Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 04-036-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. QLI .03(19 -CC- A Resolution Relating to Comprehensive Planning in Grant County in Accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70 A) and amending the September, 1999 Comprehensive Plan. 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 lst Ex. Sess., Ch 17), which was subsequently codified as among other chapters, Chapter 36.70 A RCW; and WHE;tEAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities .in the State to do some planning and the fastest growing counties and cities with them, to plan extensively in keeping with state goals and policies on: sprawl reduction, affordable housing, economic development, open space and recreation, 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, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities within the state to classify, designate, and conserve natural resource lands (agricultural and mineral) and protect critical areas (wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas); and WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70 RCW required Grant County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that met specified GMA goals and addressed the mandated GMA elements; and WHEREAS, after complete review and public record of the State Environmental Review process, the Grant County Planning Commission issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on July, 2, 1999; and subsequent addendum in 2000., and 2001 and; WHEREAS, over the past year, the Comprehensive Plan's policies may have changed to insure that the development patterns in the County remain consistent with the intent of the communities' vision for the future and the Plan's goals and policies; and Grant county Board of County Commissioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2002 To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan I WHEREAS, it is important that amendments to this plan retain the broad perspectives articulated in the community vision statement, satisfy the goals and policies of this Plan, and remain consistent with the intent of the GMA; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes procedures for the review and amendment of Comprehensive Plans governing counties and cities planning under the Act; and WHEREAS, the county has established a public participation program identifying procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the Comprehensive Plan are considered by the governing body of the county no more frequently than once every year; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan fall into several major categories or types and different review application and review criteria apply to each. The kinds of amendments identified herein include: • Urban Growth Area Boundary Changes; • Plan policy or text changes; • Plan Map changes, • Supporting document changes; emergency amendments; and • Site-specific amendments; and WHEREAS, policy amendments may be initiated by the County or by other entities, organizations or individuals through petition; and WHEREAS, petitions were received on forms provided by the Department, containing appropriate maps showing the proposed change and addressing the policy or map evaluation criteria as described in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a public meeting was held on Thursday, May 1, 2003, by the Grant County Board of Commissioners in compliance with Section 25.12.030, Grant County Unified Development Code for the purpose of considering the Planning Department staff recommendation for each of the individual submitted proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and determine whether to initiate the plan amendment review process for each proposal; and WHEREAS, after receiving testimony from citizens and staff at the public meeting, the motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to recommend staff initiate the SEPA review process and schedule each of the amendments proposed, along with staff recommendations before the Planning Commission for public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff held a discussion with members of the Planning Commission on February 5, 2003 to give instruction in conducting the public hearing with regards to consideration of the proposed amendments and review of the Gram County Board of County Comnossioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2002 To the Gram County Comprehensive Plan 2 SEPA addendum to the September, 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement as adopted and prepared for the Comprehensive Plan, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2003, and continued to July 2, August 6, September 3, September 10, 2003 and January 28, and February 10, 2004 to hear staff recommendations and take public testimony on each of the proposed amendments to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan; making recommendations and listing findings of fact on each amendment, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission staff report and recommendation are made a part of the record of this public hearing as it relates to SEPA and the attached amendments. WHEREAS, a non project proposal to consider adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including site-specific land use designation changes, changes to Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map, amendments to the UGA boundaries of the City's of Moses Lake. and Ephrata and Towns of Mattawa and Quincy were considered, and; WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, UGA boundary expansions were supported by, and dependent upon criteria set forth in the GMA 1) in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capabilities to serve such development and 2) in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources and, 3) in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas.and; WHEREAS, when considering inclusion of rural areas within urban growth boundaries, attention was given to recognizing the high priority Grant County places on conserving and protecting both agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and those lands characterized by rural development as well as changes that have occurred on the perimeters of the City's Urban Growth Boundary and; WHEREAS, copies of this EIS Addendum were distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals listed on the Planning Department distribution list and requesting that comments be submitted in accordance with WAC 197-11-340 (2), and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners for Grant County adopts the attached Findings of Fact and the attached record pertaining to the approval or denial of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendments; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners for Grant County adopts Findings of Fact as per Attachment "A" in support of these actions. Grant County Board of County Commissioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2002 To the Gram County Comprehensive Plan 3 PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata, Washington, by the following vote, then signed by its membership and attested to by its Clerk in authorization of such passage this day of 2004. DATED this 2 day of%jq�4z ,__,2004 ATTEST: Clerk of the Board Yeeaa Nay 12r ❑ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Abstain GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON ❑ LeRoy C. Allison, air n Deborah Kay Moore, Member L Er ❑ ❑ Tim Snea ,Mem er Grant County Board of County Comnussioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2002 To the Grant Comity Comprehensive Plan 4 ATTACHMENT "A" GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 2002 FINDINGS OF FACT Section I— General Findings 1.1 Grant County has experienced and will continue to experience population growth and accompanying development, resulting in competing demands for public facilities, services and land uses, and is required to prepare and adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations pursuant to the Growth Management Act. 1.2 Growth Management requires that land be managed properly and wisely. Otherwise meeting the demands of a rapidly growing county population is likely to cause urban and suburban sprawl, commercial strip development, development at inappropriate locations avid densities, damage to environmentally sensitive areas, and the loss of natural resource lands, rural character, open space, and critical areas. Also, this pattern of development is likely to create demands for urban services and utilities that are insufficient to support their extension in a cost-effective manner. 1.3 The 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment process responds to the environmental concerns raised during the public hearing process, whole protecting property owners from unconstitutional takings and substantive due process violations. 1.4 RCW 36.70A.020 sets for a list of 13 goals "to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations." In the amendment public hearing process, and these findings of fact, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners 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 Section 2 - Public Participation 2.1 In July, 2002, the Grant County Planning Department solicited petitions for amendments to the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. 2.2 Petitions received by the Planning Department were reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board directed the Planning Department to proceed with further review of the petitions and to prepare environmental documentation consistent y✓ith the requirements of RCW 43 21 C and Grant County Code Chapter 24.04 (SENA). Attachment "A" Grant County Comprehemive Plan Amendment 2002 General Findings of Fact. 2.3 In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the Planning Commission held public hearings on May 25, June 4, and July 2, 2003, August 7, September 3, and September 10, 2003, and January 28 and February 10, 2004 at which time testimony was taken from interested agencies, organizations, and individual citizens, regarding the proposed amendments, as well as the 2002 addendum to the 1999 EIS. 2.4 Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission meetings, hearings, and study sessions requiring "legal notice" were advertised in the local paper of record pursuant to the requirements ofRCW 36.70 and the Grant County Unified Development Code. Copies of the proposed amendments, and 2002 Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement were broadly disseminated for public and agency review at no charge. All meetings and hearings to which the public was invited were conducted in an open forum. At hearings, all persons desiring to speak were given an opportunity to do so. Public testimony and written correspondence were given full consideration as part of the amendment process. 2.5 The existing enhanced public participation policies within Grant County ensure that the public had an opportunity to provide meaningful comments on the propos;d amendments. 2.6 The appeal mechanisms contained within Grant County ordinances provide sufficient due process to allow interested parties an opportunity to respond at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Section 3 — Criteria for Amendment Approval 3.1 A petition for a site-specific land use redesignation was reviewed for conformance with pertinent provisions of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.. 3.2 In reviewing the amendments, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners considered testimony provided at public hearings and recommendations provided by staff and interested or affected agencies with jurisdiction. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners approved, approved with conditions, or rejected an application for a change of designation or density based on the following criteria. (a) The change would benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; (b) The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land -use designation. (c) The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Corpprehensive Plan. Attachment `A^ Grant Comfy Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1002 General Findings of Fact. (d) The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. (e) The change has merit and value for the community as a whole (f) The change, if granted, will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations. (g) The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change (h) The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirement s of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and (i) The change complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12 Section 4 — Grant County Planning Commission Final Recommendations And/or Actions 4.1 Recorded motions by the Board of County Commissioners for each proposed amendment and Findings of Fact are listed in Attachment `B" 4.2 Supporting Findings of Fact for each decision were identified under Section 3 as detailed above, unless otherwise noted in the record of the Planning Commission 4.3 Notebooks, and detailed applications along with supporting documentation and staff reports are made a part of this recommendation. AttachmnK "A" Grant County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2002 General Findings of Fact. ATTACHMENT `B' FINAL ACTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2002 AMENDMENTS *2002-1 Edmund Arreola Beverly Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Remote to Rural Community The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Rural Community on 19.75 acres of ground west of the Lower Crab Creek Road adjacent to the Townsite of Beverly on Parcel #31-1513- 000. The owners wish to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Rural Community to allow the development of a mobile home park . The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the Land use Designation Request and uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission based on the following Findings of Fact and submittal or additional documentation by Mr. Arreola that verified development had taken place on the property back to 1957 including wells, sewage system, and power. • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject Property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2002-2 Jerry Butler Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Agriculture to Urban Residential 2 and inclusion in the Moses Lake Urban Growth Boundary area. Attachment -73" Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Hoard of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Ammdments 1 The subject parcel (#17-0073-001) is located just west of Goodrich Road, adjacent to Pelican Point, Moses Lake. The current zoning of the property is Agricultural, in the middle of a residential area and subdivision. The parcel was historically zoned "R-2" (Residential)" prior to the adoption of the Unified Development Code and held as a future development site by the previous owner/developer, Mr. Tom Johnson who is now deceased. Mr. Johnson left this parcel out of his platted ground where he had constructed several duplex and multi family units. Mr. Butler plans to develop the property consisting of 1.28 acres into a four lot subdivision to be consistent with the surrounding multi -family units and residential housing. This parcel is virtually an island surrounded by developed property. The applicant requests that the land use designation be changed from Agriculture to Urban Residential 2 which would also locate it within the Moses Lake Urban Growth area and be consistent with the rest of Pelican Point The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Land use Designation Request and change the land use designation from Agriculture to Urban Residential and inclusion in the Moses Lake Urban Growth Boundary Area based on the following Findings of Fact and uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission: • The change would /would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not :onsistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change wiWwill not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change istis not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. •2002-3 Terry and Jeff Cochran Royal City Land Use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Recreation Development The property affected consists of approximately 120 acres and is part of a larger tract all included within Tax Parcel No. 15-0358-001. This property is located on Highway 243 near Vantage, the Columbia River and the junction of Highway #26. The Cochran are requesting that the 120 acres of ground be changed to "Recreation Development" from "Rural Remote". Part of this parcel has been developed and rezoned prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and adjacent to this portion of the parcel was an application for redesignation of land use in the 2001 amendment cycle to Rural General Commercial. This is the center portion of the property which is not irrigable and contains 120 acres Anschmetd "B" Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of Cowry Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 2 The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously deny approval of the Land Use Designation Request based on the folbwing Findings of Fact and the understanding from the Planning Director, that in the future the property could be developed in a similar manner as proposed without making it a RAID (Rural Area of Intensive Development) * At the Public Hearing continued to February 10, 2004 a letter requesting withdrawal of the land use redesignation application was entered into the record received from Mr. Terry Cochran on behalf of he and his brother Jeff dba/ Jet Farms. The Board of County Commissioners rescinded their prior decision to deny the application and accepted the withdrawal letter of request. *2002-4 Tim Cowin Enterprises Crescent Bar Land use Designation Change from Recreation Development to Master Planned Resort The proponent owns approximately ten (10) acres of undeveloped property located at Crescent Bar. Adjacent to the site on the west is a large recreational vehicle park. Mr. Cowin would like to develop the property in a manner consistent with and similar to the adjacent recreational and commercial development within the Crescent Bar community. Specifically, he intends to construct condominiums and commercial facilities to serve the recreational users who frequent the Crescent Bar area Mr. Cowin is seeking a Land Use Designation change from Recreation Development to "Master Planned Resort" to allow turn the density he needs for the construction of the condominium units including Parcel #'s 150634000 and 150635000 which were being purchased at the time of application for land use redesignation change. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and change the land use designation change from Recreation Development to Master Planned Resort subject to the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will1will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change wiWwill not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change islis not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25, and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachment "B" Final Recommendation and Findings of Faa Board of County Comnussionm Comprehensive Plan 2002 Ammdments 3 *2002-5 Bunt Flemming Moses Lake Land use Designation Change from Urban Residential 3 to Urban Residential 2. The proponent is seeking a Land Use Designation change from Urban Residential 3 to Urban Residential 2 on Parcel # 31-1381-000 containing eight (8) acres. The proposed site was submitted some time ago as a short plat, but never finalized within the allotted five year time limitation required under the Grant County Subdivision section of the UDC. In the interim period, the property was rezoned to Urban Residential with different lot size requirements that would require from 4 — 8 dwelling units per acres and a community water and/or sewer system rather than individual wells or septic tanks on one acre parcels as was originally proposed. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation in this area from UR3 to UR2 in accordance with the following Findings of Fact and uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change wiWwtil not be detrimental to uses or property to the immediate vacinity of the subject Property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2002-6 David Sparks/Grant County Moses Lake Land Use Designation change from Rural Remote to Agriculture This proposal would change the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area to reflect the inclusion of an existing short plat and additional property designated as Urban Commercial in a portion of Section 31, Township 19 N., Range 29 E. W.M. Parcel Nos. 180-2460-000 and 180-2510-000 The Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation to Urban Commercial and include both parcels in the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area in accordance with the following Findings of Fact: Attachment "B" Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 4 • The change would /would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change istis not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; • The change hss/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, wiWwill not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. '2002-7 Wanda Hansen, Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change from Agriculture to Open Space for tax purposes This proposal would change the land use designation of property to allow it to be considered by the Grant County Assessor's office for tax purposes as current use/open space land in accordance with RCW 84.34.20 The property is bordered on the west by County Road J SE The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation for' change in Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Open Space Conservation with the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject party. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 215.12. Attachment -B- Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of County Comnussionere Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 5 "2002-8 Phil Herman, Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change from Agriculture to Rural Light Industrial The proposal is to change the land use designation from Agriculture to Rural Light Industrial in a portion of Section 7, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M. for the location and operation of a welding shop. The parcel number of the property is 18-0159-010. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to DENY the request for land use designation change based on the following Findings of Fact • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change isds not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, wiWwil] not rasult in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoy �d by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change wiWwill not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change isfrs not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change comphes/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. * 2002-9 Tren Jones Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial The proposal is to change the land use designation from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial for parcel numbers 12 -1898 -OW and 12-1899-000 farther described as Lots 5 and 6, Astro Acres, Phase 1, Block 2 for the establishment of a grocery store, pharmacy and gas sales to serve the people living in Astro Acres, Pelican Point, and other subdivisions in the area, as well as people using the sand dunes Off Road Vehicle site. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the Land Use Designation Change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial based on the following Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners both felt that the area has been set aside as a residential area and to place a commercial development there now would be an injustice to the people who have invested and built their homes and live there. The change would /would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in theproposed land use designation; Attachment "B" F mi Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of Coumv Commissioners Compmhmlve Plan 2002 Amendments 6 • The changes/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; • The change hastdoes not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change comphes/dces not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. •2002-10 Ed Mc Leary, Mc Leary Family Limited Partnership Park Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Residential to Recreation Development or Shoreline Development Mr. Mc Leary sold this 200 acre property on the east side of Park Lake and adjacent to the Sun Lakes/Dry Falls State Park to the Washington State Parks and Recreation before this item came to the Planning Commission for recommendation THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK NO ACTION ON THIS APPLICATION SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS NO LONGER IN MR. MC LEARY'S OWNERSHIP AND ADVISED THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE PARKS AND RECREATION THEY WOULD ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION FROM THEM DURING THE 2003 YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE, AS THE NEW OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the Land Use Designation Request by Mr. Ed Mc Leary, since he is no longer the owner and the purchaser may have different plans for the property and was invited to submit their own land use designation change amendment The decision for denial was based on the following Findings of Fact% • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25, and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachment "B" Final Recomanendalion and Findings of Fact Board ofCounty Com nnmo m Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 7 *2002-11 Mark Mc Millan Adrian, Soap Lake Land Use Designation change from Agriculture to Rural Residential The proposal is a forty acre parcel located in the Grant Orchards area near Adrian. The proponent would like to change the land use designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential I. The area is fur&er identified as Parcel #16-1876-000 located in a portion of Section 13, Township 22 N., Range 27 E.W.M on Adrian Road and abuts Rural Residential zoning on the north. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to change the Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential based on the following Findings of Fact and uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change islis not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property to the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, wiWwill not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2002-12 Colt Smith and the City of Ephrata Land Use Designation Request for removal of the "RAID" designation from that arra identified as Ephrata Area 1 and 2 and inclusion of Area 2 in the Ephrata UGA The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request for removal of the Raid designation and inclusion of Area two within the UGA based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change isds not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change isrs not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject propeity. , Attachment "B" Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board ofCourdy Comnassioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 8 • The change bas/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change isds not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. NOTE: At the July 2, 2003 meeting of the Planning Commission, Chairman Gary Piercy reopened the hearing to amend the recommendation on the above item, and add to the recommendation that the Lolkus and Smith property be included in the Ephrata UGA. The motion carried unanimously. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the amended recommendation of the Planning Commission and to change the Lolkus and Smith property to be part of the Ephrata UGA, and denied the remainder of the application for land use designation change based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare, • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change isds not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Tides 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. •2002-13 Chris Vizena Quincy Land Use Designation Change from Agriculture to Urban Commercial and Inclusion in the City of Quincy UGA The applicant wishes to change the land use designation on a 1.82 acre parcel in a portion of Section 11, Township 20 N., Range 23 EMM from Agriculture to Urban Commercial on Parcel # 15-0612-000 located between the railroad right-of-way and SR 28 west of the Quincy city limits. The change proposed from Agriculture to Commercial would allow this parcel to be utilized in a manner consistent with the adjoining development and the Town of Quincy. Being a leftover piece from the railroad right-of-way and only 1.5 acres in size, it is not developable as agricultural ground. Attachment "B" Final Reoommenddtion and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 9 The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to change the Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Urban Commercial and that it be included in the Urban Growth Area for the Town of Quincy, based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. OR *2002-14 Mark Poth Moses Lake. Land Use Designation Change request from Public Facilities to Urban Commercial and/or Urban ResidentiaL The proposal is to change the land use designation on a three and a quarter acre parcel located at the Grant County Airport. The proponent would like to change the land use designation from Public Facilities to Urban Commercial and Urban Residential. The parcel is further identified as Parcel #17-1048-000. The land to the south is an apartment complex. To the east is a beverage distributor and car rental facility. Tc the west is located Day Star Child Care and to the north is Big Bend Community College. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to change the land use designation from Public Facilities to Urban Residential based on the following Findings of Fact and after review of the ownership pattern surrounding Mr. Poth's property and the zoning of the area. • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; Attachment "B" Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of County Comnusstonm Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 10 The benefits of the change wiWwill not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. '2002-15 Noel Yingling, Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Agriculture to Current Use/Open Space for Grant County Assessors change in tai status. Ten Acres in a portion of Section 35, Township 19 N., Range 26 E. AL The Planning Commission took NO Action on this proposal, There was no application completed, and only a letter of explanation. They forward this request to the County Commissioners with no recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the application based on the fact there was no formal application submitted and based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would tot benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change isrs not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change isds not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/witl not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change islis not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. "2002-16 Grant County Lakeview Park Land Use Designation change from Urban Commercial to Urban Residential, certain areas in Lakeview Park fronting on Highway 2s. This proposal would decrease the Lakeview Park commercial designated area to include only the lots fronting along Highway 28 in Lakeview Park for Blocks 3, 6, 7, 8 9, 10, and 11 as Commercial and those on Attachmem "B'• Final Recmnmendahon and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments II the back side of these blocks be designated as Urban Residential. They are already developed as residential lots with dwellings on them The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission and approve the Land Use Designation change as per the following recommendation that the front portion of Blocks 3, 6, 7 8 9. 10. and 11 along SR 28 be designated as Urban Commercial with the back half or said Blocks 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and all of Block 1 to be changed to Urban Residential with the exception of Parcel Numbers 08-1193, 000, 08-1195-000 and 08-1196-000, and 08-1194-000, which shall remain as commerciaL All of Block 1 shall be changed to Urban Residential to accommodate a residential short plat already approved., and based on the following Findings of Fact • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed hand use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will1w81 not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. "2002-17 Grant County/Wabluke School District Mattawa Land Use Designation Request from Agriculture to Public Facilities This proposal would bring Parcel No. 19 -1250 -OW into the Urban Growth Area for the Town of Mattawa and identify this area as being designated Public Facilities to support the portable classrooms that have been placed there by the Wahluke School District and make this parcel a part of the Urban Growth Boundary area because it is served by city utilities. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the land use designation from Agriculture to Public Facilities making the area within the Urban Growth boundary for the Town of Mattawa based on the following Findings of Fact: The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; Aaachment'B'. Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of County Comnussioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 12 • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change haddoes not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change compties/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. "2002-18 City of Soap Lake Soap Lake Map correction of the City of Soap Lake corporate limits, and inclusion of some Industrial properties within the Urban Growth Area THIS ITEM WAS CARRIED OVER FROM LAST YEAR WAITING FOR CORRECTED MAPS TO BE SUBMITTED FROM LAND USE CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY OF SOAP LAKE, GILBERT ALVERADO, AND NONE WERE RECEIVED. After continuing this item mouth after month, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to drop this item from the agenda. Conversations with the City of Soap Lake indkate they have retained an engineering firm who will resubmit after corrections have been made. NO ACTION TAKEN, and no recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners upheld the decision of the Planning Commission and voted unanimously to deny the application by the City of Soap Lake based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachmem'B" Fiml Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plao 2002 Amendments 13 •2002-19 TD Investments, ASPI Group Moses Lake. Land Use Designation change from Rural Residential to Rural Freeway Commercial The applicant owns a total of 325 acres in a portion of Section 31, Township 21 North, Range 27 EW.M. presently designated as Rural Residential with the exception of Parcel # 16-1820-000 which was designated as industrial during the 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The applicant proposes that the property would be better suited to gas station, convenience stores, restaurant, mini -storage facilities, agircultural/contractor warehousing, non impact light manufacturing, assembly, equipment repair, etc This item was forwarded for review from last years Comprehensive Plan amendment docket for Mr. Foster to present additional mapping on behalf of ASPI As the parcel numbers of the additional land to not meet what is fisted on the application itself. Having heard nothing further from him, and continuing the matter for several months, there was no action taken on this proposal. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to take no action on this proposal and forward it on to the Board of County Commissioners with NO RECOMMENDATION. They felt the applicant should resubmit after carrying it for two years as an agenda item with no response from the applicant The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the request for Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential to Rural Freeway Commercial by TD Investments based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change wiWwill not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject party. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change i0s not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2002-20 Grant County Cascade Valley Land Use Designation Change from Urban Residential 3 to Urban Residential 2 This proposal would change the land use density in Cascade Valley within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses lake in order to make the density more compatible with the actual use and density of the Area This would also be in accordance with the City of Moses Lake projected land use classification for Cascade Valley as there are no city utilities available to serve any proposed housing developments that Attachment "B" Final Recommendation and Findings of Fact Board of County Conunissioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 14 may be located there. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation for the residential areas of Cascade Valley from Urban Residential 3 to Urban Residential 2 based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change Ms not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the eject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachment "B" Final Recommendatwn and Findings of Fact Board of County Comtmssioners Comprehensive Plan 2002 Amendments 15