HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 00-168-CC�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE: 00- 168 -CC
An Ordinance Relating to the Adoption of Interim Official Controls for the Desert Aire
Rural Village as identified in the Grani County L1ni�ed Develop�ent Code, allowing
limited cievelopment to oecur in the Rural Village Residential l(RV�t1) and Rural Village
Residential2 (RVR2) areas as identified and recommended by the Desert Aire Advisory
Committee; and, the Temporary Suspension of acceptance of development permits in the
area not identified as RVR1 and RVRZ by the Desert Aire Advisory Committee; and
rescinding the previous Interim Of�cial Control adopted October 31, 2000, Grant County
Ordinance # 00-136-CC.
Recitals:
WHEREAS, the Grant County Board of County Commissioners intends to comply fully with the Growth
Management Act of Washington, and;
WHEREAS, the Grant County Board of County Commissioners adopted a Growth Management Act
compliant Comprehensive Land Use Plan in September of 1999, and;
WHEREAS, the Grant County Board of County Commissioners adopted a Uni�ed Development Code
implementing the Comprehensive Plan on October 1, 2000, and;
WHEREAS, 36.70A.390 RCW provides for the adoption of interim zoning controls provided the County
holds a public hearing on the proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance within at least sixt}� (60) days of its
adoption; and, that the Interim Zoning Ordinance may be effective for not longer than six (6) months, but
may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed; and, that the Interim Zoning Ordinance
may be extended for one or more six-month period, and;
WHEREAS, the Grant County Board of County Commissioners intends to comply fully with the orders
and directives of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board issued in case no. 99-1-
0016 and 99-1-0019 pending appeal of certain portions of the Board's Final Decisions and Orders to the
Thurston County Superior Court, and;
WHEREAS, the Grant County Board of County Commissioners have initiated an appeal of the Eastern
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's decision which held Grant County's adoption of
Rural Areas of More Intense Developrr�ent (RAIDs) in the Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan
as being non-compliant with the County-wide Planning Policies adopted in 1993, and;
WHEREAS, Desert Aire is classified as a Rural Village, a type of RAID, in the September 1999 Grant
County Comprehansive Plan, and;
Resolution # 00-168—CC
Pa�?e 2 of 5
WIIEREAS, Desert Aire is the only Rural Village identi�ed in the GMA Comprehensive Plan and
Uni�ed Development Cade, and;
WHER�AS, there exists ongoing litigation invalving altegations af tha Caunty's failure to enforce iand
use regulatians affecting Desert Aire, and;
WHEI�EAS, Desert Aire possesses unique development characteristics that require careful planning in
regards to allowable uses, performanc� standards, de�velopmen.t standards, and;
WHEREAS, the Grant County �oard of Caunty Cornmissioners promised the residents in the I7esert
Aire Rural Village area thati the County would undartake an area-specific effort ta implement uni�ed
development regulatian consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Growth Managernent Act in tl�eir
area once the County has adopted th� updated Unified Development Code, and;
WHEREAS, Grant County has initiated the formation af a citizens advisory group in arder ta supplement
and complete those portions of ihe Uni�ed Develapment Code that wi11 guide future development of
Desert Aire, and;
WHEREAS, the Desert Aire Citizens Advisory Committee has completed their review of the Uni#"ied
Development Cade and produced a recommendatian to the Grant Caunty Planning Department for zoning
and develapment standards within th� Desert Aire Rural Village, and;
WEIEREAS, it is the intent of the Grant Caunty Planning Department to initiate the Uniiied
Development Code arnendment prooess on the Desert Aire Citizens Advisory Cornmittee
recommendation for zoning and development standards in the Desert Aire Rural Village as saon as
reasonably possible, and;
WHEREAS, the Crrant County Board of County Commissxoners adopted an Interim Officiak Cantrol on
October 31, 2000 (Ordinance # 00-13b-CC) temporarity suspanding the aaeeptance of deve�apment
permits the Desert Aire Rura1 �illage as identi�ed in th� Comprehensive Plan and Unified Developrnent
Code, and;
WHEREAS, after review and due eansideratiort by the Baard of Caunty Cammissioners, the
recommendation reached by the Desert Aire Citizens Advisory Committee appears to be generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as we11 as generally strikes a reasonable balance with regard to
zoning, development standards, and private property rights on an interim basis; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Board of County Commissioners acknowledge the need to take interim
measures which will allow limited developrnent to oecur until the County has completed the Unified
Development Code arnendrnent process, and; �
WHEREAS, if a�nal plat or final short plat has been approved by Grant County within �ve (5) years of
the date the development application is submitted, a develapment application for the subject property map
be aocepted as counter comptete, where the requirements for oounte� complete status under �`rrant Caunty
Cade 25.04.150 have been satisfied, and;
WHEREAS, a deve�apment permit application far a�nal plat ar final shart plat appraved by Grani
County within five (5} years af the date th� applicatian is submitted may be appraved, provided �hat the
, r
Resolution # 00-168—CC
Page 3 of 5
developrnent permit application complies with all applicable requirements of the Grant County Code at
the time of a full and complete application for preliminary plat approval was filed with Grant County,
and;
WHEREAS, the effective date of this resolution shall be 8:00 a.m. January 1, 2001 through June 30,
2001.
WHEREAS, it is the hope of the Grant County Board of County Commissioners that this interim
measure will only be in effect for a short period until such time as the County has completed the Unified
Development Code amendment process, and;
WH�It�AS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings:
1. An emergency situation exists regarding development in Desert Aire that requires an interim con�rol
device prior to completing the formal amendment process of the Unified Development Code.
2. The County has completed its promise and provided the forum for Desert Aire area residents to
undertake an area-spacific planning process for Desert Aire, which concluded on December 15, 2000
with a final recommendation.
3. T'he Desert Aire Advisory Committee recommendation generally strikes a reasonable balance with
regard to zoning, development standards, private property rights and the Comprehensive Plan for
implementation on an interim basis.
4. Grant County Planning Staff will be initiating the Uniiied Development Code (UDC) amendment
process as soon as reasonably possible in order to finalize the zoning and development regulations in
the Desert Aire Rural Village.
5. There does not exist adequate time to satisfy normal notice for a public hearing.
6. Pursuant to 36.70A.390, a public hearing shall be set for this Interim Ordinance to occur on January
23, 2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, The Grant County Board of County Commissioners having made the forgoing
Findings do hereby ordain and establish interim development regulations as follows:
Consistent with the recommendation of the December 15, 2000 Desert Aire Citizens Advisory Committee
Report:
RVRl: In addition to all applicable County UDC requirements, the zoning and developments
standards found in TABLE #4 and TABLE #5 of Attachment "A" shall be administered as an Interim
Of�cial Control in the area identified as Rural Village Residential 1 with the exception that the
"Residential Floor Area Requirements" proposed in Chapter 23.12 shall not be implernented at this
time.
RVR2: In addition to all applicable Unified Development Code requirements, the zoning and
developments standards found in TABLE #4 and TABLE #5 of Attachment "A" shall be
administered as an Interim Ofiicial Control in the area identified as Rural Village Residential2 with
the exception that the "Residential Floor Area Requirements" proposed in Chapter 23.12 shall not be
implemented at this time.
Resolution # 00-168—CC
Page 4 of 5
�
Wherever the requirements of this interim ordinance conflict with the UDC or other laws in effect, that
which imposes the higher standard while meeting the intent of the codes shall prevail.
A temporary suspension of the acceptance of development perrnits shall be enforced on an interim basis
for all areas located within the Desert Aire Rural Village not identified in tha Desert Aire Advisory
Committee Report (Attachment "A") as Rural Village Residential 1(RVRI) and Rural Village
Residential2 (RVR2) until such time as the County has adopted the required portions of the Uni�ed
Development Code. No development permit applications shall be accepted, unless they are in accordance
with the provisions herein:
A. If a final plat or final sliort plat has been approved by Grant County within five (5) years of the date
the development application is submitted, a development application for the subject propearty may be
accepted as counter complete, where the requirements for counter complete status under Grant
County Code 25.04.15U have been satisfied.
B. A developrnent permit application for a final plat or final short plat approved by Grant County within
five (5) years of the date the application is submitted may be approved, provided that the development
permit application cornplies with all applicable requirernents of the Grant County Code at the time of
a full and complete application for preliminary plat approval was filed with Grant County.
BE IT FLTitTHER ORDATNED, that the Grant County Board of County Commissioners hereby
officially rescind Ordxnance #00-136-CC which previously suspended all development permits within the
Desert Aire Rural Village with limited exceptions, and;
PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners in session at Ephrata, Wash�ngton, by the following
vote, then signed by its membership and attested by its Clerk in authorization of such passage this
27th day of December , 2000.
YEA; 0 NAY; 0
BOARD OF GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY WASHINGTON
ABSTAIN; and � ABSESNT
ATTEST:� +
ggy Grigg, rk of the Board
LEGAL COUNSEL:
, Stephen J. Hallstrom,
Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Report}of t�e Desert Ai�°e Advisory Committee
Prepared for the
Grant �ounty Pla,tzning Depa�fiment
December 15, 20a0 .
Prepared by
Michael J. McCarmick, FAICP
2420 Columbia SW
Olympia, WA 98501
Introduction
Grant County has recently adopted a new Comprehensive Plan and Uniform
Development Code to implement the plan. At the time these were adopted, the Board of
County Commissioners elected to not include specific zoning for the Desert Aire Rural
Village. This area is centered on the area contained in the Desert Aire PUD but includes
adjacent lands, including some areas located east of State Highway 243. Due to
considerable local disagreement and controversy, the BOCC elected to delay any specific
zoning designations and promised the area's residents that an advisory committee would
be established to help identify appropriate designations and attempt to resolve the
controversy regarding the use of recreational vehicles. The BOCC enacted a temporary
moratorium on new residential building permits until the zoning issues were adopted.
The Planning Department established an ambitious schedule for �stablishing an advisory
committee and developing a set of recommendations. This schedule called for the
recommendations for the advisory committee to be completed before Christmas. This
would permit a formal presentation to the planning commission in January and to the
BOCC in February. This schedule anticipates at least two public hearings—one before
the planning commission and a second before the BOCC.
The Planning Department retained Mike McCormick, a planning consultant from
Olympia, to help create and work with an advisory committee from the Desert Aire
community to develop a set of recommendations for the Planning Department.
The advisory committee was able to reach a general consensus on a set of
recommendations that were requested. The committee believes that they have provided
sufficient detail to allow the Planning Department to prepare one or more ordinances to
effectively implement these recommendations.l
These recommendations will be developed by the Planning Department and presented to
the Grant County Planning Commission early in 2001. It is expected that the Planning
Commission will forward the proposal for the consideration of the Board of County
Commissioners expeditiously, allowing for appropriate public review and comment.
Creation of the Advisorv Committee
The county convened an initial community meeting in Mattawa on November 21, 2000.
Approximately 90 interested citizens attended. The meeting was moderated by Mike
McCormick. Mr. McCormick explained the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
cunent situation and gather the communities recommendations on the creation of the
advismry committee and prospective membership,
There was a robust discussion with many attendees expressing dissatisfaction about both
the decision to vacate any zoning for the area and for the imposition of a moratorium.
' It is recognized that detailed implementation may require minor adjustments for consistency elsewhere in
Grant County's Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code that are not identified here.
DesertAire Advisory Committee Report 2 December 1 S, 2000
There were a number oi additional issues raised including lack of notice and apparent
health code violations. The nature and scope afthe proposed advisary committee was
reviewed. There was oonsiderable disaussion on the need to have all factians in the
community re�resented on the advisory cammittee. After considerable discussion,
thirteen members af the audienc� volunteered to serve. Tt was noted that someane
representing the business camrnunity need to be added. Several volunteered to seour�
one more volunteer to serve frorn the business community. Following the meeting, the
faurteen were officiailly appainted by letter from Mr. �cott Clark, Grant County Planning
Director.2
Advisary Committ�e Meetings
The advisory committes had three meetings preceded by an organizational meetin�g
canducted by conference call.
A11 three meetings were held in the Desert Aire area, were c�pen to the public and
advertised thraugh mailings, emails and posting in Desert Aire. The tocation and times
for each meeting are as foilaws:
• Friday December l, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. at the Sagebrush Senior Center in Desert Aire.
• Thursday I7ecember 7, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. at the Port of Mattawa Office an Roac� 24.
• Wednesday Dec�mber 13, 2000 at 12 noon at the Sagebrush Senior Center in .Desert
Aire. '
Meeting summaries were prepared by Mr. McCormick.J
Committe� Deliberatians and Recammendations
The informatian in this sectioz� is organized by topic. Topics were discussed in more than
one rneeting. A11 final recammendatians were reviewed at the last meeting.
Desert Aire Rurai Viilage Boundary
T`he boundary of the Desert Aire Rural Vii�age in the Grant Caunty Comprehensive Plan
includes an area larger than the originai plat and the cunent PITD. There was
considerable interest among the committee members and the citizens in attendance about
how the original boundaries had been established, the implicatians on permitted activities
and the advantages and disadvantages of adjustin� the boundary. The praposed revxsed
boundary is shown in Table 4.
Z Table l, contains the names and addresses of the Desert Aire Advisory Committee. Table 2. cantains a
draf� copy of the appainiment letter.
� A copy of each meeting summ�ry is include in Tables 3A, 3B atad 3C. �
DesertAire Advlsot;V Cammittee Report
Decem6er 1 S, 2000
Y, t�
The boundaries were established as part of the Comprehensive Plan development.
Eligible ar�as were identified by the Planning Department working with their consultant:
Proulx Cearns, Inc. The Growth Management Act establishes strict eligibility criteria for
areas to be designated. It furthers details the criteria which must be used to draw the
boundaries.4 The committee reviewed the criteria. Two property owners specifically
requested that their property be removed from the area to preserve agriculture as the
primary use. They expressed concern that they be protected from encroachment from
incompatible uses. The committee noted that the Desert Aire Owners Association owned
several pazcels totaling some 70 acres on the east side of S.H. 243. This property is the
current site of the PUD's water tank. In addition, additional properiy has been retained to
a11ow for fi�ture siting of a sewer treatment facility, should it become necessary. The
committee expressed a strong desire to retain this properiy within the boundary. A
reduced boundary has been recommended. s
?.oning ID�ig�atio�s
The committee reviewed a version of the original plat map which indicated the intended
uses. The committee express a clear desire to adhere as closely as possible to the original
intentions, as indicated on the plat map. Staff presented a proposed partial set of
designations. The committee endorsed this proposal with minor changes and extended
the designations throughout the PUD area. Additional recommendations were developed
for the portion of the area east of S.H. 243. The proposed zoning designations are in
Table 4.
There was some considerable discussion of what permitted uses could be expected under
a specific use category. This included a detailed review of the type, their nature and
character based on the new UDC.
Development Regulations
The current Grant County Uniform Development Code does not contain a� designated
uses permitted for the Rural Village. A primary purpose of the committee was to
recommend appropriate uses for the area. The committee reviewed the original
recommendations provided by Proulx Cearns, Inc. These were reviewed against uses
originally proposed in the original PUD and the previous Grani County Zoning Code.
The proposed uses were reviewed extensively and in detail. Specific recommendations
were made to change some uses. Some of these changes were to prohibit proposed uses
4 Specific provisions under the GMA allow for limited designations of "limited areas of more intensive
rural development". This is the provision under which the Desert Aire Rural Village was established. The
primary requirement is that the area exist prior to July 1, 1990 or when the county initiated planning under
the GMA. The boundary must be drawn tightly to areas of more intensive development.. Infill and
redevelopment are permitted. See RCW 36.70A070 (5) (d).
5 The committee has been briefed on the current case which Grant County has brought in Superior Court
challenging the recent decision of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board The
committee discussed the potential affect their recommendation might have on this litigation. It is not the
intent of tlus recommendation to be counter to or undermine the County's current case in Superior Court
regarding the designation of areas of more intensive nual development in the Comprehensive Plan.
Desert Aire Advisory Committee Report 4 December 1 S, 2000
k p
in certain zones. Some changes were to ma.ke uses subject to some level of conditional
use review. The proposed RVR zone was split into two zones (R�R 1 and RVR 2) to
distinguish between single family and multiple family and condominiums. An open
space zone was added.
A detailed review was undertaken to identify any conflicts between the current set of
regulations imposed through the Desert Aire Owners Association.6 The general operating
principle was to make sure that the courrty regulations r�vould not conflict with those
imposed by the owner's association. There was considerable discussion about the
purpose of the regulations and an irrterest on the part of several members of the
aommittee to incorporate portions of the owner's association's rules in the County's
UDC. The two most signif ca�nt conflicts involved side yard setbacks in the older
divisions and the requirement for set backs on commercial properties. Considerable care
was taken to ma.ke sure that the full range of accepted uses would be allowed within the
open space zonee There was interest in making_sure that the golf course would be a
permitted use and that utility facilities would be permitted.7 Provision to a11ow for
continued development of the existing commercial parcels was discussed to assure that
the current development standards could be satisfied.g A final issue was to make sure
that community facilities were in appropriate zones.9 The recommended table of
permitted uses for each proposed zone is contained in Table SA. The recommended table
of development standards is contained in Table SB.Io
County Enforcement
Enforcement of County regulations was recognized as an important element of a new sei
of zones and devslopment regulations. At the initial com�munity meeting considerable
unhappiness was expressed at a perceived lack of enforcement of County regulations. A
principle embraced by the committee was that any County provisions should be
enfor�eable. The cornmittee received two presentations: one from the Building
Department and a second from the Health Department.
Ms. Brenda Larson from the Building Department reviewed recent changss to the UDC
including a major improvement, switching from criminal enforcement to civil
enforcement. The County has already seen the effectiveness of writing citations
containing monetary fines in promoting prompt response from violators, Cunent
6 The Desert Aire Owners Association operates under a set of bylaws, a set of covenants, conditions and
restrictions and a set of architectural guidelines. They are subject to change by vote of the owners. They
were last revised June 24, 2000.
' The primary uses here are for wells and their distribution systems.
8 Current provisions of the Desert Aire devalopment limitations do not require any setback for commercial
parcels. The major parcel at the formal entrance to the Desert Aire PUD has considerable development in
place with more planned as indicated on their plat map. Review by Grant County Planning Department
staff indicated that the parcel could accommodate the proposed setbacks and still permit the existing and
�lanned davelopment without special comsideration.
The primary uses here are churches, senior center, fire station and sheriff's station.
10 Table SA ean be found in the Unified Development Code Section 23.04 Table 5. Table SB can be found
in Section 23.12 Table 3.
DesertAire Advisory Committee Report 5 December 1 S, 2000
enforcement strategy relies on written complaints. Cunently, there is a two-week
backlog of complaints at the present time.
Mr. Kevin Berry from the Health Department provided a similar presentation of the
Health Department's mission, the fact that they are a separate public agency and some of
the recent issues in the Desert Aire area. The primary focus ofthe discussion was
directed at sewer and septic issues. Mr. Berry reviewed the department's enforcement
activities. 1'he problem of overloading septic systems was discussed. The fact tha.t the
Association currently meters water presented an opportunity to explore viable
enforcement. Mr. Berry committed to a future meeting with the Association to explore a
cooperative program of monitoring and enforcement.
Regulation of ltecreational Vehicles
The evolution of R�I's and the regulation of their siting and use has been a very
controversial issue within the Desert Aire PUD. Strong feelings prevail on both sides of
the issue of RV's at Desert Aire. The advisory committee thoroughly deliberated all
aspects of RV's existence on residential lots and the ramifications connected with
prohibiting new ones and gradually eliminating those currently existing on residential lots
within the Desert Aire PUD.
The advisory committee understands that the current Grant County regulations limit RV's
both where they are permitted and the duration of use in any calendar year.l l The two
primary aspects of these regulations are that RV's are not now permitted in any
residential zones. Second, county regulations limit the time an RV can be occupied
during any year. The committee expressed a strong desire to fairly treat those who have
already developed their residential lots to accommodate regular use with their RV's.
The existence of RV's in Desert Aire can't be ignored. Their ultimate removal creates
questions for fairness and equity. The significant variance in appearance and
maintenance aggravates the controversy. Those who use their RV's on a regular basis are
important to the Desert Aire economy and to the viability of the development. RV users
are attracted to Desert Aire throughout the year, although at a significantly reduced rate
in the winter months. Overuse and nuisance activities during a few holiday weekends is a
problem, with overcrowding on individual lots being a major complaint. Any resolution
needs to give appropriate deference to private property rights.
There was considerable divergence among committee members. Several members
acknowledged that they had direct interests in the outcome. Some members continue to
object to specific elements of the recommendation. All of the committee agreed to make
" GCC Section 23.08.300 provides that RV's must be for temporary occupancy that not exceed six
months. This applies to RV Parks which are subject to a conditional use pernut. Additional restrictions
covering RV's and RV Parks are included in the definitions at GCC Chap�er 25.02 at page 40. RV's are
not permitted as permanent residential facilities nor are they permitted in anq residential zone. They are
pernutted for temporary use under very specific and limited conditions. See GCC Chapter 23.04.120 at
page 15.
DesertAire Advisory Committee Report 6 December 1 S, 2000
x r�
the recammendatian ta the Pianning Department recagnizing that there wc�uld be
oppartunities io present their individual positians as the proposal is reviewed by the
Planning Commission and when it is before the Baard of Caunty Commissioners for
farmal adoption, There was considerable desire ta adhere as ciasely as passible tcr the
current version of the Desert Air� Owners Association Restated Architecturai
Regulations' S�otion 2.02 which regulates recreational vehicle use. �2
The need for effective enfarcement of regulations was recognized. The past enforcement
activities of Grant County (or the lack thereo�} were noted as a source of aggravation.
The recent chan�gea to the Utufied I3evelopment Code pravides a significant change
moving firom a crirninal standazd at�d praeess, to a civil standard and process for
enfc�rcement, as noted above. However, ihe recent change has not pravided sufficie�tt
time to g�in experience with new practice and the results. �� However, there are high
expectations that ihe recent changes to th.e UDC wiil result in more timely and effective
enforcement. �
The committee's recarnmendatican addresses four areas.
�z Section 2.02 cantains the following;
The use o,J'recreatrona! vehioles Is subject to the, following restrictions:
(a) Recreation vehicles may be parked on a lot with a dwelling/residence rn Divisioa 1 through Divisron
9.
(b) Recreatianal vehrctes may be parked on a lot not having a dwellingiresidence in Divisian 1 thraugh
Divisia� 7 for a"limited periad " fram Nlarch 1�` through tVovem6er IS` o, f'each calendar year.
(c} Recreationat vehictes may 6e ,parked an a lot nox having a divellinglresidence in Division 8 and
Division 9 d'uring the constructton af the dwelling/residerrce,J'or a time,period not to exceed one (I)
year.
{d) Recreational vehicles may onlv be parked on improved lots that have an approved septic system, wafer
meter, and electrical servrce.
(e) A,pproval of Placement: Prior ta arrv placement of a recreationa! vehicle a srfe plan and phota of the
urtit must 6e submitted and appraved bv the Architectural Committee. Refer to 2.03 belaw for
requirements
1} Factenslon of Placement: Permission raay be obtained to extend the time allowed onlv'if the unit is
gaing to be used during the winter months.
a) A written extension request is required annuallv sent to the atteniian of the Archrtecturat
Cammittee. Extension reques#s must be received hy t)ctober 1. ,
b} Exte»sion of placemertt may be denied if the lot is nat well mttintuined ar if any violaiion
exisis on the tat. `
cj Any unit not requesting extension or deniea' an extension must be removed by November
1.
2) Habitation shall not exceed thirty (30) continuous davs.
3) Recreatiorral vehicies may rrot be accupied far ihe purpose of commutin,g to arrd from a place of
employmeni.
Addifional Units: t)ne (1) additional recreati�nal vehicle witt be altowed on a lot for a time periad not to
exceed 14 continuous r�avs. Bc�ats and �olf carts are excludecl from this requirement.
' 3 Grant Caunty has elacted ta apply their code enforr.ement on a complaint basis, By this, the county will
rely on written complaints before formal investigations are inidated. This decision was made to avoid
potential problerns with caunty routine inspections being subject to fairness challang�s. There is concern
witluxx the Desert Aire cornmuniiy that those who initiate county aetzons will tae subject to retribution fram
the targets of their camplaints, �
DesertAire Advisory G'omrrrittee Report ? December 15, 2000
1. RV's are not permitted under current county regulations in residential zones
and can not be used as permanent residences.14 There should be no residential
permits for RV's or their supporting facilities (such as septic systems). This is
consistent with current county regulations as noted previously. The county has
provisions to a11ow RV's to be used temporarily under special conditions for up to a
year.
2. No new RV's should be permitted, including eaisting residential lots which are
not currently developed. It is important to not making the situation worse by
allowing any expansion of RV use on residentiallots. The committee acknowledged
the potential liability to the County should new RV's be tolerated. The current
situation evolved over a period time..ls
3. Egisting RV use should be phased out oder a tiee to seven year period.
LTltimately, RV's should be removed from residential lots. However, the interests of
those with developed lots which primarily use them for RV use need to be fairly
treated. What was a reasonable and equitable period for removal caused considerable
discussion among the committee. The range discussed varied from immediately
requiring existing RV's to be removed to allowing a grace period considerably
beyond the five to seven year proposal. This period represented a reasonable
compromise which would allow existing RV users to amortize their prior investment
and adjust to the new regulations. �
4. Ezisting RV's should not be allowed to remain year-round on individual
res►dential lots. RV's use should be limited to short periods throughout the year.
Existing RV's should not be allowed to remain on individual lots throughout the year.
Those that do occupy their sites during the permitted period, need to be regulated to
limit actual use. The County currently limits the occupancy of an RV in several
16
ways.
The committee identified two options to implement this provision. The committee's
preferred option is to a11ow the Desert Aire Owners Association to apply and enforce
the provisions of Section 2.02, This provides for limited use between March 1�' and
November 1�. There are provisions for some exceptions to a11ow use during the
winter through a formal written request process. If the first option was selected, the
' 4 RV's may be parked on residentiallots subject to the provisions of GCC Chapter 23.08.020 ( i) at page 4.
1 s The current situation evolved over time. The Desert Aire package of regularions clearly specify that the
lots are for residential use. (See footnote number 15.) The previous Grant County Zoning Ordinance did
not allow RV's on residential lots. There are a variety of contributing factors attributed to creating the
e�e�t situatiom: Lax enforcement by Grant County, La:c enforcement by the Desert Aire Oesmers
Association. What started as intermittent RV use gradually evolved to more permanent placement on some
lots. There was no attempt to place blame for the current situadon. The primary focus was resolving the
current situation in a reasonable period of time.
16 In addition to the limitations cited earlier, the Grant County UDC further limits the duration by
prohibiting RV's use for "pernianent occupancy". This effectively limits the amount of time an RV may
be connected to utilities. In the case of Desert Aire this includes a septic system, public water and electrical
service. See Chapter 25.02 at page 33.
DesertAire Advisory Committee Report 8 December 15, 2000
t
Desert Aire Owners Association would enforce the provisions. Other related UDC
and Building Code provisions wauld be enforced by Grant County on a compiaint
basis.
The second aption is for the Caunty to adopt a specific period when RV's can not
remain as a primary use on residential lots, The County should adopt a shorter period
than currently allowed by the Desert Aire 4wners Assaciations provisions. This
would reiy on the �esert �4ire 4wners Association foz primary enforcement and anly
requiring Coumy actians should an owner fail to remove iheir RV a� required by the
Association's regulations.l� Establishing a period for owners to remave their RV's
from individual residentiai lots from December l� to March 1� would satisfy this
suggested provision. If this alternative is seiected, the cammittee recommends a
general provision which wou�d allaw property owners ta be able to bring their RV's
baak for short periods of time in the winter for recreational purposes, i�
There was considerable discussion conceming th� difficulty af enforcing these
provisions. The committee understands that the County needs a clear standard vvhich
makes effeetive enforcement realistic under the curcent enforcement standards and
practiaes. There were some members of the cammittee who indicated recent
impravements in the effectiveness of the Desert Aire Owners Association suggesting
that the general provisions of Section 2.02 of the Architectural Regulations are
sufficient regulation. If Grant County were to reiy on this method of informal
enfarcement, the effectiveness needs to be monitored. Should this nat prove
ef�ectiv�, the County may enact formal regulations.
It is th� exp+ectations of the advisory committee that copies af the report wi11 be
distributed to everyone wha signed up at one of the meetings. Further, the cozrimiitee
members feel strongly that thorough and timely natice needs to be provided to all of the
residents and property owners in the Desert Aire area when the County enters into forrnal
consideratian oithe ordinanaes implementing these recommendatians.
" The Desert Aire Own�rs Associatians regulations eacist in three different places: Restated Bylaws;
Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, aCti� R8Sti1Ct20TIS, and Restated Arcluiteclw�al Regulatiazas,
All three documents were revised effective June 24, 200Q and are recc►rded with the Grant County
Assessar, (?ne issue idemiiied is that these �ovisions are subject to revision by a vote of the �roperiy
awners only xequiring a znajarity of those attending the members' rneeting. Attendance at recent meetings
has represented a relativeiy low percentage of the tatal nnembership.
'� It was nated tt�at a small nuanber af RV's are used during the winter for hunting and other winter
recreation. This use is generalty for short periods of tirne as over weekends. An effective monitoring
program would be required to enforce iimitt�tians on iength of stay. No s�xciYic length of stay is stYggest�d,
TY�e intent is to allow for weekend use as long a�s the R.V's are not pern�anently connected to utilities nor
retained a�. residential lois.
DesertAit'e Advisory Committee Report 9 DecerrzGer 1 S, 20D0
t f
1 � i
LIST OF DE�ERT AI]�� ADVISORY
COIVIMITTEE MEIVIBERS
DesertArre Advisorv Committee Report 10 December 1 S, 2000
William R. Millard
424 Summer Place S.
Desert Aire, WA 99349
509.932.4484
Lael Ronholt
422 Autumn Loop W
Desert Aire, WA 99349
509.932.4328
ronliolt@quicktel.corn
I�en Miller
607 Roslyn Ct.
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.5501
Tom Truax
111 Plum Way N.
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.4101 (w)
509.932.4553 (h)
dfls@bentonrea.com
Ray Webber
406 S. Edgewater
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.4922
Bi�l Briere
1944 Duvall Ave NE
Renton, WA 98049
425.228.7170 (w)
briere@wolfenet.com
Bob Kibler
221 Airport Way N
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.5403
bkibler@quicktel. com
Tex Adams
21411 SW Rd. 24
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.4820
509.932.5374 (fax)
509.945.6651 (cell)
Revised 12/15/00
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Ray Wells
99 Airport Way N.
Desert Aire
509.932.4803 (h)
509.783.5211.12 (w)
ray@transcribing.com
Allen Clow
103 Sunshine Cucle
Desert Aire, WA 99349
425.22G.6624
509.932.4442
ajclow@aol.com
A1 Anderson
P.O. Box 1562
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.4757
Bruce Eskildsen
107 Airport Way N
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.4811 (h)
509.932.4700 (w)
mattawa@quicktel.com
Steve Eckenberg
502 Desert Aire Dr.
Mattawa, WA 99349
509.932.4031 (h)
509.932.4412 (w)
�p � n
TABLE #2
� • . � . � �' i 1
� � ���l� �
DesertAire�ldvisoryCommitteeReport 11 DecemberlS,2000
Date
*. F
G�ANT CC?i.7NTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
32 C Street N.W.
P.O. Box 37 � Ephrata, Washington 98$Z3 • P�: (5Q9) 754-2011 Ext. 620 • FAX: (509) '154-6097
To individual Advisory Corrunittee rnerzibers
(See attached list)
Dear Mr, :
'I'�ank you for valunteering to serve on the Desert Aire Development Regulations
Advisory Cammittee. Grant Caunty and I appreciate your wiliingness ta serve.
The advisory committee is b�ing established ta heip the department draft a set af new
develaprnent regulations for the Desert Aire cammunity and surrounding area, As yau
know from the material pxesented at the November 17`h meeting zn Mattawa, the county's
r�ew developrnent regulations do not contain any regulations for the Resart Village
classif cation which is unique ta the Desert �1ire area. This was dane ta extend a�nique
opporturaity for ihe community to directly partieipate in drafting the propased
development regulations.
Our timeframe is quite short, The County Commissioners have established at mid-
February deadline for considering new regulations. Obviously, completing the new
development regulatians is necessary before the current emergency rnoratorium can be
reznoved. The schedule presented to the attendees at the Novernber l�th meeting
anticipates your work being completed by December 12`n
The county has retained Mike McCormick to assist the advisory committee complete
their work in a timely fashion. In addition to Mr. McCormick, me and my siaff will be
available to support your work,
Again, thank you for your help. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerel
�,—.._.
ott Clarlc
Grant Courity Pla.nning iairector
Cc: County Comrnissioners
Steve Hallstrom, Praseeutor's Ofiica
TABLE #3
��T�TG S�JIVIMAIZIES
3A — December l, 2000
3B — December 7, 2000
3C — December 13, 2000
DesertAire Advisorv Committee Report 12 December 1 S, 2000
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Sunnmary
December l, 2000
This is a summary record of the second meeting of the Desert Aire Advisory Committee
held at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, December 1, 2000. The meeting was held at the Sagebrush
Senior Center in Desert Aire. This was an open meeting attended by a number of
interested citizens.
Advisory Committee members attending: Bill Millard, Lael Ronholt, Ken Miller, Tom
Turax, Bill Briere, Bob Kibler, Tex Adams, Ray Wells, Allen Clow and Bruce Eskilden.
The meeting was conducted by Mike McCornuck, planning consultant for Grant County.
Scott Clark, Grant County Planning Director provided staff support.
Public Information and Communication
T'he public information and communication activities were reviewed. Some members
had not received materials from the previous meeting through the mail. It was
acknowledged that there are very short intervals between meetings. Staff committed to
mailing as early as possible to improve the chances that materials would arrive in a
timely fashion. Notice of the meeting had not been posted at Desert Aire. Mike
McCormick promised that notices for the two remaining meetings would be provided to
the Desert Aire office on Monday to enable posting within Desert Aire.
The county's web site will be updated to contain information about this project and the
Advisory Committee's activities. Scott Clark indicated that the new information would
be available by mid-week. The address of the county's web site is www.grantcounty-
wa.com.
The materials in ihe Advisory Committee members' workbooks were reviewed. One
complete copy of the workbook will be provided at the Desert Aire Association office
throughout the project. Each Advisory Committee member received a copy of the
October l, 2000 Grant County Unified Development Code.
Review of Proposed Development Re�ulations
The majority of time at this meeting was spent in a detailed review of the list of allowable
land uses for the Rural Village category as proposed by the county's land use planning
consultant, Proulx Cearns, Inc. A detailed review was conducted of a�l permitted uses for
each of general categories of land use: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional,
Recreational, Transportation, Utility, and Agriculture. There were relatively few initial
racommendations for changes or special conditions identified. Those that were identified
were: Residential - None; Commercial � Storage and sale of fertilizer, pesticides,
herbicides & soil sterilants; Industrial — None; Institutional — None; Recreational — None;
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary
December 1, 2000
Transportation – Hangers; Utilities – None; Agriculture - Agricultural uses and activities
and animal husbandry
The discussion identified the need to further distinguish residential zones to include
single family, duplex and condominium units. The discussion included how to address
common open space throughout the Desert Aire PUD. The staff were directed to prepare
alternative maps showing how the draft zoning districts might be distributed throughout
the Desert Aire planning area.
Boundarv of Desert Aire Rural Villa�e
The basis of the boundary shown on the map was reviewed. This included a short review
of the provisions in the GMA statute and the criteria and application by the county as
reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. The primary consideration was the reasons for
including land outside the current boundaries of the Desert Aire P.U.D. This led to the
next topic—agricultural uses.
A�ricultural Uses
The current boundaries of the Desert Aire Rural Village contain significant acreage of
orchards. There have been two requests to make sure that agricultural uses continue as a
permitted use and are protected against infringement from incompatible uses. The
possibility of adjusting the boundary of the rural village designation on the county's land
use map was discussed. Staff were asked to explore how the boundary might be redrawn
to address this issue. Notification will be provided to the property owners outside the
Desert Aire PUD. It was clear from the discussion and presentation by citizens at the
meeting that the parcels shown on the map need to be checked. Two specific examples
of where previously platted residential lots had been consolidated and put into
agricultural production were identified.
Airport Master Plan Status
The county's Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code contain provisions to
protect airports from conflicting uses and navigation obstructions. It was not clear the
exact status of the airport's plans and their approval by state and federal agencies. Scott
Clark will work with the appropriate committee members resolve any questions about the
application of airport protections identified in 23.08.030 of the UDC.
Enforcement
There was considerable discussion of current Grant County regulations and enforcement
practice. A general principle discussed focused on the range of issues needing to be
addressed with a general recognition that the county would be responsible to enforce
those provisions included in the UDC or other county ordinances. The Desert Aire
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary
December 1, 2000
P.U.D. may have additionai provisions above and beyond thase in the county ardinances
which are in the Desert Aire Assaciation's ruies a.nd covenants. These provisians would
be fall to the assoaiation and their members io enfarce. The issue of including same
Association provisions in the county UDC was briefly discussed without a decision. A
more detailed discussion was deferred uzxtil the next meeting wzth the expectation that a
county representative of the Building Depaxhnent and the Health Deparbment could
attend and rnake preser�tations on current regulations and enforcement policy,
The nexi meeting of the Advisory Cornrnittee is sch�duled far Thursday, December 7,
2000 at 2:00 p.m. at the Sagebrush Senior Center in Desert Aire. Mike McCornuck will
confizm the availability of the facility and notify advisory cornmittee members if there is
any changeo
The meeting concluded at appraxi;tnately 5:15 p.me
This sumamary was prepared by Mike McCormick.
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary
December 7, 2000
This is a summary record of the third meeting of the Desert Aire Advisory Committee
held at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2000. The meeting was held at the Port of
Mattawa Office on Road 24. 'This was an open meeting attended by a number of
interested citizens.
Advisory Committee members a�tending: Ray Webber, Bill Millard, Lael Ronholt, Ken
Miller, Tom Turax, Bill Briere, Bob Kibler, Tex Adams, A1 Anderson, Allen Clow,
Bruce Eskilden and Steve Eckengert. The meeting was conducted by Mike McCormick,
planning consultant for Grant County. Scott Clark, Grant County Planning Director
provided staff support.
Review Staff I�raft of Proposed Development Regulations
The staff had prepared a revised proposal following extensive discussions at the previous
meeting. The primary change was the addition of two new zoning classes within the
Rural Village classification: RVR 2 and RVOSC. The RVR 2 provides for a zone to
accommodate multi-family and condominium developments. The RVOSC provides for a
zone for the various types of open space. The five proposed zoning types now
accommodate a zone for each type of use anticipated in the original plat. The committee
made several changes to the designations for some uses in some permitted zones. �One
clarification was to limit duplexes to the RVR 2 zone.
There was an extensive discussion of the nature and character of activities in the open
space zone. The committee was interested in making sure that the range of activities now
allowed in the proposed open space zone be permitted. At the same time, the committee
wanted to make sure that parcels containing irrigation or potable water wells received
adequate protection.
Review Staff Options for Zonin� Designations
The staff presented a proposed partial zoning map which reilecied �he uses suggested by
the original plat map. The committee generally accepted the staff recommendation. A
detailed review and discussion followed focusing on the other lands within the boundary
of the Desert Aire Rural Village, which includes property not within the Desert Aire
PUD.
The discussion covared industrial prop�rties and the airport, extent of the coriimercial
core, eliminating agricultural designations by adjusting the DARV boundary and
appropriate designations in the remaining portion of the rural village remaining east of St.
Highway 243. All issues were resolved for the areas west of S.H. 243 with the exception
of making sure that the community activities near the entrance (church, senior center, fire
station, sheriff's station and park will be permitted uses at their current locations. Staff
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary
December 7, 2000
Page 2
will present recommendations for the few remaining parceis east of S.H. 243 which are
unresolved.
Boundary of Desert Aire Rurai Villa,�e
The committee is praposing the eventual realignmeni of overall rural village boundary ta
exclude agncultural lands. This would include redrawing the boundary to xemove the
current agricultural tracts in the northeast portion of rural ,village adjacent to S.H. 243 and
the tracts cwrrerntly in orchards and undeveloped ground south and east of the southern�
most residential areas.
Presentations on Countv Regulations and Enfaxcement Policxes
The advisory committee receiv�d briefings frorn the Grant County Building Department
and the Grant County Health Department on the status of current regulations and
enforcem�nt practices.
Brenda Larson fram the Building Department reviewed recent changes to the UDC and
the major change in moving fram criminal enforcement to civil enforcement. Ms. Larson
indicated that she had already seen the effectiveness of writing citations containing
monetary fines in promoting prompt response from violators. Ms. Larson explained the
current enforcement strategy including the county's decision to rely on written
eomplaints as a trigger for enforcernent. She indicated that there is a two-week backlag
of complaints at the present time. The committe� discussed patential benefits of I7esert
Aire 4wners Associatian receiving copies of new permit applications as a way ta avoid
conflicts between the Caunty's development regulatians and additional requirements
which may be in the CG & R's and enforced by the Association.
Kevin Berry from the Health I?epartment provided a similar presentation of the Health
De�artment's mission, the fact that they are a separate public agency and some af the
recent issues in the Desert Aire area. The primary facus of the discussion was directed ai
sewer and septic issues. Mr. Berry reviewed the county's enforcement activities. Several
exampies raised by committee members were currently prahibited and enfarceable by the
Health Departrnent. The prabiem of overloading septic systems by toa many residents af
individual properties was discussed. 'The fact that the Associatian currentiy meters water
presented an opportunity to explore viable enforcement. Mz°. Berry eommitted to having
one af the sanitarians meet with the Association after the first af the new year ta see if a
cooperative program af monitoring anfl enforcement couid be developed.
Review Countv UDC and Reconcile Provisions
Advisory committee members had reviewed the UDC and identified several areas where
the UDC conflicts with the CC&R's. Scott Clark axplained that the County had an
adopted policy incorparated in their Camprehensive Plan to aliow certain existing
Dasert Aire Advisory Committee
Meetzn� Slunmarry
December i, 2000
Page 3
developments ta continue under the ald rules. The Caunty's rules would allow older
divisions of Desert Aire to continue developing under the old ruies is they were more
than 50% developed. The committee members feit that this wauld apply to the older
divisions where there was a potential conflict on setback requirements. Mr. Clark will
confirm that this is th� case for the next meeting.
A second potential conflict appears to exist with cornmercial properties. The one
developed commercial parcel develaped without any required setbacks. The UDC does
contain setback requirements for all commerciat development. Mr. Clark is examining
the situation to see if the current configuration af uses within this one parcel rneet the
current setback requiremsnts.
Re�,ularion of RV's
This topic was deferred until the next meeting due to a lack of time.
The n.ext meeting af the Advisory Committee is scheduled for Thursday, December 13,
2000 at 12 noon at the Sagebrush Seniar Center in Desert Aire.
The meeting concluded at approximately 6;34 p.m.
This surnmary was prepared by Mike McCormick.
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary
December 13, 2000
This is a summary record of the third meeting of the Desert Aire Advisory Committee
held at 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2000. The meeting was held at the
Sagebrush Senior Center in Desert Aire. This was an open meeting attended by a number
of interested citizens.
Advisory Committee members attending: Bill Millard, Lael Ronholt, Ken Miller, Torn
Turax, Ray Webber, �ill Briere, Bob Kibler, Tex Adams, Ray Wells, A1 Anderson, Allen
Clow, Bruce Eskilden and Steve Eckengert. The meeting was conducted by Mike
McCormick, planning consultant for Grant County. Scott Clazk, Grant County Planning
Director provided staff support.
lteview of Desert Aire Rural Village Boundarv Ma�
The committee reviewed the map showing the proposed boundary adjustment which
reflected recommendations made at the previous meeting of the advisory committee. The
changes included redrawing the boundary to remove the current agricultural tracts in the
northeast portion of rural village adjacent to S.H. 243 and the tracts currently in orchards
and undeveloped ground south and east of the southern-most residential areas. The
revised boundary reflected the committee's recommendations.
Review of Desert Aire Zonin�p
The committee reviewed the proposed zonings designations prepared by staff based on
recommendations made at the previous advisozy committee meeting.
The zoning designations for the portion of the Rural Village west of S.H. 234 were
reviewed with three small adjustments to reflect the intent of the committee. These
adjustments were: (1) The parcel at the NW end of the airport and owned by the Desert
Aire Owners Association would be designated for open space. (2) The map would be
revised to show all open space in Divisions 1 through 7. The community activities near
the entrance (church, senior center, fire station, sheriff's station and park will be
permitted uses.
The staff's recommendation for proposed designations for the parcels east of S.H. 243
was accepted. This area includes property containing the Desert Aire water tank and land
identified for future potential use to support a sewer system.
Review of Proposed Development Re�ulations
The staff presented a revised set of allowable land uses for the zones proposed and the
accompanying developrnent standards. One change was recommended which would
malce outdoor recreation developments subject to a conditional use review in the open
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Stunmary
December 13, 2000
Page 2
space and the industrial zones. This would make treatment of open space consistent for
all zones in Desert Aire.
The revised development standards were accepted with one addition. The three different
minimum dwelling unit size currently in the Desert Aire regulations will be incorporated
into the County's regulations. A subcommittee consisting of Bill Millard and Tom Truax
will work with Mr. Clark on incorporating this provision.
There was a discussion of the setback requirements for commercial pmjects. Mr. Scott
explained that the requirement for setbacks is applied to the outer boundary of the parcel.
It will not affect the internal layout for the location of buildings nor further limit their
areas beyond what is currently shown on the parcel map. This was of particular concern
for the commercial parcel with existing development located at the entrance to Desert
Aire.
Re�,ulation of Recreational Vehicles
This topic had been deferred from the previous agenda. Mr. McCormick started the
discussion by acknowledging the conflict which has been recently generated over the use
of RV's within the various divisions of the Desert Aire PUD. He further explained that
the current Grant County regulations restrict the use of RV's. The two primary aspects of
these regulations are that RV's are not now permitted to be used as a residence anywhere
in any residential zones. Second, county regulations limit the time an RV can be
occupied during any year. Lastly, the committee should recognize that there should be
fair treatment to those RV's already in Desert Aire.
There was an extensive discussion of the issues surrounding the regulation of RV's.
Some of the issues raised included: Importance of RV's to the Desert Aire economy and
viability of the development. Negative effect of some RV's on the property taxes. Wide
range of RV's present and the significant variation in maintenance on individual lots.
Winter activities that attract RV users. Overuse and nuisance activities during holiday
weekends. Relative merits of an abatement program for current RV's. The need to
respect private property rights. The discussion included a review of the enforcement
programs of the Health Department and the Building Department including enhanced
enforcement with the new civil standard and future meetings to explore coordinated
enforcement.
The committee's recommendation addresses four areas. There was considerable
divergence among committee members. Several members acknowledged that they had
direct interests in the outcome. Some members continue to object to specific elements of
the recornmendation. All of the committee agreed to make the recommendation to the
Planning Department recognizing that there would be opportunities to present their
individual positions as the proposal is reviewed by the Planning Commission and when it
is before the Board of County Commissioners for formal adoption. There was
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Surnmary
Decamber 13, 2000
Page 3
considerable desire to adhere as clasely as possible to the cuzrent version of the Desert
Aire Owners Assaciation Restated Architectural Regulations' Section 2.02 which
regulates recreational vehicle use. The recommendatians are
1. RV's can not be used as a permanent r�sidence. There should be no residential
permits for RV's or their supporting faciiities (such as septic systems). This is
consistent with current caunty regulations. The county has provisians to allow RV's
to be used tempararily under special conditians for up to a year.
2. No new RV's should be permitted, including existing residential lots which are
not currently developed. The comrnittee recognizes the impartance af not rnaking
the situation worse by allawing any expansion of RV use on residentiallats. The
cammittee acknowledged the Grant Caunty potentialliability should new RV's be
allowed.
3, Existing RV's use should be phased out over a�ve to seven year period» The
periad allowed caused considerable discussion among the committee. The range
discussed varied from immediately requiring existing RV's to be removed ta allowing
a grace period considerably beyond the praposal. This period represented a
reasonable compromise which wauld arlow existing RV users t4 adjust ta the new
regulations.
4. Existing RV's shouid nat be allowed to remain on individaal residentia! lois
throaghout the year and their use s�ould be regulated to limit amount of use iu a
year. Existing RV's shouid not be ai�awed tc� remain an individual lots throughaut
the year. Those thai da occupy their sites during the permitted periad, need ta be
regulated to limit actual use. The County currently limits th� occupancy of an RV in
several ways: Through the provisions far RV parks and by the definition af
`<permanent accupancy,>
The cornmittee identified twa optians to implement this pravision. The committee's
preferred optian is to allow the Desert Aire Owners Assaciatian ta apply and enforce
tkte pravisians of Section 2.02, T�us provides for iimited use between March ls` and
November ls�. There are pravisions for some exceptians to allow use during ihe
winter through a farmal written request process, If the first option was selected, the
Desert Aire 4wners Association wauld enforce the provisions. Existing Caunty
regulations would be enforced on a compiaint basis.
The second aption is for tha County to adopt a specific period when RV's can not
occupy residential lots. The committee discussed potential dates with some
consideration ta making it shorter than that currently impased by Desert Aire Owners
Association. This might be from Decernber Isk to March ls`. If this alternative is
selected, the cornmiitee would recommend a provision which would allow praperty
owners to be able to bring their RV's back for shart periods of time (weekends?). `
Desert Aire Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary
December 13, 2000
Page 4
There was considerable discussion concerning the difficulty of enforcing these
provisions. The committee understands that the County needs a clear standard which
makes effective enforcement realistic under the current enforcement standards and
practices. 7'here were some members of the committee who indicated recent
improvements in the effectiveness of the Desert Aire Owners Association.
Next Steas
This concludes the formal activities of the committee. Mr. McCormick will expeditiously
prepare the committee's recommendations and forward it to the Grant County Planning
Department. It is the committee's hope that this will enable the County to move quickly
to remove the current moratorium on residential permits at Desert Aire.
Copies of the report will be sent to Advisory Corrunittee members at the same time.
Copies will be available through the County and at the Desert Aire Owners Association
office. A copy will be posted on the County's and Desert Aire Owners Association web
site. Everyone who attended one of the initial community meeting in Mattawa or one of
the Advisory Committee meetings will receive notification of the Advisory Committee
Recommendations and how they can obtain a copy.
Mike McCormick thanked the Advisory Committee members for their diligence and
civility. He noted that this was a remarkable amount of work to accomplish in such a
short period of time, particularly when it was recognized that advisory committee
rnembers were volunteers.
The meeting concluded at approximately 5:30 p.m.
This suxninary was prepared by Mike McCormick.
TABLE #4
REVISED RURAL VILLAGE BOUNDARY
�.
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
DesertAire Advisory Committee Report 13 December 15, 2000
...
c
TABLE #5
SA) ZONING
CHAP�'ER 23.04, TABLE 5
.� .
SB) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CHAPTER 23.12, TABLE 3
(And Minimum Floor Area Requirement Map)
Desert Aire Ad'visorv Committee Report 14 December I5, 2000
Tabie 5
Chapter 23.04 Desert Aire Advisory Committee Fina112ecommendation -r-:;�, �: December 1 S, 20t)tl
I3
�
Table 5
Districtsl,x,�,a,s
Chapter 23_ 04 Desert Aare Advisory Committee Fanal Recommendation � December 1 S, 2000
14
Tabie 5
Chapter 23.04 D�sert Aire Advasary Committee Fina1 Recommendatiors 73ecember 1 S, 2000
IS
Tai�le S
Distri+ets1,x,�,4,s
Imstitutional Uses
Recreational Uses
Chapter 23.04 Desert Aire Advisory Cammittee Final Recommendatzon . December 1 S, 2000
16
Table 5
Events,
Trailer Parks, Short Term
Recrearional Vehicle Parks, �
Use
Un-named Recreational Uses
� �,
Gi�i�iA�i��
uiAAA�i��.
t.��7AA�:7��
�AAAA��
�������
�������
uses
Community Sewage & Water D D P D D
Treatment Facilities
Community Water Storage Tanks p D P D D
Chapter 23.04 Desert �1ire Advisory Committee Final Recommendation �. ;:�. ����. December 1 S, 2000
17 , �
�
Land Use
Table 5
Allowable Land Uses for Rural Activity Center Zoning Districts''�'�'4'S
Rural Acfivity Centers
�I �� � �I �� a Q W r.�i� r�i� � � a P4 � � � �
� .
Chapter 23.04 Desert Aire Advisory Committee Final Recommendation -, � December 1 S, 2000
18
Notes For Tables 3, 4 and S:
1. All uses shall be consistent with the purpose of the wning dishict in which they are proposed to occur and the land use goals andpolicies of the Comprehensive
Plau. Ali land uses in zoning districts shall meet the generai regulations specified in GCC § 23.04.050 nnless otherwise stated therein. All regulations in GCC Tifle
23 apply to the uses in these tables. To determine if a particular use or activity may occur in a particular zoning district and location, all relevant regulations must
also be consulted in addifion to this table. �
2. A land use, activity or development proposed to be located entiuely or partly within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a regulated shoreline is within the
jurisdiction of the Shorelme Master Program shall be subject to the requirements of the Shoreline Master PLograxn and the applicable provisions of t�is Chapter
and Table 3.
3. Overlay zoning districts and subarea plans provide policies and regulations in addition to those of the underlying zoning district for certain land areas and for uses.
For any land use, activity or development graposed to be located entirely or pardy within an overlay zoning district or withia the jurisdiction of a subarea plan, the
applicable provisions of the overlay zoning district oa subarea plan as specified in GCC § 23.04 .Article N and Article VI sball prevail over any conflicring
provisions of the Giant County Code.
4. Categories of Use (See GCC § 23.04.040):
A= Uses allowed outright, subject to applicable development standards specified in GCC § 23.12.
D= Provisional or discretionary use subject to Type II administrative review procedures specified in GCC § 25.04 for compliance with the aequirements
of applicable provisions of GCC § 23.08 — Perforrnance and Use Standards and GCC § 23.12 — Development Standards.
C= Conditional use subject to Type III review procedures spec�ed in GCC § 25.04 for compliance with the requirements of GCC § 25.08.060.
P = Prolubited use.
PA = Plan Amendment; requires an amendment to an adopted Master Plan — see GCC § 23.04.650.
5. The assignment of allowable and prolubited uses may not directly or indirectly preclude the siting of "essential public faci7ities" as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. See GCC § 23.04.070.
6. Zoning District Legend:
Urban Growth Area Zonuag Districts:
URl = Urban Residentiall UR2 = Urban Residential2 UR3 = Urban Resideniial3
UR4 = Urban Residenrial4 UCl = Urban Commercial 1 UC2 = Urban Commercial2
LJHI = Urban Heavy Industrial iJL� = Urban Light Industrial OSR = Open Space/Recreation
PF = Public Facility UR = Urban Reserve AP = Grant County International Airport
Rural Lands, Resource Lands, and Special and Overlay Zoning Disiricts:
RRl = Rural Residential 1 RR2 = Rural Residential2 RR3 = Ruaal Residentiai 3
RRem= Rura1 Remote RU�t = Rural Urban Reserve AG = Agriculture
OSC = Open Space Conservation POS = Public Open Space MRO = Mineral Resource Overlay
ASO = Airport Safety Overlay AO = Aerospace Overlay MPR = Master Planned Resort
MPI = Master Planned Industrial
Rural Activiiy Center Zoning Districts:
RVR1 = Rural �I►aae Residentiall RVR2 = Rural Villas�e Residential2 RVOSC = Rura/ Vfllaae Ogen Saace Conservation
RVC = Rural �llaqe Commercial RVI = Rural �IlaQe Industrial RC = Rurat Community
ASC = Agricultural Service Center RD = Recreational Development SD 1= Shoreline Development 1
SD2 = Shore2ine Development 2 SD3 = Shoreline Development 3 SD4 = Shoreline Devclopment 4
RGC = Rural General Commercial RNC = Rural Neighboahood Commercial RFC = Rural Freeway Commercial -.
RHI = Rurai Heavy Industrial RL� = Rural Light Industrial RRC = Rural Recreatit�nal Commercial
Chapter 23.04 Desert Aire Advisory Committee Final Recommendation z; , . December 1 S, 2000
Notes For Tables 3, 4 and S(Continued):
7. A Master Planned Resort may include short-term visitar accomu�odations that are associated wikhh the recreatic�nal fac�iiies of the resort. An NIPR may .
a3so include c�ti�er perma�ent residential use�, canference facilities, and commetcial activities supgortiug the resart, bufanly ift3�ese other uses are
integrated inta and consistent with the on site recreationai nature af the resart. Special provisians for uses within Master Plauaed Resozts are specified in
GCC § 23.04.650, § 23.i2.220 and § 25.12.tJ74.
8. Restrictian of mining and minerat extraciian and reiated mineral resaurce processing in any zoning district shall not preclnde consideration of an
application far redesignatian as a Mineral Resource Lands Overlay District. �
9. Shall be cansidered as a canci�#ianal use if exisfiing operation.
10. Except far sauerkcaut, vinegar and pickles.
1 i. Resadential care facilities housing fi�e {5) ar fewer resideuts, other than staff, are allawed outright in a1I residential distric#s. Ali a#her residential care
facilities are conditianal uses subject #o the requirentents af GGC § 23,04 and § 23.08.
12. Teiu�.�crrary outd�x eveuts are subject to either discretionary use review or conditional use permit depending upon ciuration ax inten�sity as specified in GCC §
23A8.404.
13. Wireless Com�nunication Facilities (WCFsj and Commercial Cammunication Facilities �CCFs} requiring new support sir�ctures shall be required to
abtain a conditional use permit in this zraniug district WCFs and CCFs attached to an existing building ur structure and not requiring new support
siructures shall reviewed as a discretionary use pern�it.
14. Except tlzase uses allowed outright, discretionary usas, and cc�nditional uses specificaily listed in GCC § 23.04.560,
I S. Mainte�ance of more than twenty {20} mat�ue head of hogs or five hundred (SOOj paultry shall be subject to a condifiional use permi# and the performance
standards specified in GCC § 23.08.240. Commerciai feedlots that maintain or serve more than twenty (20} maiiue hesd of h4gs ar fi�ve huncired {500)
poultry shaA be subject to a canditional use permit.
16. Temporary and permanent asphalt o� concrete batch plants and asphalt or concrete recycling are per�riitted in an MRt? zouing disirict, subject to a
conditional use permit, as an accessory use to a permitted mining operatian,
i7, See Section § 23.04.54�{b) for Iisting of additional heavy industriai uses permitted
18. See Sectiau § 23.f}4_530(6} far Iisting af addi�ianai light industrial uses permitted.
I9. A.tI indusirial uses shall compty wi�► the requirements af Sectian § 23.08_230.
20. Aliawed subject to a couditianal use permit; provided that the area is located within a MRC? zoning district and on a parcel having a m:nir�,um 1ot area of
five {5) acres. Such use sha12 be reg�lated under GCC §�3.Q8.260 and as fallows: (1) No such rnini�g apera�ian shalt be located less than one i�ousand
(1,{}OQ) feet from any residenrially zoned district; and �2} No prad�ction shalt be pemutted nearer thatt fifty (50) feet from azty property line.
2I. See Figure 10-1, Airpart Land Use Flan in Crrant Counry Airport Master Plan, prepared by T`RA Ai�port Consulfiing in association witt3 CH2M Hill, and
adopted March 28, 1994, by tt►e Part of Moses Lake Commissianers.
22. Provided that they are of a seaie to serve only the within the MPI zoning district.
23. Subject to requirements specified in GCC § 23.04 — Zoning and 23.08 — Perfarinance and Use-Specifi� Stanciards.
24, Uses wi11 be established upon adoption of a subarea ptan for the Rural ViIlage of Desert Aire.
2S. Pravided that cammercial use primarily seTves industrial uses within the district.
26, New cammercial nses iocated on previously undeve2oped parcels in the RGC and RNC zoning districts shall be limited #o: {�} #hose uses permitted in the
RRC zoning district, as specified iu GCC § 23.04.550(b);(2} Personal & Professional Services;{3} Resic�ential Care F�cilities;`(4) i?ay Care Types i and 2;
and (5} Bed & $reakfast Resic�ences.
27. New uses located on previously undeveloped parcels in the RLI and RHI zoning districts sha11 be limifed to: (I) Agriculturall� related industrial uses
sgecified in GCC § 23.04.53Q; (2) Industrial uses related to mining aud rn�eral extraction; and (3} Indus#rial uses mc�tiiring` �azge secl�aded areas away
fram urban grawkh ceuters and not reqtziring urban water and sewer services.
Chapter 23_ 04 Desert Aire Arlvi.sory Cammittee Final Recorramendutiort .,. Ziecember I S, 2000
28. Uses on parcels located adjacent to agricultural zoning districts shall not adversely impact the natural aesource production in the area and shall not require
extension of urban water and sewer services. °���
29. At the sole discretion of the County, a Development Aggeement may be negotiated and signed in lieu o� or m addirion to, processing an apglicarion fos a
temporary outdoor fesrival as a conditional use permit. � �
30. The location ofHan�ers as an accessory use sha116e allowed in Rural Yillape Resideniial 1(RVR1) and Rural Villas�e Residential2 (RVR2) where the propertv
�roposed for development direcilv abufs and has adeauaie access far ihe movement of aircrafi � an existin�r Airport facfli[v as a'conditfonai use permi�
Chapter 23. 04 Desert Aire Advdsory Committee Final Recorramendation
9
1: �. December 1S, 2000
�
lle�eIopment Stan 'dard
Depth to Width Itaiio (23,12.4�
Minimum Residential Lot Area
�Aeres)''8'g
M:inimum Lot Frontag�e �Feet�
vlinimum Setbacks�
Fron� or Road (Feet)
Rear or Side (Feet)
Visio� Clearance Triangle
(23.I2.110)
Landscape Buffer Requirement
{23.12_I'10}
3peciai Setback from AG and
MRO Zones (23.12.070{i))
.12A7U
Iding C
.12.07Q
ar Landscaped Area
Table 3
Dimen�sion and t�pen ,5pace Standraards far Rural Activity Center Zvning .Uastricts
Zoniug Districi
Rural Activiiy Ceuters
� � a� � � � A A A A C,U.'� � � � U �
� � a � � � � �
4/1 N/A 1!1 111 Il1 1{2 il1 2/2 3/I N/A
None � 1 �
specifiedts
SQ
a.o� �s �s �r� z$
1QZ+ Q� 0 1Q 10
appraved
any County Raad
3S 25 35 4a 35
Multi-fasnily residentiai, commezcial, industrial and institutional iand uses, parking lats, and as zequired in otlxer
sectians of this ITDC, shall ravide a landsca ed buffer as set fortlz in GCC § 23.12.270.
A special setback for residential tand uses and other especially sensitive land uses is required from the adjoining
resaurce 2and or use as set forth in GCC § 23.22.074(i).
35 3�t5 35 35 3S 35 3�u
C 23. I Z Ilesert �ire t�dvisory Com»aiitee Final Recammenciation
60
1(i
December 19, �
;t aeptla� 2
es a�d 3: ��1z ba Cp�n��u �al
otes f°r T�bl �� 2 e�, pi�ayc�� �,�Lban g� �'e
N 1?is��t �ea���tiall �'I � �Iba �icts: a12
1- ��av.�°�Uz����id�n�� al � Zonizig� lgesiden ese�e
U� 4 ' �Isbata ��Cy �� Special �� Ov�T'R� - R"s �� YOP� � � 1aY
V� , 4�b��� �1.��' �d RpS ' '�`p,e aspa�e �a
'� �a,uc �n�a� �'
� �.L�cls�Rut�ges�d te ti.an A� ' �,
Resic�e��a1,�2
�, t31 ba� Cpz�etRecr�'�' tional A�ost
�C2 ; �en5C���,�te�
a�� , Gia"t
en�a13
p,P � Resid
, gu�al �e ovexlaY
� , A�e�geso��Resott
ed
Al�p -� ��tet Y��
N��' � _.��ra�ai
R��� y�uo - t
1.flevel���t3
' ReCzea�oeDeVela�� �Q�exG�al
� SY,oxe� . �boshpOa 1
� RRl � R��e,ce r'°�ee laY RuC�` Yttt� g�e eo S Ce �ex S�3 ��aa Li�ht�d�s� o�edM�te �vg �
gRe� ; OPe� �gafetY �dustrial R,�� s Rurao Ni�la�a15eN�G�ent� RNI -'�t"t �d � appt e�� So i
pS�G� ;i � 4 p��� �a 1 ��pCSG- p,��i �e.peil��elcial Rj' S�all be �t�� ��tb-� th 23 p8�
�yI ' Cen� e Residen a� A�" 2� s�1 Genez ��dUst�a, eiResos� ��� fi��v ��is�c� es ��CC'§
a� �cti�� u�` Vill `ndpgtC� SD R ��eavY I�lasin �entto �g Zov�' lapdus
R RVR� � Rura� ��� .�n�� �evt 1 R�C � Ruza aids fOl�astplan �"e�d �e ��esl fo"� 4�c�la� es �tback� do
' 1�11 �-� �� D�tell� es�t `� 1� �' �� Side St�`�� tei�lav" � v��lan� ecified ai1F °pe� E g�eexdya��' �e
R e � t a as si be � I
$�1 ; �sho eline�wa�i �or�Qt�excval 1' Setback-� � � as 1��" �of �e Cosa�p�� � Setbacks � y �gQ� �ee a�y �e Co ���yles� � $�ees-'iti
c� � �a1FT �ic� �lO� �e fi'� Yo�isioz� al or Specia ��ts9 fi detese4wes edes�ls��e Co�n�Y
R F C , R�ge�� a e��9 asi���at e� e�e�l O C�'}. ?*a�i�Qn 1� t 5 a�d t� Gtions �� v, t y 4°i te s� nedbY a) f�et. •o v� �'ake it
itg-C � et�'la�' �it�l �� . tezst°nth 231� 0� Soil Ste�' es atu' ds�ap�ng' ovS as d� �e ten � l Tes��tl
ast a�s sis C� es, t� la� c� 11 es
�," is a� ,X:�'v'� � it9 �s ��� ed. in � 1iex�l�ia Safe Si�h �leid5� at �texse e��, sba or otts
2 ° S ,�e �a �e�� �S � Speci$ es��l�es, �au-in� �d 3�a Sl �t�in�s �be�e4e� og�a�'�'�� �5). 3 �2 0'i5 •
�p�a4 • 1 deyelop �e�sed � fe�yez� p e�t�e Se��� Syste�, .�� Safealpzo��,�ts o�e� �nes, C§ 23 �q. �CC � 2.
the t° Ube t°' sale ° ezsts� �� e�ters� � � of P e Cs� � of
�` e� ticvl
getbacks � b t��t�� e� Seq°uem es�b� sh ���tw� Sal� of ag �e FTeSenGe �S��ts �s��e�.°�e�en p
3' ;nc l�a ��, � seaf t,�o�$e�eiL�s�4�b�tiv e��� � Fla9 � e�s,�"'hb k � E,, g O��'ov�� b jeG�tO� em b eY 19, Z��
Fe �e� �etQ ��g bY �� A ds��d of �e �vch�� �to � �afety �°e� di avd Sh�l �e�
`�' mot ap�l� a�s��ea' �ty ��sct��°� out en�°a � as �° w�.es�'�e�
athet i�t�ckf°s t��ea, at �c�e ��s aesi�� c1Usterin� �
�Son�aG��aS'be�o����d��inbe Co'�ld
�' g�easO�ble� �� �1� � sb� 29
6 �3ei�-t'�ofles�� en
��ion
,� A1ot si�e � tnal ge�Omm
� �.
c�m,ritt
Des� Alre A�orY
C���er 23.12
Notes for Tables 1, 2 and 3(Continuedj: .
S. Miniunwn lot sizes may be specified for particular land nses in GCC § 23.0$, including, but nat limited to:
1. �12�Iliip G�1�#CSy �lOS�71�ay^ IC�11218�..5, cemeteries and traizling schaals; five (5} aczes;
b. Mining, minerat e�taction and rninexal processing; in a MRQ zoning district; five {5} acres;
c. Cammercial fe,ed lois, iucluding hog ranches maintai�nimg more than twenty (2Q) matuxe head afhags; ten (1Q) acres;
d. Slaughter, packing and rendering facilities; iwo {2} acres; and
e. Lots usect for storags and sate af fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, soi� sterilants and fuarziganis; ten (10) acres.
�. Clustering of lats is piern�titted only in the follawing zones: Urban Residen�ial 1(L7RP}; Urban Residenfral 2(t3R2); Rural Residential 1(RRl}; Rural
R�szdential2 �RR2}; Rt�xa1 Residentiai 3{RR3); Rural Remate (RRem}; Shorelzne Develapment I{SDi}; and Agricultuce (AG). The znaximuzan number of
dwellfng units pez ch�stered development is set forth in Txble 4 of this section.
10. Side se�hacks shall t� increased tu fifteeu {15) feet for the side yard abutting a road or stree� on corner lots,
1 I. The zni.nimum xear or side setbacks shall be ten (14) feet if the site containing ihe prapased use is adjacent to any parcel zoned residential. The setbacks
may be rednced to five {S) feet for accessary structures, including accessary dwelling ur�its.
12. Far comer lots, side setbacks shall be increased to tlurty-five {35) feet for the side yard abutting a Coanty Arterial Raad or tweuty-five (25) feet far the
side yard abutting any other Cottnty Road. Side and xear setbacks sha11 be increase from ten ( I O} feet to iwenty (20) feet if the site cantaining the propased
use is adjacent ta attp garcel zoned residential.
13. The front setback foz service station fue2ing Ptunp islanc�s, utcluding castopies, may be reduced to fzf�een (15) feet, Signs, as permitted under this UDC,
may be withiaa five (5) feet of the right-c�f-way margin.
14. �or corner Iots, side setback� sball be inereased to forty (40) feet for the side yard abut�ing a County Raad. Rear setback for RFiI and RLI zones shall be
fif�een {l.5) fee% Side and rear setbacks shall ba increase from tez� { I O) feei to �fty (Sd) feet if the site containing the proposed use is adjacent to any parcel
zoned residential.
15. Unless ati�erwise set farth 3n a Subarea Plan,
16. Height timitaiions shall generally not apgly to accessory prajectians such as steeples nr spires on piaces of religious assembly, elevator shaft hausings,
water tawers, or chinweys, �cepi as may be Iinaited within the ASO zaning district or a condition of pezmit approvai; provided that the accessc�ry
prajectian is not intended far accupancy, and that it is removed nat less than tweniy (�0} feet from auy adjc�ining lot liue.
17. Building height may e�ceed �1tirEy-five {35} feet; pravided that any partion of a buildiz�g exceeding 35 feet shall be set back ane (1) faot beyond each
required side or rear yarci foz cach foot such buiiding or structuze is in excess of t�tizty-�ve (35) feet.
1$. Bnilding heighi may e�tceed thirty-five (3S) feet without restrzctzon, uniess any part af a siructure is wzthin two 2aundred {200) feet of a reszdentiai ar
commercial zone, in. which case the anaxim�n height shall be t3.�iriy-five (35) feet
19. Shucitues used for ibe starage of materials for agricuttural activities az�e exe�a�pt frorr� the ma,�imum buiiding height restrictions, except as may be limited
wittxin #he ASO zoning district or a conditiQn of pem3it appzoval.
20. As set forth in the Crr.,ant Gow�ty Airport Master Plan.
21. "AMP;" refers #o the CT.i�aut Cauntq Airport Master Plan, prepazed by TRA Airport Cansulting in association with GH2M Fiill, and adopted March 28,
1994, by the Fort of Moses I,aka Cammissianers.
22. Required anly for parcels greater thau one (1) acre in size.
Chapter 23.12 Desert.4ire Advisory Comrnittee FinullZecommendution 30 1)ecember 19, �QO(J
4 < ll
Chapter 23.12 .�7esertAireAdv�sory Gorrtmittee Final Recomrtzendafton 31 Z3ecember 19, 2afltl
Desert Aire R i '
es entia
Dev� o ment Stan ar s
p
Minitnum Floor Area Requirements
OG00 Square Foot Minimum Floor tlrea
� 900 Square Foo[ Minimum Ploor Area
OI100 Squa�e Foot Minimum Floor Area
OPaicel Boundary
� Desert Ait�e Rw�l Vill�ge Bounciary (Committee Recommendation)
� Rur,il Village Bound�ry (Cunent)
0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 Miles
Grant County GIS