HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 05-191-CCGRANT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Resolution/Ordinance No. 05 - / W- CC
An Ordinance Relating to the Re -adoption and Extension of Ordinance 2004-
101 -CC, Interim Official Controls temporarily amending the residential
development densities in Rural Residential 2 (RR2), Rural Residential 3
(RR3), Rural Community (RC), Agriculture Service Center (ASC),
Recreational Development (RD), Shoreline Development 1 (SD1), Shoreline
Development 2 (SD2), Shoreline Development 3 (SD3), Shoreline
Development 4 (SD4), Rural Village 1 (RVR1), Rural Village 2 (RVR2), and
limiting non-agricultural industrial development and commercial
development in Rural General Commercial (RGC), Rural Neighborhood
Commercial (RNC), Rural Freeway Commercial (RFC), Rural Recreational
Commercial (RRC), Rural Light Industrial (RLI), and Rural Heavy
Industrial (RHI), Rural Residential 2 (RR2), Rural Residential 3 (RR3),
Rural Community (RC), Agriculture Service Center (ASC), Recreational
Development (RD), Rural Village Commercial (RVC), Rural Village
Industrial (RVI), Shoreline Development 1 (SD1), Shoreline Development 2
(SD2), Shoreline Development 3 (SD3), Shoreline Development 4 (SD4)
zoning districts, and other matters properly relating thereto.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (the "BOCC") intends to comply frilly
with the orders and directives of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(the "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 Court of Appeals; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides for the re -adaption and extension of interim
zoning controls for one or more six-month periods provided Grant County (the "County") holds
a public hearing on the proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance and findings of fact are made prior to
the renewal; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC has initiated an appeal of the Board's decision holding the
County's adoption of rural residential densities in the Comprehensive Plan of one dwelling unit
per 2.5 acres in the rural lands designation of Grant County is non-compliant with the Growth
Management Act (the "Act'); and
WHEREAS, Thurston County Superior Court has remanded the Final Decision and
Order of the Board regarding 2.5 Acre Residential Densities for further proceedings; and
WHEREAS, as directed by Thurston County Superior Court, the Board is currently in
the process of reviewing the 2.5 Acre Residential Density issue; and
Interim Official Zoning Control Ordinance (9) Page I of 4
WHEREAS, the BOCC has initiated an appeal of the Board's decision holding County's
adoption of Rural Areas of More Intensive Development (RAIDs) 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 Board regarding County's RAIDs back to the County in order to bring this element
of the County's Comprehensive Plan and County -wide Planning Policies ("CWPP") into
compliance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Cities and Towns in Grant County have reconvened the
Grant County Planned Growth Committee ("GCPGC") in order to consider potential
amendments to the 1993 CWPP on any issues brought forward by the members; and
WHEREAS, the GCPGC approved by a majority vote the incorporation of provisions of
the Act, Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70A RCW as amended 1995-1997,
recognizing and including RAIDS into the CWPPs; and
WHEREAS, as directed by the Final Decision and Orders of the Board and consistent
with the GMA, the County has prepared a work plan to review and revise the RAIDS as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and has been and is currently implementing that work
plan; and
WHEREAS, as an interim step advancing the County towards greater compliance with
the Final Decision and Orders of the Board regarding RAIDS, the County has adopted "Interim
RAID Boundaries", Ordinance No's. 03 -069 -CC through 03 -077 -CC; and
WHEREAS, the County fully intends to continue and complete the work plan to bring
the RAIDS into full compliance with the Final Decision and Orders of the Board and the Act; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings:
1. An emergency exists;
2. There is not adequate time to satisfy normal notice for a public hearing;
3. A Public Hearing has been scheduled and will be conducted on March 2, 2005 at 11:30 am.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have provided the required public
notice for the proposed extension; and,
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the BOCC that this interim measure be in effect for a short
period of time. However, if additional time is necessary, it is also the intent of the BOCC to
maintain compliance with the Board's decisions through the extension of this ordinance, or
portions thereof, until such time as the above-mentioned appeals have been fully resolved to the
satisfaction of the County.
Interim Official Zoning Control Ordinance (9) Page 2 of 4
NOW, THEREFORE, The BOCC does hereby ordain and establish interim
development regulations as follows:
Rural Residential 2 (RR2): Maximum residential density shall not be greater than
one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres.
Rural Residential 3 (RR3): Maximum residential density shall not be greater than
one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres.
New residential development located within RAID boundaries designated in the
Unified Development Code but outside of "Interim RAID Boundaries" as
identified in Ordinance No's. 03 -069 -CC through 03 -077 -CC shall not be greater
than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres in the following zoning districts:
Rural Community (RC), Agriculture Service Center (ASC), Recreational
Development (RD), Rural Village 1 (RVR1), Rural Village 2 (RVR2), Shoreline
Development I (SDI), Shoreline Development 2 (SD2), Shoreline Development 3
(SD3), Shoreline Development 4 (SD4)
New commercial development and new non-agricultural industrial development
located within RAID boundaries designated in the Unified Development Code but
outside of "Interim RAID Boundaries" as identified in Ordinance No's. 03 -069 -
CC through 03 -077 -CC, shall be prohibited in the following zoning districts:
Rural General Commercial (RGC), Rural Neighborhood Commercial (RNC),
Rural Freeway Commercial (RFC), Rural Recreational Commercial (RRC), Rural
Light Industrial (RLI), and Rural Meavy Industrial (RHI), Rural Residential 2
(RR2), Rural Residential 3 (RR3), Rural Community (RC), Agriculture Service
Center (ASC), Recreational Development (RD), Rural Village Commercial
(RVC), Rural Village Industrial (RVI), Shoreline Development 1 (SDI), Shoreline
Development 2 (SD2), Shoreline Development 3 (SD3), and Shoreline
Development 4 (SD4).
All development within the "Interim RAID Boundaries" as identified in adopted
in Interim Ordinance No.'s 03 -069 -CC through 03 -077 -CC, and as subsequently
extended, shall conform to the provisions of the Grant County Unified
Development Code.
Interim Official Zoning Control Ordinance (9) Page 3 of 4
1r V W 1 n 1'CEV V ILE 1si, 11 V UK I n A V"1,111 1J, lne ellecClve slate of MIS
ordinance shall be: 11:59 p.m. February 24, 2005, through 12:01 a.m. May 22, 2005.
In the event an additional extension is necessary, the BOCC hereby tentatively schedules a
Public Hearing for May 3, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., in the Grant County Courthouse, Board of County
Commissioners Hearings Room, Ephrata, Washington. Grant County Ordinance No. 2004 -101 -
CC is hereby repealed, effective February 24, 2005, at 11:59 pm.
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of February 23, 2005.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Ayes Nayes Abstain.
Le oy . Allison, air
Deborah Kay Moore, Member
El
Richard Stevens, Member
ATTEST:
Interim Official Zoning Control Ordinance (9) Page 4 of 4
1
Interim Rural Area of Intensive Development
Ballard's Cafe Area W E
Ballard 1
............. ..... -
l
Legend Interim RAID Boundary raf m ■rte
CDParcel Boundary
;- Waterbady
Developed Prior to December 31. 1990
RAID BOUNDARY (Residemial Type)
C) RAID BOUNDARY(Commercia.l and lndusuial Zoned)
Ballard 2
This nopshwkl tux canstcvcd as 11 advise or kFpl opinion on
airy>Qeei6c facts at cimunutawt 'Ilse contents arc intonckd For
gcncwl information purposes only, and you ace urged to cmink your
owrt lawyer caro tning your own situation and any spmific questions
yma may have.
Knistnscarre records, drawings, and other docwrcnta have been
gathemd over many decades, using dilreung smruiacds for quaiay
conicol, documentation and vtriGcaaon- All of rhe data paovrckd
apmwnta current infommtion m a readily available format NY/hilt
the dam n gcnecally believed to be accutatc, occasionally it pravcs to
he incargcq than its accuracy is not warranted. Prior to making any
propetty purchases or tnvewnenu based to full or in part upon the
(:rant (^n11nrvCTi Craft
Inte [iiia. Rural Area of Intensive Development
Dodson Road Area W E
S
Legend Intenm RAID Boundary 1010 1 ta.
Parccl Boundary
watubody
Developed Prior to Deccrnbrr 31,199P
RAID BOUNDARY (Pi idearad Type)
( RAID BOUNDARY (Comtserc al and LsdusUW Zoster{)
Dodson Road 1
u
This map should not be construed m legal advice or legal opinion on
any gxeific facts or oreurrotances The contents arc intended for
general infotmaoon purposes only, and you am urged to consult your
awn lawyer coneemmgyour own ntuauon and any specific questions
you may have.
Infrsstnscosm records, drawings, and other dorwrxnu have been
gathered over marry decades, using Meting mutdatds for quality
earrrtwl, docurmnration and verification All of the daw provided
mpttienu current tnformahars
on to a readily ulable foauc tWhile
is
the dare generally believed m be sa;uram, occasronaliy tc proves to
be i.Imc'S, thus its accuracy is not warranted. prior to rnakmg any
property pumhaaea or mvesunenu based in full or in paa upon the
Grant County GIS Staff
Interim Rural Area of Intensive Development
Mallard Haven .Area W E
S
Legend Into= RAID Boundary M .rad.,.
Parcel Boundary
;. Waz.&*
Developed Priorto December3l,l99Q
RAID BOLNDARY (Bnsidenxnl Type)
( RAID BOUNDARY(Qrnammai and IndusrrW Zoned)
Mallard Haven 1
—7;t. .�
1419
This mild should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on
any qp irc facts or citcumsrances. The contents tic intended for
general snforrnsoon purposes only, and you arc u%cd to consult your
own 6wyer concerning your own un atron and anv specific questions
You may havc-
(n&asrrucrure records, dowing:, usd other documents have been
gathered over many decades, using diffecing standards for qualsry
canuo6 documcntariors and wrilicat— AI of t)se dna provided
repwacrsss current tnfaanaaon to a tead�ly available format While
the data is generally bdieved w be accurate, occuronally it proves as
io
be sncorrecg thou sra xeuracy ss nor warranred Prr
w making any
property Pum ases or investment; based in full or nn pact upon the
Grand (bunt-v('T; SPaFF
Interim Rural Area of Intensive Development.,k
O'Sullivan Shores Area w E
S
v&
M.,
O'Sullivan Shores 1
77
4
Mil K.
7
- , 41
v&
M.,
O'Sullivan Shores 1
7
- , 41
".j
I -
M
Ow This mop shauW not be constnied as Ito gdvkc or k10 opinion on
Legend Interim RAM Bortridwy m T Co
my spozific facts or cirtumstmoc& The contents me intended for
It" inroonsuo" pvTwes only, and you are urged to consult your
Parcel Boundary a" lawyer contenting your o-ri striation and any speciric timsLions
you my have.
Infimummic records, dmw+np, md other docurncnts haw hten I
Developed Prior to December 31, 1770 gaud aver many decades, using differing suindacrIs lot quality
control, deeurrcnraoon and -vficstori, Al of the dais pmdcd
mprewn �ffentinfo�uoninift2dilyovzikblcfowsx. While Ya
RAID BOUNDARY (P�idew61TYF-)
the darn u
C) RAID BOUNDARY (CbrivroemW and Indwui-I Z01104 bernee'roct; generally. its -cuoicy is not �=Lcd. Pri' or tornalung any
prcperty purchases or invcsa ss based in full or in part Lpon the
—.1-1 4 �. —,;G -1W -4--A .1 ...... Gmnt CountyGJS St�df
Legend Interim RAW Boundary
PucclBouaday
Developed Prior to Dcumbtr 31, 1999
RAID BOUNDARY (Residential Trp,)
C) R.AID BOUNDARY (CommemalandlodusuWU04
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
I
GRANT COUNTY
Interim Rural Area of Intensive Development
.ry yry q Original data Compiled by Grant County and other
0.rds a sources. Spatial Information may not meet National
Map Accuracy Standards, and may not be reliable
Grua r:'qunry GIS Scdf .A,�ncLllture Service tenter or sou^table far a particular purpose Inlendetl
m Ir r.., mr.,rwnrn In Innd usw desinnalinn
-•r
Legend Interim RAID Boundary t.■ tom m
OPaget Boundary
Wau,body
Developed Prior to December 31.199
CD RAID BOUNDARY (Rssidcaal Type)
O RAID BOUNDARY (CammereW"Iral aniat Zoned)
Gram Co=wGIS Snff
.4,;A
400 0 400 800 1200 '1600 Feet
N
WE
S
GRANT COUNTY
Interim Rural Area of Intensive Development
Blue Lake Shore Original data compiled by Grant County and other
sources. Spatial Information may not meet National
1 Map Accuracy Standards, and may not be reliable
q b n rP1;r, P � P1TP !(ltl'I'•Y P,"1- or suitable for a particular purpose Intended
ti... "s t/q ,.
i
Developed Prior to Dhrewber 31,199f
MD BOUNDARY (ResidccMW Type)
RAID BOUNDARY (Commercial uul L dusmzd Zomx
m
.V,......,,,..w...,. ,.....�.�.��, ��.,�,w� W �...r�
W,
' fjknuipi Z= i,!
WK
RAID BOUNDARY 9(0&n ial TM)
IWD BOUNDARY (Gom mW and lnl=tW ZomLO
E
mm
Legend InIcrim RAID Bounduy m m =
P=d B..zuq
Vame.4
1)"cloped Prior to Dcctmbor 31,199 P
IWD BMMARY (Residental T} )
600 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 Feet
111111111 —
N
W* E
RMDBQUMARY(CbrnrnmW"1ajU%uW7or,e14
Grant County GIS Staff
S
NEW
-g SUL co
GRANTCOUNTY
Interim Rural Area of Intensive Development
QigUW OM MmP-W bY GMM Co OW otWr
The Gorge :r t
PA��OUSWMMW= YMIM� N01-1
rd end may
y W b—fi.bl.
Legend Intmim RAW Boundery m m w
P=el Boundary
7-
i.. Water6ody
Developed Prior to Dmtmber 31,199Y
RAID BOi INOARY (Res dere al Typtj
C__/ RAID BOUNDARY (CctnummW and Industrial Zomd)
Grant County GTS Staff
200 0 200 400 600 B00 1000 deet
N
W E
S
`/'1T 1/'"�(/�) �yT ¢ M Crq o,
�-J R� `� OUNT 1
yr We.","
Interim Rural Area of Intensive Development
Wanapum Village �9° .tlalncompiled by Grant —y and Nation
wit A. 4Waat M.19s. end
nmery be 1i.bla ai
wit hawicr 91aMaNi. and may nIX tre re1leGle
MID BOUNDARY (Cam=m6l and IndmirW Zancd) r � ZUFAMMIM
m
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Ordinance No.
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 2
Eastern Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board
May 6, 2004
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case No. 99-1-0019
Extension #4
Extension of 04 -026 -CC, 04 -027 -CC, 04 -028 -CC, 04 -029 -CC,
04.030 -CC, 04 -031 -CC, 04 -032 -CC, 04 -033 -CC and 04 -034 -CC
MAY 0 7 2004 State of Washington
GRANT Co pjaKiKnQPqOWTH MANAGEMENT HEARING
C E
""A PIT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD
2 FOR -EASTERN WASHINGTON
3
JAMES A. WHITAKER, Case No. 99-1-0019
Petitioner,, ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
6 v;
7 GRANT COUNTY,
8
Respondent.'
9
10
BACKGROUND
11
On December 3, 1999, James A. Whitaker filed a Petition for Review.
12
A hearing'o n'the merits was held on April 27, 2000, A Final Decision, and Order,was
13,
entered on May 19, 2000.
-14
On November -15, 2001 the Superior Court of Washington. for Thurston, County
15 entered its Findings of Fa'd,, Conclusions of Law, and Order on Administrative Procedure Act
16 Appeal, remanding this matter for the admission of supplemental evidence, to the
17 1997-1999 building permit information before this -Board.
On February 6, 2004, the Board received Respondent's Motion to Set Compliance
1
9 Hearing,
20 On March 24, 2004, the Board held a compliance hearing. Present were Dennis
Dellwo, Presiding Officer, and Board Members Judy Wall, -and D.E. Chilberg. Present
21
for Petitioner was James Whitaker. Present for Respondent were Stephen J. Hallstrom,
22 Stanley Schwartz and Stacy A. Bjordahl.
23 11, SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE
24 The Board found Grant County's designation of LAMIRDS out of compliance due to
25 the County's failure to comply with their County -Wide Planning Policies, develop a written
26 Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019
1
2
3
4-
5
7
8�
9
10
11
12
13'
14
15.1,
16 1
17
18
19,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the entire :record before the county, or city is clearly erroneous
in view of the entire record before the Board and in light of the
goals and requirements of [the GMA]." RCW '36.70A.320(3). To
find an action "clearly erroneous" the -Board must be "left -with
the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been
committed." Dept of Ecology v. Pub. UU. Dist. o. 1, 1.21 Wn.2d
179, 201,, 849 P.2d 046 (1993).
The Board will grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan under Growth)
Management Act. RCW 36.70A.3201. But, as the Court has stated, "local discretion is
bounded, however, by the goals and requirements of the GMA." icing County v. Centra
Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 142 Wn.2d . 543, 561, 14 P.2d 133
(2000). - It has been further recognized that ."(c]onsistent :-with King County, and
notwithstanding -the `deference' language of RCW 36„70A.3201, the Boards„acts .properly
when it foregoes deference to a ... plan that is not `consistent with the requirements and
goals.of the GMA.” Thurston County v. Cooper Point Assodatlon,, 148 Wn. App. 429; 444131
P.3d 28 (2001),
The Board has -jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Petition for Review., RCW
36.70A.280(1)(a).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Grant County Planned Growth Committee was reconvened to
consider amendments to the 1993 County -Wide Planning Policies
(CWPP).
2. The Grant County Planned Growth Committee .amended CWPP Nos. 1,
2 and 2A thereby allowing Grant County to designate LAMIRDS.
3, The amendments of CWPP Nos. 1, 2, and 2A were adopted by the
County Commissioners and not objected to by the Petitioners.
4. The Grant County Board of Commissioners adopted a Harmonization
Document entitled "Grant County Planning Goals and Rural Element of
the Comprehensive Plan." This document explains how the County's
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
. A..,. 4n -..
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima. WA 98902
9
F
K
N
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited
areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities
and public services to serve the limited area as follows:
(i) Rural development consisting of the infill, -- development, or
redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential; -1 or mixed-use
areas, whether characterized as shoreline development,' villages, hamlets,
rural activity centers, . or crossroads developments',. A� commercial,
industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the
requirements of (d)(iv) of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the
requirements of (c)(ii) and (Iii) of this subsection. An industrial area is not
required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural
population;
(ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or new
development of, small-scale -recreational or tourist uses, including
commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on
a rural location and setting, but that do riot include- new residential
development. A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be
principally designed to serve the . existing and projected rural population.
Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to
serve the .recreation or tourist ,use and- shall be provided in :amanner that
does not permit low-density sprawl;
(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 e?dsting and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do
provide job opportunities for rural residents. 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 spraw-I;
(iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing
areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate,
authorized under this subsection. Lands included in such existing areas or
uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing
area or.use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low-de'nsity sprawl, Existing
areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there
is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment,
but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
V-[,;-- AA/A nano')
1
2
3
4,
5
6-
7.
8'
9.
The GMA's key goal has been to direct urban development into urban growth areas
and to protect the rural area from sprawl. In 1997 the State Legislature amended the GMA
to make accommodation for "infill, development or redevelopment" of "existing" areas of
"more intensive rural development," however such a pattern of growth must be "minimized"
and "contained" within a "logical outer boundary." This cautionary and restrictive language
evidences a continuing legislative intent to protect rural areas from low-density sprawl.
So what are LAMIRDS? They are neither urban growth, nor are they to 'be the
pattern of future rural development. LAMIRDS are settlements that existed on July:1, 1990,
(July, 1991 in this case), in some land use pattern more intensive than what might typically
be found in a rural- area. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(v). LAMIRDS are "characterized asp
10 shoreline development; villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads
11 developments." RCW 36�70A.070(5)(d)(i)-
12 The provisions of (c)(ii) (visual compatibility) and (iii) (reduce iow density
`13' development) do not apply to those LAMIRDS designated under (d)(1).' This section does
14 not allow increased low-density development, but merely removes thd��redOction
requirement. The logical outer boundary (LOB) prAvisions of (d)(N) apply only to LAMIRDS
15
designated under (d)(i) .(Type I). Type II and III both allow "new developme' nt" and
1-6 "intensification of development." Type I LAMIRDS do not allow "new development" except
17 as it may be part of "infill, development, or redevelopment."
18 Type I LAMIRDS consist of certain "existing areas" defined in RCW 36.70A.
19 070(5)(d)(v), The allowed uses and areas include commercial, industrial, residential or
20 mixed-use areas "whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural
21 activity centers, or crossroads developments." An "industrial area" is not required to be
22 principally designed to serve the "existing and projected rural population." Thus, all other
23 Type I LAMIRDS (commercial, residential, or mixed-use) must be principally designed to
24 serve the "existing and projected rural population," In designating and establishing .
25
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 LOB that allows a "new pattern
26 Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Case 99-1-0019 Yakima, WA 98902
May 12, 2004
2-
3
4
5
6
7,
8'
9
10
12
13
14"
15
16-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The LAMIRDS -allowed under Type III authorize intensification or creation of "isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses," These need npt.be principally
designed to .serve the "existing and projected rural population" and nori-residential uses.
They must provide job opportunities for rural residents. Public services and public facilities
s,
have the same constraints as those provided under Type II.
The allowance of small-scale recreational and small-scale tourist uses, isolated
cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses are also subject to the provisions of
RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a), (b), and (c), as well as the definitions contained in RCW
36.70A.030(14) and (15).
C. 1nd1vid-ual LAMIRDS:
The County designated 72 LAMIRDS originally, choosing later to remover 13 from the
designation. The balance, approximately 59, will be covered individuallThe first group of
IRDS to be considered is those the County has identified as Type I LAMIRDS,
A., 'hype 1 LAMIRDS:
,L. Rural Conmmunli
SCHAWANA AND BEVERLY: These two LAMIRDS were not found out of compliance in
the original matter and continue to be in compliance.
WHEELER: This LAMIRD consists of an area of built up single-family residences, multi-
family units, a church, a caf6 and tavern, all developed before July 1991. The Petitioner has
not carried his burden of proof and shown the Board that the boundaries are not limited by
the "built environment". This Board recognizes that the built environment includes only
those facilities, which are manmade above or below the ground. To comply with the
,restrictions found in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), particularly (d)(v), the area included within the
LOB must have manmade structures in place on July 1991, The LOB .must be delineated
predominately by the built environment, but may include "limited "undeveloped lands. The
Petitioner's objection that the LAMIRD includes some vacant platted parcels is not enough.
We must presume, without other evidence, that these are the "limited" undeveloped lands
allowed as infill. The Petitioner has not shown otherwise. WHEELER is in compliance with
the GMA.
ROYAL CAMP: Royal Camp LAMIRD was a "Camp" developed by the Bureau of
Reclamation to provide housing in support of the Columbia Basin Irrigation project, It has
single-family residences, a church and an agricultural supply business, This development
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
AA.-....+ -I
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima WA 98902
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. Shoreline development:
McCONIHE SHORE: This LAMIRD is clearly out of compliance. The spaces between
the four distinct areas of development are extensive. The L.AMIRS contains 729 acres; much
of it vacant. That alone would cause this to be out .of compliance, however there is nothing
in the'record showing that this development was built prior to 1991. This is a Type,I
LAMIRD and must be minimized and not extend beyond the logical outer boundary
delineated predominately by the built environment existing prior to 1991. Some
undeveloped lands can be included if limited. This was not done here. The Petitioner has
carried his burden and the County's actions in designating this LAMIRD is clearly erroneous.
MAE VALLEY SHORE: The Petitioner does not object to this LAMIRD. Mae 'Valley is in
compliance.
BLUE LAKE SHORE: The Petitioner has not carried his burden,of proof here. While a
'LAMIRD should limit the inclusion of gndeveloped lands, the Petition must show more than
he .has. In his brief/chart the Petitioner says only that "However, it appears to incl'ude
undeveloped land on the south end of the lake." This Is not enough to leave the Board with
an abiding conviction that the County's actions are wrong. This LAMIRD is not found out of
compliance.
SUNLAND ESTATES: This LAMIRD was specifically not included in the Petitioner's
original petition and was not found out of compliance in the original Order. This LAMIRD is
in compliance.
3. Recreation Development
CRESCENT BAR: The Petitioner does not object to this LAMIRD and is therefore found in
compliance.
THE GORGE: The designation of this LAMIRD is difficult to clearly understand. The
maps and summaries in the Record indicate that this LAMIRD is truly made up of two or
more LAMIRDS. The first and largest is a Type I and covers the major portion of the concert
venue. The second, a Type II or III is the undeveloped area south of the campground area
east of Road W. This adds 145 acres currently in agricultural use. The total acreage is
slightly less than 1000 acres. The argument of the County is that the Gorge LAMIRD has all
three types of LAMIRDS included in one, The record is not clear and it is impossible with
what the Board has before it to see what the County has done. If this is a Type I LAMIRD,
the boundaries are clearly beyond the natural built boundaries and are clearly, in -error. If
this is an area with all three types of L.AMIRDS mixed in, they again would be clearly in
error. They are not comparable together. Because of the way this LAMIRD has been
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
MaV17 9nnd
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
1
2
3
-4
' 6
7
8
10
15
16
17`
1�
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
limited and fits within the definition of a Type I LAMIRD classification. The Petitioner did not
carry his burden of proof. This LAMIRD is found in compliance.
STRATFORD: The Petitioner does not object to this LAMIRD. The Board finds it,
compliant.
McDONALD SIDING 2: McDonald .Siding 2 is a new area made up of five other
previously adopted LAMIRDS, Moses Lake 4, 5,6, 8 and.9. The total acres between' -are
reduced by 272.9 acres. In Its reduced size; 464;85 acres, it is still a large LAMIRD.
However, because the Petitioner only speaks of not being, isolated and that there is' no need
to grow, they have not carried the burden of proof. This LAMIRD is not found out of
compliance.
B._ R -e ILI/III Lamirds:
The 'County designated 37 LAMIRDS 'as combinations of Type I, 'II and II, The dunty
did`not sep5rate'them -and the Board must believe the County intends allthree types to be
-included ,in each LAMIRD. The County contends the GMA does not Frequire each LAMIRD be
segregated into a separate designation as a Type I, II or III. They further cite a. Western
Board decision, City o0nacortes v. Skagit County, Compliance Order,' WWGMHB No,. 00-2-
0049c, as supporting this contention. 'This Is- not correct. The .GMA identifies three types, of
-Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development, The County must chose whlch LAMIRD
,is -appropriate' for the specific site: To hold otherwise would be to ignore the' law and the
cases that interpret the law.
The statute, RCW 36.70A,070 (5)(d) is the best place to start to find that the GMA
established three separate LAMIRDS. The Statute talks of the rural element to "allow .for
limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and
public services to serve the limited area as follows:"
The argument that there are three separate types of LAMIRDS is clearly supported when
you examine the three paragraphs that are set apart, listing the type of LAMIRD and the
limitations for each type. To have all three ,types in the same space without boundaries
between them would not only be confusing but virtually impossible. Type I is a mixed-use
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-oo19
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima WA 98902
M
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
COULEE 1: The Petitioner does not object to this LAMIRD. The Board finds it in
compliance.
GEORGE 6; This 9.90 acre LAMIRD is near George and is established as a Type III. It is
currently zoned industrial and is in retail use. The Petitioner has not carried his burden of
proof. The Board does not find this LAMIRD out of compliance.
WANAPUM 2: This-LAMIRD is, not out of compliance. The Petitioner believes ;it may
meet the requirements of 'a Type III. It does meet the requirements of the'GMA and is in
compliance.
WARDEN 2: This LAMIRD is comprised of 1.69.05 acres of farmland. There Is no
discussion of what this land is to be used for. The County contends it qualifies for alype
III LAMIRD that authorizes the intensification of development on lots containing isolated
non-residential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries. This does not
q061ify. The LAMIRD Is removing 169.acres..of irrigated farmland from agricultural resource
lands, and placing higher density rural activities, in its place. A LAMIRD is for limited, more
intensive rural development. The exceptions ar6 to allow more intensive development in
rural areas,- not agricultural resource areas., This LAMIRD is not in compliance.
VI. [ORDER
1. The County is in compliance by the adoption of new CWPPs authorizing
the designation of LAMIRDS as provided under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d):
2. The County has properly adopted a written Harmonization Document as
required under the GMA.
3. The LAMIRDS are found in compliance or noncompliance as reflected in
this Order and Attachment A. The LAMIRDS found out of compliance
are remanded to the County and they are, directed to eliminate such
LAMIRDs or make the corrections required to bring them into
compliance.
4. The Balance of the LAMIRDS, those described as combinations of Types
I, II and III, are to be reviewed and the County shall determine if such
a LAMIRD is appropriate and if so, what Type.
I' ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
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
ATTAC H ME IST A
LAMIRDS FOUND IN COMPLIANCE:
SCHAWANA
BEVERLY
WHEELER
ROYAL CAMP
TRINIDAD
WANAPUM VILLAGE
MARINE VIEW HEIGHTS AND MARINE VIEW 1
WHITE TRAIL
DESERT AIRE r
MAE VALLEY SHORE
BLUE LAKE SHORE
SUNLAND ESTATES
CRESCENT BAR
NORTH SOAP LAKE
MARINE VIEW 2
WINCHESTER
RUFF
BALLARD'S CAFE
STRATFORD
McDONALD SIDING 2
GEORGE 1
COULEE 1
GEORGE 6
WANAPUM 2
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
1. Ate.. an -1
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima_ WA 98902
,'J
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
ROCKY FORD 1
ROCKY FORD 2
ROYAL 1
ROYAL 2
SILICA ROAD
SOAP LAKE 1
STRATFORD ROAD 1 & 2
STRATFORD ROAD 3
PARK ORCHARD
WARDEN 1
WHEELER 1
WHEELER 3
'WHEELER 4
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE
Case 99-1-0019
M -)v '1'']nnn
Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
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 certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 6Th day of May 2004, at Yakima, Washington.
Angie Andreas
Eastern Washington
Growth (Management Hearings Board
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-574-6960
Rural Area of Intensive Development
W-JL
E
T
Beverlv- Rural CoMMunity S *7_0
L
', '4_
q
vr
j
C
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Waterbody
G.., G , CIS S,,ff
C -,.,d
P. j, 19. RWM
C\RAIDUPDATE-11
Comprehensive P6n Designation
PkmW I. D,.i
F..J ?..Or-] I
F -A Vkk-.W 2
i L -dA I nkr,j P
A...W It 15103
J,6-P6-,J1.k.1
K..
66., IL, I K-,.
K -A VdI,,.
N. a &I— I Jr
Op- ,(K44
t6.rhr
or..'Spto
C:D
P -A k..-
lk)wJ
1 m1, I aJr. IU,h rJ
ISM
Lh-•e K.4
(a
I-I
Ub- I",
D
R.aW
uhb., Lmw
OZ!O
j
Map 2
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Waterbody
Gram Cuumy CIS Sul(
G—dhWvrmtrerO,M3
P..L. w—I-19, M03
G\MDUPDA7E_I I IP03\,,0636xcf ulal.ry>r
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Makn W Inu Ikoay
Pard R—k-i I
1,.6 4IP—b
CD
M-I-WNW—lknay
Kwa Maknu9,
•`Yn„k,vJ>rnar(—,
1-6.w ifio Ikmny
IWJ,m11,.ky Panne
Maarca. mJlk+elmnnm
(ht—GmmenulM.•niJ 1/IS/bl
hlseer l'Iavn.IlMxviJ
14vd i:mm.w,
1n6—](Ur )
hluvr 1'I jP.,.,n
garJ ViLLp
n—f Atuea I dk
-p— IV—)
�
Urmin, lk„lpna,y
(teop•r.r(tm.P
K AKrn.r
(::D
11..4,x1
1",4K I.wmy(Uhl
Utw K--tK.J
Ut-1 —
Pud Lt}a.,+,t
K—wo
Urtam Ur,6..n
(„nmun W (ParaO
Il�•nrl, ilr.,611.0 I.,,n�,rnnl wkwJ ,ul•.: vkgJ .•�� .i •i
un gerr,l r , .r.in n w Ilv..n rn, wnk�lrl ,r
3y,urJv�"n iu�.,srny..iri urd,u>I, .. ,irF,n,l r.,. ai„JI .,v
•Mu hu.an L,nnlq.,uv•.a,. u•u.,, a',J a.. sFw„1•,µ,le,nr.
Ln.s:nwe,n, ..:.ml>. Jr.�+ay;., and �JwcJ:•r•win.Irr•, .�,n
Xnlri.,I �,.rnu„•.k, .4s• w�.4n. ,,.i,n41„r .p. u.
e•.rru,,l.•,u.ri v.0 ual:enlr ,: i, a,t"Ul e,; rk ,vvil�rcnu4.1
nlrn n...... .. ,., rn.Ll• . elaw I•�sr.tn \ e,
I,n is i.i i ., ,r u, ., �. 1•�..,1 n� I,JI..r i i,.n tl`., n..
u I •r. nax.l, „„ ... ,I.lJi..l ,..t.I,.i ..., u..l- �.:.,,�
In IJ'•„�I, •Jw ui. nrw"n,.,n a�n�ni .=n, s,. iWx
Map 1
Y. r` b'
i
i 4
Rural .Area of Intensive Development'
VV E
Moses Labe Area (McDonald Siding 2) s ;.
•,1r,i �iir� ?i�w ylµ t'''"i�•1:'.. 1; Y`i„ If
717� (l Vt,.',•,f art"• ��!
Moses Lake 2
Iy-
;,��I h(P�,v�t,+� � 1�� ij' 6 utl iii. �I r; •y • . ..., ,'.
I'1�ft;A;ri�I�;;iF2l :h"q w`i yY�p�15,"� '; •'F°P,i� I �
Irl'' al :r'r�'rz� 1>;�!•y.��- .,•,,,, .,,
Moses Lake 8
(McDonald Siding) SPF..
1�... • Moses Lake B -,
Legend
Parol Bounclary
Walerbody
Gran. Grump CIS Staff
P.t.—L rwn,ntt-19,_001
CARAID (1PDATE , I 11001\_0011... rerel,ap,- -- --
0
Comprehensive plan Designation
—J,
Moses Lake 9
Moses Lake Q
Moses Lake 5
M.Ier.iJ lua Ikm..
J
Moses Lake 1' 3 `i
(=)
,,,I,,��,�,
i`• I��'4�I �� f`s��l�l �a 4'?'
�
P -A P-.k,aw1
rynv6vi snr Cnar
a.,.kr.wihJ+IA,n.,
Moses Lake 9
Moses Lake Q
Moses Lake 5
nr.r,,:rnr r.'ra „inrinkr ,..•a Ih:, �n,n.x +, mn•n,4�ltw
.� ,J�rrdn,r+e,. rr lnm•,r,,,rd•.. ,r«I,. .,n+,l,.,, .,Mlr :.,.
.w+„r ,rn.t,wy,, ar, un vu,u�ur u+J
�elr ..I,n.+nw�. .4, r.4., �.m.p,4 •m�%�a n.tl~r, to ,'r ,p.: ',r
er r,:4: ry+vnr+�,„ nei -x nl•+:,,,r+ U,.I 'I,-,In,l•r...,,L•I
11v, ,, ,,a,rr ,7 I.Ir•r 1, „r r •, +, Jrl ..:
k,r.�rtr•:r nnn,r�.,,i a r.,l lir,rr•nar,e,; ,•t
,•:•�+n, 1«v.hw•, rcr„ nel„rulnr'iul ,r u.l•it �y.. J«u+
53 to 56
M.Ier.iJ lua Ikm..
J
0."1 P—k—A I
(=)
Ir.ha.UW- p
hs.IrwlAk.4m+lkne}
�
P -A P-.k,aw1
rynv6vi snr Cnar
a.,.kr.wihJ+IA,n.,
�
Ilu+FsJrn4rJw�nr
�
Il.a,tsr,wLtnkgn,rm
IfrLu+Cmm+.'nw,lnvr.W 1/1;14;
(7D
NL—K—JJm6.,J
P-ACona,um
Irr6ewl(IJr1euU
�.''
AWrr Viay.J Pa..n
Rwd 1"AW
I4,n of hlr>N, 1�la
^
t>F,n yi.e liWrap
�
17 rtlrc lk.rlgr+re
l�rrn �p..r I41rA+n1
r�J
pr.>I Ncn,ar
��]
IhrlvJ
R,Ak'l xrle•Ili,hrU
L:Ia., hvnr(Nwrp
�
Ingtw
Ihfin P.vene
PavJ LYrb«..,+
�
0.x,�L J
(.,rm., nw o-4
nr.r,,:rnr r.'ra „inrinkr ,..•a Ih:, �n,n.x +, mn•n,4�ltw
.� ,J�rrdn,r+e,. rr lnm•,r,,,rd•.. ,r«I,. .,n+,l,.,, .,Mlr :.,.
.w+„r ,rn.t,wy,, ar, un vu,u�ur u+J
�elr ..I,n.+nw�. .4, r.4., �.m.p,4 •m�%�a n.tl~r, to ,'r ,p.: ',r
er r,:4: ry+vnr+�,„ nei -x nl•+:,,,r+ U,.I 'I,-,In,l•r...,,L•I
11v, ,, ,,a,rr ,7 I.Ir•r 1, „r r •, +, Jrl ..:
k,r.�rtr•:r nnn,r�.,,i a r.,l lir,rr•nar,e,; ,•t
,•:•�+n, 1«v.hw•, rcr„ nel„rulnr'iul ,r u.l•it �y.. J«u+
53 to 56
Rural Area of Intensive Development N ��,k�;,.�•
WE
Orth 5oaD Lake - Recreational Develwment 5
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Waterbodp
C.,m G,wn. GIS Suff
Cn•unl, ran�nrk•r 19.:WJ
Pnmed; Phn mh•r 19•]OoJ
C\RA1DUPD ATE_I 11801\__^BOJIrua fnWLryr
Comprehensive Plan Designation
7hrs nr.7, rlwarkl rrr it a,+arn.d .nl�J mh..,ulr�J,r•,nw .r, .r
n.:lurJ,r lncnrarrrc,arse,ru•rx Thr «wumrs yr rrvrre4J !-.r
,wd,nlian...........s udL, wul 7,xi nc wlt,rl r,.,-xnrJr nn
,nn have u...nwgaunawn an,unwr and mn s(><.,F. rp.+w nn
nur ,. 6u.r
LlliplM•N[c mw,l;, drunvlga, ural uJac r3nv,wrns Irrv. h.n
pnl�r•+1 rn.r near. rb.-,ahs, r n.r� JrlTernil{ v m w1�rJ• I.n .p�,lua
nrn,rrrJ, J,„rn„rnr,n.,+, arxl•xr,lrsl,nn Hl ni rlu JvrPmc�b•.I
yrc: a,r rrn,.nrr.,x„„r,nL.w+a.n•..LIJ,a r \Lhrn
Jrr+lxa ri (xr.r Jl, h.l.a«Ili.in,e,,u ,nJl,�im ..:r.
hr ,n-nrrcrr, Ilya+n xnrrrnn l,rt Prvrcm nn\,nF •„
Irn q,rm•(nrn-Il,s. ,rn�r .r,lsl,,w�rlN lrJirnmp,n r(,•+
�ri,l I,n.a oL rl,�r . yx,s,ll. .Ih wlaivai lh.! ••xr nub l+nrkrul•p
IwIJ nal. Jv nquwwwm .urnau,J un,em ntosJr
Map 17
Fnil.•wl lrm Ihnap
FuJ F•sak—i I
(::�)
[.h —i
Fyablwl htap+urlkanr
*=,�.:x
dtvil h-kdul2
Oft
A,.k -O,`knar
(
N akadlB�Ikrwap
ItrhdFnkral Mcnr
9y
PnrrnenJ lkee4,p+ae
L51su, Cunm.nvl MxnJ.cl l/13/03
[�
b{yw itxv.,l l,WrnJ
�
PanJ G,nmmr
�j
InMuW (UrF.uJ
b{w,,rr F4aue+.19 .m
4w
P—A Va,
1\rn„Ib\nas1�
(,Prn ,—f%..0
,lx.n\rrelk+a\gn—
f 1xn pa. Nrh.7
K -a P.--
p
Ih u.l
C)
IAJJ. I xd..(L*.4
IAI+u, —(i 4
I --W
LShv, 1--
&-1 L6”—
CD
IUWLnd
LYIw, UrJ.rwv
�
(nmsunW(iWeap
7hrs nr.7, rlwarkl rrr it a,+arn.d .nl�J mh..,ulr�J,r•,nw .r, .r
n.:lurJ,r lncnrarrrc,arse,ru•rx Thr «wumrs yr rrvrre4J !-.r
,wd,nlian...........s udL, wul 7,xi nc wlt,rl r,.,-xnrJr nn
,nn have u...nwgaunawn an,unwr and mn s(><.,F. rp.+w nn
nur ,. 6u.r
LlliplM•N[c mw,l;, drunvlga, ural uJac r3nv,wrns Irrv. h.n
pnl�r•+1 rn.r near. rb.-,ahs, r n.r� JrlTernil{ v m w1�rJ• I.n .p�,lua
nrn,rrrJ, J,„rn„rnr,n.,+, arxl•xr,lrsl,nn Hl ni rlu JvrPmc�b•.I
yrc: a,r rrn,.nrr.,x„„r,nL.w+a.n•..LIJ,a r \Lhrn
Jrr+lxa ri (xr.r Jl, h.l.a«Ili.in,e,,u ,nJl,�im ..:r.
hr ,n-nrrcrr, Ilya+n xnrrrnn l,rt Prvrcm nn\,nF •„
Irn q,rm•(nrn-Il,s. ,rn�r .r,lsl,,w�rlN lrJirnmp,n r(,•+
�ri,l I,n.a oL rl,�r . yx,s,ll. .Ih wlaivai lh.! ••xr nub l+nrkrul•p
IwIJ nal. Jv nquwwwm .urnau,J un,em ntosJr
Map 17
Dural Area of Intensive Development
Koval Cam - aural Comnmunity
Legend
C=% Parcel Boundary
Waterbody
Gmn G mny GIS SlAI
C, -:"k ;1nem1-19,20 #
P-I'L N"nits 19, m
(_\RAIUUPUATF_I I 1901%200 It, w
Comprehensive [plan Designation
QW>.1,.W
i... l A,—,
R—j&,", 11
Q
Inkv,04PmA
QI4,.ti.ulAt,6,;rnlhnn,
Q
F-A06n.1rur:
:.✓
,•p.,6w�1•r,trG-,
QK..l,eull651,
IAi.e,
Q
1WirJl rnkrJ P.rnns
Q
h.rc,ns"w lx+clq.cn
QUtw.
tIvo
Q
Al.xr Yl.e5,11nL.w1
Q
Purl G..—,
�••,
In6.�nil tumkn
{
x6. nm.d K—.
Fucd Yd4lt
L
15n •I At..c. lay
tI-'r.• m -A
Q
>ti+c6rc lk,clynta
Q,Y,,.v—IUI-1
V -a F.nax
Q
IMLr,I
C`J
1' 1, Iada, (Uh..l
Ut-0 iK—b
Impm,f
Q
VN... K—nc
P J1Sit —
Q
R.. wi
Uda.i UnW.an
C'xmn.•n WiF a,
N JMN:i .�,yry
tt' E
n,.,.,,,. J� .d,! ;. r l.r..�anr� � n irK,! .! . , v !.ud. l ,�,. •„ .�
,r q•rr,. 1, n=•r ..n.urc., ut,. tle• •nr.n.� nr.akd rtrt
I d �in„nnm ,� 1,..n. •., ..J.....I ..- , . ,.�� f �.., �.;.� dl , .�.
,•,ami 1�,.
K.Ir ..I .n r ���r.. r..L,Y� urv,.l�... ���j i .• .y.�
r. md�1•, rcnrm.,, u.l�. r.l•"r..�r ll.�:'•1, [.. r�l•rnv 4.1
• I
Rural Area of Intensive Development
WF
Schawana - Rural Commurnty +
x�
AJ r
F..
4.
..........
IL
I -A \
Legend
CDNrcclBoundary
Waterbody
L
C- O"ay GIS Suff
C --L W—,N, 19, 2003
P.,"L P4rv.n,hr 19, M
CkRAIDUPDATE-t I tS03\2003b., N,A.,p,
011
Comprehensive Plan Designation
O
F-1-4 I.. 1k..y
P—ARlikrawlI
Ink—WIP-4
O—knW IA,6- IA—y
IWd 1kx*w!
Nal -W ISO IX—)
k—
tk,,kW—
W— C.—J A —&J V15103
IWJ C.--.
1w"I Va,
dim
(:::)
40
ta,uk rlaYa
4W
4M
4M
C--a(F-A
.............
my I
Rural .Area of Intensive Development N wil"I" Sunland Estates - Shoreline Develo ment s
Legend
Parcel Bou(ulary
Wateib0(ly
Gram C. CISbelt
CW.e Wr1,:003
Pmrmwk ink 6krt'm6er 17,, 3007
G\MDUPDATL• _ I 1 I d03\10076-,1mulapr
GDmplehewive Plan Designation
O
P.+4knw W. EX -V
Pw:1 Pen.knWi
IrJ.mJIP+r4
QPn.knuJ
AFnimrlke.ry
A
Pad9+a.knaz
Ailr vimd 4nv(erur
,
taD
V..knw IFO Dmry
CD
I Laked l nkd P.rrnr
Nnr. WD—L,. n
Lh6.,C.,.0 Amrakl 1/I5r07
(�,)
Q
Purl(i—y
InJwuW Nr6+-140
AF.+rr PU—,j Prxm
N.J VaLw
N.w RLrr>IWr
40(pen
kiwi {P+•�0
9xnekr lk,rFgnrn
(.�rn}Pa.0.A6nd
(:::)
Punl Yama
4t7W.1
Q
P.M. N+6W
40
LhN_Pnenr(F_4
Inrycnrri
lhb+n Rr was
40
q,rel61rk
Q
P.ug w
wbu+Uw.,.,,
(numtnW (P-4
>.w rl'mhr lrn rtc,n nnurvrr. Ilr r �„� � n r, krl 1'.
.
uLwinw...l... nnl•� r�.J., uulr.� ��, �.dn,un,,vmr
.•+n L.. wwcu y, nNn snuw.ni aulun ryv.+l. qw nn
Lnauuu wr. avxJs.Va.n�p, m.l vJmr J.i c,hm la:
pnirn�l,n .i..4, .4s ���+�x.l,n.rn.5 •r unl+nls n..p.�iun
rl. A- pnn"h.l
nyncin inl.•inc,lrxinic �.Lh. a1Ad, I.�nna\\1-:.
Jr.Iw `rc�ll I.Ir.nli •i...,. cu.o- iJl. nl•r �..
M�rr�� r, Anwm rni n,i I'..•r r. nz,Fn,p,v
Im1"'i,r(�nwhu, , ni.n nl �i.rl.n l�ill..r nay a�An
odln� vrl..I,nn i.. aN,�llc �.I.n.,l chn .•,i ,x.11. �.F ��a�
Ii.IJ nm: dr.
14
Rural Area of Intensive Development
s WE
Wanapum Villaze - Rural Community s .
I�
I
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Waterbody
Gran, Cm,yG$$ W!
Geacd• pk,.ymher 19. ;pp)
Pnnuvk TW.c vk, 19, eqp)
C\RAIDl1PDAYe_ I I19(l)\,.op)I..a I,.j,pr
0
amprehernive Plan Designation
i�,JrnW ln. Ik..
I&
Purl PenknWI
InkavW (N�rdl
!�
Pn.k.WAk-J.-Lx—,
F.W Pc+.kitW:
APnWurA kn.r(n,ar
P—krw 1 FO IN..y
I Ird.,J 1-k W P—
C�)
P,.Ra.,w lh+rl9n:TM
thha+(-.—dAmr.k+l l/IWO)
h6w,PtmaJlrah.r
p
Pu ACmnwur
1.6.w tkhun!
Atuvr l't.—d lk,—
Pu W Va,
Hm..f Alva. {Wr
(ern>p..r{lau.0
Q
}F.mFs lh.rlgnm
•
tprn 1pu(WAW
P-1 F'...
Q
lkr"I
1'�d,A IaLy Rl,hd
km- K.—, tKW4
I, -j
C::)
Ruq.1,r.I
tkA-U.k,, o
(-.—W(P 4
11n, my'k -dd 1. +uirin.d m buil .W.r.r Irgd•p.—.n, u�
arq ryrr�I�fr[, r..-,rcnnu[,nrrx 'Ihrr.nunfxu maid fnr
pn. til n�L,rn ui purfnw .nd., uul,�ui u+K,J rc, �rdi„�
r/.,� lau5,v,•,w'.nui ,un !+n n[ra+ra� a,�J an aF%�,i nay—w-
n hn.r
L�FaalNwn +e..mJ., Jr. ,n[;s. ural udKr a.na ul+n
�.l.nr.l r.rr nuns ,k..rk•, �ni�,Ln.r��� v oxl�nh nu ,pr,A+n
.na.re.,u n anl
n+,u.=M.,. ul r[Ir-. .pr•nlrcl
rcpt. ,.nr um. r-.I.dJ,
dr,leu,a pir'vA, Irl.,r�l[•I,r .�nr+r u�+Ilrrn�pr�r*:,•
hr nr•xn-rr, ih+s,n mr.-, .a ml Pr.irn•nnkr�Rv
mdpnn.L al,n„�.. an .11. 0—ddu� nr�uwkt.,.L,rth
iKW ,. m: J.. �W6mrwn� v,uui.J n� .• �wm [a, �nl.
Map 7
N
Rural Area of Intensive Development
W -T- E
Nana urn Village Area - Rural Industri'al S ,X.,
401
C
W Wana um
ana u 2
7qoiA,Q1,
'0
T:
WMMM
Legend
Parcel Boumhfry
Waterbody
Gras C.-YGIS Sniff
Primal
t•&rxrmber19, 3003
C\RAI DUPDATE-1 I I 10\200—F.Ap,
I
�.. �i.x.4 0...('1141
ME
Gcfmprehensive Plan Designation
Lf,
40
&.4 krJrraJ1
1.mw oL,,4
CD
P—J hk,.J 2
(QD
&,Wraw 1kh Drury
CD
(C)
40
Lhtc.w,,._Jd i/wol
(=)
Qf—A
(ZD
1,,M,,W(Lw4
40
ht.- rw_j 4—
P j VIL'.
P...f m— [.Jr
(P-4-%aw
(*. *., (U.W4
P j rt_
1
th'U.)
CD
KdkF.wU"
ut-p—o-A
40
1n u
401),
W -f—,
PAIJ U" -f
P—L-1
thbw—
Q..w(rw,,4
"Wd
ipul—d
1\14
tj,