Planners press for limits on rural warehousing; staff says draft policies already restrict non‑resource warehouses

Residents and commissioners at the Thurston County Planning Commission meeting urged clear restrictions on large warehouses and non‑resource industrial uses in rural areas, saying such development is incompatible with rural and agricultural land uses.

During public comment Betsy Martin, who identified herself as an Olympia resident, noted Futurewise comments raising the Growth Management Act concern that “warehousing is basically an urban use, so you can’t put it in a rural area.” She warned commissioners to consider water demand, stormwater and nearby wildlife habitat where rural industrial (RRI) zoning is proposed, and to preserve buffers around sensitive areas such as the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge.

Phyllis Ferrell, a Sunwood Lakes resident, told the commission she supports Option 2 in the staff analysis — limiting building sizes by percentage of lot area — and quoted Futurewise language that large warehouses covering most or all of a lot are “incompatible with the primary use of land for the production of food” and therefore prohibited in rural areas under the Growth Management Act.

At a staff update later in the meeting, planning staff clarified that the county’s current draft policies for the rural resource industrial designation would allow warehouses only when they are tied to natural‑resource industries (for example, agricultural packing or forestry related warehousing). Staff reiterated that general, non‑resource warehousing is not the county’s intended outcome under the draft language.

Several commissioners asked staff to check the wording in a memorandum included in the packet, noting the memo’s examples‑based wording contrasted with the Planning Commission’s prior approach of listing only allowed uses. Commissioner Joel Hansen said the memo’s phrasing could confuse the public because the commission had previously taken multiple votes to limit rural industrial uses to resource‑related operations.

Commissioners and members of the public pointed to Skagit County as a model for size limits: in Skagit County, building coverage limits for rural industrial uses are measured as a percentage of lot area (for example, 10–15% of lot area for most uses, with up to 70% allowed where the use is greenhouse agriculture). Planning staff said those quantitative examples are useful context as the county refines language on lot coverage and setbacks.

What happens next: staff said it will bring clarifying text back to the Planning Commission and include the Futurewise crosswalk memorandum in follow‑up materials. The commission will forward its formal recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, which is the final decision‑making body for comprehensive‑plan amendments and zoning code changes.