The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 06-269-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. i� �0 ~- a��~CC—' A Resolution Relating to Comprehensive Plauning in Grant County in Accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70 A) and amending the September,1999 Comprehensive Pl�n and Development Regulations. 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, 19901st Ex. Sess., Ch 17), wl�ich was subsequently codii"ied as alnong other chapters, Chapter 36.70 A RCW; and WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70 RCW required Grant County to adopt a Coinprehensive Plan and Development Regulations that met specified Growth Management Act goals and addressed the mandated GMA elements; and WI�EI2�AS, 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; and WHEREAS, the schedule established by the Growth Management Act in RCW 36.70A,130(4) mandates that Grant Couilty review and, if necessary, revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure compliance with tlie Growth Managament Act; and WHEREAS, Grant County adopted, by resolution, and implemented a Public Participation Program; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Community, Tr�de and Economic Development provided a"Comprehensive Plan Checklist: Technical Assistance Tool" and a "Development Regulations Checklist: Technical Assistance Tool" to Grant County to aid in cornpiling a work plan to ineet said schedule; and WHEREAS, Gr�nt County adopted, by Resolution, aiad impleinented a Work Program idantifying what Comprehensive Plan Elements and Development Regulations were to be reviewed during the 2006 Update; and WHEREAS, after receiving testimony from citizens and staff at the public ineeting, the motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to recommend staff initiate tl�e SEPA review process and schedule each of the ainendments proposed, along with staff recormnendations before the Planiling Coinmission for public hearing; and k; { : Grant County Board of Couuty Comnlissioners Resolution Ado tin Amendments for the Year 2006 ' �� P g �j� {. To tihe Grant County Comprehensive Plan ;*� 1 WHEREAS, after complete review and public record of the State Environmental Review process, the Grant County Plaiining Commission issued a Final Environmental I�npact Stateinent on July, 2, 1999; and subsequent addendums through 2006 and; WHEREAS, over the p�st years, the Comprehensive Plan's policies inay have changed to insure that the development patterns in the County reinain consistent with the intent of the coinmunities' vision for the future and the Plan's goals and policies; and WHEREAS, the ainendments shall retain the broad perspectives articulated in the cominunity vision st�tements, satis�es the goals and policies of tlus Plan, azld remain consistent with the intent of the GMA; and WHEI2EAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan fall into several major categories or types and different review application and review criteria apply to eac11. The kinds ol amendments identified herein include: • Urb�n Growth Area Boundary Changes; • Plan policy or text changes; • Plan Map changes; • Supporting document changes; emergency amendments; and • Site-specific amendments, and; • Mandated review established in RCW 36.70A.130 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 various the UGA boundaries were coizsidered, and; WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, UGA boundary expansions were supported by and dependent upon criteria set forth in the GMA: 1) in areas already characterized by urbazl growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capabilities to serve such development; 2) in areas already char�cterized by urban growth th�t will be seived 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 sigiuficance and those lands characterized by rural development as well as changes that have occurred on the perimeters of the City's Urban Growth Boundaries, and; Grant County Board of County Commissiouers Resolutiou Adopting Amendmeiits for tUe Year 2006 To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan 2 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 9, 13 and 14, 2006, by the Grant County Planning Comtnission to review and receive comment on tl�e proposed changes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission staff reports and recommendatioils are made a part of tha record of this public hearing as it relates to SEPA and the attached amendments; and WHEREAS, a public meeting was held on Friday December 1, 2006, by the Grant County Board of Commissioners for the purpose of considering the Plaiuzing Department staff recomrnendation �nd public corrunent; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Coirunissioners for Grant County adopts the attached record pertaining to the approval of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations amendments; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Coinmissioners for Grant County adopts Findings of Fact as per Attachment "A" in support of these actions. PASSED by the Board of County Cominissioners in regular session at Ephrata, W�shington, by the following vote, then signed by its membership �nd attested to by its Clerl� in authorization of such passage this /� day of ,(��c�.,�-G�...� 2006. DATED this %�' day of (�Pce+w�er , 2006, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Yea N�y Abstain GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON � ❑ ❑ Richard Stevens, Chair ¢a� ❑ ❑ �j'1��2 � % ATTEST: Deborah Kay Moore, ember � � ❑ ❑ ,� Clerk of t. e B a;d LeRoy llison, Member Grant County Board of County Commissioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2006 To tl�e Grant County Compreltensive Plan 3 ATTACHMENT "A" GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT 2006 FINDINGS OF FACT Section I — General Findings 1.1 Grant County has experienced and will continue to experience population growth and accompanying davelopment, resulting in competing demands for puUlic facilities, services and land uses, and is required to prepare and adopt ainendinents to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations pursuant to the Growth Management Act. 1.2 Growth Management requires that land be managed properly and wisely. Otherwise meeting the demands of a rapidly growing county population is lilcely to cause urban and suburban sprawl, commercial strip development, developinent at inappropriate locations and densities, damage to environmentally sensitive �reas, 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 urball services and utilities that are insufficient to support theiz extension in a cost-effective manner. 1.3 The 2006 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations review and updates are mandated under RCW 36.70A.130(4) to ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act. 1.4 RCW 36.70A.020, as amended, sets for a list of 14 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 Coinmission and Board of County Commissioners considered the 14 Growth Management Goals, weighed thein as they apply to the subject matter of these findings, and has attempted to achieve a reasoned balance among them. Section 2 - Public P�rticipation 2.1 Grant County adopted and implemented a Public Participation Program consistent with the requirement of GMA and the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. 2.2 Grant County contracted with Alliance Consulting to implement � review of current documents using the State Department of Community, Trade and economic Development "Comprehensive Plan Checiclist" and "Development Regulations Checklist" to aid in identifying necessary updates. Attndunent ��A„ Grnnt Coturty Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulltions Amendment 2006 Geueral Findings of Fact. 2.3 Grant County and the Consultants provided notice and conducted public meeting tluoughout the County seeking public input on required and desired updates to the Colnprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. 2.4 An integrated State Environmental Protection Act docuinentation was used to review the proposed updates. 2.5 In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, tlle Planning Commission held a public hearings on November 1A�, 2006, at which time testimony was talcen from interested agencies, organizations, and individual citizens, regarding the proposed amendments. 2.6 Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing December 1, 2006 to take testiinony on the proposed amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. Section 3— Criteria for Amendment Approval 3.1 Reviews of the County Comprehensive Plan and Development regulations were guided by the checklist criteria provided by CTED. All �mendment result from the checklist review or specific staff concerns. 3.2 In reviewing the amendments, the Planning Cominission ai�d Board of County Commissioners considered testimony provided at public hearings and recominendations provided by staff and interested or affected agencies with jurisdiction. The Planning Commissioia and Board of County Commissioners approved, approved with conditions, or rejected applications 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 Comprehensive Plan; (d) The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the imanedi�te viciruty of the subject property; (e) The change has merit and value for the community as a whole; (� The change, if granted, will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; (g) The benefits of the change will outweigh any signii�icant adverse impacts of the change; Attachment f°A" Grant County Comprehensive Plnn and Devclopment Regul:►tions Amendment 200G Gener�l Findings of F:tct. (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 Sectiou 4— Bo�rd of County Commissioners Final Recommendations And/or Actions 4.1 Recorded motions by the Board of County Commissioners for each proposed amendinent 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 Commissioners. 4.3 Detailed applications along with supporting documentation and staff reports are made a part of this recommendation. Attachment L°A" Gr1nt Coturty Comprehen5ive Plau and Devclopment Regulltions Amendment 2006 General Findings of F1ct. 06-4664 06-4567 06-4566 06-4571 06-4568 06-4573 06-4572 06-4575 06-4574 06-4577 06-4583 06-4581 06-4561 06-4585 06-4587 06-4586 06-4588 06-4560 06-4562 06-4565 06-4615 06-4563 06-4564 06-4582 06-4578 06-4576 ATTACHMENT `B' FINAL ACTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2006 AMENDMENTS GMA Mandated 2006 Coinp Plan & Developinent Regulations Review Tyrone Trexler Tirn Jenne Sun Basin Orchards LLC Vic Didra Tim McNamara Michael Brown Rod & Connie Pierce Dave Adams Nicic & Donna Tominer Tim Ray, Bruno, & Armstrong Curlew Crest David & Dale Hendricks Kenneth Wentworth ACHI Group Norman Lublin Larry & Susan Haven BBCC & BBCC Foundation Ken Jorgensen Keith Hansen Grant County/Sandcastle Estates #2 GC Port #7/A.J. Gerard Banl�s Lake Developers H & M Commercial Properties Nicic & Donna Tommer City of Quincy Attachment "B" Decisions aud rindings of ract Board of County Cotnmissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendmeuts 1 06-4569 Northwest Technical Industries Inc. 06-4570 ASPI Group Inc. 06-4580 Potholes Reservoir RV & Golf Resort ** RCW 36.70A GMA MANDATED REVIEW ** FILE: 06-4664 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LOCATION: Proposed Updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Developinent Regulations are expected to affect land use issues and needs tluoughout the County. STAFF ANALYSIS: As proposed, the technical update requirements are necessary to address changes in State stahies. Additionally, the suggested procedural changes related to the timing of coinprehensive plan ainendments and requiring City UGA changes to be forwarded only be cities/towns are intended to provide flexibility in recognition of variable resources available to process comprehensive plan amendments within a reasonable, amsual time frame, and to provide better analysis and support for UGA boundary changes that are associated with an incorporated city or town. As described above, the proposed changes zelated to the azmual petition application deadline are not iuconsistent with the goals and objectives of'the GMA, because no changes are proposed the frequency with which changes to the comprehensive plau inay occur, Additionally, the proposed changes related to UGA boundary amendinents associated with incorporated cities or towns will ilicrease the lilcelihood that GMA requirements will be adhered to, particularly related to a capital facilities and services analysis for urban growth areas. The expected affects of these proposed arnendinents will support the goals and objectives of GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: On Noveinber 14, 2005 Lisa Parlcs from Alliance Consulting Group, Inc., contracted by Grant County Conunissioners to assist the County witl� the Mandated 2006, reviawed the update process. Lisa discussed the required updates and those recorrunended by Stafi to address the procedures used to adopt comprehensive plans and amendments. Bill Bailey aslced if the majority of the changes are being mandated by law and if the laziguage was already designated by law. Lisa clariiied that most of the changes reflect State requirements in content and text-except for the population section, which is a tecluucal exercise. Dale Wallcer aslced about how the changes wi11 affect cities, especially new procedures requesting cities to review UGA expansions. Scott replied that the City of Moses Lalce had begw� to reqitest that applicants malce a request to thein and have it processed by tlie city before they would malce a recommendation to the County. He believes this proposal was consistent with the process the city is loolcing at and ineats the GMA requireinent to coorduiate changes for UGAs. Dale was concerned about smaller cities staffing and possibly forcing more worlc on then�. Scott stated that many cities use consultants. Additionally, it will provide the cities an opportunity to consider the impacts of UGA amendments. There were no public conuiients. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ACTION: DALE WALKER MAKES A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMPR�HENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND CRITICAL AREA ANALYSIS UPDATES AND PLAN DEVELOPMENTS FOR 2006 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING STAFr. LEE GRAHAM S�CONDS THE MOTION. MOTION IS VOTED ON AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROV�D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" Attachment "B" Decisions at�d Pindings of Pact Board of County Commissioners Cotnprehensive Plan and Developmenl Regulatious 2006 Amendments 2 The Board of County Coirunissioners voted unaniinously to uphold the recommendatioii of the Pl�nning Corrmiission adopting the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations as recommended by the Plaiming Staff, based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. The changes would bene�t the public health, safety, arld or welfare; 2. The changes are warranted because of changed circuinstances or because of changes in applicable state regulations, 3. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 4. The changes do h�tve merit for tlle corruzlunity as a whole. 5. The benefits of the changes will oittweigh any significant adverse inlpacts of the change. 6. The changes �re consistent with the purpose and intent of the Coinprehensive Plan and the requueinents of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 7. The changes Rre consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, particularly RCW 36.70A.130 that requires periodic review and update. ** 2006 CYCLE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS ** File 06-4567 TYRONE TREXLER PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for LRnd Use Designation cliange from Open Space Conservltion to RurRl Residential 2. The subject property consists of one parcel totaling 71.74-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Open Space Conservation". LOCATION: The subject property lies north of the Town of Coulee City on the west side of SR 155, and is a portion of S 23, T 25 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 17-1535-000) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The applicant explained he had tried several ways unsuccessfully to improve this land and feels a good use would be fbr home sites for people inoving into the area. The adjoining land to the north and the south h�s been approved in recent years for the land use redesignation to Rural Residential2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION; Based on Findings of Fact, the Planning Conunission for Grant Cotmty has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Coimnissioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of 71.74 acres to Rural Residential2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: ��APPROVED" The Board of County Coinnussioners voted unanimously to uphold the recorrunendation of the P1�miing Coinmission and change the Land Use Designation from "Open Space Conservation" to "Rtual Residential 2" for project 06-4567 as submitted based on the following Findings oFFact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Conunissioners established the following Findii�g of Fact in malcing theu decision: 1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Pact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Developmevt Regulations 2006 Amendments 3 2, The change is warranted because of changed circuinstances 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 chaiige will not be dehimental to uses or property in the iimnediate vicinity of the subject property, 5. The change does have merit for the coimnunity as a whole. 6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enj oyiug greater privileges and opport�inities 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, 2�} and 25. 9, The change does comply with a11 other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4566 TIM JENNE PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for Land Use Designation change from Rural Reinote to Agricultural Resource. The subject property is an approximately 46.17-acre parcel with a Comprehensive P1an Land Use Designation of "Rural Reinote". LOCATION: Approximately 5 iniles south of the Tovv�i Mattawa north of State Highway 243; and is a portion of S 08, T 13 N, R 24 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 15-0772-000) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The discussion for this project revolved around the proposed spreading of bio-solids on the subject parcel and potential impacts. The �pplicant explained that he has begun worlcing with the Department oFEcology in order to ineet the requirements to spread bio-solids on the subject parcel. He stated that the DOE thought the subject parcel would be a good location for spreading. The Planning Coirunission's main concerns were with the potential iinpacts of the spreading including, but not limit�d to, �. coli and odors. The applicant stated that we would comply with all perinitting requirements deemed necessary prior to spreaduig on the subject parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Coirunissioners with a reconunendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of � 46.17-acres fiom "Rural Remote" to "Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)", BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of t11e Plamiing Conuiiission and change the Land Use Designation from "Rival Remote to Agricultural Resource " for project 06-4566 as subnutted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Comnussioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 1. The cllange would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additioual property ul the proposed land use designation, Atlachment "B" Decisions and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendtnents 4 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 inunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5, The change does have inerit for the commtuiity 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 benafits of the change will outweigh any sigiuficant 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 coinply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. 10. The BOCC adopts the Staff Report and coinplete Staff �le and analysis. 11, The BOCC does find that pursuant to the requireinents of the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been completed utilizing the required Classiiication and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resotuce Lauds of Long-term Corrnnercial Significance. 12. The BOCC does, find that the property is or will be priinarily devoted to agricultural production. 13. The BOCC does fiiids that the property has long-terin coiruiiercial significance because the land: (1) does have productive growing capacity, (2) (is, productive, (3) does have good soil composition for long-terin coiYunercial production, (4) is not located in close proxiinity to population areas, and (5) does not) have the possibility for inore intense uses. 14. The BOCC does find that the Uni�ed Development Code requuements, including but not limited to Right-to-rarm regulations and notification on plats, building permits and other development approvals that the property is in proxiinity to agricultural activities, will p��ovide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concenis with incompatibilities. File 06-4571 SUN BASIN ORCHARDS LLC PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for L�nd Use Designation chnnge from Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1. The subject property consists of one parcel totaling 87.86-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agricultural Resource ". LOCATION: The subject property lies in a portion of portion of S 23, T 19 N, R 27 E, WM, Grant Coiuity, WA. (parcel # 21-1323-003) Farm Unit 179, Block 89, Columbia Basin Irrigation Project in Mae Valley, near Moses Lalce PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The applicant's representative explained they were not planning to do anything with the present orchard, as it is produces prime quality apples. They just feel the property on top of the bluff could be used for view sites for people moving into the area. The adjoniing land to the north , east and the south has been approved in recent years for the land use redesignation to Rlual Residential 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION; Based on the attached rindings of Fact, the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded tlus proposal tio the Board of County Corrul7issioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of 87.86 acres to Rural Residential 1. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" Attachment "B" Decisions and Findings of ract Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 5 The Board of County Coirunissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recorrunendation of the Plamling Conunission and change the Land Use Designation fi•om "Agricultural Resource to Rival Resideiitial 1" for project 06-4571 as subinitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Conunissioiiers established the following Finding of I'act in malcing their decision: 1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed circunzstances 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 speciiied in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The change will not be det�imental to uses or property in the irruizediate vicinity of the subject property, 5. The change does have merit for the con7munity as a whole. 6, The change will not resttlt in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other p��operty owners in the viciiuty 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 iinpacts of the cliange. 8. The chai�ge is consistent with the purpose and 'uitent 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 adopts the Staff Report and complete Staff file and analysis. 11. The Board of County Coirunissioners does �nd that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been coinpleted utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-terin Cornmercial Significance. 12. The Board of County Coininissioners does not iind that the property is or will be primarily devoted to agriculhual production. 13. The Board of County Conunissioners does not �nds that the property has long-term conuzlercial 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 ui close proxinuty to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses, 14. The Board of County Corrunissioners does find that the Unified Development Code requireinents, including but not limited to Right-to-Farm regulations and notification on plats, building pernuts and other development approvals that the property is in proxinuty to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incompatibilities. File 06-4568 VIC DIDRA PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for Land Use Designation change froin Rural Remote to Agricultural Resource. The subjeci area is four parcels total approximately 279.5-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Remote". LOCATION: Approximately 2 iniles southwest of the Town George at the intersection of N Frontage RD and Road S SW north of Interstate 90; and is a portion of S 14, T 18 N, R 23 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 20-1615- 000, 15-0411-001, 20-1615-002, & 15-0401-000) Attacl�ment "B" Decisions and Fiudings of Pact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 6 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The discussion for this project revolved around the availability of irrigation water, the spreading of Uio-solids, and the presence of a wetland. The applicant's agent explained that the subject area has four (4) perinitted wells for irrigation purposes. Also, the applicant intends to spread bio-solids on a portion of the subject area. The bio-solids would be applied directly to the ground and tilled under within six (6) hotus per Dept. of Ecology requirements. The question was asked if any holding tanks would be developed for the bio-solids for when land application is not possible, The applicant's agent stated that holding tai�lcs have been considered but would not be developed in the near fuhue. P'uially, the applicant stated that a seasonal wetland was present on the subject area, but that all farming and any potential spreading would be more than 700 feet from the wetland. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Conunission for Grant County has forwarded tliis proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recoinmendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of � 279.5-acres froln "Rural Reinote" to "Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)". BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Conunissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Conunission and change the Land Use Designation from "Rural Remote to Agricultural Resource" for project 06-4568 as subnutted based on the followiiig rindings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Corrunissioners established the following Finduig of Fact in malcing their decision: 1. The change would benefit the public health, s�fety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed circimzstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. 3. The change is coiisistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Coinprehensive Plan. 4. The change will not be detriinental to uses or property in the iinmediate vicinity of the subject property, 5. The change does have merit for the coirununity 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 subst�ntive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations. 7. The benefits of the cliange will outweigh any sigiuficant adverse impacts of the change. 8. The change is consistent with the pui-�ose 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 BOCC adopts the Staff Repart and complete Staff file and analysis. 11. The BOCC does find that pursuant to the requireinents of the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been coinpleted utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricult�ual Resource Lands of Long-term Coirnnercial Significance. 12. The BOCC does find that the property is or will be priinarily devoted to agricultural production. 13. The BOCC does finds that the property has long-term conunercial signi�cance because the land: (1) does, have productive growing capacity, (2) is prodLtctive, (3) does have good soil composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is not located in close proximity to population areas, and (5) does not have the possibility for more intense uses. 14. The BOCC does find that the Unified Development Code requirements, inchtding btrt not linuted to Right-to-Farm regulations and notification on plats, building perinits and other development approvals that the property is in proximity to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incoinpatibilities. Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Fact Board of County Conunissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendtnents 7 File 06-4573 TIM MCNAMARA PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource to Rural ResidentiRl 1. The subject area is approximately 12 acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agricultural Resource". LOCATION: The property is located in the Section 14, Tovv�iship 22 N., Range 26 EWM, Fari�n Unit 137, Blocic 701, Columbia Basu1 Irrigation Project, west of County Road B N.W, and north of County Road 21 N.�. Parcel #312594000. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: It was noted tl�at since 1999, the adoption of the County Coinprehensive Plan, there has been a change in circumstance warranting designation of subject parcel to Agricult�ual Resource Lands that merits a re- evaluation of the subject parcel against the criteria for designation as Agricultural Resource Lands. The change iii circumstance includes, but is not liinited to, there is no irrigation allotment to this site and it is a small parcel, left on the other side of the canal from the rest of the farm unit. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact, the Planning Coirunission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Corrmussioners with a recon7mendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of approximately 12 acres from "Agricult�ual Resource" to "Rural Residential 1". BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Coinmissioners voted unaniinously to uphold the recoinmendation of the Planniiig Coirulussion and change the Land Use Designation from "Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1" for project 06-4573 as subnutted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Corrunissioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 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 conununity as a whole. 6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enj oying greatar privileges and opportunitias than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties theinselves which justify different designations. 7, The benefits of the change will oLttweigh 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 does comply with all other applicable criteria and standatds of Chapter 25.12 UDC, 10. The Board of Comity Commissioners adopts the Staff Report and complete Staff file and analysis. 11. The Board of County Commissioners does i"ind that pursuant to fl1e requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Coinprehensive Plan, an analysis has been completed utilizing the required Attachmeut "B" Decisions and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissionecs Comprehensive Plav aud Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 8 Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance. 12. The Board of County Conulussioners does not find that the property is or will be primarily devoted to agricultural production. 13. The Board of County Conunissioners does not finds that the property has long-term conunercial signiiicance because the land; (1) does not have prodtictive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil composition for long-term coirunercial production, (4) is located in close proxinuty to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses. 14, The Board of County Conunissioners does �nd th�t the Unified Development Code requirements, including but not liinited to Right-to-Farm regulations and notificatioi� on plats, building pernuts and other development approvals that the property is in proxiinity to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lesseiung concerns with incompatibilities. File 06-4572 MICHEAL BROWN PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for Lnncl Use Designation ch�►nge from "Rural Remote" to "Rurnl Residential 1." The subject area is an approximately 160-acre parcel with a Conaprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Remote." LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles southeast of Royal City west of RD E SW and south of HWY 26; and is a portion of S 18, T 16 N, R 26 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (p�rcel # 16-0131-001) APPLICATION "WITHDRAWN" The Planning Coriulussion and the Board of County Corrunissioners recognized the application was withdrawn during the Planning Conunission Hearing process and therefore no fiuther review or action was required. File 06-4575 ROD & CONNIE PIERCE PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for Land Use DesignRtion chnnge from RurRl ResidentiRl2 to Shoreline Development 3. The subject property consists of one parcel totaling 9.2-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Residential2" to Shoreline Development 3. LOCATION: The subject property lies in a portion of the North'/2, S.W. '/a of Section 21, Township 24 N., Range 27 E.W.M., Grant County, Blue Lalce Suinmer Homes off of Mundy L�ne. Parcel #16-2154-000. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The Planning Conunission listened to concerns brought forth by the Blue Lalce Water Users and Mr. Brent Miller with regards to the location of septic tai�lcs and individual wells in the area. Chairman Bill Bailey pointed out to the public in opposition that this process was basically the l�nd use redesignation of the property, and there would be public hearings on both the zone change and preliminazy plat and that would be the tiine to bring up such issues. Attachmeut "B" Decisions and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 9 PLANNING COMMISSION I2ECOMMENDATION: Based on the attached Findings of Fact the Plaruzing Conulussion has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Coirunissioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of 9.2 acres from Rural Residential2 to Shoreline Development 3. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: `�APPROVED" The Board of Couiity Coinnussioners voted tuianimously to uphold the reconunendation of the Planning Corrunission and change the Land Use Designation from "Rural Residential2" to Shoreline Development 3" for project 06-4575 as submitted based on the following I'indings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Commissioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 1. The cliange 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 ui the proposed land use designation. 3. The ch�nge 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 irrunediate vicinity of the suUject property. 5, The change does have inerit for the conununity as a whole. 6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opport�tnities 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 benafits of the change will outweigli any significani adverse impacts of the change. 8, The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Coinprehensive Plan and the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9. The change does coinply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4574 DAVE ADAMS PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for Land Use Designation change from "Open Space" to "Rural Residenti�l2." The subject area includes two parcels totaling approximately 25.01-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Open Space." LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles northeast of the Town Coulee City west of HWY 155; aild is a portion of S 23 & 26, T 25 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 17-1541-000 & 17-1538-000) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: No signi�cant issues were discussed during the plaiuung corrunission hearing. The applicai�t's agent explained that the groiuid was not very suitable for agricultural production and that precedent had been set during the Trexler proposal for the adjacent property, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Conunissioners with a recornlnendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of � 25.01-acres froin "Open Space" to "Rural Residential2". Attachtnent "B" Decisions and i'iudings of Pact Board of County Connnissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulalions 2006 Amendments 10 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: GOAPPROVED" The Board of County Coirunissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recomuiendation of the Pl�iuung Conunission and cliange the Land Use Designation from ""Open Space" to "Rural Residential 2" for project 06-4574 as subinitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Conunissioners established the following Finding of Fact in inalcing their decisioi�: 1. The change wotcld benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a iieed for additional property in the proposed land use designation; 3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Coinprehensive Plan. 4. The change will be detrimental to uses or property in the inunediate vicinity of the subject property; 5. The change does /i�ve inerit for the community as a whole; 6. The change, if granted, will result in a groltp of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opport�inities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves wl�ich justify different designations; 7. The benefits of the change iviCl 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 a11 other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC; File 06-4577 NICK & DONNA TOMMER PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for Land Use Designation cl�ange from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Resiclential 1". The subject area is approximately 160 acres witl� a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agricultural Resource". LOCATION: The property is located in the N.E. '/4, S.W. '/4 of Section 6, Township 20 N., Raiige 26 EWM, at the intersection of SR28 and SR 283, Naylor Junction., outside of Ephrata, Parcel #16-0584-000 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The Plaruiing Commission listened to the neighborhood property who had concerns with regards to the location of residences adjacent to their property where they had to maintain a hundred foot setbacic recorded on the face of the plat under the "Right to Farm" ordinance. One of the property owners indicated that he proposed to raise beef cattle on his parcel which was a long and narrow parcel of land completely bordered on the north side by Toinmer property. Mr. Hecker indicated he thouglit his property was split zoned, half Agricult�ire and have Residential. The Planning Commission aslced that further research be given to find out if in fact the parcel was split zoned and if the 100 foot setbacic was in fact recorded on the face of the plat. At the continued public hearing conducted on November 16, it was pointed out that the property was not split zoned, but rather, zoned Agriculture and there was a hundred foot setbacic requirement on both Mr. Amstutz's and Mr. Hecker's parcels. However, it was also pointed out to them that they were at present using the property for Agricultural purposes, and if the area were subdivided by the Torrullers, the people who Attachtnent "B" Decisions and Pindings of P'act Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plau and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 11 purchased any of those lots to the north and west of these two parcels, would do so with the undersianding that there was ah•eady agricultural activity talcing place on them, and theu• right to farin would be protected now as we11 as in the future. The changing of the land use designation as requested by the Tonul�ers to Rural Residential 1 would have no affect on their property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff and Plamiing Conuizission feels this application meets the criteria for Rural Residenti�tl development, and concerns over the neighboring agricultural properties, and what the restrictions and nuinerous hoinesites would evenhtally have on their farming operation seemed to be answered by Mi�. Tommer and staff. Based on the attached Findings of Fact, the Plamiing Commission has forwarded tlus proposal to the Board of County Coirunissioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of 160 acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rura1 Residential 1. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: `�APPROVED" The Board of County Coirunissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recorrunendation of the Plamiing Conunission and change the Land Use Designation from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1" for project 06-4577 as subinitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FI1vDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Coinmissioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of cllanged circumstances or because of a need for additio�ial property in the proposed land use design�tion. 3. The chalige is consistent with the criteria for laud use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the inunediate vicinity of the subject property, 5. The change does have merit for the conununity as a whole. 6. The change will not result in a groitp 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 ii�pacts of the change. 8. The change is consistent with the pui�ose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9. The change does coinply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25,12 UDC. 10. The Board of County Coirunissioners adopts the Staff Report and complete Staff file and analysis. 11. The Board of County Conunissioners does �nd that pursuant to the requuements of the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive P1an, an analysis has been completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agriculhtral Resource Lands of Long-term Commercial Signiiicance, 12. The Board of County Comnussioners does not find that the property is or will be primarily devoted to agricultural production. 13. The Board of County Corrnnissioners does not �nds that the property has long-term connnercial 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 coiru7lercial production, (4) is located ul close proxiinity to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for nzore intense uses, 14. The Board of County Commissioners does find that the UniPied Development Code requirements, including but not liinited to Right-to-�'arm regulations and notification on plats, building perinits and other development approvals that the property is in proximity to agricultural activities, will provide effective z�otice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening coiicerns with incoinpatibilities. Attacl�ment "B" Decisions and rindings of I'act Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan aud Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 12 File 06-4583 TI1VI RAY, BRUNO & AIZMSTRONG PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE 12EDESIGNATION Request for Land Use Designation change from of "Agricultural Resource (Irrignted)" to "Rural Residential 1". The subject area consists of four parcels totaling approximately 181.64-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)". LOCATION: Approximately 1.5 iniles east of the Tovv�i of Soap Lalce south of HWY 28 and north of RD 20 NE; and is a portion of S 22, T 22 N, R 27 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 20-0031-006 TGW 16-1930-006, 16- 1928-000, & 16-1928-001) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The discussion for this project revolved around the availability of irrigation water and adjacent land uses. The applicant's agent explained that the subject area does have a water cont�act, but because the subject area is class 6 soils the Bureau of Reclamation will not allow Mr. Ray to irrigate this portion of the farm unit. Also, the Plauning Coininission aslced if any of the adjacent lands were actively being farnied. Staff pouited out that based on a 2002 aerial photograph there appeared to be circle to the southeast of the subject area, PLANNING COlYIM[ISSION R�COMMENI)ATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Conunission for Grant Comity has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Coiiunissioners with a recoinmendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of � 181.64-acres from "Agriculhual Resource (Irrigated)" to "Rlual Residential 1". BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of Couilty Comnussioners voted unaiumously to uphold the recorrnnendation of the Plaiming Coirunission and change the Land Use Designation from ""Agricult�iral Resource (I�rigated)" to "Rural Residential 1" for project 06-4583 as submitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Commissioners established the following Fulding of Fact in malcing their decision: 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 far land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Pla1i. 4. The change will not be detriment�l to uses or property in the inunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5, The change does have inerit for the coirununity 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 significant advetse iinpacts of the change. 8, The change is consistent witli the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requireinents of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9, The change does coinply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25,12 UDC. 10, The Board of County Conunissioners 2dopts the Staff Report and coinplete Staff file and analysis. Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprel�ensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 13 11. The Board of County Commissioners does i"ind that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been coinpleted utilizing the required Classii"ication and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term Coirunercial Significance. 12. The Board of County Conunissioners does not �nd that the property is or will be primarily devoted to agricultural production. 13. The Board of County Conunissioners does not �nds that the property has long-term conullercial sigiuficance because the land: (1) does not have productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil composition for long-term coiruziercial production, (4) is located in close proxinuty to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses. 14. The Board of County Commissioners does find that the Unified Developinent Code requirements, inchiding but not limited to Right-to-Farm regulations and notification on plats, building pernuts and other development approvals that the property is in proxinuty to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land ovvners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incoinpatibilities. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; File 06-4581 CURLEW CREST PROPOSAL: SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE 12�DESIGNATION Request for Land Use DesignRtion change from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rur�l Community". The subject area is approximately 10 acres with a Compreheiisive P1an Land Use Designation of "Agricultural Resource". The applicant has submitted an application requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re� designation to "Rural Community". LOCATION: The property is located iii the E'/2, NE 1/4, S.E. '/a, S.E 1/4 of Section 18, Township 17 N., Range 28 EWM and the West '/z of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, of the SE 1/4 of said Section 18, Township 17 N., Range 28 E,W.M, located south of Potholes Reservoir and Potholes State Parlc The tax parcels are 170029000 and 170028000. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission feels this application meets the criteria for Rural Coinmunity development and supports a recommendation for the proposed land use designation change to "Rural Community" to be consistent with the existing land use designation and zoning of the area.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Coimnissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recorrunendation of the Planning Coinmission and change the Land Use Designation from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Conuilunity" for project 06-4581 as subnutted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of Comity Coirunissioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 1, The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed circuinstances 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 speciiied 'u1 the Comprehensive Plan. Attaclimenl "B" Decisions aud Pindings of P'act Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 14 4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the iinmediate vicinity of the subject property. 5. The change does have merit for the coirununity as a whole. 6. The change will not result in a group oiproperty 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 outweigll 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 adopts the Staff Report and complete Staff file and analysis. 11. The Board of County Commissioners does iind that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Colnprehensive Plan, an analysis has been completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term Conuliercial Significance. 12. The Board of County Corrunissioners does not find that the property is or will be prirnarily devoted to agricultural production, 13. The Board of County Coirunissioners does not finds that the property has long-term commercial 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 conunercial production, (4) is located in close proximity to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses. 14. The Board of County Cornnussioners does �nd that the Unified Developinent Code requireinents, including but not linuted to Right-to-Farm regulations and notiiication on plats, building pernuts and other developinent approvals that the property is in proxiinity to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incompatibilities. File 06-4561 DAVID & DALE HENDRICKS PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAI� URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; and 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for inclusion within the City of Moses Lalce UGA and Land Use Designation change from "Urban Resrdenti�l3." to "Urb�n Commercial". The subject area is an �8.5 -acre parcel with a Comprehetisive Plan Land Use Designation of "Urban Residential 3." The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject property be changed and a site specific land use re-designation to "Urban Conunercial" be given. The parcel is already witlun the Urban Growth Area of the City of Moses Lalce. LOCATION: The subject area is located in a portion of the southwest quarter of Section 09, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M. inullediately east of Ottmar Road and soirth of Cochran Road, (parcel #'s 17-0264-000 and 17- 0300-000) in the northern portion of Cascade Va11ey, Moses Lalce, PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY; The Plaiuiing Commission discussed with Mr. Hendricics the need for zoning the property across the st�eet from his farm as "Corrunercial" in order to gain insurance for his haystacics. Mr. Alvarado from the City oi Moses Lalce, and subnutted a letter stating the City Couvcil was not in support or rejection of the proposal to change the land use designation to Urban Corrunercial. The property is already within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Moses Lalce. Attachment "B" Decisions and Findings of P'act Board of Colmty Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulatious 2006 Amendments 15 PLANNING COMMISSION 1tECOMMENDATION: Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Plamling Conuiussion finds that the applicant has met the criteria for subinittal of the application and supports the request for recorrunendation alid approval of the 8.5 acre parcel from Urban Residential to Urbau Corrunercial. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the reconunendation of the Plamiing Conunission to include the requested area within the City oi Moses Lalce UGA and change the Land Use Designation froin ""Urban Residential3." to "Urban Conunercial" for project 06-4561 as submitted based on the following Findings of Fact; BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Corrnnissioners established the following Finding of I'act in making their decision: The change woul�l beneiit the public health, safety, and or welfare; The change is warranted because of changed circuinstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. The change is consistent with the criteria For land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The change will iiot be detrimental to uses or property in the irruiiediate vicinity of the subject property. The change �loes lzave merit for the corrnnunity as a whole. The change, if granted, will iaot result in a group of property ovv�iers enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property ovv�iers in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations, The benefits of the change wzll 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 �loes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC, File 06-4585 KENNETH WENTWORTH PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAKE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; nnd 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for inclusion within the City of Moses Lalce UGA Rnd Land Use Designation change from "Rural Residential 1." to "Urban Residential2". The subject area is a�4.69 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Residential 1." The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject property be included within the boundary of the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site specific land use re- designation to "Urban Residential2" LOCATION: The subject area is located in a portion of the southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 19 N., Range 27 �,W.M. innnediately west of County Road r NE, (parcel # 16-1545-014) and the current UGA boundary for the Citq oFMoses Lalce. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Mr. Gilbert Alvarado, representing the City of Moses Lalce, was present to hand the Plaiming Conunission a letter explaining that the City was willing to worlc with the County on the propos�l by Mr. Wentworth, but Attichment "B" Decisions and Findings of Pact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 16 had no position either for or against the proposal. A neighbor, Brian Joluison, gave the Plaiuiing Coirulussion a letter voicing his concerns toward the proposed land use re-designation azld inclusion into the City of Moses Lake UGA. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the criteria for submittal of the application and supports the request for recommendation and approval of the land use redesignation and inclusion within the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Bouiidary. BOAI2D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" Tlie Board of County Cornmissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recormzlendatioii of the Plamiing Con�rnission to include the requested area within the City of Moses Lake UGA �nd change the Land Use Designatioii froin "Rural Residential 1." to ""Urban Residential2" for project 06-4585 as subinitted based on the Following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Commissioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 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 laud use designation. 3. Tha change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The change lvill �iot be det�iinental to uses or property in the inunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5. The change does laave merit for the eommunity as a whole. 6. The change, if granted, fvill iiot 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 desigiiations. 7. The bane�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 Compreheiisive Plan and the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9. The change �loes comply with all other applicable criteria and stand�rds of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4587 ACHI GROUP PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAKE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; and 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for inclusion within the City of Moses Lake UGA and Land Use Designation ch�nge of 649.62 �cres from "Agricultural Resouree (Irrigated)" to "Low Density Residential" and �69.9-acres to "Industrill(Urb�n)". The subject araa consists of fourteen (14) parcels totally �719.52-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)". The application is to include the subject area within the boundary of the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site-specific land use re-designation of �649.62-acres to "Low Density Residential" ai�d �69.9-acres to "Indust�ial (Urban)". LOCATION: The subject area lies �2 iniles east of Stratford RD north of Moses Lalce along RD L NE 1'rom � RD 5 NE to RD 3.7 NE; and is a portion of S 6, 7, & 18, T 19 N, R 29 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #'s 19-0420- Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Fact Board of County Commissioners CompreUensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 17 000, 19-0438-000, 19-0438-001, 19-0658-000, 19-0658-001, 19-0434-000, 19-0436-000, 19-0439-001, 19- 0437-000, 31-1772-000, 31-1773-000, 31-1774-000, 19-0454-000, & 19-0455-000) PLANNING COMMISSION SiJM1VIARY: During the Plamiing Coirunission Hearing twelve (12) meinbers of the public spolce against the proposed re- designation; inoreover, in commenting the public expressed several concerns includil�g, but not linuted to, potential impacts of increased use of septic tanlcs and private wells, increased t�affic to a rur�l area, converting rural/agricultural lands to urban lands, increasing the residential density in an area down wind froin REC Silicon and their t'uture expansions, iinpacts of increasing the residential density close to the wheeler corridor, and allowing increased density next to the municipal airport. Also, four (4) members of the public spoke in favor of the proposal. In their conullents these individuals stated that the Moses La1ce area has a shortage of available residential l�nds and that this area was ideal for meeting the needs of the Moses Lalce area. Gilbert Alvarado (Plamiing Director for the City of Moses Lalce) spolce during the public hearing. He stated that the City was in the process of reviewing the proposal, but did not have a position on the proposal as of the date of the Public Hearing. Based on the corrnnents and evidence provided the Plaruung Corrunission stated that suiiicient analysis had not been done on the proposed amendment to recorrm7end neither for or against the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION 12ECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Coiruiussioners with a reconunendation to continue this proposal to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "DENIED" The Board of County Conmussioners voted mianimously to amend the reconunendation of the Planning Conuiiission and Deny the inclusion of the requested area within the City of Moses Lalce UGA and change the Land Use Designation from "Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)" to "Low Density Residential" and to "Industrial (Urban)" for project 06-4587 as submitted until more research and inforination has been completed and is provided in a future application, based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of Couuty Comriussioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 1. The change would not benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. 3. The change is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified ui the Coinprehensive Plan. 4. The change will be detrimental to uses or property in the irrunediate vicinity of the subject property, 5. The change cloes not have merit for the community as a whole. 6. The change will 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 subst�ntive difference izi the properties themselves which justify diffez�ent designations. 7. The benefits of the change will not outweigh any signi�cant adverse impacts of the change, 8, The change is not consisten� with the pui�pose and inteiit of the Coir�prehensive Plan and the requu�ements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9. The change does not coinply with 111 other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. 10, The BOCC adopts the Staff Report and complete Staff �le and analysis. 11. The BOCC does �nd that piusuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Coinprehensive Plan, an analysis has been coinpleted utilizing the requued Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agriculhiral Resource Lands of Long-term CoiYuiiercial Significance. 12. The BOCC does #"ind that the property is or will be primarily devoted to agricultural production. Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regtilations 2006 Amendments 18 13. The BOCC does finds that the property has long-terin conunercial significance because the land: (1) does have productive growing capacity, (2) is productive, (3) does have good soil composition for long-term coiruizercial production, (4) is not located ui close proximity to population areas, and (5) cloes not have the possibility for more uztense uses. 14. The BOCC does not find that the Unified Development Code requirements, including birt not linuted to Right-to-Farm regulations and notification on plats, building pernuts and other developinent approvals that the property is in proxiinity to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area laiid owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incompatibilities. File 06-4586 NORMAN LUBLIN PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAKE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; and 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for inclusion witliin the City of Moses Lalce UGA and Land Use Designation chRnge froin "Rur�l Residenti�l 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density". The subject area is a�113 -acre parcel with a Coinprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Residential 1." The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject property be included within the boundary of the City of Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site specific land use re- designation to "Urban Residential, Low Density" LOCATION: The subject area is located in a portion of the East one half of the southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M. iinmediately not�th of Mae Valley Road and South of Winesap Road N.E., (parcel # 16-1483-000, 16-1486-000, 14-1692-000, and 17-0754-000) and south and adjoining the current UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lalce PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY; Discussion among the Planniiig Commission centered arouud the city capacity to develop sewer and water. Mr. Walpole, from CNW �ngineering further elaborated that the city has the capacity to provide water, but sewer would mosti lilcely need to be installed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, The Planning Conunission has found that the applicant has met the criteria for submittal of the applicatiozz and supports the request for reconunendation and approval. The Plaiming Comnussion based on the enclosad Findings of Fact has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Conuzzissioners with a recoirunendation to approve the proposed Land Use Redesignation of �113 acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Urbali Residential2" and inclusion of the proposal withiii the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Boundary Area. I3OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: GOAPPROVED" The Board of County Coinmissioners voted unanimously to uphold the reconunei�dation of the Plamiing Coinrnission to approve the inclusion of the requested area within the City of Moses Lalce UGA and change the Land Use Designation from "Rura1 Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density" for project 06- 4586 as subinitted based on the following Fiiidings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: T1ie Board of County Conuiussioners established the Pollowing Finding of Fact in inalcing their decision: 1. The chai�ge woaild benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; Attachment "B" Decisions and Piudiugs of Pact Board of Cotuity Commissioners Compreheusive Plan aud Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 19 4. 5. 6. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additio�ial property in the proposed land use designation. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The change will r:ot be detriinental to uses or property in the inunediate vicivity of tlie subject property. The change does have merit for the coirulnuiity as a whole. The change, if granted, fvill iiot result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportuiuties than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations, The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change. The change is consistent with the puipose and intent of the Coinprehensive Plazi and the requireinents of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. The change rloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4588 LARRY & SUSAN HAVEN PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAI� URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; and 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for inclusion within the City of Moses Lalce UGA and Land Use Designation change from "Rural Residential 1& 3" to "Urban Cornmercial". The subject area is a�4.08 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Residential 1 and 3." The applicant has subinitted an application requesting the subject property be included within the boundary of the City of Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site specific land use re- designation to "Urban Conunercial" LOCATION: The subject area is located in a portion of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 11, Township 19 N., Range 28 E,W.M. iininediately east of St�atford Road and iiorth of Maple Drive, (parcel # 17-0483-000) and the current UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lalce PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY; Discussion from the Plaiining Comnussion was with regards to the location of the property in relation to the existing gravel pit, city services, and the Moses Lalce current Urban Growth Boundary, A latter was also submitted from the City of Moses Lalce indicating a willingness to worlc with the county on this proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on Siaff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Coinprehensive Plan, the Plaiuiing Coirunission found that the applicant has met the criteria for submittal of the application and supports the request for recommendation and approval of the land use redesignation froin Rural Residential, to Urban Conunercial and inclusion of the 4.08 acres within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Boundary Area BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Coimnissioners voted unaniinously to uphold the recommendation of the Plamiing Coiruliission to approve the inchision of the requested area within the City of Moses Lalce UGA and change the L�nd Use Designation from "Rura1 Residential 1& 3" to "Urban Conunercial" for project 06-4588 as subinitted based on the following Finduigs of Fact; BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Commissioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: Attaclunent "B" Decisions and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulatiovs 2006 Amendmenis 20 The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; The change is warr�nted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use desigvation. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speciiied in the Coinprehensive Plan. The change will iaot be detrimental to uses or property in the inuliediate vicinity of the subject property. The change rloes Izave merit for the conmiunity as a whole. The change, if granted, will riot 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 then�selves which justify different designations. The be�iefits of the change will outweigh any sigiuiicant adverse impacts of the change. The change is consistent with tl�e purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. The change rloes comply with a11 other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4560 BBCC & BBCC FOUNDATION PROPOSAL: 1. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION — MOSES LAKE UGA Request for L�nd Use Designation ch�nge from "Public FRciliiy" to "Commercial (Urban)" 1nd "Industrial (Urban)". The subject area is au approxunately 31.78-acre portion of four (4) parcels with a Comprehensive Pl�n Land Use Designation of "Public Facility". The applicants have submitted an application requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation of �20.78-acres to "Commercial (Urban)" and �11-acres to "Industrial (Urban)". LOCATION: Just south of the Grant County Aiiport along Andrews St. inside the City of Moses Lake's UGA Boundary; and is a portion of S 32, T 20 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #'s 17-1036-000, 17-1042-000, 17- 1052-000, & 17-1049-015) PLANNTNG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Plamiing Corrunission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to tha Board of County Coinmissioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of �20.78-acres to "Coinmercial (Urban)" and �11-acres to "Industrial (Urban)". I30ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: ��APPROVEl)" The Board of County Coinmissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recoirnnendation of the Plaiming Corrnnission and change the Land Use Designation from "Public Facility" to �22.65 acres "Coiru�lercial (Urban)" aiid �11 acres "Industrial (Urban)" for project 06-4560 with the addition of the 1.87 acre Opportunity Cezzter site, which was properly inchided within the application materials but onutted from the mapping, based on the following rindings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Cozruiussioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing theu decision: 1. The change woulrl benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstavices or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. Attachmei�t "B" Decisions and Pindings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development RegLilations 2006 Amendments 21 3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The change ivill tiot be det�•imental to uses or property in the immediate viciiuty of the subject property. 5. The change does Jzave merit for the community as a whole. 6. The change, if granted, will �aot 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 06-4562 KEN JORGENSEN PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAKE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; �nd 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for inclusion within the City of Moses Lake UGA and Land Use Designation change from "Rural Urban Reserve" to "Urban Residential, Low Density". The subject area is a�5 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Urban Reserve." The applicant has subinitted an applicatiou requesting the subject property be included within the boundary of the City of Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site specific land use re-designation to "Urban Residential, Low Density" LOCATION: The subject area is located in a portion of the Southwest quarter, Southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 19 N,, Range 28 E.W.M, immediately west of Haznilton Road N.E., (parcel # 19-0666-000) and inunediately east adjouling the current UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lake PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The Plamiing Conunission discussed further the area in which Mr. Jorgensen's property was located was initially proposed to be in the Moses Lalce UGA, and because of the outcry of the property owners in the area, was left out initially. Apparently all the lots around the Jorgensen property have been subdivided prior to GMA and he is the only remaining property owner with a five acre parcel. They felt tihe surromiding opposuig property owners might eonsider purehasing the property fi•oni Mr. Jorgensen if they lilced to loolc out and see the grassy field as they felt the area was going to grow, and should be within the Urban Growth Area as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION 12ECOMMENDATION: Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goa1s and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Plamiing Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Corrunissioners with a recoinmendation to �pprove the proposed Land Use Re-designation of � 5 acres fi•om Rtual Urban Reserve to Urban Residential, Low Density and inchide the parcel witivn the Urban Growth Area of the City of Moses Lalce. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Coiru�ussioners voted unaziilnously to uphold the reconunendation of the Plaiming Corrunission to approve the inclusion of the requested area within the City of Moses Lalce UGA and change the Land Use Designation from "Rural Urban Reserve" to "Urban Residential, Low Density" for project 06- 4562 as subnutted based on the following Findings of Fact: Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Compreheusive Plau and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 22 BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT; The Board of Couuty Corrulussioners established the following Finding of Fact in making their decision: 1. The change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstaiices 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 iii the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the iirunediate vicituty of the subject property. 5. The change does laave inerit for the corrununity as a whole. 6. The change, if granted, will 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 requireinents of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9. The change rloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4565 KEITH HANSEN PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAKE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; Rnd 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESiG1iTATION Request for inciusion within the City of Moses Lnlce UGA and Land Use Designation change from "Rural Residentinl l" to "Urban Residential, Low Density". The subject area is a�13.89 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designatiozi of "Rural Residential 1." The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject property be inchided within the boundary of the City of Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site specific land use re- designation io "Urban Residential, Low Density" LOCATION: The subject area is located in a portion of Tracts 3 and 10, Stade Orchard Tracts in Section 19, Township 19 N,, Range 28 E.W.M. immediately north of Mae Valley Road and west of P'.5 Road N.E., (parcel #'s 14- 1682-001, and 14-1676-001) and to the east adjoiiung the current UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lake PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The Plamling Commission listened to testimony given by Mr. Michael Morris who wants to develop the property as we11 as Gilbert Alvardo from the City of Moses Lake who spoke in support of this proposal, and inclusion within the City of Moses Lake UGA. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, The Planning Coiru�ussion has found that the applicant has met the criteria for submittal of the application and supports the request for recoinmendation and approval to the Board of County Corrunissioners for the land use designation change to Urban Residential, Low Density and inclusion of the 13.89 acres within the City of Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recorrunendation of the Plaiuiing Coirunission to approve the inclusion of the requested area witlun the City of Moses Lake UGA and change Attachment "B" Decisions and rindings of Fact Board of County Commissione�s Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 23 the Land Use Designation from "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density" for project 06- 4565 as submitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Coirunissioners established the following rinding of Fact in malcing their decision: 1. The change woc�Crl benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The change is warranted because of changed citcumstances 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 �aot be detrimental to uses or property in the iirunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5, The change does lanve merit for the community as a wllole. 6. The change, if granted, fvill �zot result in a group of property ov�niers 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 iviCl outweigh any signii"icant adverse impacts of the change. 8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive P1an and the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9. The change rloes coinply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25,12 UDC. �.N_�,_. _,,,��,,. .�,,:.�.�.� _� .��..,..,.�.. � _..�.,..,.��, File 06-4615 GRAI�TT COUNTY — Pelican Point PROPOSAL: 1. MOSES LAKE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; 1nd 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION CORI2ECTION of UGA Bound�ry & Lancl Use Designation change from "Rural Resideixtial2"to "Low Density Residential. The subject area consists of forty-nine (49) parcels totally �19.15-acres with a Comprehensive P1an Land Use Designation of "Rural Residential2". The application is to include the subject area within the boundary of the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site-specific land use re-designation to "Low Density Residential". LOCATION: The subject area lies on the east side of Scenic Drive SE and sotrth of Goodrich Rd. in the Pelican Pouit area; a17d is a portion of S 3, T 18 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA, (All of Sandcastle Estates #2) STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant for this proposal is Grant County. This amendment has been processed inorder to correct an error to the Moses Lalce UGA Boundary. The subject area consists of forty-nine (49) lots, �19.15-�cres. The subject area is coincides with the plat boundaries of the Sandcastle Estates #2 (Sc#2) subdivision. This will include the subject area within the Moses Lalce UGA and re-designate the subject area fi�om Rura1 Residential2 to Low Density Residential. Sc#2 was originally approved in October of 1998. When approved Sc#2 was located inside the Moses Lalce UGA. In 1998 the Moses Lalce UGA was only an Interim UGA. At the time of final adoption of the Moses Lalce UGA in 1999, Sc#2 should have been included within the UGA due to the fact that the area was already developed at an urban density. At this point the County would simply like to correct the UGA to include Sc#2. The City of Moses Lalce has conunented on the proposed correction. In their conzment letter the City states that the City's Comprehensive Plan shows a large portion if not the entire area of Sc#2 to already be Attachment "B" Decisions and rindings of Fact Board of County Cmnmissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 24 located within the Moses Lalce UGA. Thus, this change would inalce the County's UGA consistent with the City's UGA. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Plaiuiing Coirunission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Cornnussioners with a recorrunendation to approve the proposed Urban Growtl� Area Boundary Change inchiding the sLtbject area within the City of Moses Lalce UGA �nd a Land Use Re-designation of �19.15-acres fi•om "Rural Residential 2" to "Low Density Residential". BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISIONs "APPROVED" The Board of County Conunissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recorrunendation of the Planning Commission to approve the correction of the City of Moses Lalce UGA and change the Land Use Designation from "Rura1 Residential2" to "Low Density Residential" for project 06-4615 as subinitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Commissioners established the following Finding of Fact in making their decision: 7, 8. The change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The change fvill taot be det�imental to uses or property in the unmediate viciiuty of the subject property. The change �loes hnve merit for the conununity as a whole. The change, if granted, wiCl �aot result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opporhlnities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designatious. 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 06-4563 G.C. PORT #7 — AJ GERARD PROPOSAL: 1. ELECTRIC CITY LIRBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; nnci 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request for inclusion within the Electric City UGA and LRnd Use DesignRtion ch�nge from "Rural Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential, Urb1n". The subject area consists of fourteen (14) parcels totally �234.55-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Open Space" (0-1DU/40AC). The application is to inchide the subject area within the boundary of the Elect�ic City Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site-specific land use re-desiguation to "Medium Density Residential, Urban" (4-8DU/AC). LOCATION: The subject area lies south of Elechic City on the west side of SR 155; and is a portion of S 17 & 21, T 28 N, R 30 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #'s 18-2301-000, 18-2314-000, 18-2297-000, 18-2287-000, O1- 2001-601, 01-2001-602, 01-2001-603, 01-2001-604, 01-2001-605, 01-2001-606, 01-2001-607, 01-2001-608, 01-2001-609,01-2001-610) Attaclvnent "B" Decisions and Pindings of Pact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulatiovs 2006 Amendmeuts 25 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: At the request of the applicant's agent Staff presented both the Port Dist�•ict's project and Banlcs Lalce Developer's project concurrently so that discussion could occur on both pr•ojects siinultaneously, One meinber of the public spolce in opposition to the proposals. His concerns, outlined in a letter read in to the record by Staff, included but were not limited to, insufficient notice, multiple requests u1 one hearing, impacts to ground water quality and quantity, preservation of access and utility easeinents, and the increased density. Other than those concerns, the main issues of discussion for both projects were: 1) the Bureau of Reclatnations position on the re-designation; 2) lacic of available land for development; 3) a portion of the property being owned by the BLM; and 4) the applicant's position on the re-designating of the govermnent owned land and golf course to Open Space/Recreation. Staff noted that the Bureau of Reclamation commented and was not necessarily opposed to the re- designation, but wanted certain items made clear and a guarantee from the applicant that they would be able to review any development proposals for the area. During the presentation the applicant's agent stated that land available for development iii the Electric City area was con�iolled by a small number families or individuals that were not interested in developing creating a shortage for this area. Also, several members of the public spolce in support of the proposal and restated that there was a lack of developable land in the area. During the public hearing a member of the public spolce to the fact that a portion of the subject area was in actuality owned by the BLM and should not be uicluded 'ui the proposal. The applicant's agent aclaiowledged that a piece of BLM property had been inadvertently inchlded in the proposal and should be reiiloved. Finally, the Plaiming CoiYunission asked the applicant's agent if they were opposed to re-designating the goveriullent owzied land and golf course to Open Space/Recreation. The applicant's agent expressed no opposition to this change to the proposal, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Coirunission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Corrunissioners with a recoinlnendation to approve the proposed UGA Change and a Land Use Re-designation of �170-acres from ""Open Space" to "Open Space/Recreation" and �82-acres froin "Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential". BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: G°APPROVED" The Board of County Commissioners voted imanimously to uphold the reconunendation of the Plamung Commission to approve the inclusion of the requested area within the Electric City UGA and change the Land Use Designation fiom "Rural Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential, Urban and Urban Open Space" for project 06-4563 based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Coirunissioners established the following I'inding of Fact in inalcing their decision: 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 corrununity as a whole. 6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enj oying greater privileges and opporh�iuties than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties theinselves which justify different designations. 7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significazit adverse impacts of the change. Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 26 8. The change is consistent with the pui-�ose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25. 9. The change does coinply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4564 BANKS LAKE DEVELOPERS PROPOSAL: 1. ELECTRIC CITY URBAN GROWT�I BOUNDARY CHANGE; and 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE ItEDESIGNATION Request for inclusion within the Electric City UGA 1nd Land Use Designation chRnge frorn "Riu��l Open SpRce" to "Medium Density ResidentiRl, Urban". The subject area consists of three (3) parcels totally �290-acres with a Comprehensive P1an Land Use Designation of "Open Space" (0-1DU/40AC) and "Rural Residential2" (1DU/SAC). The application is to include the subject area within the boundary of the Elect�ic City Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site- specific land use re-designation to "Medium Density Residential, Urban" (4-8DU/AC). LOCATION: The subject area lies south of Elect�ic City on the east side of SR 155; and is a portion of S 21, T 28 N, R 30 �, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #'s 1&2314-001, 18-2301-001, & 18-2311-000) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: At the request of the applicant's agent Staff presented both the Port Dist�ict's project and Banlcs Lake Developer's project concurrently so that discussion could occur on both projects simultaneously. One member of the public spolce in opposition to the proposals. His concerns, outlined in a letter read in to the record by StaFf, included but were not limited to, insufficient notice, multiple requests in one hearing, impacts to ground water quality and quantity, preservation of access and utility easeinents, and the increased density. Other than those concerns, the main issues of discussion for both projects were; 1) the Bureau of Reclainations position on the re-designation; 2) lacic of available land for development; 3) a portion of the property being owned by the BLM; and 4) the applicant's position on the re-designating of the government owned land and golf course to Open Space/Recreation. Staff noted that the Bureau of Reclamation corrunented and was not necessarily opposed to the re- designation, but wanted certain items made clear and a guarantee from the applicant that they would be able to review any development proposals for the area. During the presentation the applicant's agent stated that land available for development in the Electric City area was controlled by a small number families or iudividuals that were not interested in developing creating a shortage for tlus area. Also, several inembers of the public spoke in support of the proposal and restated that there was a lacic of developable land in the area. During the public hearing a member of the public spolce to the fact that a portion of the subject area was in actuality owned by the BLM and should not be included in the proposaL The applicant's agent acltnowledged that a piece of BLM property had been inadvertently uicluded in the proposal and should be renaoved. I'inally, the Planning Corrunission asked the applicant's agent if they were opposed to re-designating the government owned land and golf course to Open Space/Recreation. The applicant's agent expressed no opposition to tlus change to tlie proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION I2ECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Plaiuzing Commission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Conmlissioners with a recoinmendation to approve the proposed UGA Change and a Land Use Re-designation of �135-acres from ""Open Space" to "Open Space/Recreation" and �155-acres from "Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential", and the removal of B.L.M, land from the proposal. Atlachment "B" Decisions and Fivdings of racY Board of County Commissioi�ers CompreUensiva Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 27 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Comnussioners voted unaniinously to uphold the reconunendation of the Planning Cornnussion to approve the inclusion of the requested area within the �1ect�•ic City UGA and change the Land Use Designation from "Rural Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential, Urban and Urban Open Space" for project 06-4564 based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Comnussioners est�blished the following Finding of Fact in inalcing their decisioi�: 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 nead 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 dehimental to uses or property in the iirunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5. The change does have merit for the corrununity as a whole. G The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opporhinities than those enjoyed by other property owners iu 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 P1an 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. �..A��..��._ ,m ��..�w,�,,._..,.�,�.. � - �...._� �_�.� _ .��, . _�...._�.�. .... File OG-4582 H& M COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES (Morgan) PROPOSAL: 1. CITY OF GEORGE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; and 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Request #�or inclusion within the City of George UGA nnd L�nd Use Designation change from "Agriculture" to "Urban Residential2". The subject area is a�12 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agriculture." The applicant has subnutted an application requesting the subject property be included within the boundary of the City of George's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site specific land use re-designation to "Urban Residential 2" LOCATION: The subject area is located in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Sectioii 7, Township 18 N., Range 24 �.W.M, umllediately adjacent to and south of the City of George, (parcel # 20-1600-010). PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The Plaiuung Conmlission discussion was with the Mayor of George, Mayor Kooy, who indicated the City of George was supportive of this proposal and the parcel �iad never been farined. Mr, Morgan responded that there were no water rights to the property and it would be impractical to tiy and farm just the twelve acres. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff has finds tliat the applicant has met the criteria for subinittal of the application and supports the request for AttacUment "B" Decisions and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprel�ensive Plau and Development Regulations 2006 Ameudments 28 reconunendation and approval of the land use redesignation request from Agriculture to Urban Residential2, and inclusion within the City of George Urban Growth Area. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the inclusion of the requested area within the City of George UGA and change the Land Use Designation from "Agricult�ire" to "Urban Residential 2" for project 06-4564 as subinitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Conuzussioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing theu decision: 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 speciiied ui the Coinprehensive Plan. 4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the inunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5. The change does have inerit for the community as a whole. 6. The change will not result in a group 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 which justify different designations. 7. The benefits of the cliange will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change. 8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Coinprehensive Plan and the requireinents 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 Conuliissioners adopts the Staff Report and coinplete Staff file and analysis. 11, The Board of County Conunissioners does iind that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth , Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been coinpleted utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance. 12. The Board of County Conmussioners does not find that the property is or will be primarily devoted to agricultural production. 13. The Board of Comity Coinmissioners does not finds that the property has long-term conunercial significance because the land; (1) does not have productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil coinposition for long-term corrunercial production, (4) is located in close proxinuty to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses, 14. The Board of County Corrunissioners does �nd that the Unified Development Code requireinents, incltiding but not linuted to Right-to-Farm regulations and 1�otification on plats, building perinits and other developinent approvals that the property is in proxinuty to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incompatibilities. File 06-4578 NICK & DONNA TOMMER PROPOSAL: 1. CITY OF EPHRATA URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; and 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION Requesi for fnclusion within the City of George UGA and L�ud Use Designation change from "Rural Residential2" to "Urb�n Residential2, low density", Attaclunent "B" Decisions and Findings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan aud Development Regulations 2006 Amendtnents 29 The subject area is a�120 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural Residential2," The applicant has subinitted an application requesting the subject property be changed and a site specific land use re-designation to "Urban Residential2, low density" be given and further, that the parcel be iiicluded within the Urban Growth Area of the City of Eplu�ata., LOCATION: The subject area is located in a portion of the North half, of the Northeast quarter of Section 09, Township 21 N., Range 26 E.W,M, north and west of the Epluata City Limits west of the irrigation canal off of Morningstar Boulevard, (parcel #16-00786-000) The Epl�rata city linuts border the property on the west and south, PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: At the public hearing, it was discussed the location of the property in relation to the City of Epluata Urban Growth area and City linuts. This property borders the City on the west and south. Mr, Tonuner indicated that the approval of this land use re-designation would allow thein to continue with the developinent of this property. He has already platted a portion of the property for his own residence. The City of �plu�ata plaruier, Ron Sell indicated that they have already considered this property as part of the city limits expansion in the update of their Coinprehensive plan which is now being completed. I'I,ANNI1�iG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Colnprehensive P1an, t11e Plaiuiing Comnussion finds that the applicant has met the criteria for submittal of the application and supports the request for recoinmendation and approval of tlie land use re-designation to Urban Residential2, and inclusion witlun the City of Eplu•ata Urban Growth Area. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Coinmissioners voted unaiuinously to uphold the reconunendation of the Planniiig Commission to approve the inchision of the requested area within the City of Eplu�ata UGA and change the Land Use Designation from "Rural Residential2" to "Urban Residential2, 1ow density" for project 06-4578 as submitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Commissioners established the following Finding of ract in malcing their decision: 1. The change wocild 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 iimnediate vicinity of the subject property. 5. The change �loes h�ve merit for the community as a whole. 6. The change, if granted, ivill �iot result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges ai�d opportuxiities 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 ch�nge. 8. The cliange is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Coinprehensive Plan and the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25, 9. The change does comply witla all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC. File 06-4576 CITY OF QUINCY Atlachment "B" Deci5ions and Findings of Pact Board of County Commissioners Comprehevsive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendnlents 30 PROPOSAL: 1. CTTY OF QUINCY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CHANGE; �nd 2. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATIONS Request for inclusion within the City of Quincy UGA Rnd LRnd Use Designation changes from multiple rural land uses to inultiple urban l�nd uses (see more specific descriptions below). The subject area consists of �eighty-tluee (83) parcels totally �2272.56-acres with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations of "High Density Residential", "Low Density Residential", "Urban Reserve", "Commercial (Urban)", "Rural Residential2", "Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)", and "Master Plamied Industrial", The �pplication is to include a portion of the subject area, �2006.44-acres, witliin the boundary of the City of Quincy Urban Growth Area (UGA) and Site-Specific Land Use Re-designations to "Indust�ial (Urban)" �1184.65-acres, "Conunercial (Urban)" �340.1-acres, "High Density Residential" �10.4-acres, and "Mediuin Density Residential" �737.41-acres. LOCATION: The subject areas lie to the north, south, and west of the City of Quincy; and are portions of Grant County, WA. (see attached list of parcel numbers, �83 parcels) PLANNING CONIlVIISSION SUMMARY: The discussion for this project revolved around two issues, the fust being as to whether the property owners had all been contacted and the loss of agricultural xesource lands. The Plaiuiing Conunissioi�ers asked the representative from Quincy, Mr. Tim Snead, if all the property owners involved in tlus proposal had been contacted. Mr. Snead could not confidently state that all property owners had been contacted. The Planning Conunission aslced Staff the same question. Staff stated that a11 property owners within the proposal and within 300ft of the proposal had been provided notice oi'the proposal and the public hearing. Also, A member of the public spoke in opposition to the proposal because of the large quantity of agricultural lands being re-designated for urban development. The individual was not opposed to developinent, but would lilce to see lands less suited for agricultural productions used for Urban Growth. The Planning Conulussion responded that because Quincy was surrounded by some of the best Agricultural lands in the cotuzt�y, the City had no choice but to encroach on Agricultural lands in order to grow. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed I'indings of Fact the Plaiuling Coirunission for Grant County has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recorrnnendation to approve the proposed Urban Growth Boundary Change and Land Use Re-designations as proposed by the City of Quincy. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: `�APPROVED" The Board of County Cominissioners voted unanimously to uphold the reconunendation of the Plaiuiing Cominission to approve the inclusion of the requested area within the City of Quincy UGA and various requested Land Use Designation changes for project 06-4576 as subnutted based on the I'ollowing Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Conunissioners established the following Finding of Fact in making their decision: 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 Coinprehensive Plan. 4. The change will not be det�•imental to uses or property in the iirunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5, The change does have inerit for the conununity as a whole. Attachment "I3" Decisions and Findiugs of ract Board of County Commissioners CompreUensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendmeuts 31 6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater ptivileges and opporhinities 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 beneiits of the change will outweigh any signiiicant adverse impacts of the change. 8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Compreheiisive 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 BOCC adopts the Staff Report and coinplete Staff file and analysis. 11. The BOCC does find that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been conlpleted utilizing the requued Classiiication and Designation Criteria for the ideiitification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term Coirunercial Significance. 12. The BOCC does not find that the property is or wi11 be priinarily devoted to agricultural production. 13. The BOCC does not finds that tlze property has long-term cornmercial 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 productiozt, (4) is located in close proxinuty to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses. 14. The BOCC does �nd that the Uniiied Development Code requirements, including bitt not limited to Right-to-rarm regulations and notiiication on plats, building pernuts and other development approvals that the property is in proxinuty to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incompatibilities. File 06-4569 NORTHWEST TECH1i�ICAL INDUSTRIES INC PROPOSAL: POLICY AND PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS (NON-SITE SP�CIFIC) The proposed amendments would conditionally allow "remote" uses" in Agricultural Resource Lands. A remote use is defined in NTI's application as "a use of land that does not require urban services and that is best suited to remote locations, away froin urban areas and iiot linuted to the use of explosives in manufachiring". NTI's proposed use, the use of explosives to bond dissinular materials in the manufacture of products for use in aerospace, inarine, and other hostile environinents, is much better suited to remote locations such as Agricultural Resource lands than places of htiunan habitation, such as urban areas and other rasidential areas. NTI would like to relocate its explosive bonding operation from Clallam Coui�ty to Grant County. LOCATION: The site location is non- specific. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The attorney for the company and several of the principals gave a slide presentation to show the capabilities, and proposed actions that take place with this type of industry to create parts inanily for the airplane industry. The Planning Conunission responded with questions regarding the product, potential for potential fires, noise, security, and how large an area is needed. Tlie President of the company, Mr. Lew Wear, indicated they are now in operation in Clallam Cotinty, but are loolcing at differei�t renlote sites in this area, Tlus proposal would start out as a text amendmant proposal to the Comprehensive Plan, followed by a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, and finally a specific site would be requested which would require a Conditional Use Permit PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed Findings of I'act, the Plaruiing Commission is forwarding this proposal to the Board of County Conunissioners, with a recointnandation to approve the text amendment as written. The proposed text amendment is attached and made a part of the application. Attacliment "B" Decisions and Findings of Fact Board of County Cominissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 32 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Coirunissioners voted unaniinously to uphold the recommendation of the Plamling Coinmission and ainend the Comprehensive Plan Text as proposed for project 06-4569 as subinitted based on the following Fiud'uigs of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of County Coirunissioners established the following Finding of Fact in making their decision: 7. 8. 9, The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. The change is consistent with the critez•ia for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plau. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the inunediate vicinity of the subject property. The change does, have merit for the conununity as a whole. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than thosa enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change. The changa is consistent with the puipose 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 06-4570 A.S.P.I. GROUP INC PROPOSAL: POLICY AND PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS (NON-SIT� SPECIFIC) This proposal is to amend the de�nition of Master Planned Resort as follows: "��k��r�a-�ka�,��k-�:T �f"-�ta��a,�4�-�i�r "A self-contained and fully integrated plaiuzed unit development, in a setting of signii"icant natural amenities, <trtci._wl,�icl3 �_ '�; �71az��xeci,,;{'S;i,r_its a_�vl�t�te_atfc�._ci�vcic��iuci i�X.,Gt,,,,�7rc�n�r��c�c�,.,sL�.ies.. c�i, St;t�cs.,. with primary focus on destu�ation resort t'acilities, a�Xcl„ crtl�c,t .(4�url�tic,5 4t55c�c;tG�1;c,,d witki a tat�.��, ol c�x� Site mdo�r or outcloa�r recreatic�n.al tt�e;iliiies ilicl�zc�i�r�,_but...nt�t_li«iitr�c� t��-i��-� short-term visitor accommodations i«cl�7dir�., ]zo� tels,,,,,,.c�ilclo�r��i�li�rins, rxrid fui�tl7er irla;lricli�l�,otlz�;r r�sic�,ential c(etnc;nts tha.t r��Tl?.e c�e:si ri�,�l 1=c�r vacatioj�i r�;tirurnent an�/ar sc,ca�aci hoin�;" bu,`,��ers seulcin{7_y��i•axilnit�,/.. to t17e a�n<;nit . Whei�e tlrc (y 44 � . 7 ....._7"1 F'� ................... S �.........._.�...... �� . .m� �.. `4i�,r�itiva�rt �r1��aiity' i� li3 c�t• ire�r e�istitr�a,,,a�c��>c7lation ce�ater_.._s.,..a....�iditioir��l resicieritial uses th�t ��ra� accc�rn�;noclat�; loa�;( ]rn�lsin�,�cic;.tnand shall a�lso bc a.utlrc�riz�d wl�eci_u�tc��r.. atc;cl. ii�to tlre ov�rall rescfr°t d�vcla��in�nt ��a�a� „��;z=�,f��-��t,,,ail�o t��t�i�.�a�;t�iic�.,, LOCATION: County-Wide PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: During the Plamiing Coimiussion hearing the main item of discussion was a question to the applicant's agent (Kim Foster) regarding his opport�uiity to review a recommended change in langiiage to the definition of Master Planned Resort by tlie UDC Conunittee; and that if the change proposed by the UDC Conuluttee would meet the needs of his cliezit. Mr. Foster stated that he had not had an opportunity to review the proposed change by the UDC Coimilittee. In order to give Mr. Foster the opporhuzity to review the UDC Convluttee proposal the item was tabled to the end of the agenda. Upon reconvening, Mr. Fosier st�ted that the UDC Committee definition did not provide the detail regarding residential development in MPR's his client was requesting; aiid requested that the defuiition changes proposed by his client be considered. Attachment "B" Decisions and Findings of ract Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan aud Development Regulations 2006 An�endments 33 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Plaiuiing Coinmission for Grant County forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Coiruiiissioners with no recommendation. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: "APPROVED" The Board of County Conunissioners voted unaiulnously to amend the recorrunendation of the P1aluling Coiinnission and approve the Comprehensive Plan Text amendment proposed for project 06-4570 as subinitted based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board oi County Coirunissioners established the following Finding of Fact in making their decision: L The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2, The change is warranted because of changed circuinstances 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 iirunediate vicinity of the subject property. 5. The change does have merit for the conununity as a whole. 6, The change will not result in a groiip of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the viciiuty where there is ziot substantive difference ui the properties themselves which justify different designations. 7. The beneiits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change. 8, The change is consistent with the purpose �nd intent of the Comprehensive Plan and ihe 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 06-4580 POTHOLES RESERVOIR RV & GOLF RESORT PROPOSAL: 1. SITE-SPECIFIC LAND US� REDESIGNATION; and 2. MASTER PLAN FOR A MASTER PLANNED RESORT Request for Land Use Designation change from "Agricultural Resource & Rur11 Community" to "M�►ster Planned Resort". The subject area includes forty-eight (48) lots or parcels totaling �294.82-acres with a Coinprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agricultural Resource (Irrigated)" �250.6 and "Rural Conuinuiity"�44.22. The applicant has submitted an application requesting a site-speci�c land use re-designation to "Master Plaimed Resort (MPR)" and approval of the associated Master Plan. LOCATION: Just south of the Potholes Reservoir across SR 262 from the Potholes State Park; and is a portion of S 18, T 17 N, R 28 E, WM, Gr�nt County, WA. (48 total lots or parcels) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: Several members of the public spolce dw�ing the public hearing for this proposal. rour inembers of the public spolce in opposition to the proposal, which included a petition with an excess of 40 signat�ues, and nine members spolce in favor of the proposal. Tl1e main concerns with the proposal were the proposed RV lots located soutli of hole sixteen and potential iinpacts to roads, the water table, and water quality from the use of individual septic tanks, Regarding the lots south of hole 16, it appears that under a previous review process in 1996, Mr. Lalailan agreed not to develop any lots ii1 this area in order preserve the views of the property Attachmeiri "B" Decisions and Findiugs of Pact Board of County Commissioners Comprel�ensive Plav and Development Regulatioiis 2006 Amendmenls 34 owners to the south. During the hearing Mr. Lalcinan agreed to remove these lots fi•om the proposal. Staff has included an additional �nding detailing that these lots will be removed, iinding #25. The concerns with the water quality revolved around current problems being experienced by Marine View Heights property owners. It was stated that several area wells do not meet WA State water quality standards and that additional septic tai�lcs in this area could potential exacerbate the problem. Also, increase water withdraw could potentially impact adjacent wells. It was felt that additional enviroimlental st��dy was needed prior to consideration of this project. The individuals in favor of the project stated that this type of development would be a benefit to the surrounding community and Grant County as a whole. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the enclosed rindings of Fact the Planiung Conmussion for Grant County has forwarded tlus proposal to the Board of County Coinriussioners with a recoininendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of �250.6-acres designated "Agricultural Resotuce (Irrigated)" and �44.22-acres designated "Rural Comrriunity" to "Master Plaruzed Resort" and approval of the associated Master Plan. BOAl2D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION: `�APPROVED" The Board of County Conunissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recorrunendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Land Use Designation change from "Agricultural Resource & Rural Conununity" to "Master Planned Resort" and approve the proposed "Master Plan" for project 06-4580 as amended based on the following Findings of Fact: BOCC FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board of Coui�ty Commissioners established the following Finding of Fact in malcing their decision: 1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare; 2. The cliange 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 desigi�ations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The change will iaot be detrimental to uses or property in the irrunediate vicinity of the subject property; 5. The change does larrve merit for the community as a whole; 6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enj oying greater privileges and opporhuiities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity whexe there is not substantive difference in the properties theinselves 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 Coinprehensive 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 Master Plan does meet the requirements of GCC § 25.12.070 and GCC § 23.12.220; 11. The MPR is consistent with goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the Shorelines Master Program, GCC § 24.08, and coinplies with all other applicable sections of this UDC and all other codes and policies of the County; 12. The MPR is designed to blend with the natural setting and does not blocic scenic views froin adjacent properties; 13. Off-site and on-site impacts to roads, other public facilities, and the nahual envirom�7ent will be nutigated at the time of development; 14. If the MPR will be phased, each phase rloes contain adequate infrasti�cture, open space, recreational flcilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand-alone if no subsequent phases are developed; 15. The MPR will provide active recreational uses such as boating, pools, and playing fields, and sufficient services such as transportation access, police, �re, and social and health services, to adequately meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR; 16. The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory oi�-site urban-level conuilercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR; Attachment "B" Decisions and Pindings of Pact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 35 17. Envirorunental considerations a�^e employed in the design, placement, and screening of facilities and ainenities so that a11 uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as inuch as feasible, the preservation of natural features, public views, and historic and other inlportant features; 18, Iinprovements and activities are located and designed in such a maimer as to avoid or ininimize adverse effects of tlie MPR on surrounding lands and property; and 19, The Master P1an estaGlislaes location-specific standards to retain and ei�hance the character of the resort. 20. The BOCC adopts the Staff Report and complete Staff file and analysis. 21. The BOCC does iiiid that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Manageinent Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been completed utilizing the requued Classification and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resotuce Lands of Long-term Coirunercial Sigui�cance. 22. The BOCC rloes not find that the property is or will be primarily devoted to agricult�Yral production, 23. The BOCC rloes not finds that the propexty has long-terin corruziercial 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 cominercial production, (4) is located in close proxinuty to population areas, and (5) rloes have the possibility foz� inore intense uses. 24. The BOCC does find that the Uniiied Development Code requirements, including but not limited to Right-to-Farm regulations and notification on plats, building pernuts and other development approvals that the property is in proxiinity to agricultural activities, will provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with incompatibilities. 25. The BOCC does i"ind that the RV lots sotrth of hole 16 have been removed as agreed to by Mr. Lakman. Attachment "B" Decisions aud rindings of Fact Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2006 Amendments 36