. The area is adjacent to the City of Moses Lake UGA, and is comprised of
5 parcels totaling 15.39 acres. All of the parcels of Stratford Road 3 were
developed in 1990 or earlier and are currently in multi -family residential use.
The Park Orchards parcels are currently in industrial retail use. The Stratford
Road 3 area is recommended for designation as a Rural Commercial RAID.
The Park Orchards area is recommended for designation as a Rural
Industrial RAID.
Wanapum 2 (Map 68)
Wanapum 2 is located between the Rural Communities of Wanapum Village
and Beverly at the intersection of Beverly Cutoff Road and SR 243. The
interim boundary included 319.3 acres. The final proposed LOB includes
only two developed parcels totaling 15.6 acres. One parcel is a solid waste
drop box owned and operated by Grant County; the other is in retail use.
The proposed final LOB results in a decrease of 303.7 acres within the
RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to be redesignated as
Rural Remote.
Warden I (Map 69)
Warden 1 is located south of the Town of Warden near the intersection of
Road 11 SE and Road U SE. The interim boundary included one parcel of
50.58 acres. The final proposed LOB includes a second, small interior parcel
of 0.99 acres. Both parcels were developed prior to July 1, 1991 and are
October 2003 Page 41
RAID Boundary Anal
used for agricultural storage. Both parcels are recommended for designation
as a Rural Industrial RAID.
Wheeler 3 (Map 73)
Wheeler 3 is located west and south of the Wheeler Rural Community and
east of the Moses Lake UGA. It is bounded by Road 2 NE on the south, the
Moses Lake UGA on the west, and Road O NE on the east. Wheeler Road
divides the area. The 76.95 -acre area to the north of Wheeler Road was
recommended by the Grant County Planning Department staff to be
designated as a rural industrial RAID and the remainder of the considered
area to be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
However, in its deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning
Commission recommended modifications to the LOB recommended by the
Grant County Planning Department staff. The GCPC included additional
parcels totaling 226.94 acres south of Wheeler Road—a total of 6 parcels
along Road 2 NE. Only one of these parcels had improvements prior to July
1, 1991, but the GCPC recommended inclusion of this area to accommodate
future agricultural -based industrial operations, such as potato sheds and
other agricultural processing facilities.
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to
designation of these additional areas of Wheeler 3 as a RAID be
investigated. As an alternative to their inclusion in the RAID, these areas
may meet the requirements for designation as an isolated small-scale
business or cottage industry under RCW 36.70A.070(iii). This authorizes the
intensification of development on lots containing isolated non-residential
uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-
scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and
projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job
opportunities for rural residents. Such uses need not be confined to a logical
outer boundary and need not be in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The
requirements and restrictions for such development are contained in GCC
Chapter 23.08.
In addition, allowable (permitted, discretionary and conditional) uses in the
Agricultural Zoning District provide for a broad array of agriculturally -related
commercial and industrial uses to support the agricultural economy of
County. While not all of the uses offered by the RAID designation are
allowed, many of those uses are.
Wheeler 4 (Map 74)
Wheeler 4 surrounds the Wheeler Rural Community. It is bounded by
Wheeler Road to the south and the canal to the east. The BNSF railroad
bisects the area. The interim boundary included 15 parcels and 118.04
acres. The final proposed LOB includes only those developed parcels
located along the railroad. The proposed final LOB results in a decrease of
74.24 acres within the RAID. Areas removed from the RAID are proposed to
be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
October 2003 Page 42
RAID Boundary Analysis
Rocky Ford 2 (Map 60)
Rocky Ford 2 is located at the intersection of Neppel Road and SR 17 east of
Ephrata. The 23.91 -acre parcel is currently zoned as rural industrial, but has
never been developed. The Grant County Planning Department staff
recommends redesignation of Rocky Ford 2 as Rural Residential 1. However,
in its deliberations on August 6, 2003, the Grant County Planning Commission
recommended designation of the area as a rural industrial RAID.
Review comments received from CTED suggest that alternatives to
designation as a RAID be investigated. As an alternative to designation as a
RAID, commercial or industrial development may still occur provided it
meets the requirements for small-scale recreation or tourism, isolated small-
scale business, home occupation or cottage industry under RCW
36.70A.070 (ii) and (iii). This authorizes the intensification of development on
lots containing isolated non-residential uses or new development of isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not
principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be
in existence prior to July 1, 1991. The requirements and restrictions for such
development are contained in GCC Chapter 23.08.
CommerciaVIndustrial RAIDS Proposed for Re -Designation
A total of thirteen areas previously designated as RAIDS have been
reviewed carefully for compliance with the GMA and the designation criteria
established by the County, and have been found to fail to meet such criteria.
Largely, this is due to the absence of development of the area prior to July 1,
1991. Reasons for elimination from designation as RAIDS and the proposed
new designations are described below.
While proposed for removal from designation as a RAID, these areas do
comply with the requirements for intensification of development or new
development of small-scale recreation and tourism uses, home occupations
or cottage industries or isolated small-scale business, as described below.
This authorizes the intensification of development on lots; such uses need
not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be in existence
prior to July 1, 1991. Development of these sites may occur in the future
subject to the requirements of the Grant County Unified Development Code
Chapter 23.08 as small-scale recreation and tourism uses, home
occupations or cottage industries.
Ephrata 1 (Map 31)
Ephrata 1 lies west of SR 28 and south of Martin Road. The parcel was
developed in 1979 as a residence and has since been used for a welding
shop. The area is proposed to be re -designated as Rural Residential 1. The
current use is allowed without restriction as a home business or cottage
industry.
October 2003 Page 43
RAID Boundary Analysis
George 4 (Map 37)
George 4 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 Frontage Road and W.
Baseline Road. No development of the area prior to July 1, 1991. The area
is proposed to be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
George 5 Ma 38
George 5 lies at the intersection of Interstate 90 Frontage Road and W.
Baseline Road. No development of the area prior to July 1, 1991. The area
is proposed to be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
Mallard Haven 1 (Map 47)
Mallard Haven 1 is located west of Warden and SR 17 along Road 7 SE.
The residential development was developed prior to July 1, 1991. However,
the area is fully built out, has no infill and limited expansion potential. It is
surrounded by Open Space. The area is proposed to be redesignated as
Rural Residential 2.
Mattawa I (Map 49)
Mattawa 1 lies well south of Mattawa between SR 243 and the Columbia
River. No development of the area prior to July 1, 1991. The area is
proposed to be redesignated as Rural Remote.
Mattawa 3 (Map 50)
Mattawa 3 lies well east of Mattawa near the intersection of Road M SW and
Road 24 SW. No development of the area prior to July 1, 1991. The area is
proposed to be redesignated as Agricultural Resource.
Mattawa 4 (Map 51)
Mattawa 4 lies north of Mattawa between SR 243 and Road 22.1 SW. It is
an area developed by the Port of Mattawa as an industrial park at some time
after July 1, 1991. The area is proposed to be redesignated as Agricultural
Resource.
McConihe 1 (Map 52)
McConihe 1 lies north of the intersection of SR 17 and the Old Moses Lake
Highway southwest of Grant County International Airport. No development of
the area prior to July 1, 1991. The area is proposed to be redesignated as
Rural Residential 1.
Moses Lake I (Map 53)
The seven parcels that comprise Moses Lake 1 have no previous
development prior to July 1991, except for a residential parcel in the
southeast corner. Two parcels that border the UGA at the west end of the
October 2003 Page 44
RAID Boundary Analysis
area are recommended to be included in the Moses Lake UGA; the
remainder is recommended to be redesignated as Rural Urban Reserve.
Moses Lake 3 (Map 55)
Moses Lake 3 is a 24.88 -acre area, a portion of which had some residential
development prior to July 1, 1991. It is located south of Interstate 90 South
Frontage Road and east of Road M NE. The area is currently zoned
commercial, but here has been no commercial development. The area is
proposed to be redesignated as Rural Urban Reserve.
Quincy I (Map 58)
Quincy 1 is located north of Quincy between the high canal and 13 NW
Road. The current and historic use has been agriculture, and has had no
previous development prior to July 1991, except for agricultural use. The
area is proposed to be redesignated as Rural Residential 2.
Rocky Ford 3 (Map 61)
Rocky Ford 3 is located at the intersection of SR 282 and SR 17 east of
Ephrata. The 194.32 -acre parcel is currently zoned partly as rural industrial
and partly as rural commercial, but has never been developed. The Grant
County Planning Department staff recommends redesignation of Rocky Ford
3 as Rural Residential 1.
Wheeler 2 (Map 72)
The area shown as Wheeler 2 is a small portion of a parcel north of the UGA
boundary that should be included in the Moses Lake UGA.
Small-scale Recreation & Tourism
RCW 36.70A.070(ii) authorizes the intensification of development on lots
containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational tourist uses,
including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses,
that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new
residential development. Such areas and uses recognize the ability of
existing recreational or tourist facilities to grow and for new uses to be
developed. Given the County's economic goal to promote tourist services,
small-scale recreation and tourism areas are important to the ability to live
and work in rural areas of the County.
Small-scale recreation and tourism uses make available opportunities to
diversify the economy of rural Grant County by utilizing, in an
environmentally sensitive manner, the County's abundant recreational
opportunities and scenic and natural amenities. They rely on a rural location
and setting to provide recreational or tourist uses, including commercial
facilities to serve those uses, but do not include new residential
development. Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary
and need not be in existence prior to July 1, 1991. Such small-scale
October 2003 Page 45
RAID Boundary Anal
recreation and tourism uses are allowed under GCC Chapter 23.04 -Zoning
in nearly all zoning districts, subject to review and the performance and use
standards of GCC Section 23.08.355.
Because such uses are allowed, subject to review, in nearly all zones of the
County, it is unnecessary to designate areas or create specific zoning districts
for small-scale recreation and tourism uses.
Development and redevelopment of small-scale recreation and tourism uses
must comply with all provisions of the following provisions of the Grant
County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within any of the Rural Communities will be
reviewed in accordance with the review procedures established for each of
the above regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on resource
information and maps maintained by the County as well as determinations
made by site assessment professionals, resource agency representatives
and affected Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
Home Occupations & Cottage Industries
RCW 36.70A.070(iii) authorizes the intensification of development on lots
containing isolated non-residential uses or new development of isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not
principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and
nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents.
Such uses need not be confined to a logical outer boundary and need not be
in existence prior to July 1, 1991. Such areas reflect the eclectic nature of
rural economic activity and their value in fostering the ability to live and work
in rural areas of the County, consistent with preservation of rural character.
Home occupations are subordinate to the primary residential use, are permitted
October 2003 Page 46
RAID Boundary Analysis
in any dwelling unit and include such occupations as artists and sculptors,
authors and composers; dressmakers, seamstresses and tailors; crafts, such as
model making, rug weaving, lapidary work, woodworking and ceramics,
barbershops and beauty parlors, kennels, and riding or boarding stables.
Cottage industries, including small-scale commercial or light industrial
activities on residential parcels, subordinate to the primary residential use,
are also allowed provided that such activities can be conducted without
substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural
character in the vicinity. The scale and intensity of cottage industries are
typically greater than could be accommodated as a Home Occupation, but
less than would require a zoning district of Commercial or Industrial.
Cottage industries include antique and gift shops, art or photography
studios, automobile repair, iron working or blacksmith shop, construction
office, furniture repair or refinishing, pottery shop, real estate sales office,
woodworking shop, riding or boarding stable, and veterinary clinic or
hospital, when located in an agricultural zoning district.
Such home occupation and cottage industry uses are allowed under GCC
Chapter 23.04 -Zoning in nearly all zoning districts, subject to review and the
performance and use standards of GCC Sections 23.08.210 and 23.08.140,
respectively. Because such uses are allowed, subject to review, in nearly all
zones of the County, it is unnecessary to designate areas or create specific
zoning districts for home occupation and cottage industry uses.
Development and redevelopment of small-scale recreation and tourism uses
must comply with all provisions of the following provisions of the Grant
County Code:
• Chapter 23.08, Performance and Use -Specific Standards and
Chapter 23.12, Development Standards; each designed to establish
reasonable criteria to fulfill the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding size, scale and
intensity of development;
• Chapter 24.04, SEPA, intended to provide appropriate environmental
review of development proposals;
• Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance,
adopted to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats,
and frequently flooded, aquifer recharge (groundwater), geologically
hazardous areas, and visual compatibility throughout the County;
• Chapter 24.12, Shoreline Master Program, designed to protect and
preserve the functions and values of shoreline environments of both
statewide and local significance; and
• Chapter 24.16, Flood Damage Prevention, designed to promote the
public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private
losses due to flood conditions.
Development proposed within any of the Rural Communities will be
reviewed in accordance with the review procedures established for each of
October 2003 Page 47
RAID Boundary Analysis
SUMMARY
the above regulations. Critical area assessments will be based on resource
information and maps maintained by the County as well as determinations
made by site assessment professionals, resource agency representatives
and affected Native American tribal representatives, as required by GCC.
The proposed final RAIDs are intended to satisfy the provisions of RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d) and the EWGMHB FDO in a manner that preserves the
character of each RAID as it existed prior to July 1, 1991—while remaining
consistent with the planning goals and requirements of the GMA.
Designation of LOBs for each RAID is also intended to preserve the rural
character of the land uses surrounding the proposed RAID.
The reexamination of RAIDS and their proposed final LOBs results in a
significant reduction in the area designated, as shown in the following
summary table. Additional detail can be found in Appendix B.
A total of 75 RAIDs are proposed for designation that include a total of 6,312
acres, which is a reduction of 5,594 acres from the 11,906 acres designated
in the GMA Comprehensive Plan—a 47% reduction in acreage designated.
The areas proposed to be removed from the RAIDs have also received
proposed new land use designations. The predominate re -designated land
use is "Agriculture." It is important to note that the allowable (permitted,
discretionary and conditional) uses in the Agricultural zoning District provide
for a broad array of agriculturally -related commercial and industrial uses to
support the agricultural economy of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project.
While not all of the uses previously offered by strict commercial or industrial
zones are allowed, many of those uses are.
In addition to agricultural uses, the Grant County Unified Development Code
provides for
intensification or new development of small-scale recreational or
tourist uses that rely on a rural setting or location; and
intensification of development containing isolated non-residential
uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated
small-scale businesses.
In addition, the Growth Management Act provides under RCW 36.70A.365,
for establishing, in consultation with cities, a process to review and approve
proposals for siting of major industrial developments outside of UGAs.
So a variety of opportunities for commercial and industrial development
exist outside the designation of RAIDs.
October 2003 Page 48
RAID Boundary Analysis
Summary of RAID Acreages
October 2003 Page 49
No.
Land Use Desi nation
Logical
GMA CP
Outer Boundary
Area Acres
Proposed Variance
Logical Outer Boundary
Area Acres
nation GMA CP Proposed Variance
No.;Revedy
u"
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Geo e1
Geoe 2
George 3
George 4
Geo e 5
Geo e 6
Geo e 7
Jet Farms 1
Mae Valley 1
9.58
5.58
16.00
1.4
42.88
9.94
6.3
12.776
26.8
9.58
558
16.00
0
0
9.94
6.3
12.776
26.8
000
coo
0.00
-1.40
-42.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 67.76 68.75 0.99
2 76.4 71.77 -4.63
3 Wheeler 33.32 33.32 0
4 Royal Cam 115.48 76,88 -38.6
5 Parker Springs 167.88 193 51 25.63
6 Trinidad 32.8 40.1 7.3
7 Wana um Villa a 64.48 27.38 -37.1
8 Marine View Hei hts 312.67 191.3 -121.37
9 White Trail 452.8 396.53 -55.55
Summa
- Run; Communi
1322.87
1099.64
-223.33
43
Mae Valley 2
13.49
13.49
0.00
v
10
Desert Aire
1705,81
1047.35 1
-658.6
44
IMae Valley 3
44 76
44.76
0.00
45 Mae Valley 7.72 7.72
0.00
Summa
- Run! VI!!a a
1705,81
l 7.35 I
-658.46
46
Mae Valley 5
10.4
10.4
0.00
I..
47
Mallard Haven 1
10.97
0
-10.97
11
McConihe Shore
729.38
729.38
0
48
Marine View 1
2.54
2.54
0.00
12
Mae Valle
922.36
0
-922.36
49
Maffawa 1
285
0
-285.00
13
Blue Lake Shore
126.15
260.38
134 23
50
Maffawa 3
162.62
0
-162.62
14
Sunland Estates
162.21
162.21
0
51
Mattawa 4
94.99
0
-94.99
Summary-ShoreNne Development
1940.1
1151.97
-788.13
52
McConihe1
164.16
0
-164.16
0061VAt6
53
Moses Lake 1
344.01
0
-344.01
15
Crescent Bar
669.43
381.07
-288.36
54
Moses Lake 2
26.26
26.26
0.00
16
The Gore
1337.71
782.48
-555.23
55
Moses Lake 3
24.88
0.00
-24.88
17
North Soap Lake
63 O6
63.06
0
56
Moses Lake 10
30.70
30.70
0.00
18
Marine View 2
17.38
17.38 1
0
57
O'Sullivan Shores 1
021
0.21 1
0.00
Summary-
creational Development
2087.58
1243.99
7843,59
58
Quincy1
126.14
0
-126.14
" dEu;tUiipS "' lgpI'll
59
Rocky Ford 1
4.99
4.99
0,00
19
Winchester
238.78
61.47
-177.31
60
Rocky Ford 2
23.91
23.91
0.00
20
Ruff
97,18
47.88
-49.3
61
RockyFord 3
194.32
0
-194.32
21
McDonald Siding
82.01
0
-82.01
62
Royal 1
16.78
9.75
-7.03
22
Ballards Cafe
42.45
21.15
-21.3
63
Royal 2
36.66
1493
-21.73
23
Stratford
139.22
27.26
-111.96
64
ISilica Road 1
116.14
116.74
0.00
24
McDonald Siding 2
737.75
37051
-367.24
65
Soap Lake 1
3.68
3.68
0.00
25
McDonald Front of
0
22.6
22.6
66
Strafford Road 1 8 2
12.65
12.65
0.00
Summa
- A ricu lure; Service Center
1337.39
50.87
-786.52
67
Stratford Road 3/Park Orchards
15.39
1539
0.00
:Cairiinei6la Ubd1iL' ,, k�
68
Wanapum 2
319.3
15.6
-303.70
26
Ballard 1
5301
26.95
-26.06
69
Warden 1
50.58
51.57
0.99
27
Coulee 1
48.5
285
-45.65
70
Warden 2
333.71
169.05
-164.67-
28
Coulee 2
66.73
858
-5815
71
Wheeler 1
1.28
1.28
0.00
29
Coulee
4.84
4.84
0
72
Wheeler
2.04
0
-2.04
29a
Crook Estates;
0
431
4.31
73
Wheeler
43288
30389
-128.99
30
Dodson Road
2064
20.64
0
74
Wheeler
11804
43,8
-74.24
31
Ephrata 1
2.417
0
-2.411
32
Ephrata2
105.63
925
-13.13
Summary-Commercial/lndustrial
3511.67
1217.81
-2293.87
33
lEphrata 3 1
46.85
1
ITotal
11905.42
6311.53
-5593.90
October 2003 Page 49
APPENDIX A
RAID Maps
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development aT
Schawana. - Rural Community
11 VVIIII., r,V 1"
sin
V,
t 3114,kh,�o, d'A
Legend
(h,gLFIa] RAID Boundary
.Ue. unmoved f,,... MITI)
Pr,,,,,,d RAID B.II.d,I,
Wa,,rhod,
P1. [k,pm,,,n
LI, d 1 1,
j"'
&
h- I k 11 6
OAF)
.... ....
L-1
4W
11 -,l
NO
...... . ..
1.....n f KLLr d
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development1
Beverly- Rural Community
N, . '.
� � .y";'
J I
i
z f .
y
Legend
Onginal RAID RnurxL ry
Propv,rd RAID Nou.iary
Pamcl 6o.ndary
Wa..lhody
'
Cnn Sprche{uwe Plan Ueagnauun
-
4k,
I
........,
AW
C7
40w..
J
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Wheeler - Rural Community
I
F
Legend
C mpreemrvc hPlan
�N (higmal RNDlknmhvy
. x.a �.�envw,�.�u�„� - w„aw���.�.1 C6�b I I
L, I.,I lIw...
C Area f<iiiovCd f -m RAID
--
( � Ii�4..inil llliM1.iJ ® n!„il6.ii.114�n MW
�....
n 14. inv n, �'�.\ 1
PmW.ed MD Boundary
.� I - .lPone
u••
....�e
Boundiry
( (1H li—x ., x,.m
l,�
Wacd.od�
C-) „al ,,
,.... m,.,.. .,....... ..a
00.911) IOZBO'\W„A( 44c Odl NI\
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Parker Springs Area (Ridge View Estates) - Rural Community
41,
A
4
7,11:
�0 44,
'n
4,
A
-Vz
k. V,
A V,
RIO
k
4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Legend
0�g1-1 RAID Boundai,
il,m RAID
I'l,,,d RAID Baud,,
N.'] B'I
Wa... fA,
&I
4
G,.p,chc,v,,, P1. lk,lgna,,.
"d ...... I I
x
.. . . ....... .....
4
C....
I.
4W
vS,
Legend
0�g1-1 RAID Boundai,
il,m RAID
I'l,,,d RAID Baud,,
N.'] B'I
Wa... fA,
&I
4
G,.p,chc,v,,, P1. lk,lgna,,.
"d ...... I I
.. . . ....... .....
C....
I.
4W
%
4W
4M
CD
40
..... .
4W
ol-u.,".
4m
I'll
t1n
'IL
1— .,.I IIJ,
G -,l A., 11 21
P-1 AI.— l9, y
Propose Rura Area of Intensive Development
Trinidad - Rural Community
�
-
Planning Commission Recommendation �l
August 6 2003 Public Hearing A Y I —r -
I I
'*w,. nti n - -
,r• --a ,i, - Fi
Aded Runil C�mmunlry llesl nation � �I I I �
h I I I I I I I: 'III � i� i f f��� � I
Ti -U r-11�Tfjifl
I
[
,'� l fl " MTI-I 1
II Illli 111 I III
LII II. _
.T-
�.�1�i,,
1_I_ L
T-
IT f I�� l� I I �� VIII h' I ' �-�� r 1-nlI �i,- --
I I
1 li
LLW�"1� CLJ_L1 '�J
Legend
Ohp BRAID Boundry
v
_� Area rena.ved (mm RAID
Pm,,,d RAID Bowdary
- - Paeeel Bomdary
Warerbody
Comprehemrve Plan Daa�gnauon
nL— I's. i10
em,.n...a w..
v.11v... lun.v
C
w,.awI,,.
.1
C_
"11, lwo,µJnm
r,Io„o
m
I'
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Wananum Village - Rural Communitv s E
Legend
0 ,i RAID Boundary
_ Area umo�cd (mm BND
Pvc,,,d RAID B ... d,,
� Pamcl Boundary
Wamd,od�
(i�mprehe�uwr Plan Uevgnauon
(
K -k ,,A I.,. IA.erv.
wvJW .L III
nL. iulilwiill
aia.�..a
Owl
w.rrw,rv,.........
um.,. o,.r,.AmLajL„o
r
rw..I1 11 KlI. I 1e
ILL' 11
m,.n
uerr ri„m,r��
�
o........ nu✓m
. • ..in�unv IR.. ,i.,i �iu4iit r
.r,,,.r � •v uW� qJl �i.iJ. au
.vii i.., Y, u�v„awin n. v,A iv F 4 aiu
iii. Aii ,r •I,. �i 1��
m pnn0,.�=s.r.vrry nu bm e.aun.ci pi¢igai.
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
N�I
White Trail- Rural Community r�.._..
Legend
(kgy�ail RAID B..n ry
V
___ Ana �emwed lmn. RAID
1',,—d RAID Boundary
N,[ Round -
Wanhwdy
Gmprehemive plan Duignauon
N�dh ,I.�...
-
�w,�,1. d
��
.�.�.1wAI�..�.��,
�P ��Y•v.n ar.n
ia.,aw....
imni
ca (.mry C6S,�il
19, v
Propose Rural Area o Intensive Development 4",
µ S F
McConihe Shore -Shoreline Development
Legend
Ongmd RAID &mndary
v
Ama,.v,d fl,,., RAID
Pmpwed RAM Bo..6,
Parcel Bolwdary
Waed.><fy
Cbmpmhertsrvc Plan Dcslgnaunn
i
Innw.ullWn,ml
-
W�uril.mJ1.. n
AM'
WI%
R- I,
C
I'uI.AI .Jn.ILLM1uu
iLhm i..... iF iaA
�
�. •.w.l
,imai Win.
•
14n.I, iL.�vii
iWiidlu.
m
i }.iii�nann .n.l.eiiM+•.,. Wo[M Ia, demi 4A
li I. .uI P�M1..�I.ruuJ,.ri. nuvuvni..v..,, u�� cl.
.,,,I r s , 2.1r���.d
C:I h�ln1 ix0}tlo2\WnAia44. OBlppi
m
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development r �
Blue Lake Shore - Shoreline Development
Planning Commission Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
Ami ndcd Sho,h, D, 4,pnani
Legend
` v1 Ongiml RAID Boundary
Area —Ti Ved (mm RAID
P,,,,d RAID Boundary
Panni Boundary
Wa... ),
Cmprchcmrvc Plan DeKignauon
C�
wart..m lw ia�M.
IvniemI ITT—
TT—on....„
....... . ..
Q J
n-,,5, 'h ..I,] a lei ui 1-1 .4yd. .. .,14xm aa� �i<,i .. IM1n none aA
.° n
,'�I
.gym,ITT,.-. .,.a. �.a�, ...a1.,,a.
N,�... y��,T. .. .1..n�rn.r�.�n exl .n• � \II.iIv�.�.nni.kl
e lnin 'I, rM1.
IT
1Xn -"7"-`— ...
,.,.,:':`;.nal, �',��.i'...
G�uvl ivKnai lY �Ati
e�aaos ia2o2`,.,ar..e1,, caiem
Proposed Rural
Area of
Intensive Development
WF
Sunland Estates
- Shoreline Development
».
i
i
i
i
i
I
�
I
ii ............
�.,�.���.�_��....,
Legend
Con,prehemrvePlmD,vgwt,,,.
0
v
C#W
L_ W..I�n�JIliW�lnm.n
Wn1.... I
pn.ni
A. remo.emmAI
Ad tRD
_ -
proposed RAM
®
cwaos m.eo_,w..n,neu. csiem
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Crescent Bar - Recreational Development
Legend
Ongrml RAID Boundary
Arearemooed lmm RAID
Pmp,sed RAID B. ry
Paael BoumL ry
W,,,Aody
Comprehemrve Pluv Designation
L_
a..a,.w r Wn Ik—,
m.....I I Io-..
ne.w i w...i u
1u Ivru,.
C
IAd. r..I am.l
ual.-,
40
IMurl irAn.oii
r.�nm.�ul llYu J.
Proposed Kural Area of Intensive Development;, I
N' F
The Gorge - Recreational Development s
Planning Commission Recommendation
,August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
y �'E \nx'nMd Rcorevuon.d De�elopnRem
Legend
RAID RowuLry
C _ i Ahe removed tmni RAID
PmpnI d RAID B..t6,
Patel Roundery
WatprbI dy
QFmp,herowc PL. D,,tpauon
t
tFtj
f;
ry
IIk"I _.
4
F +fy
w .U...... .
QFmp,herowc PL. D,,tpauon
IIk"I _.
... ..... .,,,. ,. .,a.
w .U...... .
.y .,p..nnevp
I I I
IJ
III
It 2.1
C.0.iI VS 10'.80: Unikln44. OBl�r
Marine View 2
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
W+ R
Winchester - Agriculture Service Center
Legend
� �� Ongia�l RAID &mr'ary
__� Arcs rcmo�ed Cmm RAID
Pm",,d RAID BouruUry
N,d 6owu3ary
W'erhomy
Cnmprchemrve Plan Deagnauon
I,, II w..6 1
Odenu-,m n ul Y.. u6ll iv G�
n1nu, wu. a�.W iiia
aiie�,nommu�
'
11.1-1 1111 m..,
-.
nn..im"I'w
41M
um,,,
C
4M'
40�.
mo. n.d�x.no
h.l. ¢uu.uia 111-1-1,, uJ .d,I
,
LA.. � Y• . u AL .x..d dw.,u.. y.,.x i�
con, Omm" 06 SW I
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development°
Ruff - Aanculture Service Center
Legend
ChgirW RAID Bonndary
i,.,,d fmm RAID
Pm,d MID Boumb,
1 Panel B...&"
Wan d,ndy
Cn.prehcmmc Plan Dmgnaoon
W JrwlMdvnrl...m
`_.
WuJW J.wl
��
:rru ulwrl �rnu l.iur
W�.4rvYl10
®
IM1Mn ti�nn�uWM�.JJI I, 0�
�
\4.ur iu...11.. L�iiiii
�
uiuJ,. inmwv.
_
xee.w ¢naa
4w.. k -d. ..
W,.Iw
,J,
... ..u.n....
......�
., aWi.,:�. i.wv .M.I .J,.. .1, , .n
•,. r. r. vor a'I..mm. ,. aI�i,
6oI
Iru i .i...+Na,Juun.q., rvl. fir. Jr,w�.u. I,n,l�.ii
r..-11
cn.r c,.y„ cIG su„
Proposed Rural Area
of Intensive Development
w
McDonald Sidin
Service Center
-
nculture
Legend
r4lop.ed RA[D Bowu{ary
V
x..a�.�e,w.„„�.�.�„
�--� w1-11 ..a—
Pro,wvcd RAID Boumiiry
_
_
.o.. e,...,.,..„..
....n,........ i
ri.i,.. i.liW M1
Cnaud AW+.ry 19..,��
4 I1
C\0.AIUS102'A0:\`,I 11�r1.4r
OBiBC1
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development µ 4
Ballard's Cafe - Azriculture Service Center ,
Planning Commissioner Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
4wAniendmendedA�ntao-kllr ce..r(.nni
Legend
N �1 (h�gu.il MID &n+ ry
_� area removed from RAID
Pmp —d RAID B,,.6,
- Panel Roundary
IX'amrMxiy
Gmprehensrve Plan [kagnawo ,
a .m
( )
NiM.I Wv11 biW
Ib.WK K,D
�•'���� n ii.rcl.�ran .jinn 111 c[ -M1. I.+. �...�i 1.A
rirt ii � rA.�icir�r.n x��. �i c�r4 tFY�r inr.A I .err nu4viK in
.i.n ���,., ..e ar I
w mu
a..n.a
Pmd pn1111'ws �0'
cInaios�
081801
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development w
Moses Lake Area
��• Moses Lake 1
Moses Lake 6
Legend
iopmd RAID BowuL ry
P, ,,,,,i RAID B..e bry
Panel B.u.d ,
Waten,odv
Moses Lake 9
Moses Lake 4
Moses Lake 5
Cnmpmhenerve Plan Deagn,nion
W.1 -1L i-
-.Mn<......
. . ... ......,J \v. i.l,ll 1� N
/
rWurl'iiiii.J liv��viie�
��ir.li.immw,
IMn.W 11.iM1.n1
I.ku.l .iii -1,
-v'[1,
I�iFh lr�lm ilkni
ta.ui W..v LNw ip
I..au.J
i.hn kr n.
�
IYnJ WMi,..n
�
M.nv.lu,l
Legend
• Whm L.mmmd
J
Propsed Rural Area of Intensive Development
W+
McDonald Frontage Area S
Legend
0,.,.l R [D
Area removed FI,. RAID
P,,—d RAID B.Idddd,
&
C,.I Plan D,Igddadon
.... . ......
&
I dd II._..
1 L I ,I I
1I kq....
LM1M1mf. mm n, I 1— "11111 1,
\w"'Ilk dl.k. I
V, I
LFII
I'd 1.1-1,(1
Proposed Rural Area
of Intensive Development
�r
Crook Estates Area 1
- Rural Commercial
Planning Commission Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
I Rural OInf"".1
Crook Estates Area 1
„.Ina ia J I
Legend
Camp h<mrve P(m, De�ignatum
m.....,.... ��..��I, lu..,
Iux
., and �.�,��.,.�,..�...
��,
1 / Ongind RAID lbundnry
C W.LL.wIIIN.Gi.n.
� IL.iI.Jr .4rn F� w.,. u��iwfll..�ryn.�m
C� Anucmovrd fmm RAID
�) in.,n•.�nn. n.o
.�. m.mi�.,� �- n,.n, rJ��.,J �...��. .���o-..,m„,.
i��x,.0 •"n..�nl�
.o-. e. m.����a.I„n. mina.
NnIE sed RAID R�ry
l Pa,,I RoumL [}I
�P�. Y•.•lun...
/ � xa..ue n.,n �„.wa
I
��....
wnv m.
�.�.:.nu.
i....ia�a�i��..xvn n...I
W,fl, odY
CJ I
U-1 au�u
_6.
(.\Mi1DS 0!&I:�Y..AJi J.Y. LdIBC]
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive
Development;'
Dodson Road Area
—1.1, 1 .. , i.;
Legend
Q -'P hbMnvc P1. De<ignauon
i. I�.
Pmlwud RAID Rwndiry
� ul.,.,,.,„,,..m v,.,.�d r„er � uPo, �.,��. a.�e�..w
m. a. vmmm
•.� ,�'
iorJ dnnvin.n.a nw i. V.rM le .. iLM
N"I Bowdrry
Wa,rhody
� � I'iiF61 .Jm it i(. ni • iil..iiw .,. �'�.J
In.pn, I
It 1
I�.I .iil. Ji. iii. „re ii.inn v..lu� �iuii ��
I ,hurt iiM. vn �, n.i. i.iJ iW�i it
Glu GlSS,'ll
`�,
I'
Ill” 4ulv,.e 19 .'q�.
C\R41 OS 10'AL1LL'iihJnlJ.r GBIdOJ
Proposed Rural Area of
Intensive
Development w N
E hrata Area
mw
R
Planning Commission Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
„ ..
An¢-nJed RuralC mmenul U.�sgnauon
F
��
• '"
a ',
E hrata 2
�:
Tr
e
�
miW
Baa
rr
E hrata 3
Legend
PmVned Lrbm Com xW Dcsigwmn
Legend
C)mp ehemrva PU DevKnawm
ong�mI RAID Bouudary
< x...��w na..�+�,e.,
�. ,w �.�,�_
w��ai
$1 ......... ,n,...
--"
-
e....�...
rcn,.,d fm RAW.e.,.�vi...�m,..,.i
i,�i.,,,.,..,��
..,.a.
n�...��,,,,.e�."�„..x.nii�.,,�,,,.
i..w.
Proposed RAID
mmA I n�AnR+in
Panel R...6,
I'iAl.l.du�lURnY
• Lnh.n ry...i N„J
Irnyrv.l
n.ff.,W�J�. uu��mi„ni. n�.�i.�lu�_�uu
Waierfwdy
�J um�w.,...
® K.” n.a..,
_
i,n—.�,,.�
c.aw
1—ud
C1P a¢5 IC3&V\1WaA(�.LMi LWIP0.1
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
(' Pnrap Arra
Legend
W.p,,d RAID Bn6,
RAID B,,.M,,
P"', BounLiry
\%
G,mprehmw, Nan Dugn ......
4W,
4M
4w
40
I
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Mae Vallev Area w
Legend
Ongln. I RAID Ikwndary
oma mmo,d rmm w [D
— Pm,,,d RID eourRlary
Parcel Nou.dary
W cerbody
Comprehe,.,e Plan Do1gnauon
L
W.vlirW l.�v liicu.
pail W.uunw
Inluan 111-4
w.r. 1.-1k,kv—
�y
Ilr1�n �.�nn�nirl rn�r.lJl lr Or
� -•
\W=r I'Lrii..IlnAr r.rl
t �
I4a J�i.mnwirn
i
tna pv.Il Mn1
�
prnl Wn.a
Im4ru
C—�
raw.l xa„lomao
�
Irea�x<..�.IRar al
�
I�r..l
�...�.��.,I Kr1)
i. iiir .ori. .ralr� r i.iJr .nr
IIu+Jii'..i r
rr.r nr. � ii��vrrrr�w ni s.J w..\uilr_u.u���.
tali. r.l a�..11inn 4 J�� eiiR lirl�iait, Ini.l iril.l�a yii ilio
rriAra. � 41:1 hn pmahA
u ..In
vi • i tf �M1in rn v'irvz�n�`I.r v.. iu. �,(A I i. r. 4nhnp� �
.ryx n. Inr�M1 n. rr. arl wiuJYr Bill. ea �l �rn iy a.i.
vrnrr
amm c..a.r. c,u
rs,,2
W�
m.r rs
[.\RPllly 0'80'\W..rkln44�0B1B0�
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Mallard Haven Area
I
Legend
Adcp,,,i RAJD Boundary
I',,d RAID B.tIII
1'a'd B ..... A,,
WxM'Al'
"o,
it
�C
W11 1 11 1
M,
A-
N�"
J'j
kor,'
Legend
Adcp,,,i RAJD Boundary
I',,d RAID B.tIII
1'a'd B ..... A,,
WxM'Al'
"o,
it
�C
W11 1 11 1
M,
A-
N�"
I . 1'.......... ii
P.Itud A`p
I 'd 11, 1
..........
AW
h,LL
I H. I
U,I
III III JIII� 'I
I . 1'.......... ii
P.Itud A`p
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
1VMittnwn Area u I
�Jt
NC. O.
Legend
1 1% v1 Adopted RAID &i r bry
Purposed RAID Boundary
IS¢el Roundary
W ...body
1
Cnmprchemrve Play Daelgna�on
R.il'vuu... IAns
Ix,w.LL ui1
".1—Pm iO
C-�
l.nn.m
C
w...•Iv..,.Ix.k-d
C_
INw..JILiM1uI
AMI, IAI-Iw-.n
%
I1-]\1-
IMunL nuv��ii
•
[...n�.nW l4.. ip
mrnh�ln
...�m•u. ...mumw.a lfi....n�mn �m e
�i I� nd.-...0 III
•.�w aw.u.�. m.l .ury a4.alu V.,d.r.
hJuou.. u.a u..
III, L1 IN .d- II'1 -11 it
m.l h+vm n..mn m.1 ". nlxanoi All o�� Jw. n�ni.M
0
(,-, ",1,111111
I.,,1 A., 19,.Wt
I -A I', I I , . I
C.laA1DS 103PD11WvAI,,11, 818W
v •. 61 i
MCI
s
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
MncPc T A -P Area
Moses Lake 8
Moses Lake 2
�g s
Moses Lake 6
Legend
Adoped RAID B—e ,
1'm,,,d RAID Bound.,,
Panel B".A"
Wamrhodv
I Moses Lake i
Moses Lake 9
Moses Lake 4
Moses Lake 5
Gnnpehcnene Plan Ucs,gnauun
OW
m
�
y.�n•.. �um,n
�
u.e w,..
u,we
01-,
4W
Legend
VAan G.iumrvW
Moses Lake
ir.,., •. i,iJ. eli�, ,.iii i
....,w„a..rn,
tnly nl ..., . �. an .I�, i�iiq.li imiie v iii.l i, I i� �i yii iliry
+y.o. pu.4a. ,r ail. r.dml,ll .rvgm p..,nx
11
ci
(n+ud Augini IY .1
PnmuL 4,ypui 19,1q�
C\RAI0.$ IP.AO�Woh1.,44�00181
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive DevelopmentM
O'Sullivan Shores Area
Legend
Onguul RAID &Um Ery
Cmm RAID
Pmp ,d RAID Boundary
Panel Boundary
W mrhody
O'Sullivan
1
Gmprehemrve Plan Deeignauon
4. 1�
IiJwnJ(l �ml
n1e��l'Iiiii. �.W.���
AW
wii.I.J4�
C__J
I�n.n Nr.—ISN
�
♦Pii Wvi ihiu.li
N..i.iii.I�..4rynuv.
..1..�� rruari..ii a�xl,.n�.,ri.n \II. i.M la.�n n.l.l
P .... i n'e��ia .,m
rProposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
COuincv Area
11 I
Legend
Ojai[ nwD Iwajidary
(� Area renuwedfmm ltAlD
-- Pi,,,d RAID RoII,&,
Pm,lBomxL ry
asnr��dv
r
Quin c 1
i
1
Cumpmhcmrvc
Plan Di�signaoon
rob
c40
ro�a mw
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
F `
Rocky Ford Area S
Planning Commission Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
Amended Rex k Fonl ?Vea
Runlfbmmen uJ
Rohl loduanTl
Legend
RAID Bou.d,,
�� Area removed fmm RAID
Pm,,d RAID Boundary
_ Na d Boundary
WmerMnR
Ford 1
Cnmpmhcnswe Plan Dcs�gnamm
IId—I1.u.1w..
_
Ic... �,.,.,lI 1,..
111.n<..nm. n W Ami JId I IS 01
Wvel'�iii.JliJ�wiuJ
IW�J �. ino.i��a�
�, )
IN���.uI1V�M1mJ
�
nNurPLui�..114���i
�:
ryi�A vilWp
�P°Mv. LU�h.I
J
wi�l w...
mwa
�_�
me�.ryo.�n �e.0
�
�•n,��w.,�.iw..m
�
Im,.�.a
i • n.in�ii v IM1�� n cn.Adi�
��••I�nvl �.xi .� I, n
, ,....w, II.v1,e:, .,�en,..,...I, yr, L..I�
II IX ii.l ivl��n y n
gni .I, i.�inrnrnn.�n anl�inK+noi� \Il oirM.1������m�hA
i �. � � � �LI� i uIvIA, i •mn 1�T�.
i. i�x ��io is �n mn1 I nrr�� FnR iin
nv<m�^pJna.�lrl� im �nrL .�W�ImI =rv� nn y ��iJ.
,mme�..cis s,u
m
Pnn�rL >iµ�nil 3'.pl
C\RVD$ gO]
Propsed Rural
Area of
Intensive
Development
µ°
E
Ro Slo e Area
S �J
Ro al 1---
�-
- r
//
-
L Ro al2
Legend
Comp,,heurvc Pl.� Dmpa�on
_
RAIU tb.&ry
C. w,a..�e ti�a..,,i.�.m
i�=';
__
L�
i Aree ecmo.rcd from RAID
•.•,"�.n..i.�,i.....
Pmp.ed RAID Boundary
i,,.,,i,�...i n.
-. .n.
�,�. ,.. ,�i. .,,
......... ...
l N,dBounMry
Il.Ih I.Av.�L4hui
+ imn. i.�n.,i i..A
Inio,
Wmad.dy
4W112w1
c�x..� wuo.� ",:m
nios m:eona,mi.utroeixm
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive
Development
wt
Silica Road Area
Planning Commission Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
Anded Raul Q .m.ne.:.,l Deagmna.
V
I
I
Silica Road 1
�� 9— ,1 �., ., ,�4,,,1 ..iM1 ., iia
Legend
Cnmpmhensive Plan Designation
�., .i.,�.,.a
,. ,, u....,,m a n.
w.a..�, i,., ,,�.., w,,asi�,�
.. r. ....
(�gmJ RAID RounAary
,_ w..1 11v..u,,..
t__ 11,1...1 no, i.,,. C—, n,,A..n n,n w...
—
...,e
w....� �d."',e,,,��.
«�nn.ea fmm RAID
,I,hui,nnm.,,i,I �,n.i W.li I� 9, \4wil'i..,n.l ii.li„i�
iwi J,i�nmuunv
vi.il ,.i ilio
Loin. .I.nm,nJ
vl� iiiiK �Inlniiiy i.ii l.i
�_ iN,.�wIM1M.un
IoiiJ ALu
��
n,.lily. ulnl�� I \\liil,
Pmpaud RAID Boundary
_ iM-1,
„nnlun7.,
P .,1 �
'Ri2C) q.u.p., llimy C
nn�ml ,ci li�lmm� :1 pn�4�illn
W..e ,,dy
C_' in.,��a.,..
xi..'
e,.mc min e¢wu
1 JH. i
G\0.91DSu L0;80PW.+,kLA1., OBI W �
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Stratford Road and Park Orchard Area
Legend
(hag nd RML) B.m,b,
—D Area removed imm RAID
RAID Boundary
M,
yr
Stratford Road I
-J2
-J L 1w
��� 1_L_�
Stratford Road
M
"Al
V`,
'd ia.. 6
dw
( ,
W,d
-J-11j.m
40
u —fx
lift
M
"Al
V`,
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Wana um Village Area
Legend
Onghul RAID BowLdar
Arero removed from RAID
Pm,,,d RAID Dom&,ry
> Rarz.el B,,t�da,
Waakody
C.mprehcnsrve Plan Des,gnaoon
W.auW L..I--
4wiLini
Wed ia.
iJwiiafK,, A
11-,
C-,
¢u.JW.k 1
��%
h.4,aW IA.JI IA.u.
_
unenJ l.lii lu.,
u... ,..0 nJ lm.J cnun
R.. .._. 1,w
®
na,tii.nm n�m,x
�
uny,w,� iw.,o
�
m�rr�.J
m,.0 q, J. ., 1 M ,1 1-,
lilt a.�. ww=,ll. iu.iiM, Auhn.��i,,..11—
rw�i AA�a is _w4
GtRiIDS 10:80:\W.,hlc44.0A1A04
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
w o..
Warden Area
Planning Connnission Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
Aan ... W Rural (bmn�emal DrSgnauon
Legend
(haguul RAID Boundary
v
removed lmm RAID
Pmposed RAID Boundary
Parcel Bounck,
Wr,,body
U.preheuarve Plan Deagnauon
C7u
m.
i*...,..... ..>t .... sw is.m
<, '.
r�J
m¢Un.."
la,,
L
Iini�M.v.l ,k
.).. Y+�•'x.,�
(
y.ei 4 v l,., I�pmin
�__.
IW�hl..lu.ILi�wY
•
ilrhm W... iMw,O
•
nyui.J
arv—, n.xr
�,LL.a a.mas :a1
f•nuuJ i.K����ls
2N1
C�RiIDS IO:AO_\WoAioA4c Otl IXO�
Proposed Rural Area of Intensive Development
Wheeler Area
Legend
OrIgL.'] RAID Boundary
Area un., M I,. RAID
Pm,,,d R 11) B..III,
- Parcel Boundary
Wamrbody
I
Wheeler 2
a
F,
Wheeler 3
'A
'14
Planning Commission Recommendation
August 6, 2003 Public Hearing
Amended RumlInduItrmiDea211ILtIoF1
Q)nIprehm,e M. De,,Lpaw,n
1 1, 11
Il," Ih
.16 "I I-,,
I II
I ILI 1. I'll I
1 --1
J,I
L, I n.1
Legend
C) Pmpcs 1 .ABaudary
16 , I I I p I, ., I 11141 f , , I14 n , I I I i.rr. 'I LLLILJ J'I I
11 l�"r -:1,1 11 1 1� I ILI III I I ILI III 111r,I,1 1, r
I and ILI
Id, I Id 111 JI 111 "111 b I I
I' r 6 1 111 1 F I 1 1 . . I I III IIII I I, I
I ILI I . I I I I I I I 111 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1
1—:G, -,,III ILA
,t "'L.L 11 2.1
P --i A., 19 ' 3
I-11AI.1 I.'
APPENDIX B
RAID Inventory
f
F;E
s�
u
-
�
a9
`9JRrma`v
'y{N
om.Y`.o�
�Noo$
�Prvf_�`oo=r^-,
oii.
`$r
8e'`'
�y
�ioeon"oo
_qo
j
dp
s
V
nR=ufi$^�3
"'
rM'�
F�``�`vnA
SR13=.Pi
NmbYa
zY
z
2
z
z
z
2
>ry»
r>raarar
2zy
2
Z
z
Z
y3
C
)aYf)a)T)
)
-u
Tr
...Y
....
Lr)a
Yq
T
E
E w
_
o
>))r>))T>
a
awry
y>a>
>rzrrawzazr>Y
T)
r))>n)azzzz)rz
zz)raz
zz)
a
aaTa
)>ry
zay
)z
yrvaT
zo
z)
za
ra)
zzz
e
a
» >rz)>r
)
aay>
>>yr
yaz
rr
h
aza
zo�r
z)
z>
T>a>zzz
)z
az
aa3
$
zz
s'
¢
zaa
E
-
$8;zz
EE
a>ras>z>a
a
szaa
azwz
aazzazzzz
zzz
)zz
)zz
�sI,
yagg
g3w¢`
s
�c
uQuuuuuc�u
asa
_ry
yFao
-
F¢��
oN
0a�a<��,aa�aya
uu
"<
uou
,may
o
u.�
MUZ
g�������g�aag��
� =uciu
�uv
$
oo�uo
ooh
�o
-u
0000-vu
F
--�7z--VVsia22¢=¢a
a
VUus
U'
e
pU
SL
baa
y
e
'
USy
.g.
_w�_pp3
N$A.3pp
3w33�w�r�k'
EB_
$
��
/
!�°!r®o
RK
`
;!!!;|;;;l;J;!!;;l;!!§E;!!!!!§\
_
___,,—__________________I
_l,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
l_____Z
..................
!w�!
_.,___.,,,,,�,,,,,,
!
_
_
_________________
_
�,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
!
!!
|7|„�
,,,
,z,
\ „
�■;|
§|,�2|\,,=}_!)-�l:i|!„<)};
=
i14;<§lEml..11\r§§!§!E)!§E§\\;;
!44
--
/&weRldRQQ26gma
®
\
�
APPENDIX C
RAID Designation Criteria
A
ti
i
L
C
a
r
N N
cl �I
u
U
Mm
IW
i
U
0
v
v
c
v
U
UI a
T
0
.y
0
O
uli
U
u0
E
G
4>
y7 u
❑
2
Z.
�:
a
v
v
•
O
a
at
N
d
u
4
O a
2
°
0
v
v
c
v
U
UI a
T
0
.y
0
O
uli
U
APPENDIX D
Photographic Record
W
O
cu
W
Y
bu
N
x
cl
Y
Q,T,
cCd
O
to
00
O
a
M
T
C
...
p
U
H
y
Q
�
•C'
^d
w
cn
hH
a�
~
�
ao
o
'b
cl
a)
�
•�
tobb
bA
3 C',
.moi
A
p
oma•
F
E
y
cu
b
�o
o o
b
��
3
zA
.�o°.mow
0
U
cz
>
i
o
bjDs..
Lbw
W
cC
z
°C.1r�Cd
o
a
c�
cd
p
u
O
C
O°p
b
4„
4-c•1
C
U
c>J
❑
Y
cL
�
�
'.•Y�-�
�
np
�
L)
a
Q
cs
b
C
bo
N
�
T
C
cG
C�
G
U
W
O
cu
W
x
cl
to
w
cn
a�
cl
a)
�
tobb
bA
3 C',
.moi
cu
�o
o o
b
��
3
0
U
i
o
o
W
cC
0a3
�
'.•Y�-�
�
by
'd vi
�
T
C
cG
C�
G
U
N
Q
�A
o
°o
U
c...,,
°
O
�
vi
>
.b C
•y
o
rl
t
It
U
o
ami
U
°
U
C�5
W
W
O
cu
W
4-.
ci
U
U
cd
�b
��
a�
•max
CZ
O
Oti
U
al
N
O
'CJ
o
U
y
c
p
o
U
C.
Cd
cm
O
U
a
O
bio�p
r.
U
Q,
CW
O
`n
O
W
b
c'bd
cd
U
o
b
°'
:U
w
o
cz
'
btn
6,
cd
c�
o
a
Q
o
Oca
U
"d
O
G
c6
{4y
c6
-�,
3
bA
Fr
'O
'ty
a
a
ct
Y
.b
iby
R
'�
O
bio
b1J
U
f.J
H
Y
�
Vl
N
a
o
i].
,b
Vi
p
,�
cuaj
cz
N
M
U
OU
O.
VI
rUii
bio
c�C
'd
64
m
N
U
O
rl
QQ
3
b
oa
c
cz
ami
>
b
oo
;w
��,
o�
_r
b
•r
"�
p
O
O
�'
o
G�
U
a
W
O
El
Q
>
a
Q
It
It
N
M
V'1
00
b
N
M
O
c3
N
m
M
m
Q
(Yi
O
O
vpi
vUi
'
W
Q
U
�
to
rl
3
o
~
.�
ro
>�
b
o
bo
•�
N
�
o
�
v'
•�
b
3
�
>
U
U
O
,�
y0
�
U
U
.d
U
U
U
U
cl
as
CIS
rl
R1
al
'O"
OJD
bio
t�ii
rah
.fy'
N
y
O❑❑
bpcl
bo
+
o
d
CO
Q
°
3
a`di
o
0
v,
w
..
cl
O
U
Q
bn
y
C
"�
ti
Es
sU.
d
bA
b
7>
G
bo
`oa
"
a
m U
ww
cr���>1
C
o0
L1.
cc 4,
bo
bbju
L
cl
U
a
cdCID
❑
a
o
°CZ3
c
Cd
cl
ai
Cl,
"
fl
CU
U
U
>
"
u
°
�
N
b0
O
w
y N
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
�,
o
a
bA
3
c
i
b
•Y
bq
O
cd
' U
U
U
T7
N
cd
cz
U
cid
�
U
r
""
Y
N
^O
m
vi
to
rl
w
p
n
n
v
v
H
ccl
^r
�i
f
o
t
°>°'
A•,
ai
o
Pa
s.
o
U
s.
j
i
>
U
'�
• � �
❑
W
y
>
U
�
c~d
�
R
Yr
�+
C1.
iti
cC
�
bb
.fir
;b
'�'
cd
•--�
b U
v'
U
N
>
U
y
O
°
by
b
N
U
>~�
b
b
o
a
r.
o
Uj
c
a
aoUj
m
°
i
°
bn
°
'b
3
d
d
UC,3o
Cd
to
Cd
CZ
U 0.i
m
N
`c�
E
�
U
Z
z
°
U"
o i
a�
°
.Y
>
°y'
°
N
°
>
�'
b�
b._
a
bbh
O
cG
cl
..
a.d
vz
>
a
b
bc
Q
v�b
x
"c
Cd
�E
U in
> o
.b
U
bo
3
3
aj
aj
IsH
c
ci
c
G'
U
•�
cC
�
;
.b
� U
�Xy.'i
cli
C1
ay
U
O
U
cC
O.
N
U
CC
a3
i-+
b
y
Pr
�
U
fit'.,
vi
G
N
O�l
H
o
�
a
�Cd
o
�
b
a4
>
o
3 t
},
to
rl
CIS
r.
a+
to
N g
UCd
N
b
Qr
os
/'�
ir
to
(:
i�-i
..
'•'
ate.+
i�"�'✓/
CC
x
a+
G
as
bb
4 +.
Ca
U
O
10.
N
C4
r+
N
U
O
O
U
bA
C
Cd
�"'
p
i
'C1
,� ,^
CZ3
of
'C
sU+
cd
C's
CS
'd
bq
to
'c7
Qj73
�
ani
U
c;
d
ai
O
U
0
b
b
as
bb
Q
7
.+
N
U
•3
O
U
:?
P;
-0
w
d
o
.�
v)
O
U
�t
N
N
d•
N
M
N
�n
-+
M
cli
U
O
O
O
O
cL�C
O
�U
bUp
.b
y
U
L)�
Q�
Y
�
U
W
.O
W
O
a
v
to
ao
v
r
oCIS
3
a
r
d
o
co
ai
a
a
i
v
ti
_aj
arla�
v
on42
3
cC
)
a
Q)
J'.a>
�
N
C
OU
t
d
`�
to
ani
ot
cTs
ob
a
C)
(L)mon
4Z
u
o
(D
b
Co
a
U
Ci
W
C
ry
�
�
.w
.�
>
cd
(1)
U
O.
�"
,�
.j
y
m.
C
C
�.
dcz
a>
cl
cl
a
M
V'1
M
00
N
M
d'
M
48
Q\
N
ON.O
y
a�
00
cz
cn
N
3
T
X
T
°
°a
c
z
>
to
cz
v
a
>
%l•1
O
cd
v
�i
Q
4A
FI
a
a
>�a
z„
.--I
o
W
ou
a
ca°'
o
on
Q
a x
a-�
'p
.�
C41
U
x
"d
Q
aye
v
w
v
Q
(03
F
a K
i
>
W)>
°
o
UO
cu
3
-
c
mw
O
Q
o
b
N°
�4
a�
O
a>
v;.
C14
U
>
O
iQ
OU
N
dna
p
CID ao
o
ti
'
Q
CID
aor.
Cd
Cd
•clibb
Ncl
a
•C
W
10to
M
l�
CY
Vl
'r
yyyy
yy
yy�
/
r
>,
>,
U7
00
w
O
r
Cd
a,
d
N
L73Cd
bA
D
cow
.
U
bA
p
r
ON
as
i1.
x
N
O
P.
.`l.
E
b
_
3
^-
w
U
L4
U
bA
N
c
U
V
y
cC
U
p
=d
ai
C.b
c3
>w
�x
�c�
��
C,3
��
cz
�
v
U
al
cu
ci
•
a
y
bb
lH
V]
U
is
U
U
U
ccs
�..-i
U
•G
O
w
1CZ.
M
i
@
73
CbiD
0
C73
y
U
DU.O
b
• v�
Q+
CLI
Q
C)
bbAal
o
M
ct
•'7
'U
73
❑
cl
D
12
4
rl
r
ti
C11
V�
O
00
U
c�3
a
CN
4-
0
C\
U
04
cz
P.
Nw
a°
b
2)jo
o
N,
3
°?
0
o
ob
b
a
0
Cd
00
•.,
>
U
U
b
>
a
-�
u
o
rn
b
Z
��o
o
cz
CZ
°r.°>
a�
C
r
b
O
u
w�
.Q�
b
�=b
U
w
>
i
oon
ti
U
OU
.b
•�
N
^�>
U
U
r.r.Pr
m
O
U
vi
'
O
}"c1c
YO
r
0.i
ay
N
^=""
�C±
ccz
.r
f,
15,
v,
4.
�J
aCz
.
GL
bQ
w.
Y
p
>
cd
. G
U
U
tD
Q
UL
iU.
N
C
O
O
bq
cid
O
U
U
L
w
G°
U
b
b
tin
b°>
°
+�
• is
o
.0
cd
N
0
y
o0
C
F
cczU
U
r.
>
3
u
M
M
M
�O
00
vn
00
y
7�
b
N
N
N
CN
4-
0
C\
U
04
cz
P.
APPENDIX E
DCTED Review Letter
a
MM e/ MXWMB 11w�V 11SEP 0 9 2003
STATE OF WASHINGTON GRANT CO PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,
TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
128 - 10th Avenue SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (360) 725.4000
September 5, 2003
The Honorable Deborah Moore
Grant County Commissioner -
Post'Office Box 37 " " '
Ephrata, Washington 98823
Subject: Rural Areas of More Intense Development Boundary Analysis, June -23,.-2003
Dear Commissioner Moore:
Thank you for s6nding the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
(CTED) the analysis and proposed boundaries for your Rural Areas of More Intense Development (RAID).
We recognize the significant investment of time, energy, and resources this document represents. We received
the draft document on July 10, 2003. In addition, we reviewed the planning commission amendments included
within the August 6, 2003, minutes. This letter summarizes our comments ogyobr draft and the proposed
planning commission changes to the analysis.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) allows for limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD)
[RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)]. This is one of the many tools counties may use to allow for limited development
while protecting rural character. Under the GMA there are three categories of LAMIRDs. The first category
requires a county to delineate the boundaries of a pre-existing rural development [RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i)].
According to the GMA, a pre-existing use or area is one in existence prior to July 1, 1990 (July 1, 1991 for
Grant County). Counties must identify the logical outer boundary of these pre-existing rural developments.
The logical outer boundary is delineated predominately by the built environment, but may include limited
undeveloped lands [RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)]. Once the county has set these boundaries in place, further
rural development must be contained within the boundaries. The boundary analysis Grant County submitted to
our t ffice is defining these boundaries for this category of LAMIRD.
The other two categories of LAMIRDs allow for new rural development on undeveloped parcels. This type of
rural development is not contained within a logical outer boundary [RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii) and (iii)] nor is
it required to go through the logical outer boundary exercise. These types of LAMIRDs are permitted through
a county's development regulations and issues such as scale, location, permitted uses, and process are clearly
identified through the development regulations.
Overall, we suggest Grant County review its proposed RAIDS, including the planning commission
amendments from the August 6, 2003, meeting, to determine if it might be more appropriate to consider
development regulations to permit new rural development, as opposed to identifying the logical outer
boundary of a parcel or group of parcels that have not been developed. If you are proposing to amend the
boondary analysis, we recommend you demonstrate how the new proposals are meeting the original criteria
developed by your consultant for delineating the boundaries of the RAIDS.
n
0
The Honorable Deborah Moore
September 5, 2003
Page 2 /
,/:,T
be;rural tools iyithin the GMA allow for flexibility in permitting rural development. However, it is important
to choose the right tool and to apply it in the best way to fit the vision for Grant County and to meet the
requirements of the Act.
We especially like the following about your RAID boundary analysis:
• The introduction and background information provided an excellent discussion about the evolution of
RAIDS in Grant County. The information about the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing
Board's (EWGMHB) decision was helpful in understanding where Grant County has been and the purpose
of this analysis. In addition, the work plan developed to address revisions to the RAIDS was thorough.
• The analysis provided two excellent summaries. The proposed acreage changes on page 20 and the
summary of the designation criteria for the RAIDS were especially helpful in reviewing this document.
We believe these summary sheets will also be helpful for staff and the public reviewing this document.
We have concerns you should address before you adopt the RAID boundaries:
• Parker Springs/Ridgeview Estates
This proposed RAID includes 30.3 acres of vacant property. This narrative could be strengthened by
going back to the original criteria you developed and the criteria of the GMA to analyze the inclusion of
this area. The analysis of this RAID could also include more information as to why Ridgeview Estates is
being removed.'
• Blue Lake Shores
This proposed RAID is proposed to have an increase in 82.09 acres. In addition, the planning commission
recommended four additional parcels be added to this RAID. It will be important to include, within the
narrative, a discussion as to why it is important to now include the 82.09 acres plus the additional four l .
parcels in the RAID not included in the original comprehensive plan and the failure to originally designate
this area as part of this RAID was in error. Again this discussion should go back to your original RAID
criteria and the GMA.
• McDonald Frontage 1
This narrative needs additional expansion to include a discussion of the criteria set out in the GMA and the
criteria Grant County is using for Agriculture Service Centers. It will be important to discuss why this
RAID was not included in the original comprehensive plan and the failure to originally designate this
RAID was.in error. In addition, the maps with the various overlays need to be included.
The proposal contains a number of freeway -oriented RAIDs. In order tojustify the freeway -oriented
RAIDS, it will be crucial for Grant County to relate the defining criteria to the requirements of the Act and
to the county's definition of rural character, and then show how the adopted RAIDS meet the standards
adopted. As the current narrative explains, not all of the proposed RAIDS are developed —which is one of
your criteria in designating a RAID and a requirement of the GMA. In addition, your introductory
information describes that zoning alone cannot be the sole reason to include a parcel or area. These
RAIDS could benefit from further analysis to ensure they are appropriately designated.
As an alternative to designating undeveloped parcels as RAIDs and as described at the beginning of this
letter, Grant County should consider development regulations allowing isolated small-scale businesses in
rural areas using the provisions in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii) and (iii). This type of rural development
need not be contained within a logical outer boundary and need not be in existence prior to July 1, 1991.
These development regulations need to operationalize the terms: small, isolated, and reliance upon the
rural environment.
The Honorable Deborah Moore
September 5, 2003
Page 3
Some jurisdictions require the rural development to obtain a conditional use permit and have development
regulations in place to limit the developable area of a parcel, limit the square footage of a building, and
restrict the types of uses permitted. In addition, some jurisdictions also place limitations on the distance a
new rural development can be from an established UGA. We could provide you with some good
examples from across the state, if you are interested.
Ephrata 2
CTED does not recommend establishing a RAID adjacent to a UGA. The purpose of RAIDS is to
recognize isolated areas of development in rural areas that have occurred at urban densities. If an area has
developed at urban densities and is adjacent to an existing UGA, it should be included in the UGA. If it
has not developed to urban densities, then it does not meet the criteria for a RAID designation and is more
appropriately considered rural lands. A RAID designation should be reserved for more' dense pockets of .
development isolated from uiban lands and surrounded by rural and resource'lands.
•
Jet Farms l • :. r...' S.,.
Your analysis states that Jet Farms 1 "does not satisfy the criteria of the OMA for designation as a RAID."
We recommend you further analyte the inclusion of this RAID.
We have some suggestions for strengthening your RAID boundary analysis:
• The narratives for each of the RAIN could be strengthened with an assessment of any critical areas
present. The presence of a critical area could help to further refine the boundaries of the RAIDS and help
to define the types of uses permitted within the RAIDS. It would also be helpful to link the goals and
policies of your shoreline master plan (SMP) to those RAIDS located along the shorelines. It will be
important to ensure the proposed development is not in conflict with your SMP.
• The RAIDS without narratives in the Commercial and Industrial section would benefit from some
additional discussion. At a minimum they should be listed and, perhaps, they could be grouped. For
example, the RAIDS could be grouped by listing all the RAIDS that are not changing from the previous
comprehensive plan and a list of RAIDS proposed to be completely eliminated. This would leave only
those RAIDS with some changes to have further narratives and discussions.
• The narratives should reference the page numbers of the various maps to help the reader.
• The maps should include major roadways to help orient the reader and, perhaps, include one large map of
the entire county showing where all the RAIDS are located. Again, this would help to orient the reader.
Suggestions Regarding Specific Designations:
• Marine View 2
The narrative indicates that this RAID is being reduced. However, there is no detail as to how much it is
being reduced by and the summary sheet on page 20 indicates no change. We suggest revising the
summary sheet to show the total acreage reduction.
McDonald Siding 1
We noticed a difference between the narrative for this RAID and the map. The narrative indicates that this
RAID will be removed, but the map appears to be readjusting the boundary. We suggest reconciling this
apparent discrepancy.
McDonald Siding 2
We suggest you rename this narrative to reflect the associated maps. They are called Moses Lake Area.
The Honorable Deborah Moore
September 5, 2003
Page 4
• Wheeler 1
This RAID consists of a single parcel containing an existing restaurant. Designation of this parcel as a
RAID may not be necessary to allow this type of development. This use maybe considered a small-scale
commercial use as defined in [RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii)]. These uses need not be confined to a logical
outer boundary and need not be pre-existing. Other counties have allowed these types of uses as a
conditional use. This may be something to further analyze.
• Wheeler 2
This narrative could be strengthened by the addition of more detail and analysis. The narrative does not
relate the criteria to the parcel.
We have enclosed Keeping the Rural Vision -Protecting Rural Character & Planning for Rural Development.
This document includes a chapter on LAMIRDs, which includes tools for identifying the boundaries of these
areas,
Congratulations to you and your staff for the good work this document represents. If you have questions or
concerns about these comments or any other growth management issues, please call me at (360) 725-3051 or
Dee Caputo at (360) 725-3068. We extend our continued support to Grant County in achieving the goals of
growth management.
Sincerely,
Wendy Compton -Ring, AICP
Senior Planner
Growth Management Services
WCR:lw
Enclosure
cc: Gary Piercy, Chair, Grant County Planning Commission
Scott Clark, Director of Planning, Grant County
Billie Sumrall, Assistant Planner, Grant County
Dee Caputo, AICP, Senior Planner, CTED
Attachment C
RAIDS Mapping
Maps 1 through 74
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Schawana - Rural Community 1
Legend
' panel eou�<L ry
W.IICfbOdY
C..n. (..angor timll
m.L w.um1..15 ?m�
Hood N.rvmtnrla :lp\
C�R4I�VPD\iC 11180 �\.YA]\hulmil yrr
♦ „�li,, ail i ii� �.
lul
Gl pr,hertrve PI.i D,,,peoon
c_.
1-1-1110,
Urlant�..nrn n.J l.n 1.0.11/vGi
nle4.i ua.rf i�.Mu�i
[ �
Mibi nm.v.
�J
i�Ja.uW lliAn.1
�
nY.i..l i.ii..lk n
ui.
�
ItuJ\JYy.
u.
ipn T.. Howl
C_J
w�.nw��.,n
-10
hhl. i.b. Ilr.
•
IN.m 1... 11CirJ1
Iniyp..l
Ci11-
R.. n.
W-Iiiw...0
Iwm. Li�l
L.......
ItK—
n.., n.pd—ena111 onl ela¢J ,I.. . A¢.1 iii I
.�� ..... .
.........'�';�
¢iiMrl �.rrin. n. I...L..�ny�.liil.un¢+wilnl n.li... �.
s.0 .�lil.. n66i. I�..niai \tliil.
pgtr. pun �.. i nlnu lm rill. �n 1 ayon e..
�ni. �un AM1 d....rvne ua�u.Y
aim uJl....a. �. p�i.•�.d
Map 1
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Beve Ul Rural Communi
V, �TF
4, d ..H A I.
pkpl
p.
4, d ..H A I.
Legend
PL., D,,,,g.af,f.
. ........ .. ..
T'd P ..... . ....
40
Map 2
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Parker Springs Area (Ridge View Estates) - Rural Community QW I
Legend
R,Rd B ... dI,
WI,,b.d',
1n. -d
,-\F VDLPD\�_111801'2WIN-fi,,il,,.
G,mpmh . .... P1. D,,g..Iuon
I �1,—, I I K—D
1"',
1111....] I I 1J
D,
. . . ...... .. . .
Map 5
Rural Area of Intensive Development
N�L
Trinidad - Rural Community
Legend
hi,d B.I,.6,
W,t,I- Jy
Q m (nun GIS S v0
UvuJ N rmM1.r9..V.�
C\RAI Nv.urh.r9,'rc
c�xnrDuron.v nremex�n..i,rr,l><.
-LL��L
�r--
_�
IC��l`�'
, �r� i �
>'���__-�
1
__ ------ -
F-
L
C
F— --
;x����----------
i
_-
-�
-
w.a...e u.n,u.a..
C
L
L--__-_�
�'
i4 ,....wu.........
®
IM�nrr,�rmmn.J l�v..4.l1 I�/:r
(
nNur Pl nu..11�ri.im
i=1111111
=11111
.�i 1111111 1111111111111 11111111_ =111111
IIIII 11111111 111111 IIIIIIIII 11111111111 = pl
IIIII IIIIIIII 111111111111111111111= _ /
uuulul uuuuuuu Run 1=
11111111111 IIIIIIiIII_ = I
mmmll ulunn_
umluuuull uuutuul u�
nnnnnnml nnm ��-
iiiii�i mw;11N
Cnmprehcmrve P6n D,,pam,n
C
C�
w.a...e u.n,u.a..
C
.4...er.,.�am.,,
�'
i4 ,....wu.........
®
IM�nrr,�rmmn.J l�v..4.l1 I�/:r
(
nNur Pl nu..11�ri.im
WirA r.�nrm.u.
46,
i<m it �ilW.
tpn M.IL nnuJ
IW.J Wnra
in uni
rwnr. mr. w....
4
ud .�orw „rr
�
r..rr rr i,.dde�,r0
_r.rt�l'i�.xnrrr.rmmvnnnln urv. Ul .!Ar �M
i.��n..ir a r�lily• alnlr.. r.rrri.ai \\fill.
v rl.ix i. yr nJl. lYl.-.n1i.M1...�ii i �. v.n�
. irx ., rXiir. in.. uv � rrc.11'n. r'm mrrurK lin
span pn+M1 rc..,cr..:.r.m.Fm�Lu nJl, n�p�e rh.
Map 6
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Wana um Villa e - Rural
Community
Legend
x�.
IX'a(erb.ly
® r,w
,---F^is,,.,.1,.�.��.�.a..��,��k.n,�.,..e.„.��,a
r._
w„a (aee.
,"� I
.�� Baa. ,.. an. �.
11
i,.d.mi.., n..
IWla .nm mem
� i,M1m i.. 1.wvi0 � i1mm1
���.�r .�.e
e.I��.,nW., i�i,....e.�i,, u.��.n,,..e .,...a.
1.-111-1(.IS1o11
�: uavu L4vo.
� N.NI i6�„. Iwr1�A
vnnu.L rv..v.mhnn�lan
I�.RFI�I.PDiIf 1 IBOt�;yq\Ivr.JinWapr
� Uw.W��mnii
� ��nm�.�n[mi�ei
Map 7
yl!yy{{ I
N 'her ?.,
RuralArea
o Intensive Development
PM�
McConihe
Shore - Shoreline
Development
1
r
I
Legend
�mprc K
ona.e .vi
l n n., . ...
9 n...,�x �..
wi .
���„oe
� In..
W,oiw nY n�a i,w �duo�.,�
���„�,� .�.��a,,.,....��.
i.. ��.Llu
e ..
K,,I�,I—�i lo#•
V/IICI{IOdY
R�.4o�ilEylill�nu ��
_. LM1u...�..ul.... W.li »'0�
WJ.i 1"6..l
�Iw.l u..a.l i..en....
F'I.�i.l�n�. niiii. In .L. .iit �Ii�i.iiiiY i•ii
l�.. ��i ilii
Ii.Lw.W IL1.1.uJ
� -� I..o..i M1lrc ld �
)
r1�ii i.. �lav�h J. u.., An (A..I.pn ni
nl.l..,,It
>ir.��io �Xi.v ir. �,I. � �i •• �. i.ir nJ l
ti \t M1il.
ri �.nAep�n
w��.
/ iW.l.l .iIm 11 FM1.i� •
141..n c. n. ix ..0 •
I. I ..! J...���vivu, i. ii ui..J i.. u..
.
Gw.L N.nnih.l9 :q��
lYhmlinLvmi�
�R410VP�4iE III80�^W�h.dwdnp.
Map 11
Rural Area of Intensive Development WE gam°
Mae Vallev - Shoreline Development
Legend
_ I'aael Rowdary
Wnieelnwly
Gane Gumv GIS]iaf!
c�aniouvonre_mwv 'Dmn..nna.r,.
I —
Compmhe mne Plan Desagnawun
CJ
Ufw m.��
�
w,m k... �.
x •w•�a
.,,i .h. -,n i,
.nnri i � h�..(1 unrc�W iriii� u. +4 iV KJim
12
Rural Area
of Intensive Development
IN
Blue Lake Shore - Shoreline
Develo ment s A
LfgCI1C1
Cnmprchcavve Plan Dedgnamn
�,, ��.�.. �.e „i .. .,
- i.. ...,�.„a„
u,,.,
.1 a,,.a
4w
��IIPt�IOdy
—
�' Ul..n(. vm�n.�l fi�u.JJ I/1+0� C_ >
' _ w,��i..oi u.. ave.,.
nWui lV.nn.l�nlioi... �<.iiJ�i nxwin.
Z. , y�uxi�'ii
Lii—nr - u.'J. J:1'111..Jll.. ..
�I�-..1 .��, t..Ln����q I��In.� .I
� Ii�EanJ NAw�I �
�_
nWu.l luin.I N. viii � x.ii.l \ilLq
I— Im1 X n
mr. .n.l rrAni � JI ilw
nl`i. ai i..�v.�rtu�i �oiuio� � .uiil. � ei�lA. i�inn \lfiu.
�p ��a aa.,n —.
w,.,a���.. ir,e�a
,,,w.�a r..�e.a• �� �� ..�a ���xw.�� � ..
oe�c,
N--,ss1a
n.,.��m w C
.om'
we�m .w
e°a4 inormh ,mmn..e„,�.c.
Map 13
Rur Area o Intensive Development
W+E
Sunland Estates - Shoreline Development
Legend
� i Va�cel Boundary
WnmrMniy
(emu G+umr GIS Gil!
[nmol N.nmhr 112.
PrvnN M�a.mMrin 9T
(_\R41D1.>D�TR IIIBO�\1W lkr�l�oil ry�r
Cnmprehensrve Plan Deagnauon
qFtv
a,.rll....��
�....il.�..v.
Oil
na�
iwa.�.i i.n.a w...
r —'
w.., ...w
D�\IIo�l.Ilil�ynJ \I..rr
'
1.4..I I'L 1ii0u-i
_
4Mw..,
i.,�,rG..
Fit
w,.✓vaw,
CIMMrI
VJm IUk.O
U.M1ui w.. r.. iimd
ii.wu..l
L�Irn Wun�
40
_ItH
wNO
IMw tM1iirmu
c..........✓Iw���p
y.n.l. lava 1 mst is `e 1 ., A—,
yin
14
Rural Area of
Intensive Development
P�
Crescent Bar
- Recreational Develo ment
nk
®
I
,!
1 \ x
IT
\I�r
IJ
�I
4J
I
J
�.. ,
"•I : .nl.11oi
Cmpmhm,Pln D,,,pauunLegend
' i �SIC[I BOU�dafy
�_` R.A iwIMYmm plum �_ iw.e0. .nua ON, W^Am dr n.. a.,w
enixi Ai..
W.�eeMdy
xa.dqut uef�ni^n, �`5s) mia..,u..bdw� r � m.,..awln.0 qu. u,
Ll.....
�,rl�....A.,. iv4.11 1. liuuW l I'w ilk .......
x.,n 4�a�.
_ 00;I
,a.. •l ,..n. a..,, wadK.,
...�, ^ .nl. ,. ,ln, m 44 a,1.
.���,� m....,, .. m....,. ,,..����.�
ary ro „i u,n4
o,i,ia
I •••1 •. m. b...l �, II . p .nln
G.a.n G„^nv G(Sd WI
Baud N,,.w Mi 19, 3[C.
InMw1Y. n. .uud �.Aa v,. ( emm tmi
m.vl N.v,mM1rl9 9]�
C-RVM[PDfiTE 11801.'."-ImA,
LM1I.u,l i.4n.. ii • .inn m.i...Il X.iid
15
RumArea of
Intensive
Development
A F
The Gorge -
Recreational Development
It
Legend
11 1�11,1 111,
b—, Ad",
111� Dlg.an
Tercel BoundsC
1% Jy
.......I
I
LI II I
I l,i'
11'I
dZ
N-
Map 161
Rural Area
of Intensive Development
F
North Soap
Lake - Recreational Development
i'
Legend
n
Panel Bowdary
C- � � mew e,,.,. 40'
.m„�x���en.�����i�,
, I.JwrvlllM �I�i.. niu.J ��.� dial
�vi� ) Mlly
.I M. �nx irtiri�. u.l-.�n�x-nv�n \II �i iln � iii .�.i.l
nJ�u viii., v—
ianll�.1.- 1 i I.��r. ni1nes li,
'� .n Pn
�i.La4.1�n.iAlJi.
l winW .Jn�l�fiv�i iW�w �.. n. iY... rl •
.illi
wt ��v�u.i lug �v�i �J
Gnm G�umv GlSSiaff
.uJ W �nMrl9, NP
to n
I'muaJ
G VMulU vn� � ion .Il.iu�i.ii it�np LvJ
LL�m1inW
I...n • i.ii.iini�iulw..
4'n.mh+ 19,_W�
�DUPU91t Ill ,,_OO.hv.l.o ry.
iA
Map 17
Rural Area of Intensive Development 9 f
Marine View Area - Recreational Development
Legend
Panel B..dary
WtterMdy
Go
m (.nm. GIS Cull
(nhd N...mkr 19 LP
Pw N .mhi 19, :C01
C\R\0.11 UUPIIaTF II3BO1\20)lu.fmil �.
Cnmpreherorvc Plm Uevgnation
<
x..,,.�ll.,l,.,.
•
w,ax..,..11
�L.. J�x�ll
r,
x......
c
I,.J..II.,.J ,..
�1
Vrhm o m n...1 M. nk,l n'01
1_-
WwJ6m"a li,l mu.
Ioii J.�nan.0
Ii.A.mJ RA vl
4W
"1"" -11-1
'Qi�/
Iw.J.illy.
I, iM... I
.*i. y... ivwd
.I... k. 11",
i
Iv�FL IviIn.II�iM1.ip
L�ui H. n. �lwi iU
I.ex.J
�J
lL1.viWvn.
IWrJUn,i.�v�i
.
u
. n.�.J..In..4P u J 1 r., au.am 1
.rig v�b n�l��i liJlc.n l"^'1`^ri.
18 and 48
Rural Area of Intensive Deve opment°
Winchester -
riculture Service Center
s
Legend
PI., esu nmum
�
9i �i. M1it
L i ISmel Bo.mLry
u., n.- i�a„..w
.....� .
..,,,, �,..
rtgv
urt Cawu GISS�afl
u
�� ilrlaiW. n. � puri iiMv.i � .anpl.nl
fnap J. IWn�,ohr19 �-
n
� ��,Iwi L�yv x�i � � i�. Wil��.il�
(.\�0.g1�111'pPIF 1911A9�'_'JO\h„iluW Y•r
Map 19
Rural Area of Intensive Development
"
Ruff - Agriculture Service
Center
s
Legend
e<
(nmprc ciurvc Plan Dlginal
..Ai
ti.
..�.,.
�_ ' IWI.I vilmM1il.n9
if�i�i�y...i i+w�i • ...yu..l
.uu��oiw�n�..��i.nin.�.ii.. n.0 i.��al.
ni. (nwm GlSSull
� Iv�u Win.
� Mn.J oWv�vi XnnwlnJ
Pn � L N.v.mh `W�
li�hn LlnWv�vii
G\RgIDI1PDilF 118'J':W 1I..a,liml.pv
ill.,
Ma 20
Rural Area of Intensive Development w N '
�---
Legend
Pamd Rounlary
Wa,+w I,
Guud c'.11.,
A.m.J m .mW Is sc1
C\R>IOfIPDATr nl60.1:L01hrJin�fy.
McDonald
Camprchauwe Plu D,,Lgnauun
h �
v..a �.�, 1... u...,
�
m..x .m 1i
.e..,,dlx•�+0
tm.........'P
Ii.Auu.J(Ili1.nA
NI, ilL.nn
lq,I1
LLIvn Wv...
�
Wi�.li.iY.m.
Iivw Wa
xiix �. .y[Mni.n�'r jinn �. �..�m�ri.nrcl I iii .m WnQ.��
a
21 and 24
Rural Area of
Intensive Development
F
Ballard's Cafe
- ficulture Service Center
Legend
&.p�ht,.,,, Pl,� DI,,,paut,.
C 40
IupiAM 116 . ........
.. ..
...
I ...II.. I,
1—I", Nt,—�Iltl .1
P -I IN
..
Map 22
Rural Area of Intensive Development
4-0
Stratford - Agriculture Service Center S F
Stratford North
Legend
P,-1 Bi ..
U'nrrbc�y
C\APIU�PU\TC 111801VLp�hx<lmily�
Gmp,herorve Plan Ik,,p,w,n
a.
C
, .
�
IA..J I�..4 i,iJl
� �
I..ryn �W ittw J1
Y r
Gmp,herorve Plan Ik,,p,w,n
C
W,J wI1.n IA�w
�
IA..J I�..4 i,iJl
� �
I..ryn �W ittw J1
IITu�i,.�nm�ni�I A -L. [i Iv O1
,
41w. I Iiiii. J 1. J. ,awl
.n.i. w,
.1 IAL,
C
I.o Im..i,a
®
y.. � L.•,o
�
.A .,m.n v
4w
�.......,....
in 9a,ei, in,�, nn.oi i6,.,ron., u. ., mA li,i
evi. mia
23
Rural Area of Intensive Development N
Moses Lake Area (McDonald Siding 2) w s
Moses Lake 8
Legend
W'arerkwdy
a.,
f 1AAI�LND4iF IIIN9,l:p,]y.a.lmil pr
Moses Lake 6
� Moses Lake i
i
Moses Lake 9
Moses Lake 4
Moses Lake 5
Comprehensive A. D"'I...
�.'„
w„v w•r....o
,.....mn.m
RuralArea o W' E Intensive Development N
McDonald FrontaEe Area - Rural Industrial 5
Legend
R,,J Boundiry
W9wiwdy
Gmn fnnmv GlSSaII
In 11 111D I.II 11.1
[.\R11DliPD9TF I .1\2. 11
Gmprehcrnrvc Plan Ursignaunn
a"k-dI,.I,m.,
®
I�,.,Iw,,..,
C .'
Ia.J.¢aI II "t,
IwI"111. 1.J 0... .
w... ..,J L,aPun.
ti -11
...........Jry...
1i1111m
ittan y— 'It J.
vy_ ip��}�u
iL Mn1
C_
14 Wn.n
nLiJ
I'WLI,Jn.Ilil�uJ
UMm Kt. iO
Ii.v.uJ
dial j, ..i
Item l.N
.nail nlu..n
�
e„nin. nal +n..0
.n v ILa,an.m pnhAl
. npnn -vl l..., :'j- 111 rh.nn�i,n J.l
. n .1.LRs.l ni li.11 nrin,. in p a.i .
u
i.IJ .ul �uw� niai.. ry n....i.J
... e
25
Rural Area of Intensive Development
W+E
S
WjllorA Arai CnmmPrr'n1
Legend
Nd 8"..day
wa"",
I.M 11 2.1
Area
Q)niprehcroivc Mmi Dc.ignation
u .. . .. ......
4W
Ld, ILI- p. a.1 lhw
LL11
4
h"I J'�
26
Rural Area of
Intensive
Development
E
Crook Estates Area 1 -
Rural Commercial
Crook Estates Area 1
Legend
Plan Dragnaunn
Waredn•`ly
nl�..�ane
O � .iomm.I A .
OW,
w
i' m..,rni.,.�,�n
i.-I w��,..111
n"
_
1.4a �nvi .i.n �nl..�il..nnn \II. r.M.1n��.m.ih1
ulrLi�l��+i \tfi.l.
ni.11
AP
rel 14noWn pi
�1 cnnb���minl
� W��J 14n. i. �n Li��l
�����'� �� nrvl�i4liri i�dl�cii�rin �Yw�i�
( I�wn.� .dn. LLM1M1M
uInm�l
ii�
• n.�w..,��i�+p �
Gnm (r�w�r GlS Sall
Ll tiA..l4v�.�
• io..J�.w.„, tii�in 4u.�
Rural Area of Intensive Development Nr"
T)nrlcnn Rnid Area - Rural C'nmmercial
Legend
_ _ I'.�rccl BoumL ry
0.'a�eAxxiy
4nm C�.umr GlS fiall
�",a
Vm I UM(ID:g7.
nm�PDAroon_u
Cnmpmhen,ne Plan Ue„ gneuon
C;
„n.��,.�m.a,
low,
IL.a—I k-1 lam.
1
I,.n uuuA o.a.l'mn.
it mv. i• nim.. Ihc. ,.,nn. m.4A i.,
luu o.rv.wn ..��ul..1�.viuM..wd�nF.�Ju iu.�ni.lin. I..ii
30
Rural Area of Intensive Development
EDhrata Area
M' Rr,4,,
Legend
uate, Ay
Z,
I N11DLPI),
1
C.mpr hc.,,,e PI., D,,,.a...
w. d 1.
.1-111, . ...
N,- 1 1, .... 11,
OW
11K,
er
ihrata 2
4,1 i,a
Map 31, 32 and 33
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Tet Farms Area - Rural Commercial w t
legend
I'amel BoumL n
U.\�erMdy
Cmn G.�mv Gli Siafl
ITnnJ I VDln 19,3A�
C`APIDII�DATE IIIAO\.J'0]M1safinaap.
&u.prchertawe Plan Deug=x)o
W�y,LLJ Nilmm lA i,m
}
Wnaw
40,
tVW.i [. nm.nW b. uLJi W0�
nMu.l i.n.nl�=.u.w�
µ„J\..,,mue.
w��
I\UJ�I vAmJ ,h..J
tA.ui w..i.�W iw
li,wv..l
liavn ar v...
�
Wi,.11 iiw.„i
vi.�ulu.l
Jet Farms 1
Il..p oy.unn i nL �A�i Il nml,n pn�M1.
41
N
Rural Area of Intensive Development w I
Mae Vallev Area
Mae
5
Legend
Parcel Boundary
4
C,Inprehe.,(,, Plv� D,,,paIon
4w
I 1 6
Aw
4W
4w
W
4w
Mae Vallev 1
42 to 46
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Mallard Haven Area
Legend
� - I'�rzel Boun�bry
wa«d,d,
c.��� c.w.o cis sou
c�nnmoroon wecl 21o11,.1.1,�.
Q,.pmhen ne Plan D,,tp.lwm
W..YnW I.„lam�i.
�
Iwnl W�.l iu.l
-
i�.mmJ�wi.,.p
(_
W..4.uv NJnni la inn.
CJ
Wi�.l W�.l iaul
�
Wn.il.uJ vnu [..c.
.......... ...e
i ..........
i.i.iin... n. a... ...
I.uIiA
LJe ei.u�ii. u_e.i.l Jw.i P, uvl..J.._d��um�.i �M1 n. lt..0
47
Rural Area of Intensive Development
-k4,itt i -"Ti A YP'a s
Legend
Pamd Bo'",
W."Ax,dy
c�N�cn�n, uss�m�
w.L N ��uke14 .W�
G.PAIDVVDFfk 111801���ptM,fmil.p,
Q,mprehc.,,, Plus D,,ipawu
W.il,miLaa'iw..
wnd w.d ual
�
p.nuuW lWn�p
//���
Il.hu�t�mn.ni J A... i.4.li i. 0�
(_��
�U, 1'innWli 0-,1
n n,......w
11,40
n nwl
1 .1... , nan y,��.
1... o..uwai...�J 1
.....
..ia.., m.ia, e uun.
49, 50 and 51
N
Rural Area of Intensive Development A I "
L
Moses Lake Area
V,
I on
fib
Mows Lake 8
Legend
Parcel Boundary
I.—I GIN
1,2.1
ati
Lake
Mows Lake 6
Moses -Lake 1 1
Mows Lake 9
Mows Lake 4
Mows Lake 5
(',)mp,,h Plan D,,,g.auon
1-1-1 ,,, I.-
•
R,.,l K k "I I
4"Pl-,
U I \.[Lw
UH.., U,,k....
.... .....
.... .. .... ... . . . .
I I I I IL . I I 1 .
L I I LL L 11 L11 h I I 1 1, 11
53 to 56
-al Area of Intensive
incy Area
Deve
(!mp,,
ha,,,, ]%n lk,pat,...
Legend
I.— I "I 1x41
11
11,2.1
1. 11D111DIII 111.1'111F......
,Jl
58 1
(!mp,,
ha,,,, ]%n lk,pat,...
-11ld 11
R 1-6 ,1
4w
...... , -- ,
40,
,Jl
58 1
Rural Area of Intensive Development N
Rnrkv Fnrd ArPn -
Legend
�i4e\/xxly
Grmr G,wl� GIS Jul I
(�rn.J Nstn,hrl9,:tC�
Pnm.J Nw.mhr 19,'.tt�
L1A.NDUPpATE 1118])1_�p�Hu�fmd.p.
3
Ford 1
Cnmprehcmivc Plan Deagnawn
L
W.W,.W FWiaulnew
('�
IUnJRoL w,l
�
V'mJUN en..auu,
bl,nnrimin.minun6l 1. lsw
C --
Nhm r I I I I.4, .I
,mitlLnmwn
(�
M1JouvJlllkuY
M14.u,l`I.. v..l lt. ii
!_
Iuiul4A4ya
C_I
11Y,h 1.,In. 11 nvnl
141"lt,.. n. INi rO
paN
Ul—l4u,..
14,N I.iy.. i.
titin WJ
•
Lnlw,t i,M�n
\i nn. ,.itl[ltu ill
2
..,.w,
... iuiu..r. .le. vane.nr er R of i
�nia anev(nlxw.ri \'I.�[-M dn.l.n nnk.l
,. v..r rr ttfi�l
i i.. ...... r,b.,.aiiu.. a.11�rl.r r
. iix � �e �M1ualit<xlrriru,. i vJ I .ii nn 4nq.in
.n�.n. nrnlin..ri, 1. l,�ivd LLr' 11 .i iiiy rn iy vi rli.
n r. v .nrr. ri
Rural Area of Intensive
Development
Royal Slope
Area
I
WO
uSs
4
Ro al t
0
Ro al 2
DignuonLegend
v.
mpnh..nl,.nm
.
.........
.�
��m,=.„„x
CC
,. .
�
...
IXlnerboAy4m
r4.... n xa���.�
inG.wgWwO
� namilLi..J wai Qw� mnA�llm
: m-���.,
�.un .. �, .«L4 uurl J.e
pu.
® �royry.Ill.bnl
C � NiNWm�n Ia W.I
1"`l�"i�I"ol�w ��i� �n L�J.�I�il<<i
,[�ai�hiirl�.
( i 11J�61 �.Fi�R11vry
In1vi�W��. �Wir�4 Inxn..�
I�. L'�.�I. J�. nl..i�pu.ni. J ni.��uie �i
.ia
Gnm C�uniu GlSSull
� I�M1ui h.. n�
� Ion Jllnu...ii C itinv l.��
Cv n..l N..vnilnel9]t
Pwn�L Novinh� 191 Wt
�o�Po4�
Ilrryn VnW.»r
c.nnm n.illwn�n
Map 62 and 63
Rural Area
of Intensive Development
W+ L
Silica Road
Area Rural Commercial
-
Silica Road 1
Legend
Cx,�,pmPl.i D,gnuo�
1, 1,1
6 .hN,.si,
1 -,11- IN
NNJ "I,
1.1111-tld— N ....... 1
u—N.— "N.,
11INd
Map 64
Rural Area of Intensive Development
W t
Soars Lake Area
a.a
Legend
Wamrbody
niu GIS SWI
Cvl��.l N.vmk�l9, �Jl
(.\R91DlIPDilt IIIBN\.`u�l.r�linal.gr
�Mir1119 ppg
yt.l
(�mprehrnv�r P1. D,,gnauon
l
W�a4 nul l... la,en�
�
14vaI W-.�,a,iii
�
�Lr�,uILIWNI
C _
Ii�Am.WhiM1aN
�
nMu, PL,i�nl W��i
�
N,iii �Jla
�y
��n,i y.x. 111AwY
L �
IYVJWma
Ia,Lnl
PWJaI v,In. LI �nwY
L11,.a,W.i.. Wi„I
irnaa..
C�
i.1uiW n.
�
4.NInL. i
�tnieluJ
.JlIL 1
1. 1,
iii lily M1n.
-,T
\li
x in .n ,�r. x I li�ii e�miLnH ii
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Stratford Road and Park Orchard Areas W+
Legend
Parcel B ... dxry
uaterbody
Cnm (newly (.IS SI.dI
a.,l N�nmhrl9,t��
PnnuaL M.v.mhi 19,.b]�
C\RGIDVPDiIk Il lyplLG0�1.xJwaly.
_- -1I
1-1 'il
Stratford Road 1 & 2
Stratford
ISI I 1 I ini�ll.
Map 66 and 67
Cnmpmhensive
Plan Desipatil
FI..al., I,...
•
WmhW.,�.�,�
.1�-01.1)
1,0
l _ �
InEi.�iunLxM1m)
�
Ahs.. I'I.i�n.IW �
���
Wail �ih�v
�hn4v..,IxM1UV
n..�l l4�...
I Il. I.iIII'l JI.,
•
Iln.�i x.�� .ixi�, 0
M1�wi�..I
�J
ull—II
•
LI.hm Llnlu.xo
•
c.min i� JIMii �I
ISI I 1 I ini�ll.
Map 66 and 67
Rural Area of Intensive Development ra°°
Wanavum Villaze Area - Rural Industrial
Legend
' Pvrcd Boundary
U%aicrMady
M.av wa
.o4J rv..mh.ir Wa
C'RiIDLPD iTF IIIBOa\'W 11.E.1•n.J.pi
�r-
Compnhenvve Plan D,,%nslon
0.�JnuJ l,x li iu.,
®
xuiJic .L....I
Ii.nvu�JIWv J1
_
W .L.wJ cl.lvvv lw•v..
i
pv,I W..L i.i.lAlmW..i1.i,J1.nu......
'
0..4 n.�IllyJi limn.
C,
iLi•I�.ii..l•li..,i
Win wvuJ ltr..l�m.m
®
LLHnt..mm... M.....
x.mmJn �•m
nn...�w,�,.,ua�.�
Aft
•p•N�.•annw
�
w��Jw...�
u.»..
01
M.
Rural Area of Intensive Development
Warden Area
Legend
Va2el BouMary
IXSierbaly
Gini (.n�nn (.I�Sinii
(nmd N,mMvn9 9J�
Pnnu.L N.rvmhrl9,:W\
(..PFInLPD>lE II IPO�'_W t1u.IxJap�
Warden
Compmhpmrve Plan Des,gnanon
<,"nn.n..
40,
C)
tM.uiWv...
�
I4uJl��W..ii
�
Itnw LuJ
nnm imu.�n
•
onin....
Y.II I.I
n��..�.;. ..ia
.� ..n ,ia. u , .. .u,�a.
. ....., .. aix
69 and 70
Attachment D
2003 RAID Compliance Review — Table 1
WIP
Q
E
0
U
'Q
CD
cg'
a
A
¢
� ��
E
•..
'E
vM.
�
C d'
O•
�
'� _C N
_
O
N
5
y
�
Q
N
d
r
y
L°
^
�
�
h
{Wy
n
h
�
^
^
OHJ
O
OMf•
m �
U
g
o
�
m
O �
A a
VJ
M
M
W
v
c
M
W
E
m m
g
F
�
U
a
O
O
O
O
O�
C
J
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
4
Li
In
M
Q>
M
m
m
r
v
n
v
rn
O
1
��
O
�Oj
N
rn
M
O
O
O
r
O
`m
c
W
p
W
M
W
OD
O
O
17
-a
V
J
M
K
E
t
0
m
E
N
n
N
m
O
C
m
c
m
U
N
>
E
¢
m
y
!
o
T
N
i
N
p
£�
E
N
m E
$ o Ea
c E
E
N
2
9'
3'E
O
Ct
E a z
"eE
cs
lV
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
OO
O
O
O
M
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
16
O
0
0
o
c
o
c
o
le)
0
0
0
0
0
rn
o
rn
rn
O
O
O
M
N
O
V
O
M
V
N
V
N
or
C;
c�D
m
m
m
v
r
o
m
r
N
O
N
O
N
M
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
jn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
LL'J
O
O
O
N
N
OJ
O
O
O
N
OCN
O
0
m
M
OJ
O
O
O
(D
O
N
OCo
O
O
N
N
O
N
N
M
r
I'D
M
M
O
O
O
m
N
N
N
N
O
M
N
M
O
O
N
r
V
C?
O
Cl
D7
CO
N
t0
O
Li
M
�2
O
V
r
t0
OJ
l00
ro
N
N
r
O
M
16
Ncli
CN
O
1�
O
O
r
N
O
O
M
m
r
O
N
47
W
V
M
M
O
m
N
r
�
Y
C
�
c
_
d
C
o
N
�
m
O
_
O.c
Y
CD
V
m
C C
rn
C
C
d
L
O
UJ
EE
0
(O
N
d
'a 21
'O
O
U
T
N
y
O
m
•�
d
d
Yp
W
i
tb
y
O
O
>
O
ti
U
'O
N
h
N
O
nCDd
lO
J
J
O
O
U
U
L
C
CO
C,C
�
N
O
0
N
M
V
q
m
`
3
e
8
o
m
N
y!
U
2 m
E
v K m
.E
_ N
.
e
rn
rn
E
9
0
c
E
E e
E N
N"
o
E `UO
c4
v'm
m
�o
M
m
a
rn
o
o
rn
o
c
v
n
v°pi
m
M
W
r
N
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
h
V
p
O
�
m
N
OJ
O
O
V
O
N
N
47
N
UJ
N
W
V
M
V'
N
O
O4"f
LLJ
4'J
�
O
O
O
O
Q7
Q7
M
(O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CJ
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
cq
O
M
O
O
0
O
O
V
O
O
N
W
N
�]
O]
N
V
O
O
N
O
O
Q
t0
O
V)
KJ
O
O
O
O
Q1
O)
M
(O
N
N
Of0
C-
G
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C6O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
V
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
�
LL)
�
�
O
O
O
O
O
cq
m
aD
V
O
N
M
N
O
O
N
N
V
O
O
VN
O
1.6
r
co
w
N
N
N
W
C
(O
lU
lO
N
N
N
N
Ol
N
N
l6
!O
\
Ol
N
N
Y
O-
N
N
EP
O
0
O
Of
OI
tO
O
>
>
O
V
L
L
t
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LL
d
d
m
U
U
U
U
0
W
W
W
U
C7
C7
CD
C7
C7
C7
d
O
U
d
r
rc
e
—
e
$
$
w
e
e
$
d
—
�
I
e
e
E a
—
E
E
g
e
"
E
E
E
E
j E
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
o
9
$
cg
cg
U
_C9
C
—
N.
.
_
a
a
�
C
G
O
C
C
C
C
C
O
O
�.Oj
G
C
R
N
C
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
Q7
O
O
O
O
t0
O
I—
O�
O
ci
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
V
N
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O.
D)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M.
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
C�i
m
O
O
O
O
O
yj
O
O
�p
s}'
O
O
,
OO
O
�D
rO
O
N
N
(O
m
O
N
N
M
O
N
V
N
m
t0
M
M
N
N
N
_
N
d
r
M
4J
C
r
N
M
n
O
O
>
>i
r
N
N
N
d
61
(D
V
'O
V
O
0
-2
�
7
W
f0
10
L
J
J
J
J
J
j
LL
LL
LL
J
O
N
�
N�
(p
C
f0
[O
N
O
N
N
4I
N
N
j
Ei
Y
Y
Y
(U
f0
W
O_
b
N
(a
N
N
N
N
m
L'
N
N
m
U
U
N
O
O
0
N
O
N
O
0
O
J
U
U
U
U
t`
0
0
0
)
\:
;
2
S
CO
$
§
§
f
)
2
2
ci
§
f
/
\
\
§f
§
\
2
/
E
¥
a
|
/
Attachment E
Harmonization of GMA Planning Goals & Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Grant County Planning Department
Harmonization of GNLA, Planning Goals & Rural
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Prepared for.•
Grant County Planning Department
P.O. Box 37 '
Ephrata, WA 98823
Phone: 509/754-2011
Fax: 509/754-0449
e-mail: sclark@grantcounty-wa.com
Prepared by
Entranco, Inc.
10900 NE 8'h Street, Suite 300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-4405
Phone: 425/454-5600
Fax: 425/454-0220
e-mul: dcearns@entranco.com
JUNE 4,2003 entranco,.
� aNIZATIO
OF RURA
�ACKGRO EI.EMENx & CMA GaAx s
U1VDD IN
grant Coun
CUmprehensive ptY Opted a Gnl, slvpe6tii
Boar
� ea r'(P-JiWGh11Ig)�he F_W e"'°ft('e Plan were rn Septcrnber <c
Dart Cenain of those G3II3 issu e fled with the p I JJ9, F vllowi
dccisrons dee s ons on all p, •stem Wgton T adoption
Regirchn have been appealed 6 c4ep o v� of the
$ e have
Y d e C:gun y C except °ne th sCl� agerne
Intens dement" he Thurston
growge Development (R of the Plan, the R-
settled
ounty
1 2
ftoht the rn al area. The DS), as con used i G held that SuPenvr
held that th obit on of urban G dete x nned the
Plan, cansp the designa ion of
urban grow[} untys �stgnatio of gtOwth in total areas that the RAID d s ted an impermissible gal Areas Of more
sprawling low n' violation "nal lauds w h PrOpided vR $nation does patter of
Rur density, dee of e GRyj b
$11111 to teducce density
iral thcz111ngCln� perOA-070/(5)(d)Y The 8lvc cilTfFgep on
al dement of thelia t In addition, the
•w PPtopt ate c arYps c°esti also
Plan
1 urther, the nines the plan' G tg held that on"e to
$goals of [Ston o f an ted a pri
e pressl EWG`�Pheld t the G dte C level of
Y allow'For hat the Coun M l ass o
eyt>ired �, e"pin hown
Comprehensive PI the designation ed tv to
n mustfoll of KA Tr) 'Inningpahcies l' �36.70A.G70 5 athe
rDunh desired to use the amended , he { of pled b () )
G.70?.070t °v the d rectives Of the r gal lands ) ado
expects to '(5)(d), her
Dun°thori vv'1'Ps he C Y the Co
°n'Plete thatam nmust first amendathc�ng the est to development °unty and that due rY did nor
dment Ct �. bfishment of die Plan
This writ[ Process ve �p T s
Dun
the Rural elleme d ntends to Sar s rY'soon. The C°ung' has proceeded r"'ided under RC /
ecus the
requirements rent "th that action and
CornPrehen ung t e R r f Plarmi nqu emCut of the (sbf�
siv ural g oals f �he C
the adopq've Grain
r in�n, taken togeth �
amen[• In Fac and the
thirteen dinances the C GA and hchr et of th
anal Ord
plan rd the extensiv u°ry contends
Hing goals > d9es indeed provide c Public r that in.
c c�mp
ernhodiedin the °f the G ccordan ma tt La
e
and an, and ' M i. Ch a written sec d th fin 'ays, the
MHB that
princi les 1°eludes all C apter ¢ _ ,
th th
the PaL' P the gaiter T otic otd document ng gs react conte
e MA
ants o- the
cYPlan taken Eoadon ofGM l h$oals and pohr Plan dlesues the ala Plan ned wl@>i'q
gager he �?'in throu of the Th C dscin epts andalances
�ummen tstanc sutnhzariaes explain
Planning
ch to h then 11111, the Coun$ n ofplannin ples
ant £haat the ussio Pn-
plannin ces and how that that to teeord Co nrorvzin8theplay sVision stat19cn cepts
nom. �goals. consideration strikes a reasonable
unable �ddal,n�; rhe L1 y' cm$$aals of�e?�d
R `r•��L�te`C(�Ljx]� ENrs �t j� ce betweeq or he aside aur", of local
meat ASN the SMA
The Rural El ANG PRINCIPLES
states that „ ement is
C'ouatiershal! mandatory, ale
orrhineralrerartrc'es T- anclu Ment
Gromth �Jallonnn a rural ele,%, irrc/ Of a COrnPreh nsiti e PI
marra�ernent act3proUistarrr,rh t+dra�, lan�r tba
j�atternr °I gal gals and data! shall to the ""Wale are trot derg Orad - W X 70
A 07
n under RC
£o u the r gal elerne t hrp ° dX✓e{ a cok �Y ma rla&es $eiurrre errn rnir! a /or urbarra au th a80cul e CNI$
e"Ibe lrnnn % �n�iderlocrrtczrerr aaeet re fnrefp
rnrtarcer. vo�fpm
C'11%A. 7/1.1.0 0 bal Miall d U IuKT m �rr c rn exb!?roi
,ltateZll03 a'rdmeei rd 'Sind
"age 1
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
(b) Rural development. The rural element shall pernat anal development, Joresiy, and aSawltiere in rural areas. The rural
element shall provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential pablic Jacilitzes, and ruralgovernmental services needed to
serve the permitted densities and uses. In order to achieve a vanety of rural densities and usescounties may provide for
Juste ing density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easemeide, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate
appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized b) m$an growth and that are consistent with rural character.
(c) Measuresgoverning rural development. The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development andprotect
the viral character of the area, as establirhed by the county, by:
(i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development,
(ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the sunnunding rural area;
(iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into iprin, ling, imvdensio development in the rural area;
(iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCTV 36.70A.060, and surface water andground water resources; and
(v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, Jorest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW
36.70A.170."
Planning Goals
The GMA requires Washington's fastest growing counties, the cities within them, and other jurisdictions
opting in to the process to plan extensively in accordance with the following goals:
• Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban growth areas where adequate public facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner
• Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.
• Transportation. Encourage efficient multi -modal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
• Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of
this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of
existing housing.
• Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with
adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for
unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth, all within the capacities of the state's
natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
• Property Rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having
been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions.
• Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and
fair manner to ensure predictability.
• Natural Resource Industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including
productive timber, agricultural and fisheries industries
Open Space and Recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and
develop parks.
• Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air, water
quality, and the availability of water.
• Citizen Participation and Coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process
and ensure coordination between communities and junsdicuons to reconcile con®cts.
June 2003 page 2
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
• Public Facilities and Services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for
occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
• Historic Preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have
historical or archaeological significance.
County- Wide Planning Policies
Growth management planning is a cooperative process that must occur between the county and cities.
Counties are regional governments within their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of urban services
within the designated urban growth areas. In order to effectively balance land use, infrastructure, and finance
throughout a region, the GMA requires that an overall vision for growth, plus general county -wide planning
policies (CWPPs) to implement this vision be established via a collaborative process between County and city
representatives. It is intended that the CWPPs serve as a framework for the development of each jurisdiction's
comprehensive plan, ensuring consistency between city and county plans, and compliance with the
requirements of the GMA.
The Grant County Planned Growth Committee, which included representatives of the county and each city,
prepared county -wide planning policies (CWPPs) in 1993, winch were subsequently adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners. Since adoption of the CWPPs in 1993, the Washington State Legislature has revised
the Growth Management Act during every legislative session. Significant revisions to the GMA since the
CWPPs were developed include provisions for (1) limited areas of more intensive rural development (ESB
6094) and (2) two master planned locations for major industrial development outside of UGAs. These and
other legislative changes governing rural development were not anticipated during die preparation of the
CWPPs.
Grant County and the Cities and Towns of the County have reconvened the Grant County Planned Growth
Committee (GCPGC) in order to consider potential amendments to the 1993 County -nide Planning Policies
on issues brought forward by the members, and specifically to consider incorporation of those changes to the
GMA adopted since the CWPPs were originally drafted in 1993- The GCPGC approved by a malonty vote
the incorporation of such provisions of the GMA, recognizing and including recognition of the designation of
RAIDS in the rural areas of the County. The Grant County- Board of County Commissioners have scheduled a
public hearing on March 27, 2002, where they intend to consider for adoption amendments to the CWPPs.
Planning Concepts and Principles
Several planning concepts, and their underlying principles, are basic to the planning approach embodied in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has these characteristics.
1. Long Range. The Plan is based on a 20 -year vision of the County, as defined by the community through an
extensive public participation process.
2. Predictability. Citizens, interest groups, agencies, and decision -makers planning for the use of land, making
financial decisions, or trying to influence the course of a land use decision need to understand the Plan
and the standards for its application and review.
3. Consistency. The Plan is internally consistent and coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions in an attempt
to be externally consistent.
4. Comprehensivenea. The Plan interrelates people, land, resources, natural environmental systems, and public
facilities in such a way as to protect the future health, safety and welfare of our citizens.
5. Flexibility. After its adoption, the Plan will continue to evolve to reflect our actual experience of growth
and citizen concerns over that growth. Through annual updates and major, periodic reviews, the Plan will
be adjusted to changing needs, unforeseen circumstances, or new local and regional trends.
June 2003 Page 3
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
6. Goal -oriented Goals and policies of the Plan will trace the vision for the future for sustaining and
improving the quality of life advocated by our citizens. Goals and policies will also be consistent with and
balance the planning goals of the GMA.
7. Financially Feasible. The Plan is financially feasible and generally capable of implementation.
Underlying principles that shaped the development of the Rural Element included:
1. Population growth should be focused toward urban centers where public services and facilities are
present.
2. Future land use within the unincorporated portions of 11 -ban Growth Areas (UGAs) should be designated
with the objective to manage the transition of lands from rural to urban use and to minimize public costs.
3. Development choices consistent with rural character should be provided for in rural areas.
4. To protect the long-term viability of the County's agricultural -based economy, residential development
unrelated to agriculture should be discouraged on lands designated as agricultural.
Balance, Consistency and Coordination
The CWPPs, taken together with the thirteen goals of the GMA, were used to guide the Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan satisfies the mandatory requirements and balances each of the goals of the GMM. The planning
concepts and underlying principles described above were essential building blocks in shaping the various
elements of the Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with and has been coordinated with the planning documents of
regional planning bodies and local jurisdictions within Grant County. The Comprehensive Plan: (1) is
consistent with regional and local plans, (2) is internally consistent and (3) is consistent with the CWPPs, as
recommended for amendment by the Grant County Planned Growth Committee, regarding the rural lands of
the County.
CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Public Participation
A cornerstone of successful development of a Comprehensive Plan under the GMA is citizen participation.
That concept is first articulated in the GMA planning goals, which state that jurisdictions shall "encourage the
involvement of citizens in the planning process." Other provisions of the GMA require that Grant County
must "establish procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and
amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans."
Recognizing that the comprehensive plan must reflect the people it serves, Grant County encouraged citizen
input throughout the development of this Plan. On August 3, 1998, the Grant County Board of
Commissioners adopted by resolution a Public Participation Program. The program established guidelines to
enable Grant County citizens to participate in the planning process. This program encompassed a broad-based
outreach strategy directed to the general public, as well as major efforts to involve key city representatives,
affected agencies, and local interest groups in the County's Comprehensive Plan preparation process.
Grant County's Public Participation Program formed a basic framework for achieving an interactive dialogue
between local decision -makers, County staff, and the citizens of Grant County. This extensive public participation
process included a variety of techniques to include all interested persons, such as advisory committees, public service
announcements, newsletter mailings, a web page devoted to growth management planning, exhibits, a number of
public workshops, and extensive public hearings before the Grant County Planning Commssion and the Grant
County Board of County Commissioners.
June 2003 Page 4
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT ait GMA GOALS
Visioning
During the planning effort, scores of people were asked to provide input toward developing goals and policies
that will address the many choices the future will pose, Including:
`Tlow should Grant Countygrow and develop?"
"What servicer and faciG'tier will be needed to supportgrowth?"
`How will the community pay forpublic improvements and services needed to npporigrowtb?"
"What kind ofpublic/pr viii partnerships and intergovernmental relationships can be arced to meet the challenger ofgrowtb?"
This "visioning" process was elemental in development of the Plan, and was begun in 1991 when the Board of
County Commissioners issued a survey questionnaire to nearls 8,000 residents, and continued in 1998, when
the County conducted two public workshops to inform the citizens of the growth management planning
process, update them on progress to date, and validate or revise previously developed goals and values.
The visioning process specifically assessed the unique "customs and culture" of Grant County. Grant County
citizens maintain a strong commitment to preserving agricultural lands, protecting private property rights, and
continuing to provide a diversity of rural living patterns. Grant County citizens also desire a variety of
residential living opportunities, including urban, rural, small town, rural settlement, shoreline, and agricultural,
as well as a desire for housing for all economic levels. Grant County's Comprehensive Plan incorporates the
vision of the County's citizens as identified in this thorough visioning process.
Based on this ,visioning process, the following vision statement was derived and used to guide the
development of the Comprehensive Plan:
Vision Statement
Grant County seeks to maintain and enhance its quality of kfe while achievig benefits ofgrowth and
minimising any negative impacts. Our vision defines our fdure and how we will respond to growth and
change. Our vision is comprised of the following basic valuer.
Promote a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by supporting existing local
businesses, making prudent infrastructure investments, and encouraging new business that is compatible with
and complementary to the commrtniy.
• Protect and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of life] yler that define our communiy.
• Protect and conserve our agricultural resources, and prevent inappropriate conversion of prime agricultural
lands.
• Manage growth effectively to prevent inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land and to
minimi.Ze incompatible land tires and the cost ofpublic andprivate servicer.
Encourage infill development within urban growth areas and enhance the sense of "community "around
traditionalpopulation centers.
• Provide a variety of residential living opportunities, rauging from urban to rural, small town, rural settlement,
shoreline, and agricultural.
Promote healthy, safe, and productive communities with a varie} of housing for ali economic levels.
• Encourage opportunities for quality community education and te:hnology to meet the educational and training
needs of all residentr.
• Promote open, responsive and accountable localgovernmew that works to create a true sense of community and
to create democratic processes on all levels.
Unique, Local Circumstances
A myriad of local circumstances unique to Grant County recognized as important to the rural character of
June 2003 Page 5
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
Grant County were identified during the extensive public parnapatlon process and preparation of the Plan.
These unique circumstances, among them Grant County's prosperous agricultural economy, required that the
Plan be tailored to achieve the vision of its citizens and to ensure the long-term viability of the County's
agriculturally -based economy.
When shaping its Plan, the County considered a number of attributes unique to Grant County. For example,
Grant County is the fourth largest county in the state, with 2,675 square miles and approximately 1,845,000
acres or land. About 1,150,668 acres of this land (62.5%) are owned or controlled to some extent by the state
or federal government.
Grant County's topography is also extremely diverse. Because the County experiences a desert -type climate,
an important factor taken into consideration during Grant County's comprehensive planning process "is the
limitation on development because of unavailability of water in rural areas."
A surprising number of cities and towns (15) exist within Grant County, 11 of which currently contain
populations of less than 2,500 people. In addition, a large number of smaller, unincorporated communities are
located throughout the County, from recreational communities on the Columbia River to historic small
communities serving the rural population and a growing tourism industry.
Grant County is a state and national leader in the production of wheat, corn, hay, potatoes and several tree
fruits. Over 65% of the County is considered productive farmland, based on the use of both dry land and
irrigation techniques. More than 1,100,000 acres, almost 60",0, is devoted to some form of agriculture. In
1992, 1,695 farms existed in Grant County, with 1,085,000 acres in agriculture use. The market value of all
agricultural products sold was nearly $482 mullion in 1992. Nearly 5,100 people were employed in the
agricultural industry paying out over $60 million annually in wages.
Much of the County's agricultural success is attributable to the Central Basin Irrigation Project, which irrigates
approximately 552,000 acres of Grant County's agricultural land "flus irrigation project enables the County to
foster a diverse agricultural base that is strong in both specialty and more traditional crops. Combined, Grant
County is a diversified agricultural production powerhouse in Washington State. In fact, one out of every
seven dollars in agricultural products in Washington State comes from Grant County. The connection
between agriculture and the economic welfare of Grant Counn simply cannot be overstated.
In addition to being a Washington State agricultural powerhouse, the availability of infrastructure, including
railroads and irrigation waters from the Columbia Basin Project makes Grant County one of the premier
agricultural counties in the entire United States. Excellent transportation links to Seattle and the Puget Sound
region make Grant County an attractive venue for manufacturing and industrial businesses looking to expand
or relocate. As a result, Grant County anticipates significant growth in its agricultural industry into the next
century, particularly in specialty crops. The Comprehensive Plan therefore embraces strong goals to preserve
and protect important natural resource lands, including its valuable agricultural lands.
Because of the strong role of agriculture in Grant County's economy, a large numbers of migrant farm workers
reside in rural areas. Generally, these workers earn lower -incomes and are undercounted in population statistics. The
in -migration of these workers presented significant challenges to Grant County's planning efforts, calling for further
emphasis on rural, low-income housing, and providing for in -filling of existing residential areas in the neral areas.
Between 1970 and 1998, growth in the unincorporated areas of Grant County exceeded that of municipalities.
Still, by 1998, 44,348 persons lived in Urban Growth Areas (46,699 acres) and 25,052 persons lived outside of
UGAs (1,741,515 acres). One reason for rural growth in the recent past has been the result of people in the
cities moving into suburban areas; however, a majority of the increase is due to the introduction of water to
several new irrigation blocks and establishment of several small industries throughout the County.
Unlike in many western Washington counties, the citizens of Grant County live where they work, in or near
June 2003 Page 6
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
rural agricultural areas. This settlement pattern is not new to Grant County since historically, a significant
percentage of the population has resided in the rural ateas (at non -urban densities) to provide support for
existing agricultural industries.
These unique, local circumstances required that the Plan be tailored to achieve the vision of its citizens. These
local circumstances were relied upon to craft a reasonable balance of the GMA planning goals and achieve
compliance with the GMA requirements regarding the Rural Element.
RURAL ELEMENT
What is Rural?
Most people have their own mental picture of what rural living is like. For some it means the freedom to
develop property where and when they please. For others, it means protecting remote areas for future
generations to enjoy. The basic issue in defining rural is how to accommodate the demand for a rural lifestyle
without diminishing the rural setting in the process.
The Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan promotes land uses that are considered "rural in character" and
provides responsible choices of location and lifestyle to Grant County residents, balancing public service obligations,
costs of those services, and the planning goals and requirements of the GMA. Objectives of the Rural Element
include encouraging a variety of development while maintaining rural character and conserving rural features and
resources as well as assuring that public facilities, services, roads, and utilities are consistent with rural character and
lifestyles. Development choices in rural areas provided for by the Plan arc consistent with rural settlement trends and
rural character.
Rural Settlement Trends
Rural development patterns in Grant County stem from settlement trends established decades ago. Many rural
residential areas of the County were originally settled as large -tract farmsteads that have been parceled off and
sold in smaller pieces over time. These smaller parcels were not large enough to make a living at farming, but
they did offer part-time farming opportunities for people employed elsewhere and seeking a country lifestyle.
In recent years, many rural areas have been further subdivided into parcels too small to farm. Many residents
in these areas are simply looking for a little "elbow room."
Rural residential development can be found scattered throughout Grant County. They are characterized by a
variety of development patterns largely determined by density and services available. Patterns range from areas of
dispersed five- to ten -acre ranchettes on private wells and on-site septic systems to more densely settled rural
community centers served by public water and/or sewer systems.
Rural Character of Grant County
"Rural Character" is defined in the Plan and the GMA as follows:
`Rural cbaracter refers to the patterns of land use and development establisbed by a county in the rural element of its
comprebensive plan:
(a) in which open space, the naturallandre-ape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment;
(b) tbat /aster traditional rural ltfesiyles, mial-based economtej, and opportunities to both live and work to ruralareas;
(e) that provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found to rural areas and communities;
(d) that are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and forfish and wildife habitat,-
(e)
abitat;(e) that reduce the inappropriate converi ton of undeveloped land inmsprawling, to:v- dens ity development;
June 2003 Page 7
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT ait GMA GOALS
O thatgenerally do not require the extensran of urban go vernmental ienrcei; and
(g) that are consistent with the protection of natural curl ,v ivalo llmvi and ground eater and surface mater recharge and
discharge area.r. "
Rural areas are discrete, with each having a distinct environment and social texture uniquely created by factors
such as origin, history, period of settlement, use capability of the land, and employment base of the residents.
While no one definition for rural fits everyone's personal perspective, Grant County's "rural character" is
defined by:
• Large areas of undeveloped land and open space,
• Scattered low-density, singly -family homes;
• Clustered, dense residential housing, often nearby a recreational area;
• Dense clusters of houses along beaches or shorehrim
• Small-scale, recreational resorts;
• Many acres of agricultural lands and rangeland;
• Small, part-time farms;
• Agricultural industrial uses;
• Limited, load -intensity commercial uses; and
• Many State parks.
Rural Vision
Based on the rural character of Grant County, the following "Rural Vision" was developed to foster future
land use patterns that preserved rural character:
• Preserve rural -based economies and traditional lifestyles;
Encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents;
Foster opportunities for smallscale, rural -based employment and self-employment;
• Permit the operation of rural -based agricultural, commercial, small-scale industrial, recreational, and
tourist businesses that are consistent with existing and planned land use patterns;
• Foster the private stewardship of the land and the preservation of open space; and
• Enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life.
Rural Densities
Given its historical settlement patterns, Grant County tailored its rural land use strategy to customize land use
designation and densities to reflect historical development patterns of the unincorporated county, where
possible, and to preserve the rural quality of life. The Rural Land Policies seek to maintain rural character and
protect natural resource-based economic activities and the environment. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Plan
limits development in rural areas to low levels of intensity to prevent demands for new servicesi.
Grant County Comprehensive Plan allows only carerriely limned is>idcnnal use in is desilmated agricultural lands and open spaces. The
neral housing density in the agrieultute use and eipctiapace designianun, a only one dwelling unit per 40 acres (1 1)U%40 A). Plan, p. 5-16.
As shown in the Summary Table above, these tuodcsignations consnmte slightlY user 79°/ ofGrant County's land base.
June 2003 Page 8
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
The Plan promotes a variety of rural residential densities and broad choice of location for rural residential
development, while ensuring (1) that nual areas do not become Further characterized by urban growth, (2) that
natural resource lands are preserved and protected, and (3) that development ai rural areas is consistent with rural
character.
The protection of natural resource lands is a very high priority for Grant County. Limiting the supply of rural
residential lots may increase the conversion of resource lands to residential use. The Planning Commission
finds that providing an excess of land for rural residential development will help protect resource lands.
Nevertheless, in response to input from the public and affected cities following public hearings, the Grant
County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners reduced the amount of land available for
rural residential growth from that shown in the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission cut the
potential rural residential growth by more than 50%, and reduced the acreage designated for rural residential
development from 316,796 to 240,872 acres. Upon review of the Planning Commission recommendations, the
Board of County Commissioners further reduced the acreage designated for the rural development
When assigning rural densities to these designated rural lands, the County recognized significant development
constraints in the rural area, including lack of ground water supply to serve residential development, access
limitations, road maintenance, emergency access difficulues during winter weather conditions, and the
presence of steep slopes.
The Comprehensive Plan resulting from the County's careful, deliberate planning provides for a variety of
rural densities, from 1 dwelling unit (DLI) per 40 acres for resource lands and open space designations, to
1 DU per 20 acres, to 1 DU per 5 acres, to 1 DLI per 2.5 acres, although the latter densities were designated
only in very limited areas.
Rural Services
Another important consideration of rural development is the level of service necessary to protect the public
health and safety. The Comprehensive Plan precludes providing urban services in the rural lands of the
County. The absence of urban services in rural areas, especially the lack of availabilty of water, continues to be
a significant factor in constraining growth in the rural areas of Grant County. This development limitation is
intensified as a result of a 1998 decision by the Washington Supreme Court (ecology v. Theodoratus) in
which the court upheld a lower court's determination that a certificate of water right could be quantified only
on the basis of the amount of water the developer actually puts to a beneficial use, not on the capacity of the
developer's water delivery system. In addition, the Attorney General's Opinion No. 5, interpreting certain
exemptions to the State Water Code relating to "six pack" wells, results in further hiritations to water
availability and development potential in coral lands.
RAID Designations
One of the cultural attributes and characteristics identified in the visioning process was the belief in "strong
rural communities." The settlement history of Grant County documents the presence of numerous small
school districts and communities serving the rural area, and this settlement pattern still exists in Grant County
today. In part based on the visioning process, Grant County established a designation to provide for
continuation of the desired small towns or coral settlement areas. "These areas, called "residential areas of
more intensive development," can accept more intensive rural uses and activities than in the other rural areas.
However, the RAIDS are limited to those discrete rural areas of Grant County currently characterized by
"more intensive development" either in terms of the gees of land uses or density and intensity of activities.
The County's policies embrace the enhancement of existing rural activity centers in order to preserve their
multiple use function and service to Grant County's rural communities The Plan contains a strong economic
development element, which includes policies to encourage diverse rural employment opportunities that
June 2003 Page 9
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
satisfy the socioeconomic needs of Grant County. The Plan further attempts to maxirruze the positive
economic impacts of tourism and recreational opportunities in Grant County. The RAIDS designated under
the County's Comprehensive Plan accomplish all of these purposes
From 66 potential candtdate areas initially identified for designation as RAIDS, the County applied specific criteria to
determine whether a RAID designation was appropriate. These criteria included a characterization of existing land
use, an assessment of the sense of place, and an evaluation of typical types of existing commercial and public
facilities, legal lot sizes defined by acres, available public services (water and sewer), identification of a basis for
defining the outer boundary, and a determination of the number of existing and potential households. Many of these
potential candidate areas were eliminated when applying one or more of these criteria.
Applying these criteria, the County made the following RAID designations
• Rural Community— Schawana, Beverly, Wheeler, Royal Camp, White Trail, Ridgeview Estates, Wampum
Village, Trinidad, and Marine View Heights.
• Rural village—Desert Aire.
• Recreational Development—Crescent Bar, the Gorge, and North Soap Lake.
• Shoreline Development—McConihe Shore, Mae Valley Shore, Blue Lake Shore, and SunLand Estates.
• Agricultural Service Centex—Winchester, Ruff, McDonald Siding, Ballard's Cafe, and Stratford.
In total, the County designated 22 existing rural communities as RAIDS. Grant County then established the
logical outer boundaries for the designated RAIDS bisect largely on the built environment.
The Comprehensive Plan contains strong policies to encourage economic development. Policy ED -I specifies
that Grant County will encourage diverse employment opportunities that safisfy.the social/economic needs of
its citizens. Policy ED -3 specifies that the County must ensure an adequate supply of commercial or industrial
sites will be made available to promote this economic development. To facilitate these policies, Grant County
undertook an industrial land use inventory, guided by an advisory committee of citizens, businessmen, farmers
and others, by assessing sixteen distinct subareas for both heavy and light industry. The Plan designates
enough land for expansion of existing industrial establishments, permitting several establishments to be served
in a single contiguous area. At the same time, the Plan designates- sufficient land to allow buffer areas to
separate industrial uses from any adjacent nonindustrial areas.
The intent of the rural industrial and commercial classifications is to accommodate uses appropriate to the
lower densities and land uses of rural areas, such as independent contracting services, "resource-based
industries," industries requiring large, secluded parcels away from population centers and not requiring urban
services, and commercial recreational uses.
The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GWGMHB) found in their Final Decision
and Order that the RAID designation, as configured in the Comprehensive Plan, "constituted an
impermissible pattern of urban growth in a rural area." As a result of the Final Decision and Order of the
EWGMHB, Grant County has prepared a work plan to review and revise the RAIDS as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan, and is implementing that work plan The County fully intends to contimue and complete
the work plan to bring the RAIDS into full compliance with the Final Decision and Order and the Growth
Management Act.
Measure Governing Rural Development
To maintain a balance between growth, lifestyle preferences, economic development, and protection of these
resources and the environment, the County established measures to govern and contain rural development.
The Plan intends that the existing rural character of the diverse regions of the County be protected by such
measures discussed below.
June 2003 Page 10
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT &r GMA GOALS
Containing Rural Development. Preservation of Grant County's open space and low density rural areas is a high
priority in order to preserve the area's rural character is essential. The Plan and subsequent Unified
Development Code provide development and performance guidelines and safeguards to ensure that rural
development does not result in unaffordable, nonfunctional sprawl.
Provision of Urban Servicer Rural development will also be controlled through the provision of urban services.
Development and increased densities tend to occur in areas offering easy access and full utility services. Currently,
such amenities are only available within the County's urban growth areas. Grant County's low density rural areas are
typically served by private water and on-site sewage disposal systems. Access is provided by County roads with
design standards reflecting low volumes By continuing to provide urban type services only in urban growth areas,
low density sprawl will be curtailed.
Aseurng Visual Compatibility: Rural areas in Grant County will typically border urban growth areas, rural areas or
more intensive development, or resource lands. Often times, they are in a position of providing a transition
between these distinctly different types of areas. To assure visual compatibility, a transition of uses and densities
has been designated whenever possible. Rural areas adjacent to urban growth areas and rural areas or more
intensive development are typically designated as Rural Residential with a density of one dwelling unit per five
acres. Rural lands adjacent to designated resource lands are typically designated as Rural Remote with a density of
one dwelling unit per twenty acres.
Reduang Inappropriate Conversion of Undeveloped Land- Undeveloped lands in the County are of significant value, primarily
as resource lands, but also as the low density, natural areas that characterize rural Grant County. Sprawling, low-
density development promotes an inefficient and unattractive use of developable land and frequently destroys
significant environmental, cultural, historic, and/or natural resources To reduce the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land, approximately 68 percent of the County's land area has been designated as agricultural resource
land. The maximum density has been designated as one dwelling umt per 40 acres.
Protecting Gitiw/Amar and Water,Qua4: Grant County hosts a wide variety of natural resources and scenic wonders.
Wetlands, shorelines, wildlife habitat, and exceptional water quality are common features throughout the County.
These features not only help to define the region's rural character, but also are the aspects of the area that residents
treasure. Such features are often historically taken for granted. These features were protected by the Grant County
Code Chapter 24.08, Critical Areas and Cultural Resources Ordinance, adopted in 1993 and amended in 2000. This
ordinance serves to protect wetlands, shorelines, waterways, wildlife habitats, and frequently flooded, aquifer
recharge (groundwater), and geologically hazardous areas. The ordinance provides the authority to regulate these
critical areas, methods for their identification, and protection standards. Protection is provided by regulating
allowable uses, providing mitigation and setback requirements, and establishing minimum parcel areas.
Protecting Resource Lands: The Plan plays a vital role in protecting resource lands. Rural residential development
can create conflicts with resource land operations and special attention is needed at the interface between rural
areas and other types of areas. Significant effort has gone into preparing the land use map, both in identifying
resource lands and evaluating potential conflicts. Resource lands have been designated in large blocks with
changes of topography and other natural features used as boundaries whenever possible. This eliminates
ribbons and islands of residential areas and potential incompatible development. The large blocks also serve to
isolate resource lands from rural residenual uses so that roads and utilities servicing development do not cross
expanses of resource lands. In addition, resource lands are protected under Grant County Code Chapter 24.08
and by the Natural Setting Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary
The Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan takes into consideration both human uses and the natural
environment, and encourages rural development that maintains the rural character of the land and protects the
land and water environments required by natural resource-based economic activities, fish and wildlife habitats,
rural lifestyles, outdoor recreation, and other open space. The Rural Element provides for a variety of rural
June 2003 Page II
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
densities to:
• maintain rural character, farming and mining;
• buffer natural resource lands;
• retain open space;
• minimize the demand and cost of public infrastructure improvements,
• provide for future urban growth area expansion if needed; and
• allow coral property owners reasonable economic opportunities for the use of their lad.
Based on the population projections contained in the Plan, by the year 2018, 72 percent of the population are
planned to reside in UGAs, with only 28 percent of the population residing in rural lands of the County. To
reach that end, 89% of all new growth that occurs in Grant County is expected to occur in the UGAs, with only
11% of that growth directed to mral areas at non -urban densities-.
The Plan promotes a variety of rural residential densities and broad choice of location for rural residential
development, while ensuring: (1) that rural areas do not become further characterized by urban growth, (2)
that natural resource lands are preserved and protected, and (3) that development in rural areas is consistent
with rural character.
The amount of dgvelopment in rural areas is limited through density requirements that protect and maintain
existing rural character, natural resource lands, open space, critical areas, significant cultural resources, and water
resources, and that manage traffic volumes. Density limitations are established so that demands will not be
created for high levels of public services and facilities. County requirements for housing in rural areas encourage
residential development that is compatible with famnng, open space, outdoor recreation, protection of significant
cultural resources, rural service levels, and generally with the rural character. Existing areas of more intense
development are acknowledged and maintained.
Sufficient developable land is designated within the UGAs to accommodate 89% of the total growth in the
County that is expected within the twenty-year planning period. The Plan encourages development in UGAs
by limiting small lot subdivisions in rural areas. By restricting the expansion of sewer and public water utilities
to urban growth areas, unnecessary sprawl will be reduced.
The rural land use goals and policies will protect the existing rural character of the land in Grant County.
Urban sprawl will be minimized. Retention of resource lands and natural resource based economic activities is
encouraged. Outdoor recreation and other activities requiring open space is promoted. Fish and wildlife and
other sensitive habitats will not be adversely impacted by the additional rural development that is
contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Although Grant County's Comprehensive Plan is a carefully balanced document, because it represents Grant
County's first experience operating under a GMA plan, Grant County will review and update the Plan on an
annual basis "to reflect technological, social, economic and political changes that may invandate certain plans
and policies." As part of this review process, the Plan embraces a monitoring program that establishes certain
"growth management indicators" used to analyze land use development trends. The indicators address the
effectiveness of implementing Plan policies, for example, the strategy to guide most new growth into UGAs.
The annual review process includes a review of UGA development, rural subdivisions and residential,
commercial, and industrial permits. Tlus monitoring system acts as an "early warning" system to ensure an
adequate land supply.
June 2003 Page 12
ARNIpNI
ZATIpN
141
OB $ pRAI. b pMEryp & GMLS
RMoNr2rN
F0110114ng si G r� GIA GOA-Ls
requn'rfc�nt public Participation
art ci
Plan tha eats, and cons, derin patio
aggressively ng a rariad nand input i
nto The Gra places most of the of local citcumst nc the 1'1'10 coni
Board ofC ununty plan Paired
ntiapated new Wo s hC.rant Count] a g Gtr P1011111,29
ana n
h _omnUssioner issio i ma]°. GrantCountyintcl a GMA C m$oals and
C g o n
4 n
R 1V j�70 S, found that: ng thetr r o urban Prehensive
1.020reu ceprnmendat on f growth areas,
re$utationr "
Grolvtb Nlaa f0'r"rrLzting rhea/rrt f y j��� f° or ad
apdon of t
rear° a8enient Gaal Dr,a* Co he plan to
ned Galaaca a mjrrzheare�uirle the eve% prnent the
moog them, we8gbed them ar th Alan aad there Q>!d ad°pt10r a
The crPir�'t° tfic findin r o .fGOrapreh
fa elements of therrrbje« niatter� %fact, Gratrt e rioeplanr an
¢t contained wit th Ptehensive Pptilan, taken togethe °f tfe e fndrn8 "vel La , pts der do vel t
the o diece�plan he ar gnlsaon e e ordnances, r he
embodiedi r unth ve a
to
thcaPrluciples, the lah> at d indudes'NL9. Chap' ovides a tvritte0 extenslvepgbllc
and
°f (' all the —Polk . record docum cot
obey Plan, taken t0
s goals and y I lan dcf, tit thethe �dn$ h wand the findings
FOn an niff the plan
g is a summa together explaintheConns flt'tOughout t plan' The disen s9rConcepts and Principles PIa app the the les
d holo they are balan hots each of the h to 17, nonizin County's vision mag co P
Urban cedaa a h 13 plannin gthepla lin $
nn Growth. ole based g goals o f n goals o ernent, and
°n to the fth
ust or can Ceczl circ Gnlq is GIvjA.
the year 201 Provided itKe development m °instances , hee" s olvidajl addre
n an effi urban and t ss
Population req 72 Percent °f th tient manner. growth areas n for rant ed in the
Bas vh COU
GrantCoun gin rurallandse population are cd On the p° ere adequate r,
urban densiti rs eepected to 0 of the C•oun planned to tePulat on Protect o Public Fac lidas
expected Sefficient dtvelo and s
cin die ty. 7O reach tG C
u s' de tri C iAs n co
s ntained
small within the Pable IapG�s' with onl � o at end , Sa/o with only �$ P p
eryices
°s subdvisions lnven -Ye PLan d is designate 1 11 '/o of that of all new V r scent lan by
growth athat lso at nm areas ,e ' d witf2couraged le P1 hin $tOu'th growth °f the
occu
13Y
0 rural
for high levels F sting rural bh nit ng thea p r lug g P �� �' LnCour s�drb evelo m odae tl e' eas at noun
Sprawl Public setpi�s anter. Density hiuiati Scl°Pn1ent n r rat services ine1then 11GAs by hth at
Red me o d facilites. ate cstabhsherl areas thto rural eas. U uniting
exPansio the i so ugh densr ar rban
Plan
discouragesseweran�dPubG"e comerrian ° that demands wll tl tegt cements
Public Water n i uade1 Iasr<t xn/
Of tho reduced du Praev] by limiting small jot ° d
t�ties u ut an growthJDram¢r� Yore. nn
lands Out'sdcto°felac, f subdivr. t� ire!°
t e create
res
urce I
UGAS as
de oloptnent bands ces the . agnb� °� water supply S rs re s and by p er prawl'sill e teduct n$ the
redo
lot t U Y seen pPropriate tesouxce la p is containe Wing o ced.
divisions ' g aside a laze convetsiou rids. Desi d tricot Pe0 space S The
htnir sprawl, in rural areas.
protections °Portion of the C, o£ undvelInty f, o ed land that a ha4tgtan.0 681/0l
n Of
t� hsporfatioA. E c° afforded for critical aC r' culturai t vinesInto sprawling low-de tiCultiiral
cow }and,7t kr°$e eA:Zevxw"r. 0d cultural resou and by lirnitin nsity
at-
bY thC, Quad y co PrehensiveplAnJ n°daltrnn ° xce lands also g small
�ransportat on P ounty Re o The Trans 'P j%tiorr,ryrte�ir. tend to
ado ted a con tan. The �naal rransportatportationElenentthata bared onreoto
devel pment withoand ordinance Lotion Elea n ii,I tong C3 g °ua �nlan has h ren° der a ordih
der ens gent odes ran ; as bee viewed dc°
on
Jttn casing
levels ofu service bclopacl<>Ott,ti" S),-Ste ny has C(lnalys�Su and t0 the die Regional e2p03 P4'd standards. 7hef7i nspoap cit ItoemNe
tion
page 13
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
includes a finance plan and a strategy to balance revenues and facility needs. The Transportation Element
complements the land use and rural elements of the Plan and is based on the future land use map. The Plan
includes goals and policies to enhance mobility for nonmotorized travel and public transit.
Housing. Encourage the availability of af%brdable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a
varigtt of residential densities and horsing ypes, and encourage preservation of existing housing. The Housing Element of
the Plan addressed a variety of issues specific to Grant County, including affordable housing, farmworker
housing, housing type and rmx, housing density and manufactured/mobile housing. Housing rehabilitation
and special housing needs for the elderly, disabled and mentally ill are addressed. Provisions to promote
affordable housing include allowance for manufactured housing in a variety of zoning districts, provisions for
clustering of lots, allowance for accessory dwelling units and participating in pilot programs to promote
farmworker housing. Because of the strong role of agnadmre in Grant County's economy, a large numbers of
migrant fame workers reside in rural areas. Generally, these workers earn lower -incomes, calling for further emphasis
on rural, low-income housing, and providing for in -filling of existing residential areas in the rural areas.
Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that it consistent with adopted
comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all catitiens of this state, especaally for unemployed and for disadvantaged
persons, and encourage growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services; and public facilities. The
Plan places special emphasis on the role of economic development in Grant County. In fact, the County
elected to include in its Plan an optional Economic Development Element that was prepared based on an
industrial lands inventory and input from an economic development advisory committee. The County adopted
an econormc vision statement: `Promote a bealtby, diversified and sustainable local and regional economy by supporting
existing local businesses, making prudent infrastructure investments, and encouraging new business that is compatible with and
complementary to the community. "The economy of Grant County is largely driven by the agricultural industry.
More than 5,000 people are employed in the agricultural industry paying out ovex $60 million annually in
wages. Combined, Grant County is a diversified agricultural production powerhouse in Washington State. In
fact, one out of every seven dollars in agricultural products in Washington State comes from Grant County.
To promote the agricultural economy, the Resource Lands Element of the Plan ensured a variety of
protections for agricultural resource lands, including ensuring an adequate land base for long term farming by
designation of 68% of the County as resource land. Other measures include provisions to mitigate adjacent
land use conflicts that favor agricultural lands, ininiinizing the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses,
encouraging farm -based business and agricultural support services, designating agricultural service centers,
encouraging value-added resource-based products and businesses, and generally promoting awareness of the
importance of agriculture in Grant County,
The Economic Development Element also recognized the importance of diversification of employment
opportunities that satisfy the socioeconomic needs of the population. Policies are included to promote educational
opportunities in the County, through an investment in infrastructure to attract business and industry, ensuring an
adequate land supply of commercial and industrial lands both in the UGAs and appropriate rural areas of the
County. Focus on the positive aspects of tourism and recreational development was also provided, as was supporting
efforts to improve human and social services to enhance quality of life. While promotion of economic development
is a key to the Comprehensive Plan, it is also recognized that economic growth must conserve natural resources and
open spaces, maintain environmental quality and rural character and enhance the overall quality of life.
Property Rights. Pnvateproperty shall not be taken forpubllc use without just compensation having been made. The property
fights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and disc iminato y actions. Preservation of private property rights
was central to the planning efforts, especially related to land use designation and development density. The
Grant County Planning Commission found that the implementation of the Plan will not unfairly burden the
property rights of landowners. Although the health, safety, and welfare of the public demand that reasonable
restrictions must be placed on the use of property, individuals retain a full range of constitutional protections
including due process rights.
Permits. iIpplications far both state and localgovernment perniar should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure
June 2003 Page 14
A GUp1,S
GM Permitting
L E1,EMENT � in the
T10N OF RUQ" roue certainty that requires that
jjpRMUN1ZA men, code p
subsequent develop nt Element includes a P are understandable,
c pevelopme latory processes < e%ceeds
tion of the Plah?conorm that xegu that me °t
predictabttit -The atop process* to assure rnannet 5] eets to asst
ental review p reviewed periods to a burden of
and env ronin roceduxes be re
gme p and instruct on .
withtn p hcatron forms the apetworkb and
land use and pernrltdng P l bed standards
d can be accomp is currently develo u'a Puements and to case P cater
pzedictable an nts. the County the new permit req ermit application review s fox a gt''
statutory requitetne exstanding0} aettnes p
ens in and Code Chapter �- . the current state s amte a ow
developers and ci i2 Grant county days, even hough
licanons. v period to 180 Y
making SPP g reductive ttnrber,
its the review p
procedures and period-
Provisions to
eriod. lenient that includes as no umber
and enhance natural resource -bared industries. tnetr<tn
permit review p Grant County
maintain a Resource lands E C.ounty ( eststing
Industries. M Plan includes
Natural Resoutre exal resource Lands of the rIcultural resource lands Aetit on the
fisheries 'n "S' The ted as agar rocess to P
ricultu oal andtm n ounty is destgna revision for a P
or Iteral anddotect both ag vl,ith g
designate and ppTe than 68 /° °E xomote and fact
a heap p,
industries) tired as mtneral resource lands,
ox fishery
s yes were design pxovI ns axe mcludea to P
permitted mitung additional runic ral lands. E re�eational
anon of addce and development o develop
County for design cultural economy of open spa water, and
diverse and cornpennve agx ptogran' designed to
e the retennon resource lands
the
increase access to namxal rated into
geereation. Egife hag ,commrssion, an °per s s Incorporate
open space and e fish and wildlife habitat, areas wa County's
rmnides, Conserv ilea by the Planningand recxeanonal t identifies he
open ebbe record comp ce lands, Use Flem d epees
S, w ldhfe eomdors, resour E the 1 and to al resource lands, a includes
pules. Based on rhe P Ind R ecnon °
ct deal area ' Recreation - and scenic and e Rectea"O'I section ace also
Protect O n Space . and co yydoxs, , en Space and
Plan• The Pc o n spaces , Pen spaces. The 01 al trail system. Open sp
rehenstve areas, pe Grant
'ace and a recreation. les in the
Comp t
un que and mportant na ural
cdons and benef is of the Gau-ar i °g o het areas c but areun d pa e
the broader fun atin recrea�olo ll'al open pace
areas and c ranee,
provisions and criteria for design wetlands g
c -by hI
ce lands, greenbelts,
contnbun- to the County's app ` `
These resource areas to fulfill open space
includes resouz serves
Countp Code Chapter 24.OR. 'ands also ace. To help
resource 1'� County s open spy
traditional sense. real and this provides
critical a lenient of
d xotecton of the peedomtnatc sharLands
ation . P s611 make up ohc cs of the Resource for hmited, reasonable residential
The design.'tion
lands pals and P ace functions
and
lands, wV allowing theta open sp
,,quite their
Ag economic importance, the g fiance,
the r ecpna resource commerc , sign
maintain and protection of their
for designation resource lands for ual and the
enc 13y pre ma
we including ell water R a
development' rid enhanced as hi h utility of life, compliance vyth
reseryith
ed a re ens Plan ill hance with
values are p on the Comp
tate s 4
conducted county is in substannal comp of,
ent. Protect the enviranral r and enhance the a rovides regulation
Environ nvironmental review was EPA Grant which p uendY
v muter. E uyrements of S County code Chap tet 24. fSh and wildlife habitat, Exeq s that
avadlability f substantive reg h Grant ental protections
060 throng aquifer recharge areas, Code
procedural and r 6.70A• env rent
f RCS acts to wedands, <q lace by Gcam l nt w
mandates o n of imp ut in p trent will occur
and cultural resource areas.. T e
protection of and tin gacall hazardous area_> that more develop ulntity, since
latory framcwnx lith e phn�seumes ell
y of q ,
flooded areas. gem° Planyand the regal roundwater q
are wduded n reduce ecological benefits. Althounific nt effect on g
Chapter 24.08 P to NV should not have a sig environment is of
in the future, the rate of g he County's shoreline
owth is in the OGAs. rotecting Toward that end,
oriry °f lement, p ounces of the Goun reserve the
d'ae vast mal Shoreline E cultural re. plan to protect and p
t contain 'a u> environmental and m the
Although the Plan does n he economic ement were mchided
nriportance to preser�'ing to shoreline tnanag
a number of Policies telann$
County's shorelines, page 15
June. 2003
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
Citizen Participation and Coordination. Encourage the involvement O%atiZenr in the planning process and ensure
coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconale conflicts. A cornerstone of the development of the
Comprehensive Plan was citizen participation. Recognizing that the Plan must reflect the people it serves,
Grant County encouraged citizen input continuously throughout the development of this Plan, from early
visioning exercises to final adoption. On August 3, 1998, the Grant County Board of Commissioners adopted
by resolution a Public Participation Program. The program established guidelines to enable Grant County
citizens to participate in the planning process. This program encompassed a broad-based outreach strategy
directed to the general public, as well as major efforts to involve key city representatives, affected agencies,
and local interest groups in the County's Comprehensive Plan preparation process Grant County's Public
Participation Program formed a basic framework for achieving an interactive dialogue between local decision -
makers, County staff, and the citizens of Grant County.
Public Facilities and Services. Ensure that those public jaahkee and services necessary to sulport development shall be
adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available %r occupancy and use without decreasing cumnt service
levels below locally established minimum standards. The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides
the necessary public facilities and services to support Grant County's expected level of growth while maintaining
reasonable levels of service. The Plan inventories and assesses future needs for county -owned administrative
facilities, law enforcement, corrections and juvenile detention facilities and services and county parks. Level of
service standards are established, and a finance plan and a strategy to balance revenues and facility needs is
provided.
Historic Preservation. Identib, and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or
archaeological sign�u-ance. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes cultural resources, both tangible and intangible,
that provide ties to the past, a better understanding of the present, and our hope for what the future might
hold. Native Americans, like the Columbia, Colville and Wampum people, have traveled over the landscape
that is now Grant County harvesting the roots and plants for food and medicine, taking shelter where the land
suited them. Ensuring that a record of their presence is preserved is of concern not only to Native Americans,
but to all residents of Grant County. Preservation of cultural resources, including archaeological sites and
objects, traditional cultural lands, food gathering areas, and burial grounds, is important to Grant County's
health and prosperity. The goals and policies of this Igcment serve to preserve and protect significant cultural
resources of the County. The Plan and subsequent development regulations include provisions to identify,
preserve and protect historic, cultural and archaeological resources found to be significant by recognized local,
state or federal processes.
June 2003 Page 16
Attachment F
Countywide Planning Policies
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 51 - CC
A Resolution Relating to the Amendment of the Grant County County -wide
Planning Policies (Resolution No. 93 -133 -CC) Pursuant to the Eastern
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's Final Decisions and
Orders and the Washington State Growth Management Act, 36.70A.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, Washington intends to
comply fully with the orders and directives of the Eastern Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board issued in case nos. 99-1-0016 and 99-1-0019 pending appeal of certain portions
of the Board's Final Decisions and Orders to the Thurston County Superior Court; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, Washington have initiated
an appeal of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's decision holding
portions of Grant County's Comprehensive Plan as non-compliant with the County -wide
Planning Policies adopted in 1993; and
WHEREAS, Thurston County Superior Court has remanded the Final Decision and Order of the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board back to Grant County with directions
to bring the County's Comprehensive Plan and County -wide Planning Policies (CWPPs) into
compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to 36.70A.210 RCW, Grant County is required to adopt county -wide
planning policies in cooperation with the cities located within the county, and
WHEREAS, Grant County and the Cities and Towns of the County have reconvened the Grant
County Planned Growth Committee (GCPGC) in order to consider potential amendments to the
1993 County -wide Planning Policies on issues brought forward by the members; and,
WHEREAS, the GCPGC approved by a majority vote the incorporation of provisions of the
Growth Management Act (GMA), Revised Code of Washington 36.70A as amended 19954997,
recognizing and including rural areas of more intensive development into the CWPPs; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have provided the required public notice
regarding this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, The Grant County Board of County Commissioners do hereby accept
and adopt the proposed amendments to the Grant County County -wide Planning Policies
(Resolution No. 93 -133 -CC) as approved by the Planned Growth Committee as follows and
incorporated into the CWPPs in Attachment "A".
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Resolution No. 20n7-51—cc
Page 2
Planned Growth Committee approved language:
Policy 1
I A 2 At the end add "A pattern of more intensive rural development as provided in RCW
36 70A 070(5)(d) is not urban growth [RCW 36.70A.030(17)1."
I E After "development." insert "except for that commercial and industrial development allowed as a
pattem of more intensive rural development as provided in RCN 36 70A 050(d)(d). or within a major
industrial development as provided in RCW 36.70A.367,'
Policy 2 & 2A
I C At the end add "A pattern of more intensive rural development as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)
is not urban growth fRCW 36.70A.030(17)1"
New section. AMT. Rural Character — refers to patterns of land use and development established by a
county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan:
1. in which open space the natural landscape and vegetation predominate ofer the built environment:
2. that foster traditional total lifestyles rural -based economics and opportunities to both live and work in
rural areas:
3. that provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities:
4. that are comparable with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat:
5. that reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development:
that generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
6. that are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface
water recharge and discharge areas IRCW 36 70A 030(14).
F. Rural Development— means development outside the urban growth area and outside resource lands
designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. Total development can consist of a variety of uses and
residential densities, including clustered residential development at levels that are consistent with the
preservation of rural character and the requirements of the rural element Rural development does not refer
to agricultural activities that may be conducted in total areas fRCW 36 70A 030(15).
G. Rural Governmental services —means those public services and public facilities
public utilities associated with rural development and normally not associated with urban areas. Rural
services do not include storm or sanitary sewer, except when necessary to protect basic public health and
safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not
permit urban development FRCW36.70A030(16)"
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this resolution shall be effective
immediately.
PASSED by the Board of Grant County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata,
Washington, by the following vote, then signed by its membership and attested by its Clerk in
authorization of such passage this �qq_ day of v 2002.
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Resolution No. 2002-51—CC
Page 3
YEA; O NAY; 6 ABSTAIN; and I— ABSENT.
BOARD OF GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Tim Snead, Ch rman
LeRoy C. Allison, Commissioner
oPL
Deborah Kay Moore, tr issioner
ATTEST:
U- lA 4 a
—�LiyGrigg IV
Clerk of the Board
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Ordinance No.
Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
FINAL ADOPTED POLICIES OF THE
GRANT COUNTY PLANNED GROWTH COMMITTEE
5-6-93
As Amended March 27; 2002
FINAL ADOPTED POLICIES
OF THE GRANT COUNTY PLANNED
GROWTH COMMITTEE
5-6-93
(Amended NW0 27, 2002)
POLICY 1
POLICY REGARDING URBAN GROWTH AREAS AND THE DESIGNATION OF URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARIES
I. DESIGNATION OF URBAN GROWTH AREASBOUNDARIES
A. An Urban Growth Area (UGA) shall be designated for each city and town in Grant County (RCW
36.70A.110).
1. Urban growth, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, shall be encouraged within designated
UGA's.
2. Growth can occur outside a VGA only if it is not urban in nature. A pattern of more
intensive rural development as provided in RCW 3670A 070(5)(d) is not urban growth
[RCW 36.70A.030(17)1
3. ;; At a minimum, each city and town in Grant County shall have included in its UGA the area
within the corporate limits of the city or town.
4. A UGA may include territory that is outside of the city or town if such territory is
characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban
growth.
B. UGA's, based upon the population forecast made for Grant County by the Washington State Office
of Financial Management, shall include areas and density sufficient to permit the urban growth that
is projected to occur in Grant County within the next 20 years. Each UGA shall permit urban
densities and shall include green belt and open space areas (RCW 36.70A.110)(2).
C. Each city and town in Grant County shall provide to Grant County a UGA with urban growth
boundaries for its jurisdiction (RCW 36.70A.110)(2).
1. The county shall attempt to reach an agreement with each city and town on the
establishment and location of a UGA and urban growth boundaries for each city and town.
2. UGA's, which includes territory outside the corporate limits of a city or town, shall be
established by examining criteria including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Existing commercial and residential developments bordering the corporate limits
of the city or town.
b. Estimated population growth of the city or town.
C. The capacity of the city or town for expanding urban governmental services as
defined in RCW 36.70A.030(16).
d. Availability of land suitable for development in the city or town or the area
adjacent to the city or town.
3. If an agreement is not reached with each city or town as to a UGA, the county shall justify
in writing, supported by findings consistent with RCW 36.70A, as to the reasons why it
does not agree with the city or town's proposed UGA.
4. A city or town may object formally, with the Washington State Department of Community
Development, over the designation of the urban growth area within which it is located.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
5. The Washington State Department of Community Development, when appropriate, shall
attempt to resolve any conflict between the county and a city or town where a difference of
opinion exists as to the location of an urban growth area. The Department of Community
Development may use mediation services if necessary.
6. UGA's shall be reviewed every five (5) years and amended as necessary.
D. Urban governmental services should be provided by cities and urban governmental services should
not be provided in rural areas. Urban governmental services include those governmental services
historically and typically delivered by cities and towns, and includes storm and sanitary sewer
systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public
transit services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated
with non -urban areas (RCW 36.70A.110)(3).
1. Urban growth should fust be located in areas already characterized by urban growth that
have existing public facilities and service capabilities.
2. Urban growth should secondarily occur in areas already characterized by urban growth that
will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services that are
provided by either public or private sources.
E. Commercial and industrial development, except for that commercial and industrial development
allowed as a pattern of more intensive rural development as provided in RCW 36.70A.050(d)(d), or
within a major industrial development as provided in RCW 36.70A 367, must be confined within a
UGA if urban governmental services are required or cannot be supplied by said development.
POLICY 1A
II. PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY DISPUTES
A.. If the affected jurisdictions are unable to reach consensus and arrive at an impasse, all affected
jurisdictions shall enter into mediation. All participating jurisdictions shall jointly select a neutral
mediator within thirty (30) days of reaching an impasse in negotiations. If they cannot agree upon a
neutral mediator within thirty (30) days of impasse, then any jurisdiction may apply to the
Washington State Department of Community Development or the Eastern Washington Planned
Growth Hearings Board for appointment of a neutral mediator. No mediator may be an employee or
elected official of any of the participating jurisdictions. Each mediator must possess professional
mediation skills and/or dispute resolution skills.
B. The affected jurisdictions shall enter into mediation within thirty (30) days following the failure to
reach consensus through negotiations and the mediation shall be concluded within forty-five (45)
days of its inception.
C. Any affected jurisdiction may appeal the results of mediation to the Growth Management Hearings
Board as provided for by RCW 36.70A.
POLICY 1B
III. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING URBAN GROWTH AREAS/BOUNDARIES
A. The amendment procedure allows for the opportunity for a jurisdiction to request an amendment of
that jurisdiction's established UGA. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that a consistent
GRANT COUNTY - 51W3
Amended March 27.2002
2
administrative procedure and a consistent method will be used in evaluating any proposed
amendments.
B. Within thirty (30) days of receiving a request for an amendment, all affected jurisdictions shall enter
into negotiations for the purpose of considering the request. Such negotiations shall be conducted in
good faith by all participating jurisdictions. Such negotiations shall be concluded, by either reaching
consensus or an impasse, within forty-five (45) days of the date of the request.
C. An electronically recorded record and minutes shall be kept of all negotiations conducted pursuant to
a request for amendment.
D. If the affected jurisdictions reach a consensus as to the amendment, each jurisdiction shall amend its
Comprehensive Plan as necessary to reflect the agreed upon amendment. Any amendment agreed to
in this process shall be presumed to be with the authority of that jurisdiction's entire governing body.
POLICY 2 & 2A
POLICIES TO PROMOTE CONTIGUOUS ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROVISION OF
URBAN GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT
Definitions:
A. Public facilities - means streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic
signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreational facilities,
and schools [RCW 36.70A.030(1 2)].
B. Public Services - means fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education,
recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services [36.70A.030(13)].
C. Urban Growth - means growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings,
structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of
such land for the production of food, other agriculture products or fiber, or the extraction of mineral
resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban
governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" means land having urban growth located
on it, or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for
urban growth [RCW 36.70A.030(14)]. A pattern of more intensive rural development, as provided
in RCW 36.70A 070(5)(d) is not urban growth fRCW 36 70A 030(17)1.
D. Provision of Urban Governmental Services - means those governmental services historically and
typically delivered by cities and includes storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems,
street cleatting services, fire and police protection services, public transit services, and other public
utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with non urban areas [RCW
36.70A.030(16)]. '
E. Rural Character — refers to patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural
element of its comprehensive plan:
1. in which open space the natural landscape and vegetation predominate ofer the built
environment:
2. that foster traditional total lifestyles rural -based economics, and opportunities to both live and
work in rural areas:
3. that provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6193
Amended March 27, 21X12
4. that are comparable with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat
5. that reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development that generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services: and
6. that are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and
surface water recharge and discharge areas [RCW 36 70A 030(14).
F. Rural Development — means development outside the urban growth area and outside resource lands
designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A. 170 Tutal development can consist of a variety of uses and
residential densities including clustered residential development at levels that are consistent with the
preservation of rural character and the requirements of the rural element Rural development does not
refer to agricultural activities that may be conducted in total areas fRCW 36.70A.030(15).
G. Rural Governmental services — means those public services and public facilities historically and
typically delivered at an intensity usually found in rural areas, and may include domestic water
systems fire and police protection services transportation -and public transit services and other public
utilities associated with rural development and normally not associated with urban areas. Rural
services do not include storm or sanitary sewer, except when necessary toprotect basic public health
and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities
and do not permit urban development fRCW 36 70A 030(161 "
II. Phasing of Urban Development
In order to achieve the intent of the State of Washington's growth management legislation, Grant County shall
consult with Bach city and town within Grant County and each city or town shall proppse the location of an
Urban Growth Area (UGA). Grant County shall designate UGA's, after holding the aforesaid consultations,
which will be associated with each city and town in Grant County and further, shall designate a rural area
surrounding the established UGA according to the following [RCW 36.70A.110(2)]:
A. A short term urban growth boundary shall be established within the UGA within which urban growth
will occur over the next ten years. Policies and actions will emphasize urban land uses and the
provision of urban governmental services by cities and towns and the intended gradual phasing
outward from the corporate limits of the city or town as opposed to converting undeveloped land into
unplanned sprawling low density development (RCN 36.70A.020(l) and RCW 36.70A.O2O(2)].
B. A long term urban growth boundary shall be established within the UGA within which urban growth
will occur over the next eleven (11) to twenty (20) years as urban growth expands beyond the short
term urban growth boundary. Policies and actions will emphasize planning for the longer term and
will continue to emphasize urban land uses and the provision of urban governmental services by
cities and towns and the intended gradual phasing outward from the short term urban growth
boundary as opposed to converting undeveloped land into unplanned sprawling low density
development (RCW 36.70A.020(1) and RCW 36.70A.020(2).
III. Rural Area:
A rural area shall exist outside of the UGA within which very low intensive land uses will prevail over the
next twenty (20) years. County policies and actions will emphasize rural residential densities and the
protection of agricultural lands and natural resources. Urban growth will be prohibited. Development will be
encouraged in UGA's where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient
manner. The inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low density development will be
also prohibited [RCW 36.70A.O20(2)].
IV. Provision of Urban Governmental Services, Public Facilities, and Public Services:
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
Cities should be the primary providers of urban governmental services, public facilities, and public services in
the UGA [RCW 36.70A.110(2)].
V. Policies on Development Standards:
All development within a UGA but outside the current corporate limits of a city or town shall conform with all
city construction standards, performance standards, land use, and circulation patterns. _ Any development
proposed within a UGA but outside the corporate limits of a city or town shall be jointly reviewed by the city
and county to ensure compliance with the aforesaid and the intended development goals and requirements as
stated in both the city and county comprehensive plans.
POLICY 2B
URBAN DENSITIES - DEFINITION OF LOT SIZES
I. Urban densities typically make intensive use of land to such a degree as to'be incompatible with the primary
use of such lands for the production of agricultural products or mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide
areas, urban growth typically requires a high level of urban governmental services. (based on RCW 36.70A.030 (14)
Recognizing that a variety of urban densities will occur within each municipality and urban growth area, that
each municipality's vision of its future is different, and that any one minimum density designation for urban growth
within such areas wpuld be overly restrictive and inappropriate for inclusion within a regional policy:
A. It is appropriate that urban densities within the corporate boundaries of each city be defined by
such jurisdiction in its comprehensive land use plan.
B. Urban densities within designated urban growth areas, but outside the corporate boundaries of
adjacent cities, shall be designated jointly by the adjacent city and county in each jurisdiction's
comprehensive land use plan.
C. Urban densities within designated urban growth areas that do not include a city shall be designated
by the county in its comprehensive land use plan.
D. Urban densities are prohibited outside of established urban growth areas except for the
establishment of master planned resorts and new fully contained communities consistent with the
requirements for reserving a portion of the twenty (20) year county population projection. (RCW
36,70A.350 & RCW 36.70A360) The county will determine appropriate densities outside of
designated urban growth areas in its comprehensive land use plan consistent with the goals of the
Growth Management Act
E. The comprehensive plan of the county and of each city shall be coordinated with, and consistent
with, the comprehensive plan of other counties or cities with which the county or city has in part
common borders or related regional issues. (based on RCW 36.70A.100)
POLICY 3
POLICIES FOR SITING PUBLIC FACILITIES
OF A COUNTY -WIDE OR STATE-WIDE NATURE
Identify and Siting Essential Public Facilities:
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6193
Amended March 27, 2002
5
A. The Comprehensive Plan of each city, town and county that is planning under the Growth
Management Act shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities.(RCW
36.70A.200(1)
B. Essential public facilities including those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports,
state education facilities, and state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional
facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities,
mental health facilities, and group homes.(RCW 36.70A.20O(1)
C. No city, town or county comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of
essential public utilities. (RCW 36.70A.200(2)
II. Development of Essential Public Facilities: When essential public facilities are proposed the potentially
effected city(s) and/or town(s) and the county shall:
A. Establish an Advisory Project Analysis and Site Evaluation Committee composed of citizen
members and government representatives selected to represent a board range of interest groups. The
Committee shall develop specific siting criteria for the proposed project and to identify, analyze, and
rank potential project sites. In addition the Committee shall establish a reasonable time frame for
completion of the task.
B. Insure public involvement through the use of timely press releases, newspaper notices, public
information meetings, and public hearings.
C. Notify adjacent cities and towns and other governmental entities of the proposed project and solicit
review and comment on the recommendations made by the Advisory Project Analysis and Site
Evaluation Committee,
III. Siting Considerations: In siting of essential public facilities the Advisory Project Analysis and Site Evaluation
Committee shall consider at least the following:
A. Essential public facilities shalt be developed in a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement and be so
located so as to not adversely affect the safety, health or welfare of the citizens residing around or
near the facility.
Essential public facilities sited near public water and sewer services shall be required to utilize such
services.
C. Essential public facilities sited where public water and sewer services are not immediately available
shall be required to be constructed so as to be able to be serviced by public water and sewer services
when they are available and, further, the essential public services shall be required to connect to such
water and sewer services when they are available. '
D. Land adjacent to existing and proposed essential public facilities which may be developed in the
future shall be compatible with such uses.
E. Proposed essential public facilities shall be compatible with existing land uses.
F. Adequate fire protection water supplies shall be required in all developing areas where essential
public facilities may be sited.
GRANT COUNTY - 516193
Amended March 27, 2002
G. Undesignated landfills, dredging, «ante discharges, and other activities with potential deleterious
environmental impacts shall be controlled with appropriate rules and regulations adopted and
enforced by thejurisdiction with authority.
H. Essential public facilities shall not locate in resource lands or critical areas if incompatible.
Essential public facilities shall not be located outside of UGA's unless they are self-contained and do
not require the extension of urban governmental services.
POLICY 4
POLICIES FOR COUNTY -WIDE .
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND STRATEGIES
I. A county -wide transportation plan developed pursuant to the Growth Management Act shall be consistent
with the land use elements of the comprehensive plans developed for the jurisdictions within the
transportation planning area.
II. A county and regional review process shall be established to coordinate transportation programming decisions
and to ensure consistency with the regional transportation plan.
A. Local six-year programs should identify all regionally significant projects meeting adopted regional
criteria. These projects will be submitted to the Quad -County Regional Transportation Planning
Organization for certification of consistency with the regional transportation plan.
B. Transportation priority programming methods should be required fof all jurisdictions. This
requirement should apply to the functionally classified roadway system, as well as to transit capital
expenditures. Priority programming should be integrated as a standard of good practice.
C. Local governments may want to obtain ongoing technical assistance from the state (WSDOT).
III. As a component of a county -wide transportation plan, each comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to the
Growth Management Act, will contain a transportation element which includes a financial sub -element
including:
A. A multi-year financing plan;
B. An analysis of the jurisdiction's ability to fund existing or potential transportation improvement
which identifies existing sources and new revenue sources which may include impact fees;
C. If identified funding falls short, land use assumptions will be reassessed to assure that the level of
service standards are being met or are adjusted to be consistent with the land use element.
IV. Transportation improvements which are identified in the transportation plan shall be implemented concurrent
with new development. Concurrent with development means that improvements or strategies are in place at
the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or
strategies within six years.
V. The county -wide transportation planning effort should produce a methodology and/or tools for jurisdictions to
use in evaluating the impact of development proposals and identifying related transportation improvements.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
VI. The county -wide transportation plan should address:
A. Economic growth.
B. Cost-effective accessibility for goods, services and people.
C. The quality of life issues.
D. Alternatives which will provide convenient and safe access to employment, educational, and
recreational opportunities for citizens in both urban and rural environments.
E. Transportation improvements necessary to provide for a balanced transportation system that will
work effectively and safely over the next twenty years.
F. Energy -efficiency in transportation systems.
VII. An integrated transportation system is conceived as a cooperatively developed, integrated system of public
transportation services, road facilities, transportation system management (TSM)/demand management
programs, and land use policy. The integrated system should enhance mobility by providing a range of
transportation choices for the public. The transportation plan element shall address air, water and land
transportation facilities including but not limited to:
A. Airports and airstrips.
B. Facilities related to commercial water transportation.
C. Major and secondary arterial and collector roadways.
D. Transit routes.
E. Non -motorized modes of transportation including bikeways, equestrian ways, and pedestrian routes.
F. Railroad systems.
G. Bridges.
H. Truck Routes.
VIII. The Transportation Plan element will provide a summary and analysis of
planning information including:
A. Land use assumptions which provide a summary of the current population, employment by type,
recreation, and comprehensive land use designations, and the ratio of single and multi -family units to
total hawing units.
B. Inventory and analysis of existing services and facilities should include:
1. Function and scope of the facility (locallregional).
2. Traffic and volume patterns including peak hour traffic congestion and current capacity.
3. Jurisdiction.
4. Accident problem areas.
5. Geometry and structural adequacy of arterial and collectors.
GRANT COUNTY - 516193
Amended March 27, 2002
6. Traffic control devices.
7. Facility specific plans and routes.
8. Origin and destination data and commute distance for the urban area.
9. Methods of evaluating changes.
10. Transit facilities.
11. Environment and geographic limitations in the study area.
12. Demand management (carpools, public transit, etc.)
C. Level -of -service (LOS) standards for arterial and collectors.
D. An analysis and forecast of future transportation needs including:
1. An issues assessment and prioritization for the study area and for each facility.
2. A forecast of future travel demand for each facility.
3. An analysis of deficient transportation facilities based on adopted LOS standards.
4. An identification of facility expansion needs. '
IX. Level -of -service standards for arterial, collectors and transit routes should be coordinated at a county -wide
level.
X. Transportation plans should be designed to have services that are specific to conditions to include growth,
employment diversification, environmental quality, mobility needs, and quality of life and the future
environment of Grant County. An integrated plan should help 'support the operations of buses, ride -sharing
programs, ,para -transit, and special services within the region; and coordinate services that link Grant County
to other counties.
A. Air quality. Jurisdictions should be encouraged to look at a balanced 'approach to reduce vehicle
exhaust emissions as a means of maintaining federal air quality standards. The transportation plan
should address means of providing and promoting:
1. Alternatives to the single occupant vehicle.
2. The use of cleaner fuels.
3. Optimum maintenance of individual vehicles.
4. Improved operating efficiency of the transportation system.
B. Water quality. Levels of harmful pollutants generated by transportation activities should be
minimized and controlled to prevent their entry into surface and groundwater resources.
C. Fish and Wildlife habitat. Where feasible, fish and wildlife habitat populations should be protected,
restored and enhanced within transportation corridors.
D. Wetlands. Natural wetlands which are adversely impacted by transportation -related construction,
maintenance, and operations activities should be protected, restored, and enhanced in support of
federal and state "no net loss" policies.
E. Noise control. Strategies should be adopted to minimize noise impacts from transportation systems
and facilities.
POLICY 5
POLICIES THAT CONSIDER THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUCH AS HOUSING FOR
ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION
GRAM COUNTY - 516193
Amended March 27.2002
W
The housing element of each comprehensive plan shall:
A. Provide a range of housing alternatives which takes into account price, tenure type, and density
which meet the urban area and regional housing needs.
B. Provide for the development of a balanced variety of dwelling unit types and densities within the
county with maximum choices of living environment, considering the needs of the public at all
economic levels.
1. The development of a balanced variety of dwelling unit types and densities shall be
encouraged.
2. Site constructed and factory manufactured housing shall be recognized as needed and
functional housing types.
3. Provisions shall be made for the location of manufactured (mobile) homes in planned
manufactured (mobile) home subdivisions and parks, or on single lots when in conformance
- with standards governing location (on lot) of site constructed housing.
C. Provide areas for the location of a variety of residential uses while minimizing the impact on
surrounding areas.
1. Plan provisions for the location of high, medium, and low density residential development
shall be made within the urban growth area where possible and within or adjacent to
existing communities.
2. Plan provisions for the location of rural housing shall be made in a manner consistent with
preserving agricultural lands and maintaining the rural lifestyles of the county while
minimizing conflicts with commercial agricultural activities. .
D. Preserve the viability of existing single-family residential areas.
1. Existing viable single-family residential areas shall be given sufficient protection to prevent
the encroachment of incompatible land uses which may lead to the deterioration of such
residential.
2. Rural residential areas located outside of urban growth areas shall be discouraged from
becoming urbanized as UGA's.
E. Promote housing that meets the needs of all socia -economic groups in the county.
1. Develop performance standards governing the placement of manufactured homes.
2. Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard housing.
3. Encourage efforts to renew and rehabilitate as well as maintain existing housing.
F. Develop land uses that will preserve and enhance the quality of life and desired lifestyles.
1. Encourage builders and developers to deliver housing with a variety of price ranges,
amenities, natural settings, and conveniences.
2. Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses.
a. Maintain natural boundaries (roads. creeks, outcroppings, etc.).
b. Cluster developments off main arterial roads with vegetated buffer strips between
houses and main roads.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
10
3. Buffer future developments from existing farm activity to minimize nuisances generated by
either use.
G. Incorporate Washington State Community Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) requirements and
actively solicit grant monies through FSS, HOPE 1, 2, & 3, CLAP and 5H programs.
POLICY 6
POLICIES FOR JOINT COUNTY AND CITY PLANNING WITHIN URBAN GROWTH AREAS
Zoning, Subdivision Controls, Development and Land Use Compatibility
The zoning and subdivision ordinances and performance standards adopted in the UGA's and the related
policy planning measures should be used to implement the provisions of the Growth Management Act and the
comprehensive plans of each city, town and county to ensure development and land use which are compatible
with surrounding uses and which do not create traffic, *safety or health hazards, or undue adverse economic
impacts.
II. Development of Lands in UGA's:
City, town, and county governments shall:
A. Encourage the development of lands in the UGA's rather than allow the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped rural lands into urban sprawling, low density development. [RCW 36.70A.020(1) and
RCW 36.70A.020(2)].
B. Encourage the development of lands adjacent to the incorporated limits of a city or town prior to
developing outlying areas in a UGA.
C. Discourage urban encroachment on agricultural areas.
D. Encourage the determination of land use by the inherent capability of the land to sustain that use
without creating problems that require a publicly funded solution.
III. Establishment of Zones in UGA's:
City, town and county governments shall:
A. Encourage the establishment of zones in UGA's which allow a variety of land uses.
B. Establish zones in UGA's which discourage lineal or strip development.
C. Encourage land uses which require medium size lots or lower intensity usage which will serve as a
buffer between Waal areas and urban areas.
D. Encourage the development of vacant and unused lands within the corporate limits of each city or
town.
E. Encourage the location of business and industry in clusters where appropriate in or near the towns
and cities except where they would cause or allow a public nuisance.
F. Encourage city services be extended to areas adjacent to cities prior to serving outlying areas.
GRANT COUNTY - 516/93
Amended March 27, 2002
11
IV. Community Councils and Special Purpose Districts: Established community councils of unincorporated
urbanized areas and all special purpose districts should be made aware of and encouraged to comment on
developments proposed within or adjacent to the urbanized area in which they reside.
V. Agreement Between Cities, Towns, Established Community Councils in Urbanized Areas and the County:
A. Since each individual municipality within Grant County is unique in its needs, situations, services
and interests, and each is unique in population and geographic characteristics, each community will
negotiate joint city and county planning procedures and policies on an individual basis. each
municipality should meet with the county individually, at a time coinciding with the establishment of
the UGA's. ,
B. Agreements, which include joint development standards between cities, towns, established
community councils in urbanized areas, and the county should be established.. These agreements
shall coordinate land use planning and decision making within UGA's.
VI. Expansion of UGA's:
Cities, towns and the county shall:
A. Require that any expansion of a UGA be negotiated between the city or cities within the UGA and
the county, with direct notice to affected landowners (pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140).
B. A114w the inclusion of agricultural lands in a UGA after it has been determined that all other lands
have been developed and that the agricultural lands to be added are marginal and do not possess
prime and unique farmland soils as defined by the United States Soil Conservation Service, unless
prime and unique farmlands are all that is available to that city or town.
POLICY 7
POLICY FOR COUNTY -WIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
EMPLOYMENT
To encourage, strengthen, sustain, and diversify the County's economic base.
A. Emphasis on the County's stable agricultural base shall be maintained, and protected.
B. That development be encouraged by seeking and providing incentives to environmentally acceptable
industries.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
12
II. Encourage Grant County's economic base instituting plans to promote employment opportunities.
A. Emphasis should be given to promote the processing of locally produced goods, and the value added
industries related to our existing ag-related base.
B. Stabilize the work force by seeking industries that provide employment on a year-round basis and
operate on multiple shifts.
C. Emphasize strong County -wide economic development promotion to attract new business and
industry investments to Grant County through a pro -active marketing strategy.
D. To encourage community leadership involvement in the strategic planning process that facilitates the
development of sound cap'ual,'social and human infrastructures that ate conducive to and fosters an
environment that attracts and enables new and existing business to grow and thrive.
III. Encourage a diversity of industrial development.'
A. Examine altemative industry that in the past have chose not to locate in our economic circle.
B. Utilize economic development, and commerce organizations expertise to enhance goals:
C. Concentrate maximum efforts on the strengths of existing industrial park developments.
D. Support and maintain capital improvement projects for utilities and services to existing and proposed
industrial park site development.
E. Target proposed industrial parks in, or as near to, existing or planned utility services as identified by
the joint urban growth boundary designations of the comprehensive plan.
F. To encourage the development of local programs (County and City) that provide incentives to
environmentally acceptable industries.
G. That new development be encouraged which provides the most positive overall impact on the
environment, quality of life and services within Grant County.
H. Encourage each community to develop their own Community Development Task Force/Response
Team. This team would be a cross-section of local business, agencies and community leaders
organized for the purpose of bringing together stronger planning and communication links
concerning current and future community needs, schools, housing, sewer, water, and other
infrastructure needs.
I. Each Task force should develop an economic development marketing profile based on a
comprehensive assessment of it's strengths and weaknesses and the type of industry it can
realistically expect to attract.
IV. Direct commercial activity towards existing and proposed regional and local transportation access.
A. Encourage commercial, and industrial distribution centers at highway interchanges serving the urban
areas.
B. Maximize the extent of existing industrial, and commercially zoned property.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6193
Amended March 27, 2002
13
C. Encourage the development of commercial centers, where the need has been established, andlor
where future planning consistent with the comprehensive plan has them established.
V. Emphasize recreational and tourism as an alternate source of revenue, and economic impact for Grant County
and its municipalities.
POLICY 8
AN ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal Impact
A. In order ,to ensure that our county -wide policies and future individual growth plans and capital
facilities funding programs adequately address cumulative potential impacts on the revenues of local
government, a joint fiscal impact study should be conducted,. focusing on:
I. Capital facility debt financing capabilities and burdens of the individual local governments,
and the options and potential for sharing debt capacity and responsibility for capital facility
financing among and between local governments, special purpose districts, and the private
sector;
2. The structure of revenues that operate local government and the potential for new revenues
or an alternate system of distributing existing funds.
II. Impact Fees
A. Each jurisdiction is encouraged to adopt fair and reasonable impact fee ordinances to ensure that new
growth pays its fair share of the cost of capital facilities, such as transportation improvements, parks,
and schools.
POLICY 9
PROVISIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF NEW FULLY CONTAINED COMMUNITIES, MASTER PLANNED
RESORTS AND RECREATIONAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
A. Fully contained Communities
A county required or choosing to pian under RCW 36.70A.040 may establish a process as part of its
urban growth areas, that is designated under RCW 36.70A.I10, for reviewing proposals to authorize
new fully contained communities located outside of the initially designated urban growth area.
a. A new fully contained community may be approved in a county planning under this chapter
if criteria including but not limited to the following are met
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27. 2002
1. New infrastructure is provided for and impact fees are established consistent with
the requirements of RCW 82.02.050;
2. Transit -oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are
implemented;
14
3. Buffers are provided between the new fully contained communities and adjacent
urban development;
4. A mix of uses is provided to offer jobs, housing, and services to residents of the
new community;
5. 'Affordable housing is provided within the new community for a broad range of
income levels;
6. Environmental protection has been addressed and provided for;
7. Development regulations are established to ensure urban growth will not occur in
adjacent non -urban area;
8. Provision is made to mitigate impacts on designated agricultural lands, forest
lands, and mineral resource lands;
9. The plan for the new fully contained community is consistent .with the
development regulations established for the protection of critical areas by the
county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170.
b. New fully contained communities may be approved outside established urban growth areas
only if a county reserves a portion of the twenty-year population projection and offsets the
urban growth area accordingly for allocation to new fully contained communities that meet
the requirements of this chapter. Any county electing to establish a new community reserve
shall do so no more often that once every five years as a part of the designation or review of
urban growth areas required by this chapter. The new community reserve shall be allocated
on a project -by -project basis, only after specific project approval procedures have been
adopted pursuant to this chapter as a development regulation. When a new community
reserve is established, urban growth areas designated pursuant to this chapter shall
accommodate the unreserved portion of the twenty-year population projection.
Final approval of an application for a new fully contained community shall be considered
an adopted amendment to the comprehensive plan prepared pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070
designating the new fully contained community as an urban growth area.
Master Planned Resort
Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master planned
resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section.
A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a
setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting
of short-term visitor outdoor recreational facilities. A master planned resort may include other
residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support
the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
A master planned resort may be authorized by county only it
a. The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master
planned resorts;
b. The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new
urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas
otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110;
C. The county includes a finding as a pan of the approval process that the land is better suited,
and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the commercial
harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be
designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170;
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27.2002
15
d. The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations
established for critical areas; and
Z. On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
POLICY 10
ANNEXATION PLANS, INCORPORATION PLANS, AND THE ROLE OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW
BOARD
Accept the laws currently in the statutes regarding annexation plans, incorporation plans, and the role of the Boundary
Review Board.
POLICY 11
MONITORING, REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES
Throughout the ongoing planning process Grant County or any city or town within Grant County may request
that the Grant County Planned Growth Committee reconvene to discuss problems or concerns regarding
specific policies as they may relate to the development, implementation, management, or amendment of the
county's or any city's or town's comprehensive plan. The committee shall meet twice per year to consider the
requests.
POLICY 12
POLICIES REGARDING DIVISION, ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH
MANAGEMENT FUNDSICOUNTY - CITIES MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ADOPTING METHOD
FOR DISTRIBUTION OF STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO GRANT
COUNTY BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RECITALS.
A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act of 1990 (hereinafter the "Act") and is 1991 amendments
contained in ReESHB 1025, Grant County and the cities within Grant County have established an
inter-govemmental committee entitled the "Grant County Planned Growth Committee: (hereinafter
the "Committee") for the purpose of implementing the requirement of the County -Wide Planning
Policies required by ReESHB 1025, Section 2 and subsequent adoption of individual comprehensive
plans.
B. The Committee is comprised of representatives from the County and each of the participating cities
and towns.
C. The Act provides that State funds be made available to counties and cities/towns through the
Department of Community Development (hereinafter "DCD") to assist them in meeting the
requirements of the Act. The Committee's information received by the State DCD indicates that an
initial allocation of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars will be distributed to each County
with an additional per capita allocation. The purpose of this memorandum of agreement is to
memorialize the Committee§ agreement as to the method by which these State funds will be divided
amongst the parties hereto.
D. PARTIES.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
16
The parties to this agreement include the three Commissioner Districts of Grant County and the following
cities and towns: Moses Lake, Ephrata, Soap Lake, Quincy, Royal City, Grand Coulee, Coulee City, Mattawa, Electric
City, Krupp, Wilson Creek, Coulee Dam, Hartline Warden, and George.
III. DEFINITIONS.
A. 'BASE" allocation means the lump sum amount of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars
expected to be distributed to the County by the State DCD.
B. ' 'PER CAPITA"` allocation means the additional amount per capita amount that will be distributed to
the County by the State DCD.
C. 'PER CAPITA POPULATION FIGURES" shall mean those most recent population figures
established through the Washington State Office of Financial Management (hereinafter "OFM").
VI. AGREEMENT.1':'
The Parties adopt the following procedure and methodology for dividing
amongst them all future State Growth Management funds allocated through DCD:
All "base" allocations will be divided equally amongst all parties; and all "per
capita" allocations will be divided amongst the parties on a per capita -
population basis. The population figures used shall be derived from the OFM's
population figures and shall be amended as necessary to reflect the most
current OFM population figures available.
V. TERM
This agreement shall continue to have full force and effect and shall be binding upon all parties for as long as
State funds and/or grants are available to assist Counties and Cities/Ibwns in their efforts to comply with the Act, as
now enacted or hereafter amended.
(SEE ATTACHMENT FOR SIGNATURES)
POLICY 13
DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL-PURPOSE DISTRICTS AND POLICIES AND RELATIONSHIP WITH
SPECIAL-PURPOSE DISTRICTS, i.e., SCHOOL DISTRICTS, HOSPITAL DISTRICTS, FIRE DISTRICTS,
ETC.
[Incorporated within Policy 61
POLICY 14
POLICIES TO PERMIT FLEXIBILITY WITHIN LOCAL POLICY PROCEDURE
It is understood that these policies are meant as general framework guidelines for the county and each
municipality, however flexibility must be maintained in order to adapt to different needs and conditions.
[ADOPTED AS THE PREAMBLE TO THE COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES IN LIEU OF POLICY #14.1
POLICY 15
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6193
Amended March 27, 2002
[VA
POPULATION FORECAST DISTRIBUTION
I. County -wide projected population shall be allocated among jurisdictions through the combined application
use of the following factors applied to each jurisdiction:
A. Documented historical growth rates over the last decade, the last two (2) decades, and the last two (2)
years.
B. Developing or current planning programs which a jurisdiction has, and which identify quantitative
increases in business and industry development, and housing construction activity.
C. Intangibles.
Formally ratified this day _ of /" 2002, Grant County Commissioners
Tim
Date
\ rlf�cxa� /• �I/�,00K�
Deborah Kay M re Date
LeRoy C. Allision Date
Sir . ��
r/0 the y
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
18