Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Business Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Businesses urge clarity on UGA rules and oppose high-density residential requirement in Grand Mound; mineral-resource operators ask for review opportunity
Summary
Industrial and resource businesses told the planning commission that one Grand Mound option would force incompatible high-density residential uses next to longstanding industrial sites; mining and aggregate operators asked the county to retain supportive language for resource uses and to allow additional comment on final draft changes.
Business speakers at the April 23 Thurston County Planning Commission hearing urged caution on proposed land-use changes in the Grand Mound urban growth area and asked the county to preserve language supporting mineral-resource and industrial uses.
Russ Siders, representing Conco, an operator of a reinforcing-steel facility at 901/190 Third in Grand Mound, opposed the draft's Option 2 for the Grand Mound UGA, saying it would require dense residential development on property currently zoned for commercial arterial uses. He said Option 2 would make future commercial development less viable and place apartment buildings immediately adjacent to longstanding industrial operations. “Option 1 is the best of the two for sure,” Siders said, arguing that Option 2 would change Grand Mound's commercial character and harm existing businesses.
George John, speaking for Lakeside Industries, said Lakeside owns a 40-acre undeveloped parcel abutting two subdivisions near Marvin Road and Columbia Way NE and asked the commission to consider a short clarifying addition to the plan because of a 2022 state law change affecting urban growth boundary adjustments. John said his company will file written comments proposing a half-sentence amendment to reduce future confusion about the county's ability to adjust urban growth boundaries between periodic updates.
Kyler Danielson, Lakeside's land-use project manager, thanked staff for supportive language regarding resource-based uses and mineral resources and asked the county to provide an opportunity to comment on any final changes staff makes before the county votes on the plan.
Staff noted there are two Grand Mound options included in the draft: one that increases residential densities and one that requires a residential component in certain areas. The commission did not take a formal vote on Grand Mound or on any minerals- or resource-related regulatory language at the hearing.
