HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 08-084-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
��� � �� �.�
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 2006 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
WHEREAS, 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 amendments through 2006 and;
WHEItEAS, over the past years, 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 2008
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
1
WHEREAS, it is important that amendments to this plan retain the broad perspectives
articulated in the community vision statements, satisfies 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 idantifying
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
�VHEREAS, 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, On May 15, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners directed staff
initiate the SEPA review process and schedule each of the complete amendments
proposed, along with staff recommendations before the Planning Commission for public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted by the Planning Commission on July 23
and July 30, 2008, to hear staff recommendations and take public testimony on each of
tha proposed amendments to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan; malcing
recommendations and listing Findings of Fact on each amendment, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission staff reports and recommendations are made a
parC of the record of this public hearing as it relates to SEPA and the attached
amendments.
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2008
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
2
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 Soap lalce were considered, and;
WHER�AS, 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;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conducted an open-record public
hearing on Friday September 5, 2008 to consider the 2008 requests for amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation from the Planning Commission for each of
the proposed amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners
for Grant County adopts the attached Findings of Fact per Attachment "B" and the
attached record pertaining to the approval of the 2008 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.
PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata,
Washington, by the following vote, then signed b� its membership nd attested to by its
Clerlc in authorization of such passage this �Q .?� day of ��.��-.
2008.
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2008
To the Grant County Compreheusive Plan
3
� �� •� �
DATED this � day of �� /� �, 2008.
Yea Nay
L✓1 ❑
�o
. .
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Abstain GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
��
� Richard Stevens, Chair
��� ���
� LeRoy Allison, Member
;�����
� Cindy Carter, Member
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2008
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
4
�
ATTACHM�NT "A"
GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT 2007
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 tha 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 lilcely to cause urban
and suburban sprawl, commercial strip development, development at inappropriate
locations and 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 2005 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 March 2008, the Grant County Planning Department solicited petitions for
amendments to the 2006 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 with the requirements of RCW 43.21C and Grant County Code Chapter
24.04 (SEPA).
Attachment "A"
Grant Coi�nty Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2008
General Findings of Tact.
2.3 In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the
Planning Commission held public hearings on July 23 and July 30 2008
at which time testimony was talcen from interested agencies, organizations,
and individual citizens, regarding the proposed amendments, as well as the 2006
Addendum to the original 1999 EIS and its subsequent addendums.
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 of RCW 36.70 and the Grant County Unified
Development Code. Copies of the proposed amendments, and 2008
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 spealc 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 proposed
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.
Sectaon 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 Comprehensiva Plan.
(d) The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity
of the subject property.
Attachment "A"
Grant County Compreliensive Plan
Amendment 2008
General I+indings of Fact.
(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 enj oying
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— Board of County Commissioners 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 Board of County
Commissio�ers.
4.3 Detailed applications along with supporting documentation and staff
reports are made a part of this recommendation.
Attachment 0°A"
Grant County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2008
General Findings of P'act.
ATTACHMENT `B'
FINAL ACTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
BOARD OF COUNTY COIVIMISSIONERS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 AMENDMENTS
1 08-5068 Bering Sea 344
2 07-4887 Moses Lalce Development Co.
3 08-5069 Joseph and Debbie Byrd
4 08-5070 George Coddington
5 07-4888 John Enright/Sun Ranch
6 08-5071 Frenchman Hills Estates
7 08-5072 Steven and Susan Gilber�
8 08-5074 Grant County PUD/Ron Baker
9 07-4914 Vern and Marilee Griffith
10 08-5073 Vaughn Hunsaker
11 07-4896 Charles and Phyllis Lybbert
12 07-4894 North Pointe Holdings, LLC
13 07-4891 Schiffner 80 LLC
14 07-4892 Schiffner 320 LLC
15 08-5077 Wilhelm and Kimberly Schulz, et.al.
16 07-4898 City of Soap Lake
17 08-5078 Kevin Weber
File 08-506� Bering Sea 344
Land use designation change of 317 acres from Rural Remote and Rural Industrial to
Urban Industrial, Residential, Medium Density, and Urban Commercaal; and inclusion of
the site fnto the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lalce.
LOCATION:
The subject area is located in a portion of S 30, T 20 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (APN
17-1024-000), near the southern-most intersection of Neppel Road and Highway 17.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting an Urban Growth
Area boundary change and Site Speci�c Land Use Re-designation of approximately 317 acres
from "Rural Remote" and "Rural Industrial" to "Urban Industrial", "Urban Commercial", and
"Residential, Low Density". Properties to the north, south and west are designated "Rural
Residential 1" and "Rural Remote", properties to the east are within the UGA of Moses Lake and
are designated as "Port of Moses Lake".
This property was involved in the 2007 Comp Plan amendment cycle at which time the applicant
request that the approximately 200 acres on the northeast side of Highway 17 be redeisgnated to
Rural Industrial. The Planning Commission approved that designation change but in their
deliberations agreed that the site more appropriately belongs in the Urban Growth Area and
Attachment B
Decisions and Pindings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
1
conditioned approval of the designation change last year with a requirement that the applicant
seek and obtain inclusion into the UGA during a future cycle.
Staff also considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lake when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update iiidicates a 3 percent annual increase in population during the
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lake will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Office of
Financial Management (OFM), and are the prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is worth noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not ofiicial recognize a 5 percent increase in population
from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year planning
period, the population numbers could be higher than the assumed 3 percent.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. The Planning
Commission conf"irmed with Mr. Jansen that he was agreeable to dedicating the necessary right-
of-way to the County for the realigrunent of Neppel Road. The Neppel Road realignment creates
tlu•ee distinct portions ot'the site that reflect the boundaries for the proposed land use
designations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conductad an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a UGA amendment and Site Specific
Land Use Redesignation:
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lake to include parcel 17-1024-000.
2) Redesignate parcel 17-1024-000 from Rural Remote and Rural Industrial to Residential
Low Density, Urban Commercial, and Urban I�idustrial.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property;
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify
different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signiiicant adverse impacts of the change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC;
File 07-4887 Moses Lake Development Company
Land Use Designation change of 98 acres from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Medium
Density; and inclusion of the site in the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lake.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located at the northern end of West Shore Drive in a portion of Section 6,
Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M., (parcel # 17-0172-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation and a UGA boundary change to include approximately 100 acres from "Rural
Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Medium Density".
The subject property is adjacent to the applications that are collectively referred to as the North
Pointe applications (North Pointe, Schiffner 80, and Schiffner 320). These applications when
considered collectively, if approved, will result in the creation of two `islands' of properties that
will be under the County's jurisdiction although not within the Urban Growth Area for the City of
Moses Lake. One of these islands is the area east of West Shore Drive and the other is the
Panorama Heights neighborhood. This issue is one that has been contemplated by the Eastern
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB) in Bruce Roberts and Marilyn
Taylor v. Benton County et.al. In this petition, the EWGMIIB established that the only portion of
the GMA that refers to the creation of irregular boundaries is found in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)(C), which relates solely to Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural
Development (LAMIRD). The hearings board concluded that because where the GMA addresses
UGAs it is silent on the irregular boundaries issue the question is "moot". These island areas will
have different development standards than those areas in the Urban Growth Area, and if these
applications are approved, the County may want to consider a County-initiated Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in the future to include the islands in the UGA to help facilitate a uniform and
consistent pattern of development in this area. Development of the North Pointe-area sites may
require the extension of urban services and utilities that are already provided to Moses Pointe. It
should also be noted that properties not within the UGA, speci�cally, these two island areas, are
precluded from connecting to urban services should they chose to redevelop.
Staff also considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lake when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent annual increase in population during the
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lake will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Office of
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
3
Financial Management (OFM), and are the prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is worth noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not official at this time, recognize a 5 percent increase in
population from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year
planning period, the population numbers would expected to be signi�cantly higher than the
assumed 3 percent annual increase.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. Public comment
was received by neighboring property owners in opposition to this application. Their comments
relate to impacts the future development of the site would have on wildlife, property values,
aquifers, availability of properties for sale in the area at this time, and lack of study by the City
and County relating to urban services to accommodate the development of the site.
PLANNING CONINIISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation.
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lake to include parcel 17-0172-000.
2) Redesignate parcel 17-0172-000 from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Medium
Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
4
9, The change �loes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
08-5069 Joseph and Debbie Byrd
Land Use Designation change of 21 acres from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Raral
Residential 1.
LOCATIOlV:
The subject property is located on the south side of Road 20 NE approximately one-mile west of
Adrian Road; and is a portion of S 27, T 22 N, R 27 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 20-
0051-001)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of 21-acres from
"Agricultural Resource" (irrigated) to "Rural Residential 1". The applicant has stated that the
basis for this request is that the subject area is not suitable for Agricultural Production and has no
long-term commercial agricultural signiiicance. The applicant states that the subject has soils that
are unsuitable for agricultural production.
The surrounding properties to the north and west are designated Rural Residential 1 and 2. The
properties to the south and east are designated Agricultural Resource (Irrigated). The adjoining
two parcels west of this site were previously granted Comprehensive Plan Amendments from
Agriculture to RRl and RR2 (File Numbers 2000-34 "Gene Longacre"; and 2001-40 "Walter
Stephens"). Both of these sites to the west were part of Farm Unit 46, Block 70, both exhibit
generally the same soil conditions as the Byrd site, with soils that are no listed as Prime Farmland
soils according to the Grant County Soil Survey.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on July 30, 2008 for this
application. The Planning Commission discussed the difference between RR1, RR2, and RR3
zoning designations in light of the mix of zoning in the area of this site. The Planning
Commission understood that all of the Rural Residential designations require 1 home per 5 acres
maximum density. The Planning Commission also discussed the soil types in terms of what the
Soil Survey considers to be Prime Farmland Soils. No other issues were addressed by the
Planning Commission.
PLANI�TING COMMISSION RECOMMEI�TDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve this request for site specific land use redesignation.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation.
1) Redesignate parce120-0051-OOlfrom Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
5
10. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
11. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
12. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
13. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property;
14. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
15. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which justify
different designations;
16, The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change;
17. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
18. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC;
19. The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of the
Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been completed
utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of
Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial Signi�cance.
20. The Board of County Commissioners does not �nd that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
21. The Board of County Commissioners �loes not �nd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) signi�cance because the land: (1) �loes not have productive
growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) cloes not have good soil composition for
long-term cornmercial production, (4) is located in close proximity to population areas,
and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 08-5070 George Coddington
Land Use Designation change of approximately 36 acres from Agricultural Resource
(Irrigated) to Rural Residential 1.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the City of George on the
west side of Road S SW; and is a poi�tion of S 24, T 18 N, R 23 E, WM, Grant County, WA.
(parcel # 15-0451-000; 15-0450-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-speci�c land use re-designation of approximately
36-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
The applicant indicates that the site is contains wetlands and soils that would not be conducive to
farming. The applicant also states that the site has not historically been "farmed"; however, a
food-plot has been established to enhance the waterfowl hunting opportunities at the site.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
6
The surrounding properties to the north and west are designated Rural Residential 1 and the
properties to the south and east are designated Agriculture Resource.
The subject property is not located in an irrigated farm unit associated with the Columbia Basin
Irrigation Project. Soils on the subject site are not considered Prime Farmlands soil according to
the Soil Survey of Grant County.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on July 30, 2008 for this
application. The Planning Commission clarified that the subject property is not currently farmed
and that as indicated by the applicant that the corn that is grown on the subject site is utilized as a
food plot for hunting. No other signi�cant issues were addressed by the Planning Commission at
their hearing.
PLANI�TING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve this request for site speci�c land use redesignation.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation ot'the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Redesignate parcels 15-0451-000 and 15-0450-000 from Agricultural Resource to Rural
Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified ui the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the reqitirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
7
11
12.
identi�cation of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Signiiicance.
The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4888 John Enright / Sun Ranch
Land Use Designation change of 110 acres from Rural Residentiall to Residential, Low
Density and inclusion of the property in the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses
Lake.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located north and south of Road 3 NE and west of Road F NE in a
portion of Sections 13 and 24, Township 19 N., Range 27 E.W.M., (parcel # 15-0570-001, 16-
1420-000, 16-1421-000, 16-1422-000, 16-1428-000, 16-1429-000, 16-1495-001, 31-2408-000,
16-1474-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation and a UGA boundary change to include approximately 110 acres in the UGA
with a redesignation from "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density".
The subject application, if approved will create an island of properties under the County's
jurisdiction that are not within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lake. The `island'
constitutes approximately nine individual parcels located along Road F NE. This issue is one that
has been contemplated by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(EWGIVIIIB) in Bruce Roberts and Marilyn Taylor v. ]3enton County et.al. In this petition, the
EWGMI-IB established that the only portion of the GMA that refers to the creation of irregular
boundaries is found in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)(C), which relates solely to Limited Areas of
More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIlZD). The hearings board concluded that because
where the GMA addresses UGAs it is silent on the irregular boundaries issue the question is
"moot". These island areas will have different development standards than those areas in the
Urban Growth Area, and if these applications are approved, the County may want to consider a
County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the future to include the islands in the UGA
to help facilitate a uniform and consistent pattern of development in this area. Development of
the Sun Ranch/John Enright properties may require the extension of urban services and utilities.
It should also be noted that properties within the island area are precluded from connecting to
urban services should they chose to redevelop pursuant to the GMA and County-Wide Planning
Policies.
Staff also considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lake when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent annual increase in population during the
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
8
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lalce will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Of�ce of
Financial Management (OFM), and are the prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is worth noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not of�cial at this time, recognize a 5 percent increase in
population from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year
planning period, the population numbers would expected to be significantly higher than the
assumed 3 percent annual increase.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. The Planning
Commission discussed the issue of creating "islands" of unincorporated areas that are excluded
from the UGA that will be surrounded by properties in the UGA. The Planning Commission
recognized that it is an inevitability that these island areas will be included in the UGA at some
point, but recognized that they did not want to force propei�ties into the UGA if those owners were
not interested at this time to include themselves.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unaniinously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation from
the Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and inclusion of the site in the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area:
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lalce to include parcels 15-0570-001, 16-1420-000, 16-1421-
000, 16-1422-000, ] 6-1428-000, 16-1429-000, 16-1495-001, 31-2408-000, 16-1474-000.
2) Redesignate parcels 15-0570-001, 16-1420-000, 16-1421-000, 16-1422-000, 16-1428-
000, 16-1429-000, 16-1495-001, 31-2408-000, 16-1474-000 fi•om Rural Residential 1 to
Residential, Low Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does hnve merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
9
The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 08-5071 Frenchman Hills Estates
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Rural Residential
1.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located approximately 11 miles west of the Royal City on the east side of
Highway 26; and is a portion of 31/17/24; 1/16/23; 6/17/23E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #
15-0990-000,15-0230-010,15-0907-002)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of 21-acres from
"Agricultural Resource" (irrigated) to "Rural Residential 1". The applicant has stated that the
basis for this request is that the subject area is not suitable for Agricultural Production and has no
long-term commercial agricultural signi�cance. The applicant states that the subject has soils that
are unsuitable for agricultural production.
The subject property does not appear to have been farmed in recent past, if ever. The site is not a
farm unit associated with the Columbia Basin Irrigation project. On-site soils are not considered
Prime Farmland soils according to the Grant County Soil Survey.
The applicant does not currently own parcel number 15-0990-000, however they have submitted a
copy of the real estate purchase and sale agreement for the site. Planning Commission may want
to consider a condition relating to the ownership of the site similar to what has been used in
recent years for sites where a sale was pending at the time of Comprehensive Plan amendment
application, If the Planning Commission establishes this condition, staff would suggest that the
condition apply to all three parcels subject to this request due to the location of the parcel not
owned by the Myricks.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Plaiming Commission conducted an open record public hearing on July 30, 2008 for this
application. The Planning Commission discussed the issues of introducing residential lots in an
area that is completely surrounded by agricultural lands that are in production, lacic of access to
the subject site in the event WSDOT does not allow a direct connection from Highway 26.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
deny this request for site specific land use redesignation.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to reverse the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to deny the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
10
1) Redesignate parcels 15-0990-000, 15-0230-010, 15-0907-002 from Agricultural
Resource to Rural Residential l.
2) If the event of approval, the Board of County Commissioners should consider a condition
relating to the ownership of parcel 15-0990-000.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. Applicant shall execute and obtain title ownership of parcel number 15-0990-000
from current owner (St. Clair Woodworth and MarieaWoodworth) within twelve
(12) months of the date of this decision, otherwise all three properties will revert to
the Agricultural land use designation.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact in reaching its
decision to approve this application:
1. The change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject propei�ty;
5. The change does h�ve merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners u1 the
vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
2512 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing tlie required Classi�cation and Designation Criteria for the
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance.
11. The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) �loes not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
11
File 08-5072 Steven and Susan Gilbert
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Rural Residential
1.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located approximately 7 miles east of Royal City and is adjacent to the
Royal Camp LAMIRD. The site is in a portion of S 17, T 27 N, R 31 E, WM, Grant County,
WA. (parcel # 21-1060-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of approximately
27-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
The site is currently in alfalfa production and served by a rill irrigation system. The site is
identified as Farm Unit 243 Block 87 in the Columbia Basin Irrigation project and contains
signiiicant areas of soils that are considered Prime Farmland soils according to the Grant County
Soil Survey.
The site is adjacent to the Royal Camp Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development
(LAMIlZD) site which is designated as a Rural Community. At the time of adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan, the County originally included this site in the LAMIRD area, but eventually
the site was removed from the LAMIltD because the site did not meet the criteria established in
the GMA to remain within the boundary of the LAMIRD.
Based on the current and historical farming practices at the site, soil types, availability of
irrigation water from the Columbia Basin Project, the site was appropriately designated as
Agricultural Resource at the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record p�blic hearing on July 30, 2008 for this
application. The Planning Commission discussed the site's proximity to the Royal Camp
LAMIRD, and the limited availability for infill development within that LAMIRD that could
accommodate additional residential units if a need existed.
PLANNING CONIMISSION 12ECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners deny this request for site specific land use redesignation.
DECISION:
The Board of County Cornmissioners voted unanimously to reverse the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to deny this request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation:
1) Redesignaie parcel 21-1060-000 from Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact in making their
decision to approve this application:
1. The change woultl benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amenciments
12
2, The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3, The change is consisient with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4, The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does lzave merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signiiicant adverse impacts of the
change;
8, The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classi�cation and Designation Criteria for the
identi�cation of Agricultural Resource Lands o� Long-Term Commercial
Signiiicance.
11. The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Commissioners does not fmd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) signi�cance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) �loes not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 08-5074 Grant County PUD / Ron Baker
Land Use Designation change from Rural Commercial and Rural Residential2 to Public
Facility and inclusion of the site into the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lake.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located at Stratford Road and Kinder Road in a portion of Section
11, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M., (parcel # 17-0499-000, 17-0530-006, 11-0682-000, 11-
0684-000, 11-0686-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation and a UGA boundary change to include approximately 21.5 acres from
"Rural Residential 2" and "Rural Commercial" to "Urban, Public Facilities".
The Grant County PUD has an existing operation center on a portion of the subject site and has
identified a need for additional fire flow protection that can only reasonably be achieved through
the connection to and use of a municipal water source, in this case, the City of Moses Lake.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
13
A portion of the site is vacant and is owned by Ron Baker. The PUD and Mr. Balcer are in the
process of negotiating a purchase and sale agreement for Mr. Baker's parceL In their application
materials, the PUD has requested that the Planning Commission consider a condition of approval
for this request that the PUD obtain title ownership of the site within one year of the Grant
County Board of County Commissioners approval of this application, otherwise the Ron Baker
property falls out of the UGA and retains its current land use designation of Rural Residential2
and Rural Commercial as shown on the mapping contained in this application. This is a condition
that has been utilized in previous years when an applicant has not yet secured title ownership of a
property involved in the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle.
Inclusion of this site into the UGA of Moses Lake with a designation of Public Facilities does not
carry any implications with regard to residential density or population projects. The site would
provide for an expanded ability for the PUD to provide services to the surrounding community
and the County as a whole.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. There were no
significant issues discussed by the Planning Commission for this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearuig for this application on Ju1y 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application with the condition that if the PUD does not purchase the Ron Balcer property within
one year, that property will fall out of the UGA and will revert to the Comprehensive Plan
designations in place at the time the application was filed with the County in March 2008.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve with conditions this request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and inclusion into the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lake to include parcels 17-0499-000, 17-0530-006, 11-0682-
000, 11-0684-000, 11-0686-000.
2) Redesignate parcels 17-0499-000, 17-0530-006, 11-0682-000, 11-0684-000, 11-0686-
000 from Rural Residential 2 and Rural Commercial to Public Facilities.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
The Grant County PUD shall obtain title ownership of parcel number 17-0499-000,
currently owned by Mr. Ron Baker, within one-year of the Grant County Board of
County Commissioner's decision to approve this amendment. In the event the PUD
cannot satisfy this condition, this parcel shall be excluded from the UGA and the land
use designations shall revert to the designations that existed at the time this
application for Comprehensive Plan amendment was deemed complete
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
14
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC— 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4914 Vern and Marilee Griffith
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Rural Residential
2.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located east of Road J NE just north of the Stratford community and is a
portion of S 2, T 22 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #'s 17-1183-000, 17-1179-005,
17-1179-006, 17-1179-007)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This application was previously heard by the Planning Commission during the 2007 amendment
cycle. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled this application with the expectation that the
applicant could reconfigure the proposed amendment to reduce the impact to agricultural lands
with long term commercial significance to the greatest extent possible, The applicant has made
modifications to the application that removes these agriculturally signi�cant areas from the
requested amendment. In addition the applicant has worked with neighboring property owners to
include their properties in the request as well. This is significant because the Ponozzo property
and the Ralston property are 5 and 2.5 acres respectively and were in existence prior to the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1999. By designating the Ponozzo and Ralston properties
RR2, the Ponozzo property will comply with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code
requirements; while the Ralston property will achieve compliance to the greatest extent possible.
During the 2007 amendment hearing, staff recommended denial of the application because a
significant portion of the site was deemed to have been correctly designated as Agricultural
Resource land. The changes reflected in the 2008 proposal remove the agricultural lands of long
term commercial signi�cance. Development of this site will not result in the loss of such
agricultural lands, and the development regulations currently in place at Grant County will
address the Washington State Depai�tment of Fish and Wildlife's concerns when a project action
application is submitted to the County for review.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of I'act
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
15
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on July 30, 2008 for this
application. The Planning Commission discussed the involvement of the neighboring property
owners in this application. Last year, they were opposed to the redesignation, and this year they
are co-applicants with Mr. Grifiith because the redesignation will aid in rendering their sites
conforming with current zoning standards. No other significant issues were discussed by the
Planning Commission,
PLANNII�TG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve this request for site specific land use redesignation.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted ananimously to uphold the recommendation from
the Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Redesignate parcels 17-1183-000, 17-1179-005, 17-1179-006, 17-1179-007 from
Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does hnve merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 propei�ties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners doesfind that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classi�cation and Designation Criteria for the
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Signi�cance.
ll. The Board of County Commissioners cloes not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
16
12. The Board of County Commissioners does not �nd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing dapacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses,
08-5073 Vaughn Hunsaker
Land Use Designation change from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density and
inclusion of the property an the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located south of Winesap Road and west of Malaga Drive NE in a
portion of Section 19, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M., (parcel # 14-1691-001, 17-0756-001,
14-1691-000, 14-1693-000, 14-1693-001).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation and a UGA boundary change to include approximately 50 acres in the UGA
with a redesignation from "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density".
The subject application, if approved will create an island of properties under the County's
jurisdiction that are not within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lake. The `island'
constitutes approximately nine individual parcels located along Road F NE. This issue is one that
has been contemplated by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(EWGMIIB) in Bruce Roberts and Marilyn Taylor v. Benton County et.al. In this petition, the
EWGMHB established that the only portion of the GMA that refers to the creation of u•regular
boundaries is found in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)(C), which relates solely to Limited Areas of
More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIltD). The hearings board concluded that because
where the GMA addresses UGAs it is silent on the irregular boundaries issue the question is
"moot". These island areas will have different development standards than those areas in the
Urban Growth Area, and if these applications are approved, the County may want to consider a
County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the future to include the islands in the UGA
to help facilitate a uniform and consistent pattern of development in this area. Development of
the Sun Ranch/John Enright properties may require the extension of urban services and utilities.
It should also be noted that properties within the island area are precluded from connecting to
urban services should they chose to redevelop pursuant to the GMA and County-Wide Plaruling
Policies.
Staff also considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lake when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent aunual increase in population during the
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lalce will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Office of
Financial Management (OFM), and are the prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is worth noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not official at this time, recognize a 5 percent increase in
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
17
population from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year
planning period, the population numbers would expected to be significantly higher than the
assumed 3 percent annual increase.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. No significant
issues were discussed by the Planning Commission for this application,
PLANNING COMNIISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve this request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation and
inclusion of the site in the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area.
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lake to include parcels 14-1691-001, 17-0756-001, 14-1691-
000, 14-1693-000, 14-1693-001.
2) Redesignate parcels 14-1691-001, 17-0756-001, 14-1691-000, 14-1693-000, 14-1693-
001 from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change !s warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria %r land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does h�ve merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, wiCd not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The bene�ts of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change tloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of I'act
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
18
File 07-4896 Charles and Phyllis Lybbert
Land Use Designation change from Raral Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density and
inclusion of the property in the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located south of Mae Valley Road and west of Road F NE in a
portion of Section 25, Township 19 N., Range 27 E.W.M., (parcel # 16-1527-000).
STAFF A1�TALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation and a UGA boundary change to include approximately 29 acres in the UGA
with a redesignation from "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density".
Staff considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lake when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent annual increase in population during the
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lake will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Of�ce of
Financial Management (OFM), and are t11e prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is worth noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not ofiicial at this time, recognize a 5 percent increase in
population from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year
planning period, the population numbers would expected to be significantly higher than the
assumed 3 percent annual increase.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMAi2Y:
At their opan record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal, No significant
issues were discussed by the Planning Commission for this application.
PLANNING COlVI1VIISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve this request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation and
inclusion of the site in the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area:
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lake to include parcel 16-1527-000.
2) Redesignate parcel 16-1527-000 from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
19
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the irnmediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, wiCl not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The bene�ts of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4894 — North Pointe Holdings, LLC
Land Use Designation change from Rural Residential 1 and Residential, Low Density and
inclusion of the property in the City of Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located between Panorama Heights and West Shore Drive in a
portion of Sections 6 and 31, Township 19 and 20 N., Range 28 E.W.M., (parcel # 31-2711-000,
31-2710-000, 31-2709-000, 31-2712-000, 17-0174-000, 17-0173-000, 17-1270-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting inclusion in the
Moses Lake Urban Growth Area and a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation of approximately
384 acres from "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density".
The subject property is one of three applications collectively referred to as the North Pointe
development. These applications when considered collectively, and if approved, will result in the
creation of two `islands' of properties that will be under the County's jurisdiction althougli not
within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lake. One of these islands is the area east
of West Shore Drive and the other is the Panorama Heights neighborhood. This issue is one that
has been contemplated by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(EWGMHB) in Bruce Roberts and Marilyn Taylor^ v, Benton County et.al. I�i this petition, the
EWGMI�B established that the only portion of the GMA that refers to the creation of irregular
boundaries is found in RCW 36.70A,070(5)(d)(iv)(C), which relates solely to Limited Areas of
More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIIZD). The hearings board concluded that because
where the GMA addresses UGAs it is silent on the irregular boundaries issue the question is
"moot". These island areas will have different development standards than those areas in the
Urban Growth Area, and if these applications are approved, the County may want to consider a
County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the future to include the islands in the UGA
to help facilitate a uniform and consistent pattern of development in this area. Development of
the North Pointe-area sites may require the extension of urban seivices and utilities that are
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Pact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
20
already provided to Moses Pointe. It should also be noted that properties not within the UGA,
specifically, these two island areas, are precluded from connecting to urban services should they
chose to redevelop.
Staff also considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lake when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent annual increase in population during the
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lake will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Of�ce of
Financial Management (OFM), and are the prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is worth noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not official at this time, recognize a 5 percent increase in
population from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year
planning period, the population numbers would expected to be signi�cantly higher than the
assumed 3 percent annual increase.
The subject property has frontage along Moses Lalce, which, in this location has a shoreline
designation of Rural pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Grant County will be
updating its Shoreline Master Program in the relatively near future. The SMP update is required
to be completed no later than 2013, however may be completed prior to that. This impoi�tant to
note because depending on the vested status of a project for this site, development of this site may
be subject to and affected by the new regulations in the SMP.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. Public
comments were received from neighboring property owners in opposition to the proposal. Issues
cited by the public are generally similar to those presented for the ML Development proposal.
Impacts to the existing coirununity in the area, impacts to the lake were also included.
PLANNING CONIIVIISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lake to include parcels 31-27ll-000, 31-2710-000, 31-2709-
000, 31-2712-000, 17-0174-000, 17-0173-000, 17-1270-000.
2) Redesignate parcels 31-2711-000, 31-2710-000, 31-2709-000, 31-2712-000, 17-0174-
000, 17-0173-000, 17-1270-000 from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woultl bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
21
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change �loes have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signiiicant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4891 Schiffner 80, LLC
Land Use Designation change from Rural Residential 1 and Residential, Low Density and
inclusion of the property in the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located north and west of the northern terminus of West Shore Drive
in a portion of Section 6, Township 19 N., Range 27 E.W.M., (parcel # 17-0170-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting inclusion in the
Moses Lake Urban Growth Area and a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation of approximately
80 acres from "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density".
The subject property is one of three applications collectively referred to as the North Pointe
development. These applications when considered collectively, and if approved, will result in the
creation of two `islands' of properties that will be under the County's jurisdiction although not
within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Laka. One of these islands is the area east
of West Shore Drive and the other is the Panorama Heights neighborhood. This issue is one that
has been contemplated by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(EWGMIIB) in Bruce Roberts and Marilyn Taydor v. Benton County et.al. In this petition, the
EWGMIIB established that the only portion of the GMA that refers to the creation of irregular
boundaries is found in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)(C), which relates solely to Limited Areas of
More Tntensive Rural Development (LAMIl2D). The hearings board concluded that because
where the GMA addresses UGAs it is silent on the irregular boundaries issue the question is
"moot". These island areas will have different development standards than those areas in the
Urban Growth Area, and if these applications are approved, the County may want to consider a
County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the future to include the islands in the UGA
to help facilitate a uniform and consistent pattern of development in this area, Development of
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
22
the North Pointe-area sites may require the extension of urban services and utilities that are
already provided to Moses Pointe. It should also be noted that properties not within the UGA,
specifically, these two island areas, are precluded from connecting to urban services should they
chose to redevelop.
Staff also considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lalce when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent annual increase in population during the
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lake will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Of�ce of
Financial Management (OFM), and are the prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is woi�th noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not official at this time, recognize a 5 percent increase in
population from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year
planning period, the population numbers would expected to be significantly higher than the
assumed 3 percent amlual increase.
The subject property has frontage along Moses Lake, which, in this location has a shoreline
designation of Rural pursuaiit to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Grant County will be
updating its Shoreline Master Program in the relatively near future. The SMP update is required
to be completed no later than 2013, however may be completed prior to that. This important to
note because depending on the vested status of a project for this site, development of this site may
be subject to and affected by the new regulations in the SMP.
PLAI�TNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. Public
comments were received by a neighboring property owner who questioned the purpose of the
public testimony if the Planning Commission will approve the application because it meets the
criteria for redesignation.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISI01�1:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for site specific redesignation and
inclusion of the site in the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area.
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lake to include parcel 17-0170-000.
2) Redesignate parcel 17-0170-000 from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woultl benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
23
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or propet-ty in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does h�ve merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 propei�ties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements oi GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4892 Schiffner 320, LLC
Land Use Designation change from Rural Residential 1 and Residential, Low Density and
inclusion of the property in the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located south of the Panorama Heights neighborhood and east of
Road E NE in a portion of Section 1, Township 19 N., Range 27 E,W.M., (parcel # 16-1353-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting inclusion in the
Moses Lake Urban Growth Area and a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation of approximately
320 acres from "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density".
The subject property is one of three applications collectively referred to as the North Pointe
development. These applications when considered collectively, and if approved, will result in the
creation of two `islands' of properties that will be under the County's jurisdiction although not
within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lalce. One of these islands is the area east
of West Shore Drive and the other is the Panorama Heights neighborhood. This issue is one that
has been contemplated by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(EWGMHB) in Bruce Roberts and Marilyn Taylor v. Benton County et. al. In this petition, tha
EWGMIIB established that the only portion of the GMA that refers to the creation of irregular
boundaries is found in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)(C), which relates solely to Limited Areas of
More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). The hearings board concluded that because
where the GMA addresses UGAs it is silent on the irregular boundaries issue the question is
"moot". These island areas will have different development standards than those areas in the
Urban Growth Area, and if these applications are approved, the County may want to consider a
County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the future to include the islands ii1 the UGA
to help facilitate a uniform and consistent pattern of development in this area. Development of
the North Pointe-area sites may require the extension of urban services and utilities that are
already provided to Moses Pointe. It should also be noted that properties not within the UGA,
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of I'act
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
24
specifically, tihese two island areas, are precluded fi•om connecting to urban services should they
chosetoredevelop.
Staff also considered the population projections for the City of Moses Lake when formulating a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The population projection adopted during the
2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent annual increase in population during the
20 year planning horizon, and that the population of the City of Moses Lake will be
approximately 31,308 by the year 2025. These projections are provided by the Office of
Financial Management (OFM), and are the prescribed numbers that the County must use when
evaluating population projections to support UGA amendments. It is worth noting that the 2008
estimates provided by OFM, although not official at this time, recognize a 5 percent increase in
population from 2007 for the City, and should this trend continue over the course of the 20-year
planning period, the population numbers would expected to be significantly higher than the
assumed 3 percent annual increase.
PLANNIleTG COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. Public
comments were received by neighboring property owners in opposition to this application. The
same property owners on record for the other Noi�th Pointe area applications expressed their
opposition to this application.
PLANNING COMIVIISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Speci�c Land Use Re-
designation and inclusion of the site into the Moses Lake UGA.
1) Amend the UGA ofMoses Lake to include parcel 16-1353-000.
2) Redesignate parcel 16-1353-000 from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
10. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
1 L The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
12. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
13. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
14. The change does ltave merit for the community as a whole;
15. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and oppoi�tunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of P'act
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
25
16. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
17. The change zs consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
18. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of
Chapter 25.12 UDC;
File 08-5077 Wilhelm 5chulz
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Rural Residential
1.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located approximately 8 miles west of the City of Moses Lake on the east
side of Hiawatha Road and south of Road 4 NE; and is a portion of S 16, T 19 N, R 27 E and S
15, T 19 N, R 27E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 21-1249-002, 21-1244-002, 21-1244-001,
21-1248-000, 21-1251-000, 21-1251-010, 21-1251-001, 16-1456-000, 16-1454-00, 21-1250-000,
21-1244-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of approximately
601-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
The application represents a conglomeration of a number of individual property owners seeking
to change the land use designation for their properties. Of the approximately 600 acres of land
involved in this application, roughly 400 acres of it within irrigated Farm Units associated with
the Columbia Basin Project. A significant portion of the site (perhaps 50 percent) contains soils
that are listed in the Prime Farmland soils list in the Grant County Soil Survey. The applicant has
submitted a study prepared by Soiltest Farm Consultants which generally disagrees with the soil
survey and concludes that the soils in the site will not provide high-yield agricultural production.
The study does serve to affirm some of the classi�cations in the soils survey however, and
coupled with the availability of irrigation water, the site was appropriately designated as
Agricultural Resource lands.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on July 30, 2008 for this
application. The Planning Commission received testimony from the applicant's soil expert who
addressed the soil study prepared for this application. The soil expert concluded that roughly 50
percent of the site consisted of quality soils for farming. Neighboring property owners/farmers
spolce in opposition of the application stating that they currently farm adjoining sites that are
comprised of similar soils and they are able to subsist on their sites.
PLAlO�NING COMIVIISSIOI�T RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners deny this request for site speciiic land use redesignation.
DECISION:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
26
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to reverse the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to deny the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation:
1) Redesignate parcels 21-1249-002, 21-1244-002, 21-1244-001, 21-1248-000, 21-1251-
000, 21-1251-010, 21-1251-001, 16-1456-000, 16-1454-00, 21-1250-000, 21-1244-000
fi•om Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential l,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1) The applicant shall purchase the property within one year of the date of this decision.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact in making their
decision to approve this request:
19. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
20. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
21. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speci�ed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
22. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
23. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
24. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
25. The bene�ts of the change will outweigh any signi�cant adverse impacts of the
change;
26. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
27. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
28. The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance.
29. The Board of County Commissioners does not �nd that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
30. The Board of County Commissioners does noP �nd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
27
File 07-4898 City of Soap Lake
Land Use Designation change from Rural Residential 1 and Residential, Low Density and
Urban Commercial and inclusion of the property in the City of Soap Lake Urban Growth
Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located east of Highway 17 just north of the existing City limits and
west of the Bureau of Reclamation canal in a portion of Section 13 and 18, Township 22 N,,
Range 27 E.W.M., (parcel # 16-1898-000, 16-1899-006, 81-6332-02 through 81-6332-14, 16-
1899-003, 16-1899-001, 31-1991-000, 31-1990-000, 31-1989-000, 16-1894-000, 16-0968-000,
16-0969-001, 16-1893-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS: -
The City of Soap Lake has requested an expansion of the UGA to include approximately 341
acres and have proposed 221 acres to be designated Residential, Low Density and 120 acres (a
City-owned parcel) to be designated Urban Commercial.
In the materials provided by the City's consultant, they have identified a land deficiency of the
approximate equivalent 30 dwelling units to accommodate the 2025 projected population of
approximately 6000 residents (residents within corporate limits and UGA combined). Although
the physical size of the area proposed to be included in the UGA seems excessive upon �rst
glance, the City has presented an argument that County staff finds credible and warrants
consideration. The City has identified that a relatively significant portion of the area to be
included in the UGA with this application is encumbered by critical areas that will likely lessen
the attainable densities from what existing development regulations might permit. The City's
evaluation of the critical areas in the area of the UGA expansion is justification for the excessive
lands.
The 120-acre property identified by the City to be designated Urban Commercial is a city-owned
site that was previously a municipal dump. The site currently sits vacant, and the City has
expressed a desire to annex this parcel if it is included in the UGA. As a matter of state law, the
City could annex this property as a municipal annexation without having to annex all of the
properties between it and the existing corporate limits boundary to the south.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
At their open record hearing, the planning commission considered the staff report and application
materials for this request and accepted public testimony relating to the proposal. Public
comments were received from property owners within the area subject to the Urban Growth Area
Amendment. These property owners spoke in opposition to the application and expressed
concerns with the City's inability to provide services to the propei�ties should they be annexed.
The residents believe the County's services in the area are adequate and that becoming part of the
UGA will not result in any benefit. The City's Mayor spoke and indicated the City has no
intention of annexing these residential properties, and their primaiy focus in on the City-owned
parcel in the northeast portion of the subject area. The City wants to develop this property and to
provide services to the site and be able to guide the development; they need the site to be annexed
into the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMNIENDATION:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
28
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on July 23,
2008. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this
application,
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to modify the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Speci�c Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Amend the UGA of Soap Lake to include only The Washington State Department of
Transportation Right-of-Way associated with Highway 17 north of the existing City of
Soap Lake Corporate Boundaries and parcal numbers 16-1894-000, 16-0968-000, 16-
1893-000, 16-1889-000, and 16-0969-001.
2) Redesignate parcel numbers 16-1894-000, 16-0968=000, 16-I893-000, 16-09b9-001 from
Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density and redesignate parcel number 16-1889-
000 from Rura1 Residential 1 to Urban Commercial.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact in making their
decision to approve this application with the modi�cations listed above:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change does h�rve merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group 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 which
justify different designations;
7. The bene�ts of the change will outweigh ai�y significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 08-5078 Kevin Weber
Mineral Resource Overlay Designation for a parcel in the Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)
designation.
LOCATION:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
29
The subject property is located approximately 8.5 miles south of the City of Ephrata on the north
side of Road 9 NW; and is a portion of S 15, T 20 N, R 25 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #
15-1907-001)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a Mineral Resource Overlay (MRO) for a property of approximately
40 acres with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Agricultural Resource. Establishing the
MRO at this site is required prior to applicant applying for a conditional use permit for a surface
mining operation. The criteria for siting an MRO area are established in Grant County Code
23.0�4.630 and have been incorporated into proposed findings of fact for the Planning
Commission's use. If the MRO is approved, the site retains its Agricultural designation as the
underlying land use designation for the site. Future use of the site for mineral extraction is
predicated on obtaining a Conditional Use Permit from the Hearing Examiner, no other special
uses are allowed outright as a result of the MRO designation.
Surrounding land use designations in all directions is Agricultural Resource. There are
residentially zoned properties within 1000 feet of the subject site, because of these areas, the
applicant substantially revised the application to remove those portions of the site from the
application for MRO to satisfy the requirements of the UDC that would limit excavation and
production on lands within 1000 feet of residentially zoned properties.
The subject property is adjacent to an existing surface mining operation on Road 9 NW. The
existing site is utilized by the Bureau of Reclamation and Pamp Maiers. The existing pit was in
place at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1999, and with existing Washington
State Department of Natural Resource permits at that time, the site was included as an MRO site
upon adoption of the Comp Plan.
The applicant has provided information regarding the subsurface conditions, and quantities of
materials expected to be removed from the site over a period of 5 to 10 years. The applicant
expects to remove approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of material over the life of the project,
The subject site is not in an Urban Growth Area, nor is it a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural
Development (LAIVIIRD). The subject site is also not on publicly-owned land in the Open Space
Conservation District of Grant County. Finally, the site is not within the designated boundary or
associated buffer of a wetland or fish and wildlife habitat conservation area,
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on July 30, 2008 for this
application. The Planning Commission discussed the Mineral Resource Overlay and what that
means for the underlying Agriculture designation. The Planning Commission also toolc public
testimony from a neighboring property owner, Dave Hand, who spoke in favor of the application,
however, wanted to make sure that the future gravel pit at the site would not be a 24-hour-a-day
operation. The applicant indicated that they were not interested in operating with that intensity.
Other project specific issues would be addressed at the time a Conditional Use Permit was
applied for,
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Plaiming Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board oi County
Commissioners approve this request for site speci�c land use redesignation.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
30
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific overlay designation
request:
1) Establish a Mineral Resource Overlay for a portion parcel 15-1907-001 as shown on the
exhibits provided by the applicant.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use desigriation.
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property.
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change will not result in a group 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 which justify different
designations.
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signi�cant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change tloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC.
10. The applicant Itas demonstrated that the site has a known or potential extractible resource
in commercial quantities.
11. The site is not located within the boundaries of an Urban Growth Area or Limited Area
of More in Intensive Rural Development.
12. The site is not located within the designated boundary or associated buffer of a wetland
or fish and wildlife habitat conservation area.
13. The site is not located on publicly-owned land within the designated boundary of an
Open Space Conservation (OSC) zoning district.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
31