HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 06-180-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 06- lefd -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 a Growth Management Act compliant Limited Area of More Intensive
Rural Development (LAMIRD) Known as Moses Lake 10;
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 1s` Ex.
Sess., Ch. 17), 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, property 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 `limited area of more intensive rural development," known by the
acronym "LAMIRDs" 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
Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural 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 Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) in 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 Limited Areas of
More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) 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 Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural 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 Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD 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 a record, including documents and
correspondence that was fully considered during review of the proposal to amend the Moses Lake 10
LAMIRD within the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Commission relied upon best available data in specifying
proposed amendments to the LAMIRD within the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the LAMIRD 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, 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 Moses Lake 10
LAMIRD designated within the Comprehensive Plan and in the preparation of the attached 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 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 to consider the proposed LAMIRD amendment and receive public comments; and
WHEREAS, upon public notice, the Board of Grant County Commissioners conducted a public
hearing to consider the proposed recommendation of the Grant County Planning Commission along with
other public comments pertaining to the amendment of Moses Lake 10 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 recommendation to amend Moses Lake 10 and Land Use Designations as
findings of fact, except as modified in the Additional Findings of Fact, and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts the
amended LAMIRD and Rural Land Use Designation (including all maps and technical appendices
referenced and included herein), adopts the Determination of Non -Significance and Adoption of Existing
Environmental Documentation, adopts the 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 LAMIRDs, 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 February 1, 2006, 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, as modified or supplemented in the October 14, 2005
Boundary Analysis and as annexed in the Additional Findings of Fact, Attachments A, (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
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 �_ day of fTUaloc— 12006.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Yea Nay Abstain G COUNTY, W HINGTON
W( ❑ ❑ Richard Stevens, Chan
Deborah Kay Moore, Member
❑ ❑ LeRoy C. Allison, Member
ATTACHMENT A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONS
(GRANT COI NTY PLANNING COMMISSION)
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 LAMIRDs
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 LAMIRDs, the Eastern
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB) ruled that the LAMIRD
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 LAMIRD 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 LAMIRD 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-exammed its LAMIRD designations and outer boundaries through an
extensive work plan to bring the LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs 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 Planning Commission has completed their review and thought this decision
recommends the 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 Limited Areas of More Intense Rural
Development (LAMIRDs), 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 LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs 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 govem and
contain rural development The policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including these amendments to
LAMIRDs, 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 LAMIRDs.
• 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, LAMIRDs,
and resource lands.
• Reducing Inappropriate Conversion of Undeveloped Land
• Protecting Critical Areas and Water Quality
• Protecting Resource Lands.
23. Development and redevelopment in LAMMDs 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 LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRD and documented
by Grant County as part of the Boundary Analysis
26. To be considered for designation as a LAMIRD, 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 LAMIRDs, 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 LAMIRDs and was not held as the sole reason to include or exclude a
particular parcel or area
28. To deternime logical outer boundaries for each LAMIRD, 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 LAMIRDS 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 LAMfRD, 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 LAMIRD
• 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 LAMIRDs contained in this amendment takes into account all GMA
requirements related to establishment of Waal areas of more intensive development.
31. The County adopted measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRD amendment results in a reduction in the total area contained
within the Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD from the —30.7 acres designated in the Comprehensive Plan to
18.37 acres, a reduction of —41%
35. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation
and other public services, since the reduction in total area of the lands included within LAMIRD is
only —59% of that originally designated.
36. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of all
elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
37. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment does not materially affect land use and population
growth projections contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
38. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment is consistent with the GMA and the County -Wide
Planning Policies.
39. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment 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.
Moses Lake 10
SITE SPECIFIC FINDINGS:
40. Pursuant to the November 1, 2004 Second Order on Compliance issued by the Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board wherein the Hearing Board stated that the site was too large
for limited, small scale recreational or tourist uses, the Planning Commission recommends the
modified decrease of Moses Lake 10.
41. Whereas the Planning Commission finds that as proposed, Moses Lake 10 will minimize and
contain growth pursuant to 36 70A.070(5)(d)(IV).
42. Whereas the Planning Com ussion finds that infill development of Moses Lake 10 will be required
to comply with the current Unified Development Code, which nummizes and contains infill
development Moreover, it includes provisions for maximum square footage for development,
landscaping and visual screening requirements etc , which will reduce the area available for
development. A minimum of 8% of the developed site will be dedicated to landscaping etc
43. The Planning Commission finds that the acreage proposed within Moses Lake 10 is reasonable and
necessary in order to minimally provide, small scale recreational, tourist uses including the
traveling public which also requires adequate parking for a range of vehicles, from the typical
automobile to larger vehicles pulling 70'+i- trailers etc.
44. Moses Lake 10 has been reviewed for critical areas and none where found to exist.
45. The Planning Commission finds that the land encompassed by Moses Lake 10 is better suited as a
LAMRID consistent with the historically developed area. In part this is due to
1. The LOB for Moses Lake 10 encompassing the historically developed I-90 — "O" Road
Interchange, which is best suited to serve small scale recreational uses or tourist uses including
the traveling public.
2. A significant public investment has been made in the construction of the interchange, which
provides necessary access to this location.
Although limited agricultural activities exist in the immediate vicinity and on site, Grant
County has already adopted area land use designations in its Comprehensive Planning and
identified the surrounding area as Rural Urban Reserve in recognition of other priorities and
policy decisions,
46. The Planning Commission finds that Moses Lake 10 contains pre-existing development; pre -1991
July, which consists of:
I. Moses Lake 10 was platted prior to July 1991, and
2. Installation of water services and facilities exist onsite and have the potential to be converted to
commercial usage, and
3. Moses Lake 10 is included within the historically developed area immediately abutting the "O"
Road — I-90 Interchange, I-90 and both the North Frontage Road and "O" Road NE, which is a
substantial public investment in physical infrastructure intended to serve the property.
4 Moses Lake 10 has undergone clearing and grading prior to July 1991,
5. Construction of private access driveways have been constructed to serve the property;
47. The County has delineated logical outer boundaries (LOB) for Moses Lake 10 based predominantly
on the pre -July 1, 1991 built environment. Whereas the logical outer boundaries where established
after due consideration was given to the following GMA criteria.
(a) The LOB for Moses Lake 10 will preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and
communities;
(b) The establishment of the LOB for Moses Lake 10 utilized the physical boundaries of the site,
including but not limited to water facilities/structures, existing streets, highways and an
interchange, and land forms;
(c) The LOB for Moses Lake 10 as configured, which is in consideration of the I-90 Interchange,
prevents abnormally irregular boundaries; and
(d) The LOB for Moses Lake 10 will maintain the ability to provide public facilities and services
for tourism and the traveling public in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl
48. Pursuant to the Final Decisions and Orders of the Eastern Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board, the Planning Commission recommends a limitation be made to ensure the control
of "strip type" future infill development Language Recommendation: This site shall have no
further subdivision capacity (<18 37 acres), any future infill development of the site shall be limited
to a single development in conformance with all applicable County rules, regulations and
requirements.
49. The Planning Commission finds that Moses Lake 10 will be in conformance with the County's
Comprehensive Plan with regard to Rural Character and Vision, in that as proposed it will -
(a) hiclude sufficient open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation in the built environment,
(b) Foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live and
work in rural areas;
(c) Provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
(d) Be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife habitat,
(e) Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development;
(f) Not require the extension of urban governmental services, and
(g) Provide necessary protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface water
recharge and discharge areas.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board of Grant County Commissioners accepts the recommendations and findings of fact of the
Grant County Planning Commission with the following amendments.
50. The Board of County Commissioners finds that Moses Lake 10 contains pre-existing development;
pre -1991 July, which consists of
1 Moses Lake 10 was platted as part of a larger lot prior to July 1991, and
2. Installation of water services and facilities exist onsite and have the potential to be converted to
commercial usage, and
3. Moses Lake 10 is included within the historically developed area immediately abutting the "O"
Road — I-90 Interchange, 1-90 and both the North Frontage Road and "O" Road NE, ii-hich is a
substantial public investment in physical infrastructure intended to serve the property.
4. Moses Lake 10 has undergone clearing and grading prior to July 1991,
5 Construction of private access driveways have been constructed to serve the property;
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. 99-1-
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 43.21C 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
Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
"Grant County Planning Department
Rural Areas of More Intensive Development
Boundary Analysis"
(as amended October 14, 2005)
G,,rT Grant County Planning Department
Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural
Development
Boundary Analysis
"Moses Lake 10"
Prepared for•
GRANT COUNTYPIANNING DEPARTMENT
P.O Box 37
Ephrata, WA 95823
Phone 509/754-2011
Fax 509/754-0449
e-mail: sclark@grantcounty-wa com
Prepared by:
ENTRANCO, INC.
10900 NE 8th Strcet, Suite 300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-4405
e-mail. dceains@entranco cont
10/03 Version
Updated 10105 by:
Grant County Planning Depattmcnt
October 14, 2005
en ranco.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
Background.................................................................................................................................... I
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Boards (EWGMHB) Final Decisions
andOrders Regarding LAMIRDs............................................................................................... I
GMA Provisions Regarding LAMIRDs
GMHB Rulings Regarding LAMIRDs..
RURAL CHARACTER OF GRANT COUNTY
2
3
Introduction...................................................................................................................................4
RuralSettlement Trends................................................................................................................5
Rural Character and Vision..........................................................................................................5
LAMIRDDesignations...................................................................................................................6
Grant County's Economic Development Policy..........................................................................7
Measure Governing Rural Development......................................................................................9
Consideration of Unique Circumstances....................................................................................10
LAMIRD ANALYSES.................................................................................................................. 12
Introduction................................................................................................................................. 12
WorkPlan to Revise LAMHiDs................................................................................................. 14
Commercial& Industrial............................................................................................................ 16
RuralFreeway Commereial....................................................................................................17
MosesLake 10..................................................................................................................18
SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD Map
LAMIRDs Inventory
LAMIRDs Designation Criteria
Moses Lake 10 Photographic Record
2003 DCTED Review Letter
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
November 1, 2004 Second Order on Compliance,
Case No 99-1-0019
Planning Commission Findings of Fact
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page i
LIMITED AREAS of MORE INTENSIVE RURAL 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 seances, 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 `LAM1RDs"— Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development,
previously referred to in the County's various plans and documents as
RAIDS
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Boards
(EWGMHB) Final Decrsrons and Orders Regarding LAMIRDs
The sometimes broad nature of the GMA's language authorizing LAMIRDs
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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 1
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
guidance to rely on in designating its LAMIRDs In making its designations
and establishing "logical outer boundaries," Grant County, in some cases,
may 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 LAMIRDs The State GMHB found the LAMIRDs
to be non-compliant with the GMA for a variety of reasons The GMHB
ordered the County to review and revise its LAMIRDs, and the County is
doing so The GMHB order included the following conclusions
• LAMIRD designations, as configured, constitute an impermissible
pattern of urban growth in a rural area. The LAMIRD designations
do not satisfy the exception from the prohibition of urban growth in
rural areas The County failed to explain how the LAMIRD
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 LAMIRDs 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
Pursuant to the decision of Thurston County Superior Court regarding the
above appeal, Grant County completed a second Countywide LAMIRD
proposal with the adoption of Grant County Ordinance 04 -007 -CC on
January 14, 2004 Upon review of this effort, the EWGMHB issued a
"Second Order on Compliance" on November 1, 2004 wherein the Board
found both some of LAMIRDs to be GMA compliant as well as others to be
non-compliant However, unlike the previous decisions rendered, the
Hearings Board provided more specific analysis and detail with regard to the
basis of their decision for each of LAMIRDs
The GMHB order included the following conclusions regarding Moses Lake
10's continued non-compliance
Moses Lake 10 has the same problem as Ballard 1, the site is too
large for limited, small scale recreational or tourist uses
The Hearings Board analysis under Ballard 1 found that as currently
configured the County has not yet adequately sized the site in order
limit and contains growth for small scale recreational or tourist uses.
Another concern raised under Ballard 1 was with regard to the need
to limit the potential for subsequent subdivision so as to eliminate
the danger of becoming a strip mall
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 2
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
GMA Provisions Regarding LAMIRDs
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(u)
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(m)
To be considered for designation as a LAMIRD, 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.
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 LAMIRDs
Some prominent decisions regarding LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs.
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.
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 3
LAMIRD
"When evaluating densities and arses 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 (LAMIRDj" 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 behul)
ground" Durland, et at. v San pian County (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,
• 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 LAMIRDs in
compliance with the GMA include -
"Activities permitted in [LAMIRDs] must be dependent on a location in a rural
area, functional and visual compatibihhj with that area, and limits in size and
density to preclude need for fitture urban services" Dawes v Mason County
(No. 96-2-0023) (FDO 12-5-96).
"In rural areas a logical outer boundary delineated by the built environment
must preclude allowance of neza lozo-densihj sprawl, Public facilities and public
services can only be provided in a manner that does not peanut love density
sprawl " Dawes v. Mason Counhi (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 LAM IRD need not limit the proposed use to exactly the use in
existence on July 1, 1990
"It is clear that the Legislature intended the restriction of such existing uses to be
one of a generic nature, rather than one of strictly limiting the (LAMIRD] to
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 4
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
exactly the uses in existence on July 1, 1993." Mudge, Panesko, Zieske, et al. v.
Lewis Counhi (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
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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 5
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
(b) that foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and
opportunities to both live and work in rural areas,-
(c)
reas,(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,
(fJ 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,
• 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,
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 6
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
Foster the private stewardship of the land and the preservation of
open space, and
Enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life.
LAMIRD 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 LAMIRDs 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
maximize the positive economic impacts of tourism and recreational opportunities
in Grant County The LAMIRDs 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
LAMIRDs, the County applied specific criteria to determine whether a LAMIRD
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 LAMIRD designations
• Rural Community,
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 7
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
• Rural Village
• Recreational Development.
• Shoreline Development
• Agricultural Service Center.
In total, the County designated 22 existing rural areas as LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs 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
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)
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 8
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
Industrial areas are not required to be principally designed to serve the
existing and protected 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
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 LAMIRDs
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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 9
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
urban growth areas, low density sprawl will be curtailed Further, many of the
LAMIRDs 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
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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 10
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
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
in the development of its rural element (including establishment of
LAMIRDs), 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 irrigates 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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 11
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
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."
LAMIRD ANALYSES
Introduction
The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB)
found in their Final Decision and Orders that the LAMIRD 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 LAMIRDs as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and is
implementing that work plan.
Subsequent to the EWGMHBs Final Decision and Orders (FDO) that found
the LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs until such time
as compliance was achieved The following actions were taken
1 The Grant County Planning Department produced interim maps for
the LAMIRDs 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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 12
LAMIRD Boundary Anal
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 LAMIRDs), 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 LAMIRDs 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
original LAMIRD 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 LAMIRDs, 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 LAMIRDs 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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 13
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
• Photographic record of each of the LAMIRDS 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
Work Plan to Revise LAMIRDs
On June 4, 2003, a preliminary analysis was presented to the Grant County
Planning Commission It defined the methodology used to reexamine the
LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRD
• 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 LAMIRD 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
LAMIRD 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
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 14
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
A draft of this LAMIRD 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 LAMIRD 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 LAMIRD Boundary Analysis Report, a
copy of which is included in Appendix E.
Revisions to LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDS, 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
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 LAMIRD designations and LOBS Provided
below are summaries of the analyses conducted to support the
recommendation for designation of LAMIRDs and establishment of their
logical outer boundaries In order to establish the existence and extent of
areas considered for designation as LAMIRDs, 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 LAMIRD maps included in
Appendix A A LAMIRD Inventory, a tabulation of data responsive to the
criteria for designation of a LAMIRD as well as parcel and a real extent
resulting from the recommended LOB, is included in Appendix B The
LAMIRD 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 LAMIRD Analyses is contained in the
work files maintained by Grant County Planning Department. The
designation criteria for LAMIRDs contained in the Comprehensive Plan is
included in Appendix C
Upon completion of the above analysis and review procedure, Grant County
adopted Ordinance 04 -007 -CC and presented the modifications to the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for their review
and decision regarding GMA compliance As a result of the second round of
compliance hearings, on November 1, 2004 the Board issued a "Second
Order On Compliance" regarding Case No 99-1-0019, which found some
LAMIRDs GMA compliant, and others non-compliant In the case of Moses
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 15
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
Lake 10, the Hearings Board found the site to be non-compliant for two
reasons First, they stated that the 30 7 acre area was too large for limited,
small scale recreational or tourist uses (as permitted by RCW
36 70A 070(5)(d)(u) Second, concern was expressed about the need to
limit both the number of potential future lots and businesses at this site
Based on the Hearing Board's Second Order on Compliance, the Planning
Department has reviewed and completed a second analysis as outlined
above, which reexamined the Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD and taking into
account the specific guidance provided by the Hearing Board's orders to
modify its LOB, as necessary, to achieve compliance with the GMA
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 LAMIRDs
without sufficient regard to the built environment Based on rulings of the
EW GMHB, it is evident that previous zoning is but one factor for
consideration in establishing LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRD does not require a
demonstrated demand for such land area allocation—as in the case for an
urban growth area Neither do such LAMIRDs require allocation of projected
population growth, as commercial and industrial LAMIRDs are not designed
for residential population.
Development and redevelopment in Commercial and Industrial LAMIRDs 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 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 16
LAMIRD 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 LAMIRDs
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 LAMIRDs was reviewed and documented by
Grant County A summary of the built environment is tabulated on the
LAMIRD Inventory in Appendix B A photographic record of each of the
commercial and industrial LAMIRDs is provided in Appendix C.
Designation of the majority of the Commercial and Industrial LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRD 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 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 17
LAMIRD 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 area is currently zoned commercial, and is 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.
Moses Lake 10 (Map 56)
Moses Lake 10 is currently zoned commercial and lies at the intersection of
Interstate 90 and Road O NE This site was originally identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as 30 7 -acres which through this review has been
reduced and limited to 18 37 acres, a reduction of 12 33 acres or —41%
Prior to July 1991, the historical use this site has been for agricultural
activities It is important to note however that through the 1999
Comprehensive Planning adoption process, the surrounding area was
determined not to be of high enough importance to be identified as agricultural
lands. Instead, initially this general area, including large areas to the North,
South and West were identified as Rural Urban Reserve In part, this was due
to its proximity and access to Interstate -90, the relatively poor soils of the
overall area designated as Rural Urban Reserve, recognition of the historical
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 18
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
SUMMARY
development patterns that in part include the substantial public investments
made in both the 1-90 "O" Road NE interchange and area County roads
The historical development of this site (pre -July 1991) includes but is not
limited to the fact that it has been platted, has water supplies that could be
used for small-scale commercial uses and is abutting a fully developed
interchange This site is clearly within the Logical Outer boundary of the site
when considering the historical development of the 1-90 "O" Road NE
interchange and area County roads
The acreage proposed within Moses Lake 10 is reasonable and necessary
in consideration of the need to provide adequate parking and circulation for
a wide range of vehicles, from the typical automobile to larger vehicles
pulling 70'+/- trailers etc.
Consistent with the Hearing Board's concerns regarding size and the potential
for "strip type" development, and the "size limitations" in the County's UDC
that limit gross floor area and the number of protects per parcel, it is Staffs
understanding that the landowner of Moses Lake 10 is in agreement to a)
restricting future subdivision of the site, and b) limiting the development of this
site to a single development project consistent with the County's Unified
Development Code.
Due the above facts and analysis, this 18 37 -acre site is better suited to be
developed as infill within the Logical Outer Boundary of the Moses Lake 10
LAMIRD This LAMIRD will provide logical and needed tourist services, which
are limited in size and scale and are consistent with the areas rural character.
The proposed final Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD is 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 LAMIRD as it existed prior to July 1,
1991—while remaining consistent with the planning goals and requirements
of the GMA Designation of LOB for the Moses Lake LAMIRD is also
intended to preserve the rural character of the land uses surrounding the
proposed LAMIRD
The reexamination of Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD and its proposed final LOB
results in a significant reduction in the area designated, as shown in the
following summary table Additional detail can be found in Appendix B
As originally identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Moses Lake 10 has been
reduced from 30 7 acres to 18.37 acres, a reduction of 12 33 acres or –41%.
The area proposed for removal from the Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD is
proposed to receive a new land use designation While in many cases the
predominate re -designated land use is "Agriculture", it is important to note
that this site has already been determined to be Rural Urban Reserve, not
A. As such, the area removed from the Moses Lake 10 LAM ID shall be re-
designated consistent with the adjacent lands, Rural Urban Reserve
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 19
LAMIRD Boundary Analysis
Summary of LAMIRD Acreages
Logical Outer Boundary
Area (Acres)
No Land Use Desi nation GMA CP Proposed I Variance
OEM, cia>nnduslrfalI -
56 A'Dsw Lebe 10 30
Total 3070 1837 -1233
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 20
APPENDIX A
Moses Lake 10 LAMRID Maps
Moses Lake 10 - Lmutcd Area of ;More Intensive Develpment
Mocltficatnon 3
A 4T-
y:r �K,�S, ,:C7'O'A�n e'i",a _. p. t rT•x� ~:.. ♦Y G. cy, n_
Y1r
1;•'41
1� Urban, ResaNe' a ;'a9%�� ,.'�-'i i ,,, et�,'� -A
'� fir•*.' } _ .. m ',d'r :+`,r,�a.. >h��cc.,,�' '_`.:a-p-�.-._���
'. 444p,�
.. P.. .' -::.ar �#r`.2k`.: .'yi''"� h"u x., �f Ski '�r1Yt�ri�;.� Y _VPT,�Y"�,-YiLz"•4
w to =`;��>�{,� .••4Y,'- ^t�":T,f'2_ y^x, <. ',asA-pe. at2 .�'A����'.i
Yt„t
fi is, V"g" r"''r, •:tr,: sY''icia !r
i"'S',ivv'F
i
• ` , Irrigated Agnmitur`
4
lk
'•-�H+' }R*
J
?
t :i, I�+yx '9"^{
'„X„,p ,i;.,
VM1Y.i ��•Y"•j �Kp�'�
.,+.'v. h
. ;f. � }�`��•kr�,.Py.
a�y["t,�;
K� �
i. •�, �yy.'tke}.f
a _ �-0
•gym hu.a
_ _ _
icu o-ruMz,Jnmrga,vdoJKz�kw.w rshu lm,
i'-�”
tivnd mx, many evvv4a na�q Affenrp vamaMa rc mdm
mml, a wl 'cn.z" VleJm duvrva+kJ
Map 56:'•,
�;';", a,,,n �:,,. _� .�, b. a a,,,•.
ded: a �nmlN hM+vd r. Fe .-,�mr. -.cap n h mprn-,
Grant C,ounry (,IS
Proms milord u
�,f�dlCd 2005
Vngvnv pn.haezx nvr�ai. b.:.I.n iAl" ,nn �q J.
�U>USC 4
6 �Gx
425 2125 0 425 Peet
"A-
"l .F.Fl•q t�'�
��dJ.�en 6 ........ai•n ,.'-n. .,n,
F. -
�}r
i
• ` , Irrigated Agnmitur`
4
lk
4.1
Ile dxi.
-
K� �
i. •�, �yy.'tke}.f
a _ �-0
•gym hu.a
_ _ _
icu o-ruMz,Jnmrga,vdoJKz�kw.w rshu lm,
tivnd mx, many evvv4a na�q Affenrp vamaMa rc mdm
mml, a wl 'cn.z" VleJm duvrva+kJ
Map 56:'•,
�;';", a,,,n �:,,. _� .�, b. a a,,,•.
ded: a �nmlN hM+vd r. Fe .-,�mr. -.cap n h mprn-,
Grant C,ounry (,IS
Proms milord u
�,f�dlCd 2005
Vngvnv pn.haezx nvr�ai. b.:.I.n iAl" ,nn �q J.
�U>USC 4
6 �Gx
425 2125 0 425 Peet
m n.ne.r.,Jd..a: i.. -I-, A, h,r,W„�.n�.l.,r i,
I'nnn.d October 2005 ice'
��dJ.�en 6 ........ai•n ,.'-n. .,n,
F. -
i
• ` , Irrigated Agnmitur`
4
lk
Ile dxi.
-
` +�"
�
i u.cmngn c.4,uiw,.nviA..m yam. q..zm
a _ �-0
•gym hu.a
_ _ _
icu o-ruMz,Jnmrga,vdoJKz�kw.w rshu lm,
tivnd mx, many evvv4a na�q Affenrp vamaMa rc mdm
mml, a wl 'cn.z" VleJm duvrva+kJ
Map 56:'•,
�;';", a,,,n �:,,. _� .�, b. a a,,,•.
ded: a �nmlN hM+vd r. Fe .-,�mr. -.cap n h mprn-,
Grant C,ounry (,IS
Proms milord u
�,f�dlCd 2005
Vngvnv pn.haezx nvr�ai. b.:.I.n iAl" ,nn �q J.
�U>USC 4
6 �Gx
425 2125 0 425 Peet
m n.ne.r.,Jd..a: i.. -I-, A, h,r,W„�.n�.l.,r i,
I'nnn.d October 2005 ice'
��dJ.�en 6 ........ai•n ,.'-n. .,n,
APPENDIX B
RAID Inventory
APPENDIX C
LAMIRD Designation Criteria
IV
en
C
on ro
C c
♦
UI �
N 4.
t
C9
� O
C C
O y
O O
C �
`�%,m3aa33iF
C
a
Y
C �
a
o �
a
♦
L
y c
�
a
C
� U
C cyi
l L'
♦ Z
O
L v
en
C
on ro
C c
♦
UI �
N 4.
t
C9
� O
C C
O y
O O
H
K
v a
I�
C
t
C �
`�%,m3aa33iF
C
a
Y
C �
a
o �
a
APPENDIX D
Photographic Record
October 2005 - Moses Lake 10 Page 1
v
Moses Lake 10 - Limited Area of More Intensive Develpment
Modification 3 w+
5
Rural commercial
i
. t
A a .. o,dc Jno,nyx, ud ,JrrL �s hxv
.i nel ne[n,nr h[v4x n�v�falreneG wvlv2, (rn pr,lm
_ iel S.�neillrry+�aml cor r i {II: I�Jxx unmkc
Map D0
.Wa ay.. emll 6lcwd n.M. n e.e�ki
(,rant County GIS ,x,wg u�
( ceatcd \Ugust 2005 3 v,.aF�q p� Flu., .. �,,. ��,, 1..�.i,� �n ,� ,o� 1.
275 137 5 0 275 Feel --j Ku
Punted Ueto6u2005 .rv,del �.�x^i,.,,n A,.-Ji.,� .,,..ko-�.k•nlr
Table of Contents
APPENDIX E
2003 DCTED Review Letter
a
STATE OF WASHINGTON
�L�(9�i5
�9 V L23UD
SEP 0 9 2003 t �J
GRANT CO PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,
TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
728 - 70th Avenue SE • PO Sox 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98507 • (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 sending 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 on yobr 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 ( 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.
Overal 1, 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
boundary 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.
0
The Honorable Deborah Moore
September 5, 2003
Page 2
rural,tools within 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
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 i
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 to justify 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 urban lands and surrounded by rural and resource lands. '
• Jet Farms 1 - '
Your analysis states that Jet Fauns I "does not satisfy the criteria of the GMA for designation as a RAID."
We recommend you further analyze the inclusion of this RAID.
We have some suggestions for strengthening your RAID boundary analysis:
• The narratives for each of the RA1Ds 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
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 may be 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.
• Wheeler2
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 meat (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. ! i
Sincerely,
Wendy Compton -Ring, AICP
Senior Planner
Growth Management Services
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
Table of Contents
APPENDIX F
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
November 1, 2004
Second Order on Compliance
Case No. 99-1-0019
1
2
3
4
5
Lill
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
State of Washington
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
FOR EASTERN WASHINGTON
JAMES A. WHITAKER, I Case No. 99-1-0019
GRANT COUNTY,
Petitioner, I SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Respondent.
This Matter comes before the Board upon a compliance hearing held pursuant to the
Final Decision and Order in this case, (May 19, 2000) and Order on Reconsideration &
Amendment of Order on Compliance, (June 2, 2004). The compliance hearing was held on
March 24, 2004 In Ephrata, Washington. James Whitaker, pro se, represented the
Petitioner. Attorneys Stanley M. Schwartz and Stacy A. Bjordahl represented the County.
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Grant County originally proposed 72 Limited Areas of More Intense Rural
Development (LAMIRDs). The Board approved 27 of these. The Final Decision and Order
and Compliance Orders found Grant County out of compliance with the Growth
Management Act (GMA) with respect to the eighteen LAMIRDs discussed herein. The Board
found in its orders that It was unable to make a final determination of compliance or non-
compliance until these remaining individual LAMIRDs were listed as Type I, II or III under
the GMA. (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)).
In response, the County reviewed these LAMIRDs and placed them In one of the
three types of LAMIRDs. The Board has reviewed each of these LAMIRDs and their zoning
designations and find that some are in compliance with the GMA and others fall to comply.
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page I
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
it
q
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ito IT, car 3d1L`L�7
On December 3, 1999, James A. Whitaker filed a Petition for Review.
A hearing on the merits was held on April 27, 2000. A Final Decision and Order was
entered on May 19, 2000.
On November 15, 2001 the Superior Court of Washington for Thurston County
entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order on Administrative Procedure Act
Appeal, remanding this matter for the admission of supplemental evidence, to wit, the
1997-1999 building permit information before this Board.
On February 6, 2004, the Board received Respondent's Motion for a Compliance
Hearing.
On March 24, 2004, the Board held a compliance hearing. Present were Dennis
Dellwo, Presiding Officer, and Board Members Judy Wall and D.E. "Skip" Chllberg. Present
for Petitioner was James Whitaker. Present for Respondent were Stephen J. Hallstrom,
Stanley Schwartz and Stacy A. Bjordahl.
May 6, 2004, an Order on Compliance was entered, finding the County to be in
continued non-compliance on most of the LAMIRDs and in compliance on others.
On May 18, 2004, Respondent Grant County sought reconsideration of the Board's
May 6, 2004, Order on Compliance.
On June 1, 2004, an order was entered amending the original Order on Compliance.
On August 5, 2004, Grant County requested the Board review the designations of
LAMIRDs under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
The compliance hearing was held on March 24, 2004 in Ephrata, Washington, James
Whitaker, pro se, represented the Petitioner. Attorneys Stanley M. Schwartz and Stacy A.
Bjordahl represented the Respondent.
On May 6, 2004, the Order on Compliance was entered.
On May 18, 2004, Respondent Grant County sought reconsideration of the Board's
May 6, 2004 Order on Compliance.
June 2, 2004, an Order Amending the Order on Compliance was entered.
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019
Yakima, WA 98902
November 1, 2004
Phone 509-574-6960
Page 2
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
On September 1, 2004, a hearing was held to determine the compliance of 18 of the
LAMIRDs found out of compliance.
The Respondent, Grant County, sought additional time for the submission of a Post
Hearing Summary of LAMIRDs, The Board received this additional material from the County,
September 30, 2004.
III. BURDEN OF PROOF
Unless there has been a prior determination of Invalidity, comprehensive plans,
development regulations and amendments to them are presumed valid upon adoption.
RCW 36.70A.320(1). The burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate that any action taken
by the County is not in compliance with the requirements of Ch. 36.70A RCW. (RCW
36.70A.320(2)). The Board shall find compliance unless it determines that the actions taken
are clearly erroneous based upon the record before the board and in light of the goals and
requirements of the Growth Management Act. (RCW 36.70A.320(3)).
This burden remains the same for compliance hearings. The burden shifts only if
there has been a finding of invalidity. No such finding has been found in this matter.
IV. ISSUES PRESENTED
Did the County fail to comply with the limited areas of more
intensive rural development (LAMIRD) requirements of RCW
36.70A.070(5), when it adopted the Ordinance No. 04-007 — CC as
amended?
The 1995 amendments to RCW 36.70A.070 created provisions for "limited areas of
more intense rural development', generally referred to as "LAMIRDs". LAMIRDs are
permitted to be designated in rural lands where the county has adopted measures to
"minimize and contain the existing areas or uses" of LAMIRDs. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
The statute provides for three types of LAMIRDs, each with different characteristics and
different limitations.
To qualify as a Type I LAMIRD, the LAMIRDs must consist of certain "existing areas"
defined in RCW 36.70A. 070(5)(d)(v). The allowed uses and areas include commercial,
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1 2004
Page 3
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
industrial, residential or mixed-use areas "whether characterized as shoreline development,
villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments." An "industrial area" is
not required to be principally designed to serve the "existing and projected rural
population." Thus, all other Type I LAMIRDs (commercial, residential, or mixed-use) must
be principally designed to serve the "existing and projected rural population." In designating
and establishing LAMIRDS under Type I, a county must "minimize and contain" ((d)(iv)) the
existing area or existing use. A prohibition against including lands within the logical outer
boundaries (LOB) that allows a "new pattern of low-density sprawl" for the existing area or
existing use must be adopted ((d)(iv)). Type I LAMIRDS, being neither rural nor urban,
allowing existing areas or existing uses, must always be "limited" i.e., minimized and
contained.
In establishing the LOB for an "existing area" (but not for existing uses) under RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv), a county is required to "clearly" Identify and contain the LOB. That
identification and containment must be "delineated predominately by the built
environment," but may include "limited" undeveloped lands. We agree with the Westem
Growth Board and conclude that legislative intent, as determined from reading all parts of
the GMA with particular emphasis on (5)(d), means the "built environment" only includes
those facilities, which are "manmade," whether they are above or below ground. To comply
with the restrictions found in (d), particularly (d)(v), the area included within the LOB must
have manmade structures in place (built) on July 1, 1991. (0tyofAnacorte5 v. Skagit
County, Compliance Order, WWGMHB No. 00-2-0049c, FDO, February 6, 2001.)
To qualify as a Type II LAMIRD, they must meet the criteria of [RCW 36.70A.070
(5)(d)(F)]. This chapter authorizes small-scale recreation or small-scale tourist LAMIRDS.
Commercial facilities to serve those LAMIRDS are allowed. The intensification or creation of
small-scale recreational or small-scale tourist uses must rely on a rural location and
setting. Such LAMIRDS cannot include new residential development. The uses need not be
principally designed to serve the "existing and projected rural population," "Public services
and public facilities" must be limited to those "necessary to serve" only the LAMIRD. Such
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page 4
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
public services and public facilities must be provided "in a manner that does not permit low-
density sprawl."
To qualify as a Type III LAMIRD, they must meet the criteria of RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii):
The intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential
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. Rural counties may allow the expansion of
small-scale businesses as long as those small-scale businesses conform with
the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according
to RCW 36.70A.030(14). Public services and public facilities shall be limited to
those necessary to serve the isolated nonresidential use and shall be provided
In a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl.
Type III LAMIRDs do allow new development on "lots" rather than requiring the
County to determine Logical Outer Boundaries for the LAMIRD as is provided for Type I
LAMIRDs based on the pre-existing built environment as of July 1990. (RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv); Dur/and v. San Juan County, WWGMHB Case No. 00-2-0062c (Final
Decision and Order, May 7, 2001)). However, the Type III LAMIRD must meet the
requirements of RCW 36J0A.070(5)(d)(ui) and is not merely the same thing as a Type I
LAMIRD without the requirement of a logical outer boundary established In accordance with
the built environment as of July 1990. (Grant County is required to use July 1991, the year
Grant County chose to plan under the Growth Management Act.)
The Board must first determine whether the LAMIRD appropriately contains
"isolated" cottage industry and small-scale businesses. This phrase does not require that
the cottage industry and small-scale business to be located in an isolated part of the
county. It is however required that the cottage industry and small-scale business itself be
isolated from other similar uses. The location adjacent to other LAMIRDs or allowing similar
uses within it causes a LAMARD to not meet the requirement for "isolated" uses.
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page 5
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Our sister Board (The Three Sisters) recently addressed this issue. We quote their
Order extensively with approval:
Here, the statute refers to "lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new
development of Isolated cottage Industries and isolated small-scale
businesses". First we observe that the term "isolated" is used repeatedly to
modify the type of use allowed In the type (d)(iii) LAMIRD. The terms "cottage
industries" and "small-scale businesses" are both modified by the term
"Isolated". There is no ambiguity about the application of the term "isolated"
to both types of uses.
Second, we note that the term "isolated" is not used to modify `lots". The lots
described In the statute contain isolated uses but the lots themselves are not
defined as "Isolated". We therefore conclude that the statute is referring to
isolated uses rather than to isolated lots. If It were sufficient for the location
to be Isolated or remote as the County argues, then the term "isolated" would
have been applied to "lots" rather than (or in addition) to "cottage Industries"
and "small-scale businesses".
Our inquiry does not end there, however. We must still decide what it means
for the uses to be isolated. Participant argues that the term "Isolated" must
"at least Include the notion that the new (d)iii LAMIRD is discontinuous from
other commercial development". Ex. 13-50 (Comment letter of Nancy
Dorgan).
The dictionary Indicates that the derivation of the word "Isolate" comes from the
Latin "insula" meaning "Island." "Isolate" Is defined as "to set apart from others;
place alone." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College
Edition. An Isolated use, then, must be one that is set apart from others. The
Legislature's use of the term "Isolated" for both cottage industry and small-scale
businesses demonstrates an unambiguous Intention to ensure that any commercial
uses established by the mechanism of a type (d)(ili) LAMIRD be set apart from other
such uses. BetterBrinnon Coalition ii Jefferson, WWGMHB 03-2-0007
Compliance Order (June 23, 2004).
It Is also Important that rural development be contained and inappropriate
conversion of undeveloped land Into sprawling, low-density development is reduced in the
rural areas. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(I) and (uI). Side-by-side LAMIRDs can hardly be said to
contain and reduce sprawl and limit growth.
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page 6
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Heanngs Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Board also recalls its decision in City of Walla Walla, eta/ v, Walla Walla
County, Case No. 02-1-0012c, (Final Decision and Order, November 26, 2002) and the
Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board's holding that LAMIRDs must not
be in too close proximity to UGA boundaries. Such location would promote the low-density
sprawl that the LAMIRDs are required to avoid. City of Tacoma, eta/., v. Pierce County,
CPSGMHB Case No. 99-3-0023c (Final Decision and Order, June 26, 2000).
The desire of Grant County to develop jobs in the region is certainly understandable
and the Board agrees that the GMA includes a goal to encourage economic development.
RCW 36.70A.020(5). However, economic development may not occur at the expense of
creating low-density sprawl. If new Type III LAMIRDs could be created for commercial
development abutting other LAMIRDs, it would be possible to create strip malls or other
stretches of more intensive rural development throughout the rural areas. This would
encourage sprawl in the rural areas rather than containing limited amounts of development
in the rural zone as envisioned by the Act.
While the Board presumes the validity of these County actions, the county must
follow the laws articulated in the Growth Management Act. It is also true that, while the
development regulations discussed herein were not contested, the Board must determine
whether the placement of a Type I, II or III LAMIRD in a certain zoning district or land -use
designation complies with the act and limits the LAMIRD as required. A LAMIRD must be in
a Rural Activity Centers Zoning District that is appropriate, thereby limiting the size, uses,
and types of development.
EXAMINATION OF INDMDUAL LAMIRDS
The Board will now look at each of the 18 separate LAMIRDs presented to this Boa
TYPE I LAMIRDS:
The designation of Type I LAMIRDs, as below, requires the County to determine the
Logical Outer Boundaries (LOB) (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)). Where a County is required to
designate such a boundary, using specific criteria, the Growth Management Hearings
Boards cannot presume that these boundaries are correct without more than the bare
Pagel Fax 509-574-6964
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019
Yakima, WA 98902
November 1. 2004
Phone 509-574-6960
Pagel Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
assertion of their validity. The County needs in its record the information used to make such
designation. This is the "show your work" requirement found in narrow circumstances such
as this, where the local government is required by the GMA to review specific criteria and
perform the appropriate analysis of GMA goals and requirements, more than mere
consideration of them. (Berschauer v. Tumwater94-2-0002 (FDO 7-27-94)). The County
Commissioners are required by law to review such criteria, then make and articulate their
decision for their location of the LOB. The Board is then able to review this action and
determine if the boundary is appropriate. The Board rarely requires the County to show
their work. The designation of Urban Growth Areas is one example; Logical Outer Boundary
designation is another.
1. George 7: George 7 is an 8.07 -acre parcel at the intersection of Road Q NW
and Road 1 NW. This is to be a Rural General Commercial LAMIRD. (GCC23.04.500). The
placement of this LAMIRD in this zoning district does not limit the size or number of
businesses or homes located on the parcel or parcels. The County contends the area was
developed prior to July 1, 1991, and is contained within its logical boundaries. On that
acreage is a Ready mix concrete facility, towing company, shed, rock -crushing equipment,
office/Mobil home, and travel trailer used for an office. A review of the record shows that
nowhere in the record is there sufficient evidence that this Board can review to determine
how the boundaries were arrived at.
While the actions of the County are presumed valid, the Board must be able to see
the work by the County for their determination of LOBS. The GMA specifically outlines how
the logical outer boundaries are to be designated for a Type I. (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)).
The contention that the 8.07 acres, as was adopted by the County Commissioners, is within
the logical outer boundaries and the growth and the uses will be contained, is not reflected
in the record. The maps used do not show more than the area considered and no sign of
built up areas. The record shows no more than a change from a Type III to a Type I and
the claim that some structures existed prior to 1991.
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page 8
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2. ROYAL 1: Royal 1 is also a Rural General Commercial LAMIRD.
(GCC23.04.500). The placement of this LAMIRD in this zoning district does not limit the size
or number of businesses or homes that may be located there. Royal 1 is Just west of the
Royal City UGA and south of SR 26. The County contends that most of this LAMIRD was
developed prior to July 1, 1991 for agriculture -related commercial uses. The County stated
that the boundary was reduced by the BOCC to include only the developed area. This
reduction was done for the designation of this LAMIRD as a Type III. When changed to a
Type I, the record does not reflect any determination of the LOB.
This proposed LAMIRD contains 9.75 acres and is described in the inventory
summary of the County as a Commercial Agriculture Operation, developed roads, gravel
parking area and an orchard. The Board can find nothing in the record that shows where
the built up area is on the parcel and how the boundaries were determined. See George 7
for further discussion. The maps used show no more than the area considered, and no sign
of buildings. A red flag for the Board is the inclusion of an orchard as part of the built up
area. An orchard is evidence of agricultural resource lands and is not a "built up area" for
purposes of a Type I.
3. Ephrata 3: This LAMIRD is a 46.85 -acre parcel that has an outdoors storage
area, several structures, roads, commercial plumbing and PVC pipe sales, a trucking
company, salvage yard, and a rock pile. This has been designated as a Rural Industrial
LAMIRD. (GCC 23.04.530 or 540). Here again, the LAMIRD is placed in zoning where there
is no limit on the size or number of businesses or buildings on a parcel. The map shows no
buildings upon it. It is difficult for the Board to understand how the County reached their
decision on the LOB for this LAMIRD.
While the actions of the County are presumed to be valid, the Board must be able to
see the work performed in the determination of the LOB. This is especially true where the
three LAMIRDs above were designated as Type II or III in previous hearings where no LOB
is required to be determined. Now they have been changed to Type I with no showing of
the work done. The Board can find nothing in the record to demonstrate how the County
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019
Yakima, WA 98902
November 1 2004
Phone 509-574-6960
Page 9
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
reached the conclusion that such a large parcel is within the logical outer boundaries of the
built up areas. This LAMIRD Is also adjacent to the city limits of Ephrata and such a location
is not deemed acceptable by this and the other Boards.
CONCLUSION:
These three LAMIRDs are found to be in continued non-compliance. The Board
to see how the LOBs were determined. The County must place these LAMIRDs Into the
Rural Zoning District where limitations are appropriate for Types I LAMIRDs. Ephrata 3 has
the additional problem of being located next to the Ephrata UGA (their city limits.)
TYPE II LAMIRDS
The first 6 of these Type II LAMIRDs have been designated as Rural Freeway
Commercial LAMIRDs. (GCC 23.04.520). This zoning has a limitation as to the size and
number of businesses located on each parcel. There is, however, no limitation on the
number of businesses within a LAMIRD. This becomes a problem when the parcel is large
and may be subdivided. Table 3 of Grant County Code, chapter 23.12 places no limit on the
density or DUs per acre.
1. BALLARD 1: This LAMIRD is located at the Interstate 90 intersection with U
NE. It is a 53 -acre site and appears to contain two parcels currently zoned industrial. The
County reports that this acreage is pasture and has a for -sale sign and electrical lines. The
parcel was doubled In size to accommodate a wetland area, prevent a parcel from being
bisected by the LAMIRD boundary and include commercial advertising. The GMA (RCW
36J0A.070(5)(d)(iv)) directs the County to minimize and contain growth. "Small-scale
recreation or small-scale tourist' Lamirds are authorized. Because of the size of this LAMIRD
the County must clearly limit and contain the development as required by the GMA. Without
limits, this LAMIRD cannot comply with the GMA. These parcels are to be "limited" areas of
more intensive rural development. The record does not show the amount of buildable
acreage that is available nor does it show why a wetland needs to be part of this
development. Because there appears to be no limitation on the number of future lots or
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page 10
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Parcels, this could be divided into numerous lots with a business on each. This has the
danger of becoming a strip mall, unless otherwise limited.
2. DODSON ROAD 1: This LAMIRD is 20.64 -acres and consists of two parcels
at the intersection of I-90 and Dodson Road. The parcels are partially developed with RV
pads and have been served with water, septic system and electrical power since 1974. This
LAMIRD, on its face, complies with the requirements of the GMA. The actions of the County
are presumed valid and the Petitioner has not carried his burden of proof. The Board can
see that this will be limited and contained as is required.
3. MAE VALLEY 4: Mae Valley 4 is a 7.72 -acre parcel at the intersection of
Interstate 90 and Road B NE. The actions of the County are presumed valid and the
Petitioner has not carried his burden of proof. The Board can find from the record that the
size and location will limit sprawl and comply with this type of designation. Mae Valley 5
was adjacent to this LAMIRD, but has been eliminated. Had this not been done, this
LAMIRD would have been found out of compliance as well due to its location next to
another similar LAMIRD.
4. MOSES LAKE 10: This LAMIRD is a 30.7 -acre parcel at the intersection of
Interstate 90 and O NE. Moses Lake 10 has the same problem as Ballard 1, above; the site
is too large for limited, small scale recreational or tourist uses.
S. GEORGE 2: George 2 is a 5.58 -acre parcel at the intersection of SR 281 and
SR 283, west of I-90. The County states that this will be for new development of small-scale
recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities, to serve those recreational or
tourist uses. George 2 is directly adjacent to George 3 and George 1. George 3 has not
been found in compliance and Is not before us at this time. The freeway is between George
1 and 2. The separation by the freeway has the potential of limiting sprawl and will allow
the LAMIRDs to be minimized and contained as required by the GMA. (RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)). If George 3 were before the Board at this time, there would be a
serious question of compliance. Because it is not before the Board at this time, we need not
address this issue.
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page I I
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. SILICA ROAD: Silica Road 1 lies at the intersection of I-90, Road U NE, and
Silica Road. This is a 116.74 -acre LAMIRD that had been increased to this size to avoid
bisecting several of the parcels. There are 4 parcels in this LAMIRD. While the County brief
states the need for such size was to accommodate a substantial wetland complex and
historically developed Interstate Interchange, the record does not reflect this. The
"Designated Photographic Inventory of Designated RAID Areas" indicates there is no
development on site except for existing power and frontage along paved and dirt roads.
The County is presumed to have acted in compliance, yet the Board must have the facts
before it to be able to see how they arrived at such a large LAMIRD. This is certainly not a
limited area of more intensive rural development. The very size of this LAMIRD makes it
impossible to find that it is limited and discourages sprawl. The fact that there is a limit of
one business per parcel is consoling, however, these large parcels are able to be subdivided
and increase the number of businesses within this LAMIRD. The zoning this site is placed
under does not address this and other limiting factors necessary to minimize and contain
growth.
7. ROCKY FORD 1: This LAMIRD is a 4.99 -acre parcel at an intersection
Neppel Road and SR 17 east of Ephrata. This is a Rural General Commercial LAMIRD. (G
23.04.500). There is no limit with this zoning on size or number of businesses per parcel
LAMIRD. The zoning that this LAMIRD is placed in allows a tremendous variety
businesses to be built or operated thereon. A Type II allows, "Intensification of developm(
on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses." (RCV
36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii)). Most of the businesses allowed in a Rural General Commercial distric
are not permitted by statute on a Type II LAMIRD. This area needs to be placed in a distric
that appropriately limits the development.
There is nothing claimed to be on the property except a real estate advertisement
and a fence. This is a small parcel and tourist and recreational businesses can be
established there to serve the recreational needs. Any public services must be established
to serve only those businesses. No residential development may occur. Until this LAMIRD is
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019
Yakima, WA 98902
November 1, 2004
Phone 509-574-6960
Page 12
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
placed In an appropriate district, which would limit Its development to that allowed under
the GMA and minimizes and contains development, It cannot be found In compliance.
8. )ET FARM 1: This LAMIRD is a 12.8 -acre parcel east of SR 243. It has over
$200,000 in improvements. This is a Rural General Commercial LAMIRD. (GCC 23.04.500).
There Is no limit with this zoning on size or number of businesses per parcel or for the
LAMIRD as a whole. Because of its proximity to the Columbia River and the work done on
the property, the County found that this would be appropriate for small-scale recreational
uses or tourist uses. However, this LAMIRD has the same problems as Rocky Ford 1. The
designated zoning does not appropriately limit it. (See Rocky Ford 1 above). Until this
LAMIRD Is placed In a zoning district that limits it to small-scale recreational or tourist uses,
It cannot be found in compliance.
9. EPHRATA 2: This 50 -acre LAMIRD is located adjacent to the Ephrata UGA
south of SR 282. It primarily consists of the Ephrata Raceway Park. The BOCC reduced the
LAMIRD by 42 acres so It only includes the raceway park and the land and uses incidental
to the raceway park. This LAMIRD is a Rural Recreational Commercial LAMIRD. (GCC
23.04.550). This Chapter limits the number of overnight lodging units. The size of a retail
unit Is limited and there can be no more than three establishments per Commercial
Recreational zoning district. The separation of the raceway from the city might make sense,
however, the new development, especially adjacent to the city, should be within the city's
UGA rather than a LAMIRD.
TYPE III
The County designates all of the Type III LAMIRDs listed below as Rural Industrial
LAMIRDs. (GCC 23.04.530 and .540). There is no limit as to the number and size of
buildings or uses. There Is also no Indication in the briefing or record as to which type of
Rural Industrial category they are, heavy or light industry. Type III LAMIRDs are for small-
scale businesses and cottage industries. There is a definition of "Cottage Industry" at GCC
23.08.140, but no definition of "Small Scale Businesses." The Rural Industrial zoning allows
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page 13
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
for a large number of industrial activities and does not limit new residential development or
the provision of public services.
1. MAE VALLEY 1, MAE VALLEY 2 and MAE VALLEY 3: These three
LAMIRDS are contiguous parcels along I-90 North Frontage Road between Road D NE and
Road E NE. Parcels 1 and 3 were developed in 1990 or earlier and are currently in
agricultural -related retail use. Parcel 2 is undeveloped. The total acreage Is approximately
84 -acres. It is difficult to determine if there will be one cottage Industry or one or more on
each of these three parcels. As can be seen from the legal discussion above, the cottage
Industry must be Isolated. Any LAMIRD with a location adjacent to other LAMIRDs, or
allowing similar uses within it, causes a LAMARD to be out of compliance and not meeting
the requirement for "isolated" uses. The briefing of the County seems to indicate that each
of these LAMIRDs will be developed with an "isolated small-scale business." The placement
of LAMIRDs side-by-side and covering more than 80 acres Is a ticket for low-density sprawl,
which is not allowed in the rural areas of the County.
2. ROYAL 2: Royal 2 is 36.66 -acres, 14 acres more than recommended by the
County Planning Department. Royal 2 is east of the Royal City UGA and south of SR 26.
Because of its rural setting and location, the County felt it was suitable for development of a
small-scale business or cottage industry. Again, this Is extensive acreage, more than would
be needed for isolated small-scale businesses or cottage industries. The designated zoning
district where this LAMIRD is placed does not regulate the number or size of the businesses
or uses nor is there anything substantial to limit, minimize or contain development, other
than that contained in the definition of Cottage Industry.
3. WARDEN 1: Warden 1 is located south of the Town of Warden and includes
one parcel of 50.58 -acres and one small interior parcel of 0.99 acres. Both were developed
prior to July 1, 1991 and are used for agricultural storage. This Is an extremely large parcel
for isolated small-scale businesses or cottage industries. The designated zoning of this
parcel does not adequately carry out the requirements of this type of LAMIRD. It does not
limit this type of development to isolated businesses and contain the development as
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019
Yakima, WA 98902
November 1, 2004
Phone 509-574-6960
Page 14
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
required, so as to avoid sprawl and to conform to the Rural Character of the County. This
parcel is in the center of irrigated Agricultural Resource Lands. This is not what is meant by
"more intense rural development".
4. WHEELER 4: Wheeler 4 surrounds the Wheeler Rural Community and totals
15 parcels and 118.04 acres. There is nothing In the record, which speaks of what the
ownership is for these 15 parcels. As seen above, such a zoning designation is without
limiting regulations. This LAMIRD is out of compliance because of its size and the lack of
regulations, which would minimize and contain growth and conform to the rural character o'
the County. This type of development encourages sprawl and is not in compliance.
The Board initially was asked to approve 72 LAMIRDs when this case began. The
Board approved almost half of these LAMIRDs and now has had the opportunity to review
18 more. More work by the County is needed before many of these can be found in
compliance. While the Board presumes that the actions of the County are valid, the Board
still must require that the GMA be followed. We must also look at the larger picture and see
that the intent of RCW 36.70A.020(2) (the GMA's sprawl reduction goal) be followed while
allowing for Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development.
Conclusion:
1. Type I: The three proposed type (d)(i) (Type I) LAMIRDs, George 7,
Royal 1 and Ephrata 3, fail to comply with the requirements of RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(i) and (iv) and RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(i) and (Ili).
The County has failed to show their work for how the logical outer
boundaries (LOB) were determined. The Board needs sufficient
information to determine if the limiting of the boundaries was done
according to the respective provisions of the GMA. (RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(i) and (iv)).
2. Type II: The following type (d)(ii) (Type II) LAMIRDs fail to comply
with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii) and (iv) and RCW
36.70A.070(5)(c)(i) and (iii): Ballard 1, Moses Lake 10, Silica
Road, Rocky Ford 1, ]et Farm 1 and Ephrata 2.
The following Type (d)(ii) (Type II) LAMIRDs are found in compliance:
Dodson Road 1, Mae Valley 4 and George 2.
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1, 2004
Page 15
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Type III: The following proposed type (d)(iii) (Type III) LAMIRDs fail
to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(lii) and (iv)
and RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(i) and (in): Mae Valley 1, 2 and 3, Royal
2, Warden 1 and Wheeler 4.
VI. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Grant County is a county located east of the crest of the Cascade
Mountains that has chosen to or is required to plan pursuant to RCW
36.70A.040.
2. Petitioner participated orally and/or in writing before the county on the
matters being reviewed in this order.
3. In response to the Board's findings of noncompliance in the Final
Decision and Order issued May 12, 2000, and the Order on
Reconsideration & Amendment of Order on Compliance, (June 2,
2004), the County specified the type of LAMIRD and submitted further
arguments, but made no other changes to the Subject Ordinance.
4. The County identified 3 of their LAMIRDs as Type I (RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(i)).
5. The County identified 9 of their LAMIRDs as Type II (RCW
36J0A.070(5)(d)(li)).
6. The County Identified 6 of their LAMIRDs as Type III (RCW
36J0A.070(5)(d)(in)).
7. The Legislature's use of the term "isolated" for both cottage industry
and small-scale businesses In RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(lii) demonstrates
an unambiguous intention to ensure that any commercial uses
established by the mechanism of a type (d)(III) LAMIRD be set apart
from other such uses.
8. A central requirement of all LAMIRDs is that they contain the uses and
areas of more Intense rural development. RCW36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv).
9. Every county must assure that rural development Is contained and that
inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land Into sprawling, low -
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019
Yakima, WA 98902
November 1, 2004
Phone 509-574-6960
Page 16
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i[i7
density development is reduced in the rural areas. RCW
36.70A.070(5)(c)(i) and (iii), and 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv).
LAMIRDs must limit and contain growth, not extend It from one
LAMIRD to the next.
11. The proposed new type (d)(iii) LAMIRD does not comply with RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d) because It connects a new area of more intense rural
uses to an existing LAMIRD that allows the same kind of uses.
VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. This Board has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this
compliance proceeding.
B. Petitioner has standing to challenge the County's actions to achieve
compliance in this case.
C. Counties seeking to establish logical outer boundaries for LAMIRDs are
required to follow the criteria found in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) (i) and
(iv) and show their work In the record before the Hearings Boards in
such a way as allows a reviewing body to determine that the criteria
has been met.
D. The Growth Management Act requires Grant County to contain and
minimize growth within LAMIRDs and conform with the rural character
of the area. This is typically accomplished through Implementing
development regulations. Once LAMIRDs have been designated, the
development that pertains to the newly designated LAMIRDs must also
be consistent with the GMA requirements for minimizing and containing
growth in LAMIRDs (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) and (c)).
VIII. ORDER
The Petitioner has not carried his burden of proof and the Board finds the following
LAMIRDs in compliance with the GMA: Dodson Road 1, Mae Valley 4, and George 2.
The Petitioner has carried his burden of proof and the Board finds that the actions
taken by the County are clearly erroneous based upon the record before the Board and in
light of the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act and the following
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1 2004
Page 17
Eastern Washington
Grovdh Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAMIRDs are found out of compliance: George 7, Royal 1, Ephrata 3, Ballard 1, Moses
Lake 10, Silica Road, Rocky Ford 1, Jet Farm 1, Ephrata 2, Mae Valley 1, 2, and 3,
Royal 2, Warden 1, and Wheeler 4.
The County shall achieve compliance with respect to the proposed LAMIRDs within
90 days of the date of this order, January 27, 2005. The County shall submit a report to
the Board within ten days thereafter, February 7, 2005, and serve copies on Petitioner on
the same date. Any objections to a finding of compliance must be in writing and filed with
the Board within two weeks of the filing of the County's report, February 22, 2005. The
County's response to any such objections shall be due two weeks thereafter, March 8,
2005. The Board will set a compliance hearing date upon receipt of the requested
materials.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300(5), this is a final order for purposes of
appeal. Pursuant to WAC 242-02-832, a Motion for Reconsideration may be filed
within ten days from the date of service of this Order.
SO ORDERED this 1" day of November 2004.
SECOND ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
November 1 2004
Page 18
EASTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS BOARD
Dennis Dellwo, Board Member
Judy Wall, Board Member
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 509-574-6960
Fax 509-574-6964
Table of Contents
APPENDIX G
Planning Commission Findings of Fact
ATTACHMENT G
GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS:
L 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 LAMIRDs.
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 LAMIRDs, the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB) ruled that the
LAMIRD designations, as configured, constituted an impermissible pattens of urban
growth in the rural area of the County.
The EWGMHB further ruled that the County failed to explain how the LAMIRD
designations harmonized with the planning goah 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
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;
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;
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;
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,
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 clanfymg 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 LAMIRD 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-exammed its LAMTRD designations and outer boundaries through an
extensive work plan to bring the LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs 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 Planning Commission has completed their review and thought this decision
recommends the adopted Rural AicaS of More Intensive Development consistent
with the EWGMAB 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 Limited Areas of More Intense Rural
Development (LAMIRDs), 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 LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs 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 LAMiRDs, 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 Lhufted
Development Code, and establishment of logical outer boundaries for all LAMIRDs
• 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,
LAMIRDs, and resource lands
• Reducing Inappropriate Conversion of Undeveloped Land
• Protecting Critical Areas and Water Quality
• Protecting Resource Lands.
23. Development and redevelopment in LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRDs 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
LAMIRD and documented by Grant County as part of the Boundary Analysis
26 To be considered for designation as a LAMIRD, an area or use must either (1) 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, (2) provide for intensification or new development of small-scale recreational tourist
uses that rely on a rural location and settung, or (3) provide for intensification or
development of isolated non-residential uses, cottage industries or small-scale businesses
that provide Job opportunities for rural residents
27. In establishing logical outer boundaries for LAMIRDs, 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 LAMlRDs 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 LAMIRD, 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 LAMUDS 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 LAMIRD, 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 LAMIRD
• 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 LAMIRDs 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
LAMIRDs 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 houndaries 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 LAMIRDs 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 LAMIRD amendment results in a reduction in the total area
contained within the Moses Lake 10 LAMIRD from the —30.7 acres designated in the
Comprehensive Plan to —18 37 acres, a reduction of --41%
35. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment meets concurrency requirements for
transportation and other public services, since the reduction in total area of the lands
included within LAMiRD is only —59% of that originally designated
36 Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of
all elements of the Comprehensive Plan
37. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment does not materially affect land use and
population growth projections contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
38. Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment is consistent with the GMA and the
County -Wide Planning Policies.
39 Adoption of the proposed LAMIRD amendment wilt require a change to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan text and tables, the Land Use Map, the Official 7onmg Map and the
Unified Development Code.
MOSES LAKE 10
SITE, SPECIFIC FINDINGS:
40 Pursuant to the November 1, 2004 Second Order on Compliance issued by the Eastern
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board , the Hearing Board found that30 7 acres
was too large for limited, small scale recreational or tourist uses (as permitted by RCW
36 70A.070(5)(d)(u), the Planning Commission recommends the modified decrease of
Moses Lake 10.
41. Whereas the Planning Commission finds that as proposed, Moses Lake 10 will minimize
and contain growth pursuant to 36 70A 070(5)(d)(IV)
42 Whereas the Planning Commission finds that infill development of Moses Lake 10 will be
required to comply with the current Unified Development Code. which minimizes and
contains infill development Moreover. it includes provisions for maximum square footage
for development, landscaping and visual screening requirements etc , which will reduce the
area available for development. A minimum of 8% of the developed site will be dedicated
to landscaping etc.
43. The Planning Commission finds that the acreage proposed within Moses Lake 10 is
reasonable and necessary in order to minimally provide, small scale recreational, tourist
uses including the traveling public which also requires adequate parking for a range of
vehicles, from the typical automobile to larger vehicles pulling 70'+/- trailers etc
44. Moses Lake 10 has been reviewed for critical areas and none where found to exist
45. The Planning Commission finds that the land encompassed by Moses Lake 10 is better
suited as a LAMRiD consistent with the historically developed area In part this is due to:
(a) The LOB for Moses Lake 10 encompassing the historically developed 1-90 — "O" Road
Interchange. which is best suited to serve small scale recreational uses or tourist uses
including the traveling public
(b) A significant public investment has been made in the construction of the interchange,
which provides necessary access to this location.
(c) Although limited agricultural activities exist in the immediate vicinity and on site,
Grant County has already adopted area land use designations in its Comprehensive
Planning and identified the surrounding arca as Rural Urban Reserve in recognition of
other priorities and policy decisions,
46. The Planning Commission finds that Moses Lake 10 contains pre-existing development;
pre -1991 July, which consists of-
(a)
f(a) Moses Lake 10 was platted prior to July 1991; and
(b) histallation of water services and facilities exist onsite and have the potential to be
converted to commercial usage, and
(c) Moses Lake 10 is included within the historically developed area immediately abutting
the "O" Road — 1-90 Interchange, I-90 and both the North Frontage Road and "O" Road
NE, which is a substantial public investment in physical infrastructure intended to serve
the property
(d) Moses Lake 10 has undergone clearing and grading prior to July 1991;
(e) Construction of private access driveways have been constructed to serve the property;
47. The County has delineated logical outer boundaries (LOB) for Moses Lake 10 based
predominantly on the pre -July 1 1991 built environment Whereas the logical outer
boundaries where established after due consideration was given to the following GMA
criteria
(a) The LOB for Moses Lake 10 will preserve the character of existing natural
neighborhoods and communities;
(b) The establishment of the LOB for :Moses Lake 10 utilized the physical boundaries of
the site, including but not limited to water facilities/structures, existing streets,
highways and an interchange, and land forms,
(c) The LOB for Moses Lake 10 as configured, which is in consideration of the 1-90
Interchange, prevents abnormally irregular boundaries; and
(d) The LOB for Moses Lake 10 will maintain the ability to provide public facilities and
services for tourism and the traveling public in a manner that does not permit low-
density sprawl
48 Pursuant to the Final Decisions and Orders of the Eastern Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board, the Planning Commission recommends a limitation be made
to ensure the control of "strip type" future infill development Language Recommendation:
This site shall have no further subdivision capacity (<18 37 acres); any future infill
development of the site shall be limited to a single development in conformance with all
applicable County rules, regulations and requirements
49. The Planning Commission finds that Moses Lake 10 will be in conformance with the
County's Comprehensive Plan with regard to Rural Character and Vision, in that as
proposed it will -
(a) Include sufficient open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation in the built
environment;
(b) Foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live
and work in rural areas;
(e) Provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
(d) Be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife habitat;
(e) Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development,
(f) Not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
(g) Provide necessary protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and
surface water recharge and discharge areas.
Attachment C
Harmonization of GMA Planning Goals & Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan
�"°" Nr Grant County Planning Department
' Harmonization of GMA 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 -marl: sclark@grantcounty-wa.com
Prepared by:
Entranco, Inc.
10900 NE 8`' Street, Suite 300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-4405
Phone 425/454-5600
Fax: 425/454-0220
e -mad: dceams@entxanco.eom
JUNE 4, 2003 e n ra nca.
HARMONIZATION OF RURAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
BACKGROUND AND INTENT
Grant County adopted a GMA Comprehensive Plan in September 1999 Following adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan, six petitions for review of the Plan were filed with the Eastern Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board (EWGIvM) The EWGMI-IB issued decisions on all Petitions, except one that is being settled by
facilitated agreement Certain of those decisions have been appealed by the County to the Thurston County Superior
Court
Regarding the "Rural Element" of the Plan, the EWGMHB held that the designation of Rural Areas of more
Intensive Development (RAIDs), as configured in the Plan, constituted an imperrmssible pattern of urban
growth in a rural area The EWGNff IB determined that the RAID designation does not satisfy the exception
from the prohibition of urban growth in rural areas provided by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). The F%VGN IB also
held that the County's designation of rural lands with a density of 1 dwelling unit per 2'/2 acres constituted a pattern of
urban growth in violation of the GMA goal to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development. In addition, the EWGMHB held that the County failed to explain how the
Rural Element of the Plan harmonizes the planning goals of the GMA asrequired by RCW 36 70A 070(5)(a).
Further, the EWGMHB held that the County -azide Planning Policies (CWPPs) adopted by the County did not
expressly allow for the designation of RAIDS in the rural lands of the County, and that the County's
Comprehensive Plan must follow the directives of the CWPPs in development of their Plan. Therefore, if the
County desired to use the amended authority allowing the establishment of RAIDS as provided under RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d), the County must first amend the CWPPs The County has proceeded vnth that action and
expects to complete that amendment process very soon.
This written record intends to satisfy the requirement of the GMA and the final order of the EWGNIHB that
the Rural Element harmonize the planning goals of the GMA and achieve compliance with the GMA
requirements regarding the Rural Element In fact, the County contends that, in may ways, the elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, taken together with the extensive public record and the findings of fact contained within
the adoptive ordinances, does indeed provide a written record documenting how the Plan balances the
thirteen planning goals of the GMA. Chapter 4 — Policy Plan defines the planning concepts and principles
embodied in the Plan, and includes all the goals and policies of the plan The discussion of planning concepts
and principles, the reiteration of GMA planning goals throughout the Plan, the County's vision statement, and
the Policy Plan, taken together explain the County's approach to harmonizing the planning goals of the GMA.
This document summarizes that written record to specifically address the County's consideration of local
circumstances and how that consideration strikes a reasonable balance between, or harmonizes, the GMA
planning goals.
GMA REQUIREMENTS & PLANNING PRINCIPLES
:Rural Element
The Rural Element is a mandatory element of a Comprehensive Plan under RCW 36.70A.070, The GMA
states that "Counties shall include a rural element including lands that am not designated for urbangrowth, agriculture, forest,
or mineral resources. The following provisions shall apply to the rural element
(a) Growth management act goals and local circumstances. Because arrumstances vary from county to county, to establishing
patterns of rural densities and user, a county may consider local arcumstances, but shall develop a wntten record LVlaimng
how the rural element harmonmes the Nanning goals in RCW 36 70A.020 and meets the reauirements of this chanter.
June 2003 Page I
HARMONIZATION OF RtA,Al ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
(b) Rural development. The rural element shall permit rural development, forestry, and agnealture in rural areas. The rural
element shallprovide for a varety of rural densities, uses, essentialpublic facilities, and mralgovernmental services needed to
serve the permitted densities and uses. In order to achieve a vanity of rural densztzes and uses, counties may provide for
lustenng, density transfer, design guzdebnes, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate
appmpnate rural densities and uses that are not characterZed by urbangrowih and that are consistent with rural character.
(c) Measurer governing rural development. The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect
y:(i)the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by.-
(i)
Containing or otherwise controlling rural development;
(n) Assurng visual compattbzlity of rural development with the surrounding rural area;
(riz) Reducang the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, lowdenstty development in the rural arra;
(iv) Protecting cntual areas, as provided in RCII/ 36.70A.060, and surface water andground water resources; and
(v) Protecting against confbas with the use of agncultura/, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW
36.70A.170 "
Planning Goals
The GMA requires Washington's fastest growing counties, the cines 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 jurisdictions to reconcile con®cts.
June 2003 Page 2
) 1
HARMONIZATION OF RU"L 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, which 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. Sigmficant 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 the 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 -wide 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 majority 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 heating 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 apphcanon and rview.
3. Consisteng. The Plan is internally consistent and coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions in an attempt
to be externally consistent.
4. Comprehensiveness. 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. Flexibrlgy 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 Ru"L ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
6. Goai-onented 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. Fsnanaally 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 U•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 GMA. 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 Commission and the Grant
County Board of County Commissioners.
June 2003 Page 4
HARMONIZATION OF Ric L ELEMENT & 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:
"How should Grant County grow and develop?"
"What services and factkiter will be needed to support growth?"
"How wall the communtty pay for public improvements and seances needed to support growth?"
"What kind of public/private partnerrhaps and intergovernmental relationships can be forged to meet the challenges ofgrowtb?"
This "visioning" process was elemental in development of the Plan, and was begun in 1991 when the Board of
County Comtnissioners issued a survey quesuonnaire to nearly 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 comrrutment 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 reeks to maintain and enhance its quality of life while achieving benefits of growth and
minimizing any negative impacts. Our vision defines our future and bow we will respond to growth and
change. Our vision is compnmd of the following basic values.
• 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 commumty.
• Protect and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and vanety of l festyles that define our community.
• 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
minimize incompatible land uses and the tort of public and private services.
• Encourage infill development within urban growth areas and enhance the tense of `community" around
traditional population centers.
Provide a vane y of residential hveng opportunities, ranging from urban to rural, small town, rural settlement,
shoreline, and agricultural.
• Promote healthy, safe, and productive communities with a variety of housing for all ecanom1 levels.
Encourage apportunaties far quaht, communtty education and technology to meet the educational and training
needs of all residents.
• Promote open, re ponnve and accountable localgovernment that works to create a true sense of commumty and
to create democratic processes on alllevelr.
Unique, Local Circumstances
A myriad of local circumstances unique to Grant County recognized as important to the rural character of
Juste 2003 Page 5
HARMONIZATION OF Rul yL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
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.
When shaping its Plan, the County considered a number of attributes unique to Grant Countv. 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 (625%) 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 waer in rural areas."
A surprising number of cities and towns (15) exist vnthm 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
frmts 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%, 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 million 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. 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.
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 unportant natural resource lands, including its valuable agricultural lands.
Because of the strong role of agriculture in Grant Count' Vs economy, a large numbers of migrant faun workers
rural c
reside in ral 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.
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
cines 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 Ruk ,I, 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 areas (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 are consistent vnth 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 -tune 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 character refers to the patterns of land use and development estaMsbed by a county in the rural element of its
comprehensive plan:
(a) in which open spare, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built enwrvnment;
(b) tbat foster traditional rurallifenyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to boib live and work in ruralarear,
(c) that provide visual landscaper that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
(d) that are compatible with the use of the land by wildkje and forfsh and wiWife habitat -
(e) that reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development,•
June 2003 Page 7
1
HARMONIZATION OF RU1...,L ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
0 thatgeneraUy do not require the extension of urbangovemmental services; and
(p) 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;
• 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 -tutee farms;
• Agricultural industrial uses;
•
Limited, low -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 hfestyles;
• 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 oath 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 Densides
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 unuicorporated 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
hmruts development in rural areas to low levels of intensity to prevent demands for new services'
Giant County Comprehensive Plan allows only extremely Lined residential use in its designated agricultural lands and open spaces. The
rural housmg density to the agriculture use and open space designations is only one dwelling unit per 40 acres (1 DU/40 A) Plan, p 5-16
As shown m the Summary Table above, these two designations constitute slightly over 79° o of Grant County's land base.
June 2003 Page 8
HARMONIZATION OF RU Z 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 rural areas do not become further characterized by Cuban growth, (2) that
natural resource lands are preserved and protected, and (3) that development in 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
fords 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 cines 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 Comrrussion 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 difficulties 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 (DU) per 40 acres for resource lands and open space designations, to
1 DU per 20 acres, to 1 DU per 5 acres, to 1 DU per 2.5 acres, although the latter densities were designated
only in very limited areas.
Rural Serpices
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 limitations to water
availabihty and development potential in rural 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 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
June 2003 Page 9
HARMONIZATION OF RUkAL ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
satisfy the socioeconomic needs of Grant County. The Plan further attempts to maximize the positive
econoimc impacts of tourism and recreational opportunities in Grant County. The RAIDS designated under
the County's Comprehensive Pian accomplish all of these purposes.
From 66 potential candidate areas initially identified for designation as RAIDS, the County applied specific criteria to
detemitne 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, Wanapum
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 Center—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 based largely on the built environment.
The Comprehensive Plan contains strong policies to encourage economic development. Policy ED 1 specifies
that Grant County will encourage diverse employment opportumues that satisfy 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 (EWGMHB) 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 continue and complete
the work plan to bring the RAIDS into full compliance with the Final Decision and Order and the Growth
Management Act.
Measure GovemingRutalDevelopment
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
�1 l
HARMONIZATION OF RUA. -L ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
Containing Rural Development: Preservation of Grant County's open space and low density rural areas is a lugh
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.
Provuzon of Urban Senmer 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 uuhry 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
Assuring Visual Compakbtkty: 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 compaubihty, 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 Convirtion of Un&wkped Land Undeveloped lands in the County are of significant value, primarily
as resource lands, but also as the low density, natural areas that characterize neral 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.
Protecting CntzcalArear and WlaterQuahtr 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 arca 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 idenufying
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.
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 l I
i
HARMONIZATION OF Rut -,L ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
densities to:
• maintain rural character, fanning and mining;
• buffer natural resource lands;
• retain open space;
• trunitmze the demand and cost of public infrastructure improvements;
provide for future urban growth area expansion if needed; and
• allow rural 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 [ural 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 Waal 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 development 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 wall 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 fanning, 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 mmimized Retention of resource lands and natural resource based econorruc 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 invalidate certain plans
and policies." As part of this review process, the Plan embraces a morutoring 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. 11vs monitoring system acts as an "early wanting" system to ensure an
adequate land supply.
June 2003 Page 12
HARMONIZATION OF Ru, ,.L ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
HARMONIZING THE GMA GOALS
Following significant public participation and input into the Plan, considering GMA planning goals and
requirements, and considering a myriad of local circumstances, Grant County adopted a GNLA Comprehensive
Plan that aggressively places most of the anticipated new growth in Grant County into urban growth areas.
The Grant County Planning Commission, in making their recommendation for adoption of the Plan to the
Board of County Commissioners, found that:
`BCW 36.70A.020 rets forth a lut of 13 goals `Yo guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development
regulations. " In formulating the Draft Comprehensive Plan and there findings of fact, Grant County has considered the 13
Growth Management Goals, weighed them as they apply to the subject matter of these findings, and has attempted to achieve a
reasoned balance among them. "
The elements of the Comprehensive Plan, taken together with the extensive public record and the findings of
fact contained within the adoptive ordinances, provides a written record documenting how the Plan balances
the thirteen planning goals of the GMA. Chapter 4 — Policy Plan defines the planning concepts and principles
embodied in the Plan, and includes all the goals and policies of the plan The discussion of planning concepts
and principles, the reiteration of GMA planning goals throughout the Plan, the County's vision statement, and
the Policy Plan, taken together explain the County's approach to harmonizing the planning goals of the GMA.
Following is a summary of how each of the 13 planning goals of the GMA are individually addressed in the
Plan and how they are balanced as a whole based on local circumstances and the vision for Grant County.
Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban growth areas where adequate public facilities and services
exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 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 rural areas at non-
urban densities. Sufficient developable land is designated within the UGAs to accommodate the growth that
is expected within the twenty-year planning period. The Plan encourages development in UGAs by htmtmg
small lot subdivisions in rural areas and by precluding providing urban services in the rural areas. Urban
growth is also encouraged by limiting the amount of development in rural areas through density requirements
that maintain existing rural character. Density lurirtations are established so that demands will not be created
for lugh levels of public services and facilities.
Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate convernon of undeveloped land into ipmwkng !ow density developmenL By restricting the
expansion of sewer and public water utilities to urban growth areas, unnecessary sprawl will be reduced. The
Plan discourages sprawl by htnitmg small lot subdivisions in rural areas and by preserving open space. Sprawl
is also reduced due to the lack of availability of water supply. Sprawl is contained through designation of 68%
of the lands outside of UGAs as agricultural resource lands Designation of that amount of agricultural
resource lands reduces the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density
development by setting aside a large proportion of the County for agricultural activities and by limning small
lot subdivisions in rural areas Protecuons afforded for critical areas and cultural resource lands also tend to
lumt sprawl.
Transportation. Encourage effraent multi -modal titin portation systems that are based on re gionalpriorities and coordinated
with county and city comprehensive plans. The Transportation Element of the Plan has been reviewed and certified
by the Quad County Regional Transportation Planning Organization as conforming to the Regional
Transportation Plan. The Transportation Element includes a Level of Service analysts and the County has
adopted a concurrency ordinance to ensure that transportation systems has sufficient capacity to serve
development without decreasing levels of service below adopted standards. The Transportation Element
June 2003 Page 13
l �
HARMONIZATION OF RUidL 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 avarlabrhty of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a
variety of irsidentral densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of exulmg housing. The Housing Element of
the Plan addressed a vaneiv 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 agriculture in Grant County's economy, a large numbers of
migrant farm workers reside in rural areas. Generally, these workers cam lower -incomes, calling for further emphasis
on mral, low-income housing, and providing for in -filling of existing residential areas in the runt areas
Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that it consistent with adopted
comprehensive plans, promote economic opportumty for all atr�ens of ibis state, especially for unemployed and far disadvantaged
persons, and encouragegrowtb, all within the capan ties of the state's natural resources, public services, and public faakites. 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 economic vision statement: `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 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 over 160 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, minimizing 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, ensunng an
adequate land supply of commercial and mdusmal 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. Private property shall not be taken forpublic use wrtboutjurt compensation having been made. The property
rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and drscnmmatog 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 tights 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 tights.
Permits. Applications for both state and locolgoveroment permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure
June 2003 Page 14
HARMONIZATION OF RUkAL, ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
predretabihty. The adoption of the Plan and subsequent development code promote certainty in the permitting
and environmental review process The Economic Development Element includes a policy that requires that
land use and permitting procedures be reviewed to assure that regulatory processes are understandable,
predictable and can be accomplished within reasonable time periods in a manner that meets or exceeds
statutory requirements The County is currently developing application forms and instruction sheets to assist
developers and citizens in understanding the new permit requirements and to ease the paperwork burden of
making applications. Grant County Code Chapter 25.04 defines permit application review standards and
procedures and limits the review period to 180 days, even though the current state statute allows for a greater
permit review period
Natural Resource Industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource -bared industries, including productive timber,
agricultural and fshenes industries. The Plan includes a Resource Lands Element that includes provisions to
designate and protect both agricultural and mineral resource lands of the County (Grant County has no timber
or fishery industries) More than 68% of the county is designated as agricultural resource lands. All existing
pemutted musing sites were designated as mineral resource lands, with provision for a process to pennon the
County for designation of additional mineral lands Provisions are included to promote and facilitate a healthy,
diverse and competitive agricultural economy.
Open Space and Recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wddltfe habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop
parks Based on the public record compiled by the Planning Corntrssion, an "open space program" designed to
protect critical areas, widhfe corridors, resource lands, and recreational areas was incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan The Open Space and Recreation section of the Land Use Element identifies the County's
unique and important natural areas, open spaces and comdors, and scenic and natural resource lands, and clarifies
the broader functions and benefits of the County's open spaces The Open Space and Recreation section includes
provisions and cnteria for designating recreauonal open space and a recreational trail system. Open space also
includes resource lands, greenbelts, wetlands, geologically hazardous areas and other areas covered under the Grant
County Code Chapter 2408. These resource areas contribute to the County's appearance, but are not parks in the
traditional sense.
The designation and protection of critical areas and resource lands also serves to fulfill open space
requirements. Agricultural lands still make up the predominate share of the County's open space. To help
maintain their econorruc importance, the goals and policies of the Resource Lands Element of this provides
for designation and protection of resource lands, while allowing for limited, reasonable residential
development. By preserving resource lands for their commercial significance, their open space functions and
values are preserved and enhanced as well.
Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high guabty of k(e, including air, water quality, and the
availability of water. Environmental review was conducted on the Comprehensive Plan in compliance with
procedural and substantive requirements of SEPA. Grant County is in substantial compliance with the
mandates of RCW 36.70A.060 through Grant County Code Chapter 24.08, which provides regulation of,
protection of and mitigation of impacts to wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently
flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and cultural resource areas. The environmental protections that
are included in the Plan and the regulatory framework that has been put in place by Grant County Code
Chapter 24.08 will produce ecological benefits Although the Plan assumes that more development will occur
in the future, the rate of growth should not have a significant effect on groundwater quality or quantity, since
the vast majority of growth is in the UGAs.
Although the Plan does not contain a Shoreline Element, protecting the County's shoreline environment is of
importance to preserving the economic, environmental and cultural resources of the County Toward that end,
a number of policies relating to shoreline management were included in the Plan to protect and preserve the
County's shorelines.
June 2003 Page 15
HARMONIZATION OF Ruk Ai. ELEMENT & GMA GOALS
Citizen Participation and Coordination. Encourage the involvement of atiZens in the planning process and ensure
coordination between communities and Duni hazons to reconcile 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 conunuously 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 puhhc faahtm and services necessary to support development shall be
adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupang and use without decreasing current 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. Identify and encourage the preservation of landr, sites, and structures that have historical or
archaeological significance. 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 Wanapum 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 Element 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 D
Countywide Planning Policies
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -_- 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 i
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 1995-1997,
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 Cotnmii hers
Resolution No. 2007— I—CC
Page 2
Planned Growth Committee approved language:
Policy I
I A 2. At the end add "A pattern of more intensive rural development. as provided in RCN
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
pattern of more intensive rural development as provided in RCW 36.70A 050(d)(d) or within a mayor
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 to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)
is not urban growth rRCW 36.70A.030(17)1"
New section. Add'T Rural Character — refers to patterns of land use and development established by a
county to 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 econorrucs, and oppgrtunitics 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 FRCW 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 [RCW 36 70A 030(15).
G. Rural Governmental services — means those public services and public facilities
historically and typically delivered at an intensity usually found to 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 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 [RCW 36.70A 030(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 .; I day of &vi 6 , 2002.
Grant County Board of Comm. -,bners '
Resolution No. 2002 -51 -CC
Page 3
YEA; NAY; li ABSTAIN; and �_ ABSENT.
BOARD OF GRANT COUNTY COMP
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Tim Snead, Ch rman
LeRoy C. Allison, Commissioner
Deborah Kay Moore, le
isstoner
ATTEST:
0k r1Q A
P Grigg IV
Clerk of the Board
Grant County Board of Com :sioners
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 March 27, 2002)
POLICY 1
POLICY REGARDING URBAN GROWTH AREAS AND THE DESIGNATION OF URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARIES
DESIGNATION OF URBAN GROWTH AREAS/BOUNDARIES
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 UGA only if it is not urban in nature. A pattern of more
intensive rural development as provided in RCW 36 70A 070(S)(d) is not urbanrg owth
rRCW 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 lirruts 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 protected to occur in Grant County within the next 20 years. Each UGA shall pernut 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 itsjurisdiction (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 hunts 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
t
J
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 of 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 li
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 Cuban growth that
will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services that are
provided by either public or private sources. i
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 maior 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 IA
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 panucipating 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 wi hm 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.
I
POLICY 1B
I
III. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING URBAN GROWTH AREAS/BOUNDARIES
A. The amendment procedure allows for the opportunity for a jurisdiction to request an amendment of I
that jurisdiction's established UGA. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that a consistent
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
z
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
I. 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(12)].
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 [RCW 36.70A.030(17)1.
D. Provision of Urban Governmental Services - meats those governmental services historically and
typically delivered by cities 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.030(16)].
E. ural Character -_refers to oatterns of land use and development established by a countinthe 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/M
Amended March 27, 2002
3
4. that are commrable 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 olice 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 to'protect basic ublic health
and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities
and do not permit urban development (RCW 36.70A.030(16)."
H. Phasing of Urban Development
In order to achieve the intent of the State of Washington's growth management legislation, Grant County shall
consult with each city and town within Grant County and each city or town shall propose 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)1: .
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 trues 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(1) and RCW 36.70A.020(2)1.
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 conunue 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.020(2)).
IV. Provision of Urban Governmental Services, Public Facilities, and Public Services:
GRANT COUNTY - U6/93
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 would 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 36.70A.360) 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 COUNTYWIDE OR STATE-WIDE NATURE
Identify and Siting Essential Public Facilities:
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6+93
Amended March 27, 2002
5
ii#
M
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.200(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)
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 Analysts 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.
d.
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.
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 shall 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.
B. 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. i
1
F. Adequate fire protection water supplies shall be required in all developing areas where essential
public facilities may be sited.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6+93
Amended March 27, 2002
R
G. Undesignated landfills, dredging, waste discharges, and other activities with potential deleterious
environmental impacts shall be controlled with appropriate rules and regulations adopted and
enforced by the jurisdiction with authority.
H. Essential public facilities shall not locate in resource lands or critical areas if incompatible.
I. 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 -MME
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND STRATEGIES
I. A county -wide ttatuportation 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. -
R. A county and regional review process shall be established to coordinate transportation programming decisions
and to ensure consistency wiih the regional transportation plan.
A. Local six-year programs should idenufy 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 for 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).
M. 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 - 5/693
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 to 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. f y
VII. An integrated transportation system is conceived as a cooperatively developed, integrated system of public I
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. I j
B. Facilities related to commercial water transportation. II
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-farmly units to
total housing units.
B. Inventory and analysis of existing services and facilities should include: j
1. Function and scope of the facility (local/regional).
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. 5/6/93 !
Amended Match 27, 2002
;i
jt
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.
DL 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
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
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
minimuzing conflicts with commercial agricultural activities.
D. Preserve the viability of existingsmgle-family residential areas.
I. 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 Cuban growth areas shall be discouraged from
becoming urbanized as UGA%.
E. Promote housing that meets the needs of all socio-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.
I. 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 - 5/653
Amended March 27, 2002
to
3. Buffer future developments from existing farm activity to rrunimize nuisances generated by
either use. i
G. Incorporate Washington State Community Housing Affordability Strategy (MAS) requirements and
actively solicit grant monies through FSS, HOPE 1, 2, & 3, CIAP and 5H programs.
POLICY 6
POLICIES FOR JOINT COUNTY AND CITY PLANNING WITHIN URBAN GROWTH AREAS
L 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(t) 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 UGAs:
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 - 5/693
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. Alldw 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
I. 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 • 5/093
Amended March 27, 2002
12
II. Encourage Grant County's econormc base instituting plans to promote employment opportuniies.
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 capital, social and human infrastructures that are conducive to and fosters an
environment that attracts and enables new and existing business to grow and thrive.
M. Encourage a diversity of industrial development.
A. Examine alternative 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.
a. That new development be encouraged which provides the most positive overall impact on the
envirotunent, 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 - 516193
Amended March 27, 2002
13
C. Encourage the development of commercial centers, where the need has been established, and/or
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
I. 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:
1. 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
I. A county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may establish a process as part of its
urban growth areas, that is designated under RCW 36.70A-110, 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
I. 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;
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
TCA
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. r 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 he 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.
Ficial 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.
B. 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 part 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 - 5/6193
Amended March 27, 2002
15
d. The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations
established for critical areas; and
e. 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 vear to consider the
requests.
POLICY 12
POLICIES REGARDING DIVISION, ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH
MANAGEMENT FUNDS/COUNTY - 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
I. RECITALS.
A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act of 1990 (hereinafter the "Act") and its 1991 amendments
contained in ReESHB 1025, Grant County and the cities within Grant County have established an
inter -governmental committee entitled the "Grant County Planned Growth Committee: (hereinafter
the "Comtmttee") 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 cidesltowns 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 Committees agreement as to the method by which these State funds will be divided
amongst the parties hereto.
11. PARTIES.
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6/93
Amended March 27, 2002
16
r� n
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, Hartlme 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").
V1. AGREEMENT'..
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 OFMIs
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/Towns 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 6]
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 - 515/93
Amended March 27, 2002
17
s
POPULATION FORECAST DLSTRIBUTION "
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.
G Intangibles.
Formally ratified this day of % 2002, Grant County Commissioners - -
Tim
Date
Deborah Kay M re Date
LeRoy C. Allision Date
cl rl the Bo
GRANT COUNTY - 5/6193
Amended March 27, 2002