Zella:† City of† Granger
Phil:† the City of Granger is applying to expand their urban growth boundaries.† Phil read through the staff report and handouts. The applicant wants to pursue the eventual construction of an additional interchange at the existing overpass.† Weíve issued a DNS on the proposal.† Staff report goes through specific criteria. Weíve received two comments from DOT and DOE.† Our recommendation is for approval of the amendment and rezone requested for the area east of the rail line, and 2nd part of recommendation deals with three parcels west of the rail line, recommending those not be changed at this time.† Take a look at those after the Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program is updated.†
Chuck:† Regarding the map and trying to locate the overpass in my mind.† North of I-82 looks like an access road that goes to the north, is that whatís being proposed?
Phil:† West Hudson Road is an east-west road.† Currently proposed is an overpass over the interstate at that location.† W. Hudson also heads up in a northwesterly direction.† West Hudson continues to the west all the way to the end of the City limits, then turns south.†
Chuck:† The blue dotted line adjoins Parcel ďAĒ and goes to the northwest.† Is that a new proposal?
Phil: No, thatís an existing road.† Where are the improvements going to be cited so we can figure out which of these parcels will be affected by it?
Phil:† The interchange itself Ė not real clear on.† Highway wonít consider this until its considered urban.†
Chuck:† We have a legal conflict between de-designating lands that are in Agriculture and using lands that are designated in Agriculture for appropriate purposes.† Resolving that conflict, want to only de-designate lands that were necessary.† Whatís the minimum necessary?† Donít want to take out of Agriculture more than what is really necessary.† If DOT is going to take such a long time to look at the plans, why are we doing this now?†
Phil:† The original proposal was much bigger than what youíre seeing tonight.† They went much further to the east and south along the river.† When we did Agriculture de-designation criteria, those didnít meet criteria.†
Zella:† Any other questions?
Tom:† DOT wonít even take the time to come up with any tentative design for something that isnít already urban.
Phil:† Yes, if youíre considered urban, per the Federal Highwayís Admin. designation, the standard for the distance between interchanges is one mile.† Right now, they donít qualify to have an interchange there.†
Chuck:† How long will it take for the Federal re-designation of the area as Urban?† That seems to be the final piece.
Phil:† Donít know.†
Ed:† You said the original application included land to the west of the railroad tracks Ė yet staff recommended to them they not include it?
Phil:† Yes, we did Agriculture de-designation criteria on their original submittal and advised them it wouldnít meet the criteria.
Ed: How does ďKĒ fit the criteria for de-designation, when the property below that would not?
Phil:† Saying that ďB, I & KĒ donít meet the criteria.† The portion of Parcel B west of the railroad doesnít.†
Michael Buchanan, COG:† We need a copy of that map youíre referring to.† In relation to questions about the interchanges, Federal law doesnít allow interchanges outside of urban area to be closer than two miles.† We chose this site because it has an overpass, and there is a lot of land out there that is affected by land already, and can be secured.† We did reduce the size of the original proposal. †Idea of an overpass is important to the City of Granger. From an economic development standpoint, the second off ramp is important for the public eye.† In their staff report they refer to critical areas, we have to protect them like everyone else.† How we look at the steep slope, City engineer will address.
Zella:† Has the City held a public hearing on this?
Michael Buchanan: Yes, two of them.
Zella: Do all the property owners in pink agree to be in the UGA?
Michael Buchanan: Yes.† No one is saying ďdo not take me inĒ.† The City Engineer will speak as to why they disagree with the staff recommendation to remove the three properties west of the railroad.† Up until this report came out, we were under the impression that all of these properties were acceptable to the County.† The issue didnít come up about de-designation, it came up about critical areas.†
Zella:† They arenít saying no forever you understand, just lets take a look when we have a more completed ordinance in hand.†
Michael Buchanan:† Itís been three years up to this point and weíve been promised this review at that time.†
Ed:† Where the Railroad tracks are, and itís Industrial there, will those be abandoned?†
Michael Buchanan:† Not abandoned, they are a spur line.† The Grange uses those lines to bring cars in.†
Morrie Block, City Engineer:† Before we can move forward further with the attempt of the off ramp or interchange, that has to be within the city limits.† Granger is embarking on a transportation plan of this whole area.† Water and sewer Ė water is out there, sewer is in the area, but embarking on update of water system plan.† Whole area is designated Industrial, do not want to limit access.† Need to protect 200í buffer for shorelines.† We can protect that.†
Tim Martin:† Weíre looking on opening up the west side of our property also opens up the west side of Granger.† Keep parcels in UGA.† Need to be annexed so the city can improve the road to allow for industrial traffic to go from the north down to the interchange to the south.†
Chuck:† The application in connection with Parcels I & K, if they were not approved, would that limit your use or maintenance of the road?† How does the road issue affect what we do with I & K?
Tim:† We want to change the designation to Urban so when it goes to the Federal Admin. thatís what they need to get the overpass in. We will continue to maintain the road until the overpass goes in.
Ed:† The roadway is county?† Yes, itís been abandoned.†
Jeff Sommerfield, DOT:† Not opposed to economic development, explain the difference between federal urban designations and urban designation under GMA.† Jeff explainedÖ In order to get designation changed, it is a function of census.† It has to be designated by census as an urbanized area, or an urban cluster.† Our issue with the interchange here, is that itís rural and our rules that dictate where we put an interchange, at a minimum, is two miles between interchanges in a rural area.† It is confusing between the two planning arenas.† Weíre bound by what we see in the census.†
Zella:† City of Granger would have to have a population of 5,000 to be considered an urban designation for DOT to even consider putting the interchange in?† Yes.† Also mentioned that it could be a combination of cities to reach that? †How did all the other small towns get two interchanges?† Have to understand those towns and theyíre two miles apart.†
Chuck:† Population criteria which would prohibit a second interchange, it would only prohibit that if it was less than two miles apart.† Yes.†
Tom:† Are there any exceptions to those rules?
Jeff:† We donít really have exceptions that we can make.† Any change we have to go to the Federal Highway Admin and justify our position.†
David Leach, Mayor of Granger:† Only community in the County that has one access to I-82.† The City has struggled for years to come up with a plan that would allow us to grow.† Very critical to our community to get this approved.† There is no way for truck traffic that is necessary to support an industrial area to get from the only interchange up to the Industrial zoned property to the north of Town.†
How far does the city limits go?† Thatís it.† What is the next interchange north of Hudson?† Zillah, about 3 miles.†
Chuck:† Is it possible to re-route traffic to cross Hudson going north, is that an option?
David:† Canít answer that, probably not efficient however.† Discussion about ongoing efforts to revise the C.A. Ordinance.† Any problem in stipulating that the area in Parcels K & I that part of B on the west side of RR tracks, would not be further developed until the C.A. Ordinance is adopted?
David† Donít believe I have the authority to stipulate things for peopleís property.
Chuck:† The City is in the position of granting a permit for the development of property.† Then you could stipulate you would not grant a permit for the development of those three parcels until ordinance is adopted.
David:† Not sure, still a process involved.† We were interested in those parcels, for road access.†
Ed:† If youíre able to incorporate to Urban Growth boundary, this gets developed fully, donít get overpass, you can come up with back-up plan for access.† Can you prohibit vehicular traffic down thru the city and go around Yakima Valley Highway thru Hudson Road?
David:† Donít knowthat we will ever prohibit traffic thru the city, we will designate a truck route thru the city anyway because itís needed.†
Mike Kerins:† History on Ag de-designation issue.† Soon after your recommendation on the Ag de-designation process, Phil came to me to ask if Iíd consider doing an Ag de-designation process on the application submitted by Granger.† Did so which was a clinical analysis Ė I knew they wanted an interchange.† Back then, two years ago, the issue about Hudson Road (west of that) was specifically called out as not meeting the criteria for de-designation and if it was de-designated the recommended land use designation would be Rural Remote because it is in the Shoreline.† With additional information, that may no longer hold true which supports the argument that we would better be able to serve that area and make a more accurate recommendation if we review that in context with the overall UGA analysis within the next few months.
Zella:† Re-phrase that so we understand it.
Mike: †De-designation analysis standing alone would argue that the area west of RR r/w does not meet the de-designation criteria.† If you evaluate the properties in the overall context of an UGA expansion request, looking at the information regarding the cityís need for 20 years of growth, that issue would change.†
Zella:† Close the public hearing.† Deliberations.† Turn to page 8 for Naches Urban Growth staff report.† Start with proposal #3, inclusion of adjacent road rights-of-way Ė where proposed parcels are adjacent to road r/w the UB boundary should be placed to include the entire road right-of-way to enable annexation.† Issues?
Nancy:† Good idea, all members agreed.
Zella:† Land north of SR 12Ö Ed: No on the proposal, need to include that one area has been withdrawn, parcel to the northeast.† We are excluding Parcel 171403-24403.† Discussion: Nancy:† Approve the changes, yes.
Zella:† One to the far left currently RR wants to be switched into UG boundary.† Changing the two acre parcel west of the existing UGB and approve the request from RT/RR to Highway Tourist Commercial.† Comments:† Nancy: Agree with staff, members all agreed.†
Zella:† Second sentence, parcels east of existing UG boundaries, south of SR 12, staff is recommending retaining current plan designationÖ†
Chuck:† In favor of approving the request of the applicant and not the staff recommendation, so long as the applicant stipulated on the record they would not develop this piece of property beyond the same kind of current use for a period until the County Commissioners approve the update C.A. Ordinance.
Nancy:† Whatever they do there, they will have to address traffic issues, interchange issues, etc., so I would approve the change in the City.
Ed:† City said they do follow the same C.A Ordinance that we follow.† Agree that the southern portion of the east part be included.
Zella:† Staffís recommendation was not to include the portion south of SR 12.† If PCís recommends this, what is the worse case scenario?
Mike:† If itís annexed into city and itís zoned HC, some time in the future they would have some kind of HC development.† If you recommend approval of the area south of SR 12, recommend that land use comp plan designation be Urban but zoning be Rural Remote which would be consistent with the Shoreline environmental designation and allow the same opportunity for parks.
Chuck:† Still a problem.† City applying CAO the same way the County does, we donít need to deal with CAO from now on.† We are looking at update to the CAO.† Asking if thatís important to us and needs to be done, the City can continue to develop the property, but not in a way thatís inconsistent with itís current use until we change the CAO.†
Ed:† My intention is that the city and county are working together on the update, so it should be along the same line as ours.†
Gene:† Think we should approve the parcels on the south side of SR12.†
Tom:† I have empathy for small communities, need to approve this, no strings attached.†
Without further burdening them for another two years.
Zella:† City of Naches, any comments.
C.A. Ordinance, everyone has adopted it.† We will follow all that stuff.† As Tom said, it is a small community.† It is a park donated by Allen Brothers.†
Chuck:† Our responsibility goes beyond protecting one interest.† If youíre not going to be developing the land, you would have no problem in stipulating that it would not be developed any differently than itís current use up until the County approved the C.A. Ordinance.
City of Naches:† We cannot extend our sewer and water, we would like to have restrooms at our park.† That is a lot of why we want to put it in the UG boundary.† A lot of our development depends on if itís in the UG boundary.† No problem for us to stipulate that itís going to be a park.†
Ed:† If its designated Urban and zoned Remote, anything that would inhibit their plans to put in park-like facilities, and extension of water and sewer lines to that?
Mike:† The types of park their proposing, is a Type 2 review process in most zones.†
Ed:† Would Remote preclude what the County wants from the City to stipulate?
Chuck:† No, that is a way to get to the same result.†
Zella:† The applicant has asked for one thing, to change it now, they City doesnít have time to prepare for, not fair.† The land south of SR 12?
Chuck:† Iíve heard stipulation from the applicant, based on that agree that we should not accept staff recommendation, but accept applicants request.
Nancy:† Agree with Chuck, approve change to HC.
Ed:† Agree, Gene, Tom and Zella all agreed.†
ACTION: Gene made a motion that† PC approve as requested by City of Naches, all parcels except for parcel named earlier and the format that they asked.† Tom seconded the motion, motion seconded carried.
Zella:† City of Granger, page 7, staff recommendation comes in two parts.† Staff is recommending approval of property on the east side of the rail line, based on testimony heard this evening, is staff going to change their recommendation that it be changed to Industrial?
Mike:† No, thatís what they were asking for.†
Nancy:† Agree with staff recommendation . The other members agreed.
Zella:† Staff has recommended not including Parcels B, I & K, heard testimony from Mayor, Engineer and property owner that they want to be included.†
Nancy:† Those three parcels are 40 feet from floodway, not a high quality critical area.† Not agree with the staff on that one.†
Chuck:† Approve staff recommendation.† Donít see any emergency for this.†
Ed:† I & K should be included, not sure about B because of site visit, a lot of that is pretty narrow.† Concerned why the property to the south of K was not included..† Looking over criteria for de-designating Agriculture land, and took I & K from site visit and looking at corporate limits of Granger and parcel size, my analysis would be different from staff analysis.†
Gene:† B, I & K should be included, City has shown they can handle river front property, whether itís Industrial or Residential.† It doesnít make sense to not designate it.† There is a lot of land to the south of this that is surrounded by the river.† That whole area at some point will become part of Granger.†
Tom:† Listening to testimony, B, I & K came as a surprise to them tonight, look at 17 acres and the criteria, all those parcels are contiguous to the city limits.† Inappropriate for us not to approve their proposal as made.† You donít want the slivers of parcels.
Zella:† If you change this all to UGA, youíre creating an island of Agricultre out there by itself.†
Ed:† If we include I & K you do have an island of Ag above the bluff, thatís why I wasnít sure why that wasnít included in the original proposal.† On paper the point that juts out to the west that follows the river line looks like a big island.†
Chuck:† The City made it clear they would have looked at additional property below what is currently requested, but they took their lead from the county and upon further review, could very well include additional property below.† Inclusion of I & K should be considered at a future time when issue of taking these properties out of Ag and including in UGA is analyzed as a whole Ė not the right time.
Ed:† I do agree with Chuck.
Nancy:† I like Chuckís point, but comments on road right-of-way, and access to the railroad, existing development there now gives it some links.†
Mike:† Road is 30í wide and within the City limits.† If they want to expand the road have to go outside the current city limits to widen it.†
Nancy:† In that case, go with what Ed says and keep K & I in, from the standpoint ďBĒ is not developable.