Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 02-154-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -154 -CC A Resolution Relating to Comprehensive Planning in Grant County in Accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70 A) and amending the September, 1999 Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, in 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law the Growth Management Act (GMA) as contained in SHS No 2929 (Washington Laws. 19901st Ex. Sess., Ch 17), which was subsequently codified as among other chapters. Chapter 36.70 A RCNN/ . and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities in the State to do some planning and the fastest growing counties and cities with them, to plan extensively in keeping with state goals and policies on: sprawl reduction, affordable housing, economic development, open space and recreation, regional transportation, environmental protection, property rights, natural resource industries, historic lands and buildings, permit processing, public facilities and services, and early and continuous public participation; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities within the state to classify, designate, and conserve natural resource lands (agricultural and mineral) and protect critical areas (wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas aquifer recharge areas. and frequently flooded areas); and WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70 RCW required Grant County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that met specified GMA goals and addressed the mandated GMA elements; and WHEREAS, after complete review and public record of the State Environmental Review process, the Grant County Planning Commission issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on July, 2, 1999; and subsequent addendum in November 2000., and, WHEREAS, over the past year, the Comprehensive Plan's policies may change to ensure that the development patterns in the County remain consistent with the intent of the communities' vision for the future and the Plan's goals and policies; and Grant County Board of County C ommissoners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2001 To the Grant Countv Comprehensi\ e Pian WHEREAS, it is important that amendments to this plan retain the broad perspectives articulated in the community vision statement, satisfy the goals and policies of this Plan, and remain consistent with the intent of the GMA; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes procedures for the review and amendment of Comprehensive Plans governing counties and cities planning under the Act; and WHEREAS, the county has established a public participation program identifying procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the Comprehensive Plan are considered by the governing body of the county no more frequently than once every year; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan fall into several major categories or types and different review application and review criteria apply to each. The kinds of amendments identified herein include: • Urban Growth Area Boundary Changes • Plan policy or text changes, • Plan Map changes; • Supporting document changes. emergency amendments; and • Site-specific amendments; and WHEREAS, policy amendments may be initiated by the County or by other entities, organizations or individuals through petition, and WHEREAS, petitions were received on forms provided by the Department, containing appropriate maps showing the proposed change and addressing the policy or map evaluation criteria as described in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a public meeting was held on Monday, February 11, 2002, by the Grant County Board of Commissioners in compliance with Section 25.12.030, Grant County Unified Development Code for the purpose of considering the Planning Department staff recommendation for each of the individual submitted proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and determine whether to initiate the plan amendment review process for each proposal, and WHEREAS, after receiving testimony from citizens and staff at the public meeting, the motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to recommend staff initiate the SEPA review process and schedule each of the fifty-one amendments proposed. along with staff recommendations before the Planning Commission for public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff held a workshop with members of the Planning Commission on March 6, 2002 to give instruction in conducting the public hearing with regards to consideration of the proposed amendments and review of the Grant Count. Board of CountN Commissioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for (he Year 2001 To the Grant Countv Comprehensive Plan SEPA addendum to the September, 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement as adopted and prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. and: WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, and continued to April 3. 2002. to hear staff recommendations and take public testimony on each of the proposed amendments to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing, closing public testimony and met to make decisions on each of the proposed amendments which were forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners on June 27, 2002, and continued to June 28, 2002, July 10, July 29. August 12. and 13. September 10, and October 15, 2002, where final decisions were made and Findings of Fact given, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission staff report and recommendation are made a part of the record of this public hearing as it relates to SF.PA and the attached amendments. WHEREAS, a non project proposal to consider adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. including site-specific land use designation changes. changes to Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map. amendments to the l 1GA boundary of the City of Moses Lake; and WHEREAS, copies of this EIS Addendum were distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals listed on the Planning Department Distribution list on March 22, 2002 requesting that comments be submitted no later than April 10, 2002 in accordance with WAC 197-11-340 (2), and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners for Grant County adopts the attached Findings of i' act and the attached record pertaining to the approval or denial of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendments; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners for Grant County adopts Findings of Fact as per Attachment "A" in support of these actions. PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata, Washington, by the following vote, then signed by its membership and attested to by its Clerk in authorization of such passage this > day of/, - 2002. Grant CountN Board of County Commissioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2001 To the Grant Countv Comprehensive Plan i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT COUNT', WASHINGTON Tim Snead, I Deborah Moore, Commissioner ATTEST: Peggy Grig0I ` Clerk of the B rd Grant Counts Board of Coumn Commissioners Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2001 To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT "A" GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2001 FINDINGS OF FACT Section I — General Findings 1.1 Grant County has experienced and will continue to experience population growth and accompanying development, resulting in competing demands for public facilities, services and land uses, and is required to prepare and adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations pursuant to the Growth Management Act. 1.2 Growth Management requires that land be managed properly and wisely. Otherwise meeting the demands of a rapidly growing county population is likely to cause urban and suburban sprawl, commercial strip development. development at inappropriate locations and densities. damage to environmentally sensitive areas, and the loss of natural resource lands, rural character, open space, and critical areas. Also, this pattern of development is likely to create demands for urban services and utilities that are insufficient to support their extension in a cost-effective manner. 1.3 The 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendment process responds to the environmental concerns raised during the public hearing process. whole protecting property owners from unconstitutional takings and substantive due process violations. 1.4 RCW 36.70A.020 sets for a list of 13 goals "to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations." In the amendment public hearing process, and these findings of fact, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners considered the 13 Growth Management Goals, weighed them as they apply to the subject matter of these findings, and has attempted to achieve a reasoned balance among them Section 2 - Public Participation 2.1 In July, 2001, the Grant County Planning Department solicited petitions for amendments to the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. 2.2 Petitions received by the planning Department were reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board directed the Planning Department to proceed with further review of the petitions and to prepare environmental documentation consistent with the requirements of RCW 43 21 C and Grant County Code Chapter 24.04 (SEPA). Attachment "A" Grant County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001 General Findings of Fact. 2.3 In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the Planning Commission held public hearings on March 27, and April 3, 2002 at which time testimony was taken from interested agencies, organizations, and individual citizens, regarding the proposed amendments, as well as the 2001 addendum to the 1999 EIS. 2.4 Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission meetings, hearings, and study sessions requiring "legal notice" were advertised in the local paper of record pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70 and the Grant County Unified Development Code. Copies of the proposed amendments, and 2001 Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement were broadly disseminated for public and agency review at no charge. All meetings and hearings to which the public was invited were conducted in an open forum. At hearings, all persons desiring to speak were given an opportunity to do so. Public testimony and written correspondence were given full consideration as part of the amendment process. 2.5 The existing enhanced public participation policies within Grant County ensure that the public had an opportunity to provide meaningful comments on the proposed amendments. 2.6 The appeal mechanisms contained within Grant County ordinances provide sufficient due process to allow interested parties an opportunity to respond at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Section 3 — Criteria for Amendment Approval 3.1 A petition for a site-specific land use redesignation was reviewed for conformance with pertinent provisions of the Grant Count} Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.. 3.2 In reviewing the amendments, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners considered testimony provided at public hearings and recommendations provided by staff and interested or affected agencies with jurisdiction. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners approved, approved with conditions, or rejected an application for a change of designation or density based on the following criteria. (a) The change would benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; (b) The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land -use designation. (c) The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. (d) The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Attachment "A" Grant County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001 General Findings of Fact. (e) The change has merit and value for the community as a whole (0 The change, if granted, will not result in an enclave of property owners en}®ying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations. (g) The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change (h) The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirement s of Grant County ('ode Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and (i) The change complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12 Section 4 — Board of County Commissioners Final Recommendations And/or Actions 4.1 Recorded motions by the Board of County Commissioners for each proposed amendment and Findings of Fact are listed in :attachment `B" 4.2 Supporting Findings of Fact for each decision were identified under Section 3 as detailed above, unless otherwise noted in the record of the Board of County Commissioners. 4.3 Notebooks, and detailed applications along with supporting documentation and staff reports are made a part of this recommendation. Attachment "A" Grant County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001 General Findings of Fact. ATTACHMENT `B' FINAL ACTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2001 AMENDMENTS *2001-1 Jerry Amoruso Royal City, Crook Estates Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Residential to Agriculture Mr. Amoruso owns a parcel which is part of a plat known as Crook Estates, developed under the Agricultural zoning district into 16 ten acre parcels. Mr. Amoroso felt the current land use classification of of Rural Residential and the zoning of same is inconsistent �% ith the development that has taken place and asked that his Lot 92 be redesignated back to Agriculture. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the Land use Designation Request based on the following Findings of Fact , and uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety. and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23. 21. and 25_ and: • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-2 North American Foreign Trade Zone, ASPI Group, Inc. Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Urban Light Industrial to Urban Commercial The subject parcel is thirty-eight acres in size located east of Patton Boulevard and north of Loring Drive near the Grant County Airport adjacent to the Patton Park Gas station. The area adjacent to this property was zoned General Commercial and annexed into the City of Moses Lake. The applicant feels this is a Attachment - 13 Finai action and FindinLs of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehcnsrve Plan 2001 Amendments high traffic intersection with Patton Boulevard being a four to five lane road going to and from the airline terminal and housing area on the former Larson Air Force Base. Loring Drive is also a major thordilahfare soon to be connected to Grape Drive and Stratford Road. both major streets in the Moses Lake Urban Growth area. The property is currently zoned Urban Light Industrial. The " UIJ" designation and permitted uses for Urban Light Industrial in Tables 3 and 5 of the Unified Development Code, prohibit commercial use except in cases where the commercial uses "primarily serve uses within the Urban Light Industrial district. The applicant feels that the definitions are vague as to what constitutes an allowable use and due to the fact it adjoins some already zoned "Commercial" by the City of Moses Lake, they are requesting the land use designation be changed to Urban Commercial. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Land use Designation Request based on the following Findings of Fact: The Board of County Commissioners upheld the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation to U rban Commercial. • The change would /would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed c ircumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for I,md use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property to the immediate vicinity of the subject property; • The change has,'does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any .significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23. 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-3 Glen Knopp, Inland Tarp and Cover Moses Lake, Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial Mr. Knopp is the owner/operator of Inland Tarp and Cover. Inc. and owns four tax parcels on a total of 11.9 acres in the Goodwin Short Plat. Mae Valley, near Moses Lake. All four parcels have been used by the owner as one business site just north of I-90 on the Frontage Road about four or five miles west of the City of Moses Lake. The property has been operated industrially but was recently categorized as Rural Residential I. The property has a history of being used as a light industrial parcel. Prior to Mr. Knopp's ownership the property was home to Midwest Agri -Commodities, Inc., and prior to that was owned by Rocky Mountain Industries. There are structures located on the premises, including a manufacturing plant, office, equipment warehouse, and several temporary structures. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Land Use Designation Request based on the following Findings of Fact: The Board of County Attachment "B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commistiioners Comprehensive flan 2001 Amendmrnb i Commissioners upheld the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approved the Land use designation to "Light Indusrial". • The change would /would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare: • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property to the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property to the immediate vicinity of the subject property; • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole: • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference to the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh att significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25. and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-4 Dorothy Brown, Royal Slope Land use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Agriculture This proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture in a portion of Section 18, Township 17 N., Range 25 E.W.M.. except the N.E.I/4 and a portion of Government Lot 2. The Agricultural land use designation will conserve the land and confirm the agricultural use activities and operations. The land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote land. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remove to Agriculture based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachment "B' Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments *2001-5 Dorothy Brown, Royal Slope Land use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Agriculture The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture in a portion of Section 8, Township 17N., Range 25 E. W.M. The Agriculture al land use designation will conserve the land and confirm the agricultural use, activities and operations. The land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote land. The Board or County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. 2001-6 Brown Children Trust, Royal Slope Land Use Designation change from Rural Remote to Agriculture The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture in a portion of Section 8, Township 17 N., Range 25 E.W.M., containing 320 acres. The Agricultural land use designation will conserve the land and reaffirm the agricultural use, activities and operations, The land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote land. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission and changed the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture based on the following Findings of Fact: The change would /would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; Attachment "B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Flan 2001 Amendment, 4 • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity wliere there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh an} significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24. and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-7 Brown Children Trust, Royal Slope Land Use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Agriculture The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture in a portion of Section 7, Township 17 N., Range 25 E.W.M., containing 640 acres. The Agriculture land use designation will conserve the land and reaffirm the agricultural use. activities and operations. The land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote 'and The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 21. 24. and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-8 Frank and Justin Brown, Royal Slope Land Use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Agriculture The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture in a portion of Section 12, Township 17 N., Range 24 E. W.M. The Agricultural land use designation will conserve the land and reaffirm the agricultural use, activities and operations The land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote land. Attachment `B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments 5 The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. * 2001-9 Gerald (Spud) Brown Royal Slope Land Use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Agriculture The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture all of Section 21, The west half of Section 22, all of Section 27, and the West half of Section 26, Township 17 N., Range 23 E. W.M. The Agricultural land use designation will conserve the land and reaffirm the agricultural use, activities and operations. The land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote land. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would /would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any, significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, :4. and 25. and; Attachment "B Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-10 Mike Brown Royal Slope Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Remote to Agriculture The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture all of the north half and S.E. '/< of Section 13, Township 17 N., Range 24 E WN The Agricultural land use designation will conserve the land and reaffirm the agricultural use. actio ities and operations. The land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote land. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria foi Innd use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or p:opern in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/'will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23. 2-4, and 25, and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-11 Mike Brown, Royal Slope Land Use Designation change from Rural Remote to Agriculture The proposal is to change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture all of the N.E.'A of Section 18, Township17 N., Range 25 E.W.M. The Agricultural Land use designation will conserve the land and reaffirm the agricultural use, activities and operations fhe land is an intensive farming area and does not fit the definition of Rural Remote land. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Agriculture based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: Attachment '13 Final action and Findin:.-s of Pact Hoard of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will1will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh am significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24. and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-12 Chun Wu, Hsin Lung, and Chun Han Chang Moses Lake. Land Use Designation Request from Rural Residential I to Light Industrial The subject parcel is located in a portion of Section 30, Township 20 N., Range 28 E.W.M., containing approximately 160 acres. The property is currently designated Rural Residential I which allows only residences on a minimum five acre parcel. The subject parcel is situated between Highway 17 and the threshold of the runway at Grant County International Airport. 'I he applicants are seeking a land use designation change to Light Industrial which would make the designation compatible with anticipated uses and eliminate a possible dangerous situation of having house at the end of a large airport runway on what should be airport industrial property. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Residential to Light Industrial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all othrr applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-13 Alan Chlarson Moses Lake Attachment -'B Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioner~ Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments 4 Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial Mr. Chlarson is the owner of Chlarson Trucking and Hillcrest Livestock which are located on Farm Unit 15, Block 421 containing 35.8 acres. Historically the propertN has been used industrially for the past 40 years to accommodate these two businesses. Basic American Foods is located across the highway and these two facilities service many trucks which unload at Basic American Foods. The current land use designation is Rural Residential and the proposed chanve would be to Light Industrial. The designation of the land for Rural Residential use may not he the highest and best use of the property. There is a probability that the location of housing here may acversely at feet operations and revenue for the surrounding light industrial businesses. The Board of County Commissioners voted to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Light Industrial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for Isind use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to use, or pi operty in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh env significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, 24. and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-14 Terry and Jeff Cochran Vantage Bridge. Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Remote to Rural General Commercial This parcel consists of approximately 8.8 acres and is part of a larger tract all included within Tax Parcel No. 15-0358-001. The property is located off of Highway 243 near Vantage, the Columbia River and the junction of SR 26 in a portion of Section 33, Township 17 N , Range 23 E. W.M. The current land use designation of the property is Rural Remote and the applicants wish to change the land use designation to Rural General Commercial The current zoning of the subject parcel is Rural Remote, with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, it was once owned by Grant County and was zoned "Public Facilities". In 1997 the Cochrans purchased the property at public auction. They applied for a zone change in 1998 to Commercial Recreation and this was ultimately granted by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners under Resolution #98 -90 -CC on July 7, 1998. Attachment' B Final action and Findmes of Fact Board Ofoounty Commissioner~ Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendmenis Based on the zone change received. a substantial amount of time and money in site development based on the zone change has been completed including, but not limited to installation of P.U.D. power, Commercial Access permit No. 7211, from W.S.D.O.T. , drilled well, installed electrical service and pump; and extensive grading and site preparation under Building Permit from Grant County No 2000-420. The applicant proposed that the subject property be designated as Commercial Recreation from Rural Remote to reflect the zone change that was given them to 1998. 1 here has been substantial expense incurred by the owners of the property based on the zone change they were given The new Comprehensive Plan changed the property from Commercial Recreation to Rural Remote and such change is incompatible and unsuitable for the recent history of this property. The Board of County Commissioners voted to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Remote to Rural General Commercial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for and use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The change will/will not he detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24. and 25, and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-15 Lewis Me Cullough, Columbia Potato Hoses Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Residential to Light Industrial This parcel consists of approximately 10A acres and is part of two parcels located in a portion of Section 29, Township 19 N., Range 27 E. W.M. located at the 1-90 interchange and North Frontage and Hiawatha Roads. Mr. Me Cullough has used the property to process, pack and store potatoes for the past fifteen to twenty years. The old zoning ordinance allowed for such activities to take place in land zoned Agriculture. When the UDC was enacted, the old definition of agriculture was split and the activities which Mr. Me Cullough now engages in were encompassed by the Light Industrial zone which allows a landowner to process, pack and store agricultural products and he would therefore like the property redesignated to the Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation from Rural Residential I. The designation of the land for Rural Residential use is not the highest and best use of this property. The change is being requested to allow continued industrial development. There has been substantial expense incurred by the owners of the property based on the zone change they were granted and the location of the business that has been in operation for many years Attachment 'B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments 10 The Board of County Commissioners voted to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Residential to Light Industrial based on the following Findings of Fact: The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted. will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh anN significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24 and 25, and: • The change complies, does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-16 Richard De Jean Crab Creek Land Use Designation Change request from Open Space Conservation to Agriculture, Commercial Recreation, and Open Space Recreation Mr. De Jean is the owner of a 160 acre parcel of ground located in a portion of Section 32, Township 16 N., Range 24 E.W.M. located along Crab Creek to the North of the Columbia National Wildlife Refuge, and east of Beverly and Schwana bisecting the Lower Crab Creek Road, south of Nunnally, Merry and Lenice Lakes. The current land use designation of the property is Open Space Conservation, and prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1999, the zoning was Agriculture. Mr. De Jean proposes to change the Land Use Designation from Open Space Conservation to Agriculture, Commercial Recreation or something that would allow and accommodate the location of a corral with day rides available, hiking and a small vineyard, perhaps some cabins The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the Land Use Designation request and uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission based on the following Findings of Fact. It was felt that Mr. DeJean could accomplish all the things he wanted to do without changing the land use designation of the property: The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; Attachment 'It Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying great&6 privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh anv significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, and 25, and; • The change complies/does not comply with all othe• applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. `2001-18 Roger Fair, Norm Jensen, and Duane Jenks, Moses Lake. Land Use Designation Request from Rural Residential III to Light Industrial The subject property consists of approximately three acres in a portion of Section 11, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M. in Park Orchard Tracts east of Stratford Road in Moses Lake. The three parcels are currently designated as Rural Residential 3 under the Comprehensive Plan and they would like to amend the Comprehensive plan designation to Light Industrial All three parcel owners have operated businesses on the premises for twenty (20) years or more. In addition, the PUD owns the parcel that wraps around the applicant's parcels which are and have always been operated individually however, as with the other parceh t+as also given the Rural Residential 3 land use designation with the adoption of the Comprehensive P'.ai Each of the three parcels are small, .75 to 1.5 acres in size and covered with blacktop or gravel. Each parcel contains an industrial structure and has industrial equipment stored on the premises. The land has been used of and on as light industrial over the past twenty-five years and the applicant feels that because the surrounding land is owned by the P.U.D., it is not likely chat residences would locate there. The Board of County Commissioners voted to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation from Rural Residential III to Light Industrial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation; • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will will not be detrimental to uses or nroperty in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 2';, .24. and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachment -B ' Final action and Findires of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments 12 *2019 Russ Fode Moses Lake Land Use Designation Request to be Included within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area The subject property consists of a farm unit that is located just outside the UGA for the City of Moses Lake off the Wheeler Corridor. The applicant's property is adjacent to property owned by National Frozen Foods and Americold. The land use designation and zonmg of the property is Agriculture. Moses Lake City water is extended to National Frozen Foods which is approximately 150 yards away from the applicant's parcel. Mr. Fode is asking that Farm Unit 236. Block d 1, located in a portion of Section 16, Township 19 N.. Range 29 E.W.M. be included inside the UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lake. In accordance with the Economic Development Council's statements, the primary prospects for industrial growth are in the Wheeler corridor and adjacent areas of Moses Lake as well as in the vicinity of the Port of Moses Lake. However, the available supply of developable industrial lands in both areas is limited and not expected to be adequate to accommodate potential industrial growth NOTE: In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, all requests submitted for amendments to the UGA's must also be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration and justification after review of the Board of County Commissioners. In accordance with the response received from the Citv of Moses Lake, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to include the proposed site within the City of Moses Lakes Urban Growth Boundary area based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed bN other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh anv significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25, and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-20 Huck Goodrich Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Agriculture to Urban Residential II and Inclusion into the UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lake. Mr. Goodrich has a five acre parcel located adjacent to and east of Pelican Point bordering on the subdivision where his residence is located. He is bordered on the north by Paul Bernsen's plat of Attachment "It" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commi,sionen Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amcndmenr. Sandcastle Estates and on the west by his short plat in a portion of Section 3, Township 18 N., Ranke 28 E. W.M. Inadvertently his parcel was left in the land use designation of "Agriculture' and not included within the Urban Residential II classification as the rest of the Pelican Point and Sandcastle Estates developments as well as the short plat directly bordering this parcel Mr. Goodrich is asking that this parcel be redesignated Urban Residential II and this would also include him within the City of Moses Lake UGA. Mr. Goodrich feels his property should be redesignated the same as the rest of Pelican Point, since this is all that remains from the original development and was previously zoned as Residential prior to the adoption of the comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. NOTE: in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, all requests submitted for amendments to the UGA's must also be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration and justification after review of the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission and approve the Land Use Designation Request and Inclusion in the Moses Lake UGA based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for and use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan, • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all othrr applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-21 Grant County Historic Plats Issue Proposal to change the definition of Historic plats to reflect the fact that a Historic plat shall be considered developed if 25% (twenty-five) percent or More of the platted lots have been developed prior to the adoption of the Grant County Unified Development Code. Historic plats are those that were platted prior to enactment of the new State Platting code in 1969, codified as Chapter 58. l7.RCW. Historic plats are often referred to as "paper plats," because many have never been developed. Many of these historic plats are comprised of very small lots, often too small to construct a house to meet current land use laws, such as zoning requirements, on site septic, and other land use development requirements. In Grant County, there exist a numher ofhistorical plats, many of which are undeveloped and others that are partially developed. Attachment ' ti" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments 14 Pursuant to the provisions of the Attorney General Opinion 1996. No. 5, The Grant County Board of Commissioners finds the development of lots located within undeveloped historic plats where more than five years have passed since approval, filing and recording of the final plat map shall be subject to development regulations, including zoning requirements and densities. lot size, access requirements, requirements regarding on-site septic system design and approval, and other design and performance standards in effect at the time a building permit application is determined to be complete. To meet current land use and public health requirements may require consolidation of two or more platted lots. Development of lots located within undeveloped historic plats where less than five years has passed since approval, filing and recording of the final plat map shall be subject to development regulations in existence at the time of approval or recording of the final plat map, unless the Grant County Board of Commissioners or other legislative body having jurisdiction finds that a change in conditions reates a serious threat to public health or safety. The Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners find that such application of current development regulations to undeveloped historic plats taken tog==ether with other limiting factors on development, including limited water availability, sufficienth limits the ultimate development of historic lots in the interest of the GMA goal of reducing urban sprzm I The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the changes as written above and that the definition of 'historic plats, partially developed or developed" be defined as to read: A historic plat of which one quarter (25%) of all lots have been developed prior to the adoption of the UDC be included. based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 2:. _'.4, and 25; and; • The change complies,does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-22 Craig Janett, Royal Slope Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential 3 to Agriculture Mr. Janett owns Farm Units 62 and 63, In Block 85 near Royal City. Both units are under a single center pivot irrigation system and wheel line with his residence and farm shop facilities in the comer of the circle. The land use designation of the property was changed to Rural Residential 3 from Agriculture during the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He feels the zoning of RR3 is not consistent with the current land use. Also, the current zoning would severely infringe on his ability to expand/modify his farming operation. He is asking for the land use designation to be Attachment B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments changed back to Agriculture. The designation of the land for Agriculture has been the histgrjc use the property. The area is generally not suited for Rmal Residential 3 because it is prime farmground. The Board of County Commissioners voted to uphold the Planning Commission and approve the Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential 3 to Agriculture, based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, satety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria fm and use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed b) other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outwetgh anv sr mficant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23. '_' 1, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all othe, applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-23 Harold Janett, Royal Slope Land Use Designation Change from Urban Residential 3 to Agriculture and removal from the Town of Roval City Urban Growth Boundary area Mr. Lanett is asking for his farmstead located in a portion of Section 1, Township 16 N., Range 25 E. W.M. containing five acres near Royal City to be redesignated. The uses on the property are not consistent with the UR3 zoning district or land use classification that was given to this site with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and not consistent with the current land use (agriculture). Also, the current zoning would severely infringe on his ability to expand/modify his farming operation. Farming, keeping of animals and structures for their care, along with the storage of herbicides is not an allowable use in the UR3 zone. He is asking for the land use designation to be changed back to Agriculture. The designation of the land for Agriculture has been the historic use of the property. The area is generally not suited for Rural Residential 3 because it is prime tarmgntund NOTE: In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, all requests submitted for amendments to the UGA's must also be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration and justification after review of the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. After response from the Town of Royal City, and their Planner, Gilbert Alvarado, and given the assurance that Mr. Janett could continue his farming operation and expand within the confines of the Agricultural use of the property either by outright use, or by Conditional Use Permit, the Board voted to deny the Land Use Designation Change from Urban Residential 3 to Agriculture and request for removal from the town of Roval Citv I rban Growth Boundary area based on the following Findings of Fact: Attachment "B Final action and Findmu,s of Fact Board of counn Commrssioncrs ComprehensiNc flan 2001 Amendments 6 The change would would not benefit the public health, satety. and/or welfare; w • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh am_ significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 14 and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-24 Harold Janett Royal Slope Land Use Designation Change from Urban Residential 3 to Agriculture and Removal from the Town of Royal City Urban Growth Boundary Area Mr. Janett owns Farm Unit 134, Block 85, Columbia Basin Project containing 94.7 acres in a portion of Section 1, Township 16 N., Rage 25 E. W.M. This property vvas designated UR3 with the adoption of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. The uses on the propertv are not consistent with UR') zoning or land use classification that was given to this site or the uses that prevail there and have for many years. Farming, keeping of animals and structures for their care along with the storage of herbicides and a farm shop for repair and storage of equipment is not an allowable use in the UR3 zone. He is asking for the land use designation to be changed back to Agriculture Also that the Urban Growth Area for the Town of Royal City be changed to exclude this farm unit and the farmstead. NOTE: In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, all requests submitted for amendments to the UGA's must also be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration and justification after review of the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. After response from the Town of Royal City, and their Planner, Gilbert Alvarado, and given the assurance that Mr. Janett could continue his farming operation and expand within the confines of the Agricultural use of the property either by outright use, or by Conditional Use Permit, the Board voted to deny the Land Use Designation Change from Urban Residential 3 to Agriculture and request for removal from the town of Royal City Urban Growth Boundary area based on the following Findings of Fact: The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Attachment '13 Final action and Findines of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendmc,as 7 • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts: • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23. 24. and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-25 John Britt, First Line Seeds Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change from Agriculture to Light Industrial Mr. Britt owns Farm Unit 153. Block 41 and he is asking that the property be redisgnated from Agriculture to Light Industrial in accordance with the surrounding use. First Line Seeds is adjacent to this property on the east. Rail services are available which service Me Kay Seed. Wolfkill Seed and Fertilizer Corp. is located to the east of this site. The size of the property iti 83 5 acres. The Board of County Commissioners approved the Land Use Designation change request from Agriculture to Light Industrial without a recommendation being forwarded from the Planning Commission based on the following Findings of Fact, • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria fon land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property to the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-26 Paul Lauzier Foundation, Ephrata Land Use Designation Change from Agriculture to Rural Residential The subject parcel is located to Section 27, Township 20 N, Range 26 E. W.M. southeast of the City of Ephrata. The subject property was designated Agriculture with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the Lauzier Foundation is requesting that the property be redesignated as Rural Residential. The Comprehensive Plan describes Agriculture land as being comprised mainly of land with highly productive Attachment' B Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Flan 2001 Amendmews soil, that is generally suited to crop agriculture, agricultural related industries, livestock maintenance, existing public irrigation facilities, and potential future expan,ion of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project. The land is classified by the USBR as Class #band is certainh not prime agricultural ground. Even if irrigation water were available by expansion of the Irrigation orolect, the land is too marginal with extensive surface and below surface rocks. They are proposing that the subject property be designated as Rural Residential since the property cannot be used for irrigated agriculture and there are acreage tracts of similar size being developed in the immediate vicinity. The Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the Land Use Designation Change From Agriculture to Rural Residential and uphold the Planning Commission Recommendation based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed t ircumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for Iind use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23. '4, and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other ,applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-27 Port of Moses Lake. Land Use Designation Request from Rural Residential to Light Industrial The proposal by the Port of Moses Lake is to change the land use designation from Rural Residential on three parcels of land located in a portion of Section 26, Township 19 N., Range 27 E. W.M. The historical use of the property has been Light Industrial. The land use designation was changed when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the Port of Moses Lake is requesting that the land use designation be changed to Light Industrial. As the property has been used for commercial hay processing and storage for over ten (10) years. The total size of the three parcels is 26 8 acres. The Board of County Commissioners approved the Land Use Designation request from Rural Residential to Light Industrial and upheld the Planning Commission recommendation based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: Attachment "B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments iq • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the . . Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted. will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh am significant adverse impacts: • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, '3, :4_ and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other ,applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-28 National Frozen Foods Moses Lake Application to be included within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Boundary Area of the City of Moses Lake. National Frozen Foods owns 61 acres of property north of Wheeler Road and between County Road N. and the railroad right-of-way in Farm Units 80 and 81. Block 41. in a portion of Section 16, Township 19 N.. Range 29 E.W.M. There is existing public infrastructure on the site and National Frozen Foods Corp. has been a frozen food processor in Grant County for over twenty (20 years). They wish to include their property in the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area for further development of the propertn NOTE: In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, all requests submitted for amendments to the UGA's must also be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration and justification after review of the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. After response from the City of Moses Lake, the Board of County Commissioners approved the request for inclusion into the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety. and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for iand use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 2'. '4, and 25. and; • The change complies/does not comply with all othw r applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachment "H ' Final action and Findines of Fact Hoard of county Commissioners Comprehensne Plan 2001 Amendments ro *2001-29 Department of Natural Resources Moses Lake Application to be included within the Urban Growth Boundary Area for the City of Moses Lake. The Department of Natural Resources leases a twenty acre parcel to Russell Fode located in a portion of the S.W. I/4 of Section 16. Township 19 N.. Range 29 E.W.M. The parcel is designated as "Agriculture" with Heavy Industrial and Agricultural uses surrounding the property fhe property adjoins the present Moses Lake UGA. A city water tower is located at the intersection of Wheeler Road and County Road N, a mile to the south. Industrial growth appears to be a primary prospect in the Wheeler corridor and there is currently an expected shortage of industrial land over the next 20 years as stated within the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants request that the above property be included within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area. NOTE: In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, all requests submitted for amendments to the UGA's must also be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration and justification after review of the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. After response by the City of Moses Lake, the Board of County Commissioners approved the request for inclusion of this property within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Boundary area based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference to the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-30 Department of Natural Resources Moses Lake, Land Use Designation change from Public Open Space to Rural Remote The Department of Natural Resources owns a section of ground. Section 36. Township 19 N., Range 27 E.W.M. which was designated as Public Open Space with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding land use designation is Rural Remote. Attachment 't3' Final action and Findines of Fact Board ofcounn Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments w. To change the land use designation of this section of land to Rural Remote would allow them to be in compliance with current county land use regulations as the historical and present land use of the site has been/is mineral extraction. The present operation is covered by a Conditional Use Permit and should that use cease, they would lose their future ability to extract minerals, thereby leaving the parcel essentially worthless, therefore they are asking for the reclassification of the referenced section of land to Rural Remote. The Board of County Commissioners voted to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to change the Land Use Designation from Public Open Space to Rural Remote based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan, • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or rroperty in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/'will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, '4, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all olher applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12_ *2001-31 Daniel Nielsen, Coulee City Land Use Designation Request from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen own Lots 1 to 6, Block 14 of the unrecorded plat of Hollywood Manor, Coulee City, directly across from the Big Wally's Truck Plaza in a portion of Section 35, Township 25 N., Range 28 E. W.M. currently designated as UR3. This property is located adjacent to commercial property with Highway 2 frontage and would not be suitable for residential use. Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen would like their property redesignated to Urban Commercial. The property is within the Urban Growth area for the town of Coulee City, and as the park has developed and more people utilize the facilities, it would appear the highest and best use for the area fronting along the highway would be as a commercial business. NOTE: In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, all requests submitted for amendments to the UGA's must also be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration and justification after review of the Grant County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the Land Use Designation request from Urban Residential 3 to Urban Commercial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare; Attachment `B" Final action and Findmes of Fact Board of county Commtssionere Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments ,2 • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for,„., additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole: • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, 24. and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-32 Martell Palmer. Moses Lake. Land use Designation Change request from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial. Mr. Palmer owns approximately sixty acres of ground to a portion of Section 33, 'Township 19 N., Range 29 E.W.M., presently designated as Rural Urban Reserve. South of the property is the North Frontage Road and 1-90. Bordering the property on the east is County Road O which is a main thoroughfare north to Wheeler Road. He would like to have his property redesignated as Rural Freeway Commercial. He feels the close proximity to existing commercial uses and the improvements being made by the State Highway Department to the County Road O interchange would definitely make his property more valuable as commercial property rather than residential or agriculture. The Planning Commission forwarded this proposal on to the Board of County Commissioners without recommendation. After consideration of the public testimony, and minutes from the Planning Commission meeting it was the decision of the Board of County Commissioners that the Land Use Designation Change be made from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare: • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole: • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh aim tiignificant adverse impacts: Attachment -R" Final action and Findines of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and.ftle requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, 24. and 25: and: • The change compliesidoes not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-33 Ron Palelek George Land Use Designation Request from Rural Remote to Rural Freeway Commercial Mr. Palelek owns approximately 148 acres of property located near George, in a portion of Section 28, Township 18 N., Range 23 E. W.M., which is approximately 6 miles east of the Gorge Amphitheatre, and is literally bisected by 1-90. Approximately half of the property lies on the north side of I-90 and the other half on the south side. The property is also adjacent to the Silica Road interchange to the Gorge Amphitheatre, which is heavily used in the summer months, as well as frontage roads on both sides of 1-90 pass through this property. Prior to 1996, the property was zoned Open Space Recreation. In 1996 the proponent applied for a zone change for the property on the south side of 1-90. The proponent sought to change the zoning from "OSR" to "Commercial Freeway Service". The Grant County Planning Commission and Hoard of County Commissioners granted Mr. Palelek's request resulting in `Split /ontng" on the property. The property south of I-90 was zoned "Commercial Freeway Service" while the property north of 1-90 remained as OSR. The applicant proposes that the subject property be redesignated as Rural Freeway Commercial from the existing classification of Rural Remote. The close prosimm to the freeway interchange would be ideally suited for commercial use. The Board of County Commissioners voted, with a majority vote, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the change in land use Designation from Rural Remote to Rural Freeway Commercial based on the Following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23. 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Attachment" B" Final action and Findines of Fact Board of counts CommtsMoners Comprehensive flan 2001 Amendments 4 Chapter 25.12. *2001-34 Jason and Karlye Pattison, Lakeview Park Land Use Designation Change request from Commercial to Rural Residential Mr. and Mrs Pattison own Lots 1 1 and 12 of Block 6, Lakeview Park, located near Soap Lake which was designated commercial years ago under the old Comprehensive Plan and Grant County Zoning Ordinance since it is adjacent to Highway 28, with a myriad of commercial uses located on both sides of the highway. The former use of the property was a motel. However. Mr. and Mrs. Pattison feel the existing land use no longer applies because this building is no longer used for commercial purposes but rather, it has been modified into a duplex with two families living there along with two private residences. They have requested that the land use designation be changed to Rural Residential which would enable them to find cost effective financing. This property is within the plated area of Lakeview Park, near Soap Lake, and has carried a commercial land use designation and zoning classification for as long as there has been a Planning Department. To change this one specific area could be considered a "spot" zone issue. The Board of Countv Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the request for land use designation change from Commercial to Rural Residential and with no recommendation received from the Planning Commission based their decision on the following Findings of Fact. The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety, and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria fbr land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts: • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, .'4. and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-35 Tom Scott and JoAnn Pearson. Columbia View Plat between Beverly and Schawana Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Remote to Rural Residential. The applicants have several parcels totaling 15 acres in a portion of Section 34, Township 14 N., Range 23 E.W.M. designated as Rural Remote with the adoption of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. This is the existing Columbia View Plat which was zoned and developed in accordance with the previous zoning Attachment "B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments regulations and approved by the County in December. 1992 This property borders County Road T.5 on four lots between Beverly and Schawana. The other two lots have private road access. They are asking that the property be redesignated to reflect the two and a half acre lot size which was acceptable when the plat was approved, such as Rural Residential . The former land use designation and zoning prior to the Comprehensive Plan adoption was "Suburban The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land use Designation from Rural Remote to Rural Residential based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 212 1, and 25, and: • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-36 Richard Penhallurick, Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change request from UR3 to UR2 The applicant has a parcel totaling 63 acres in a portion of Section 14, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M. located in southern Cascade Valley west of Valley Road designated as UR3 with the adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan. This is a high density residential classification which is not consistent with the current development of the area. The area has been developed in tracts or lots at least an acre in size. Mr. Penhallurick proposes to reduce the density from 8-16 dwelling units per acre to 1-4 with a change in land use designation to UR-) The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Urban Residential 3, to Urban Residential 2 based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses of property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Attachment "B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county ('ommissioncn Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendment, _'f • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; w. • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh am_ significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 2y. and 25: and; • The change complies does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-37 City of Soap Lake Proposed Map changes showing added industrial areas as a result of Department Of Community Development request and changing boundaries for the city limits. The City of Soap Lake Urban Growth area map has incorrect boundaries for the corporate limits of the city which results in property owners being misinformed as to applicable laws pertaining to zoning. Land use designation, and the use of their property. The proposed additional change to industrial will allow the City to attract and compete for industrial development and provnl,� jobs and the stimulus for economic development At the request of Gilbert Alvarado, planner for the City of Soap Lake, no action was taken on this request and it was requested that reconsideration be given during the 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment cvcle. *2001-38 Ed Sivula Moses Lake, Land Use Designation Change Request from Rural Remote to Rural Residential Mr. Sivula owns 80 acres in portions of Sections 1 l and 13, Township 20 N., Range 27 E.W.M. Mr. Sivula feels the property would be better suited for Rural Residential development or five acre parcels. The area is served by County Road 10 N E. on the south. Rural Residential land use designation borders this property on the south side of County Road 10. The location of Rural Residential zoning in this area may be setting a precedent for other 40 acre parcels to also request a land use designation change. The Planning C ommission felt they should look at the entire scope of what may occur with putting Rural Residential land use designations in an area that may not be ready at this time. In researching this area, the original developer of the property Harry Davidson, requested a zone change of this property to Suburban Agriculture with a five acre minimum lot size. At that time the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the zone change based on the remoteness of the area to utilities. The Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the land use designation request from Rural Remote to Rural Residential on the westerly 40 acre parcel only - identified as Parcel 4 0016-1639- 000 based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety and/or welfare; Attachment -B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendment. ,- • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or propeny in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh an% significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 2a. and 25. and; • The change complies/does not comply with all )ther tpphcable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. 2001-39 Del Sanford, Banks Lake Developers. Electric City Land Use Designation Change Request from Rural Remote to Rural Residential Banks Lake Developers are the developers of property south of Electric City located easterly of SR #155 in a portion of Section 21,Township 28 N., Range 30 E.Vd M. t% (th acreage of 107.91 acres called North Shore Acres. Upon review of the zoning map and land use designation map. it is apparent after the parcel was split, a portion of their ownership was designated as Rural Remote rather than Rural Residential 2, as the majority of the property is already designated. The property is served by the North Shore Water Association and is partially developed with new homes under construction 1 hcy are requesting that their entire parcel be designated as Rural Residential 2. The area which has already been platted and approved is alreadv designated as Rural Residential 2. The remainder of the development of the parcel is proposed to be developed in the next phase and in the same manner as the previous plats. 'Che applicants feel it was an apparent oversight not to have the entire ownership mapped as RR2. In researching the history of this area, some years ago there was an approved zone change allowing the subdivision of two acres parcels under the Open Space Recreation zoning. The Sanfords have developed the property in phases and have made a very nice housing area which is a definite asset to the Town of Electric City and the entire northern portion of Grant Count\ - Since this is an ongoing development, it would seem appropriate to designate the remainder of the phases as Rural Residential 11. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation from Rural Remote to Rural Residential based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare; The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; Attachment "If - Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendmt nt ig • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property to the immediate vicinity of the_. subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh anN significant adverse impacts: • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24 and 25: and: • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-40 Walter Stephens Soap Lake Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential Mr. Stephens owns a parcel of land 40 acres in size in a portion of Section 27, Township 22 N., Range 27 E. W.M. When he brought this parcel before the Grant Countv Board of Equalization for revaluation of the use assessment, it was determined that the land could not be classified as grazing land, and they determined the site to be rock piles unable to be classified as pasture of any kind. and could not be grazed. He asked that the property be redesignated under the Comprehentiive plan a, Rural Residential along County Road 20 N.E., in Grant Orchards. near Soap Lake. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property to the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh anv significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23 2 4, and 25: and: • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-41 Chuck Storfa Soap Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Agriculture to Rural Remote Attachment' B' Final action and Findinps of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments �9 Mr. Storfa is the owner of a 40 acre parcel on Dry Coulee Road near Soap Lake in a portion of Section 2, Township 22 N., Range 27 E.W.M. There are no water rights on the property and he would like to cRange the land use designation from Agriculture to Rural Remote to allow the property to have a dwelling unit density of one house per 20 acres. The Rural Remote classification fits non productive farmground and Mr. Storfa feels that he could at least gain some use of the propem, by virtue of a short plat. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the Land Use Designation change from Agriculture to Rural Remote. There was not a majority vote recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Board of County Commissioners based their decision on the following Findings of fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare: • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan: • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole: • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23 31, and 25: and; • The change complies does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-42 TD Investments, ASP] Group Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change request from Rural Residential I to Rural Freeway Commercial and Light Industrial The applicant owns 325 acres in a portion of Section 31, Township 21 N., Range 27 E.W.M. presently designated as Rural Residential 1. The applicant proposes that the parcels would be better suited to gas station, convenience stores, restaurants, mini -storage facilities. agricultural/contractor warehousing, non- impact light manufacturing,,assembly, equipment repair, etc The applicant proposes that the area within a 500 foot radius of the intersection of Highway 17 and Highway 28 be designated Rural Freeway Commercial, but that Rural Light Industrial uses also be allowed in the designation or a portion of the property be set aside a, Light Industrial. The intersection of SR 17 is a main through point to the City of Ephrata and Grand Coulee Dam via Soap Lake. It should be undisputed that these highways are major traffic arterials as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Although a main access point to Soap Lake, Banks Lake, Grand Coulee Dam and Lake Roosevelt, few services exist between Moses Lake and Grand Coulee Dam when traveling Highway !7. Using the zone designations in the existing Plan and the subject parcels that encompass this high traffic intersection could very easilv carry the designation of Rural Freeway Commercial with Light Industrial. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the land use designation change for only one parcel identified as Parcel # 16-1820-000 from RR 1 to Rural Light Industrial, with the Attachment 11" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments remaining parcels being carried forward for review to the Comprehensive Plan amendment process for the year 2002.. Their decision was based on the following Findings of Fact: . * • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation. • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or ptopern' in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole: • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed bN other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh anv significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, 1-4, and 25: and: • The change complies/does not comply with all odtep applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-44 TD Investments, ASPI Group Moses Lake Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential to Rural Freeway Commercial The applicant owns 8.5 acres located at the Hiawatha Road Freeway Interchange off of 1-90. Currently the parcel carries a land use designation of Rural Residential I or a one dwelling unit allowed per five acres. The parcel fronts on 1-90, and the ramp to 1-90. A high tension electric transmission line is adjacent to the property as is Columbia Potato Company. This, the applicant feels, is clearly not residential property. ['he applicant proposes that the area be redesignated from Rural Residential I to Rural Freeway Commercial with a Rural Light Industrial overlay. The Board of County Commissioners voted to change the land use designation from Rural Residential to Rural Freeway Commercial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health safety and/or welfare: • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation, • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or propem in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations: • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23. 24, and 25; and; Attachment ' tt" Final action and Findings of Facl Board of counts Commisvoncrs Comprehens'n'c Plan 2001 Amendments ;I • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC w. Chapter 25.12. *2001-45 Al Willis Moses Lake, Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial The applicant owns 13.48 acres adjacent to Inland Tarp and Cover, fronting the 1-90 freeway west of Moses Lake in a portion of Section 26, Township 19 N., Range 27 E. W M. The applicant wishes to change the designation from Rural Residential I to Light Industry to coincide with the existing and historic development surrounding this site. It is completely surrounded by Light Industrial uses, served by a Montage road and freeway access. This parcel designation to Light Industrial would be very compatible with neighboring properties as agricultural processing is in close proximity. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation from Rural Residential to Light Industrial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed c ircumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation_ • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for I tnd use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. *2001-47 Sandra Boyd Morrison, Sun Canyon Land Use Designation Change from Rural Residential and Rural Remote to Master Planned Resort MPR The ownership of this property has remained the same over the last twenty-five or thirty years with a proposal for a Master Planned Unit Development/Resort. A Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed on the project, dated May, 1978. A rezone from Open Space Recreation to Recreation Commercial was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 22, 1978 and the Planned Unit Development for Sun Canyon was approved on January 29, 1979 - Subsequent extensions for filing of the final PUD have been issued over the years. The present land use designation of the property was changed upon the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to encompass two separate land use classifications. Rural Remote and Rural Residential 1. Also to include an additional parcel which has been added to obtain water rights on the property 1 -he Comprehensive Plan has Attachment "B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments 32 recognized over the years this area has been proposed for a planned unit development and should be designated as such to allow the proponents to continue with development of the project. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Residential and Rural Remote to Master Planned Resort MPR based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health. safety and/or welfare; • The change is/is not warranted because of changed c ircumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed land use designation • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or nroperty in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change, if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations; • The benefits of the change will/wilt not outweigh any significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles'_'. 23. -'4and 25; and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25. l2. *2001-48 Town of Coulee City Land Use Designation change from Urban Residential 3 to Urban Commercial The proposal is to make a change to the land use designation just outside the Town of Coulee City, but within the Urban Growth area to reflect the land usage in existence at the present time, as well as past zoning on both sides of State Route 2 from UR3 to Urban t ommercW. This would be in the unrecorded plat of Hollywood Manor. The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are to create land use designations consistent with the environment. Clearly the Comprehensive Plan has recognized over the years this area was proposed as a commercial area as the former zoning map reflects back as tar as there was a Planning Department in Grant County. It is suggested that the subject property be returned to its former land use designation of Commercial to reflect the uses that already exist along the highway and with the further development of highway frontage to serve the traveling public and those people utilizing the Coulee City Park on Banks Lake as well as its close proximity to Sun Lakes State Park, commercial uses along the highway would appear to be the highest and best use for the land. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and change the land use designation from Urban Residential 3, to Urban Commercial based on the following Findings of Fact: • The change would/would not benefit the public health, safety and/or welfare. • The change is/is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property In the proposed land use designation: Attachment' B' Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners C'omprehensrvr Plan 1.001 Amendments i3 • The change is/is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan; • The change will/will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The change has/does not have merit and value for the community as a whole; • The change. if granted, will/will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves with different designations, • The benefits of the change will/will not outweigh am significant adverse impacts; • The change is/is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Platt and the requirements of Grant County Code Titles 22, _3. 14 and 25: and; • The change complies/does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. Attachment " B" Final action and Findings of Fact Board of county Commissioners Comprehensive Plan 2001 Amendments 14 GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2001 ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LONG RANGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MARCH, 2002 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE AND ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Description of Current Proposal: A non -project proposal to consider adoption of amendments to the Grant County 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments considered for adoption include site-specific land use designation and zoning district changes, changes to Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Maps, and amendments to the UGA boundaries of Ephrata and Quincy. ' Proponent: Grant County Planning Department Location of Current Proposal: The unincorporated rural lands and urban growth areas of Grant County, Washington. Title of Document Being Adopted: Grant County Comprehensive PlarvFinal Environmental Impact Statement. Agency That Prepared Document Being Adopted: Grant County Department of Community Development. Adoption Date of Document Being Adopted: September 30, 1999. Description Of Document Being Adopted: The Grant County Comprehensive Plan/FEJS was prepared and adopted in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21.C). The Comprehensive Plan includes the mandated elements on land use and rural areas, resource lands. housing, transportation, capital facilities, and utilities. The document also includes sections on economic development, siting essential public facilities, natural setting, and intergovernmental coordination. The Comprehensive Plan includes fourteen Urban Growth Areas surrounding incorporated cities and towns and the unincorporated Lakeview Park UGA. The Comprehensive Plan encourages development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The Comprehensive -Plan provides for limited areas of more intensive development in rural areas as authorized under the Growth Management Act; these areas are designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Village, Rural Communities, Recreational Developments, Shoreline Developments. Agricultural Service Centers, Commercial and Industrial. These areas acknowledge the small, historic community areas throughout the county that provide citizens with infrastructure. public services, and facilities. The Comprehensive Pian also recognizes three separate rural residential land use designations: Rural Residential 1, Rural Residential 2, and Rural Remote. Allowable densities vary between the rural land use designations as follows: I dwelling unit per 5 acres in the Rural Residential I designation; 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres in the Rural Remote designation; and I dwelling unit per 2'/z acres in the Rural Residential 2 designation. The County will fund capital transportation and other capital improvement projects, as designated in the Capital Improvement Plan and Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan included in the Comprehensive Plan. The environmental review of the comprehensive plan provides a broad overview of future development alternatives considered to achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act. The environmental review considered impacts to the natural and built environment and included a discussion of relative impacts. potential mitigation measures and unavoidable adverse impacts of the development alternatives. Appeals/Challenges to Document Being Adopted: There were no appeals of any procedural or substantive decisions made under SEPA for the adopted document. However, six (6) petitions for review of the adopted document were filed with the State of Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for Eastern Washington, as delineated hereinafter: I. Petition No. 99-1-0013: Bargmanns' Petition for Review, Bert and Gayle Bargman, Petitioners, Grant County, WA, Respondent; 2. Petition No. 99-1-0015: Saddle Mountain Minerals, LLC, et al, Petition for Review, Saddle Mountain Minerals, LLC, Gary Maughn, and Michael J. Alberg, Petitioners, Grant County, WA, Respondent; 3. Petition No. 99-1-0016: Moses Lake Petition for Review, City of Moses Lake, Petitioners, Grant County, WA, Respondent; 4. Petition No. 99-1-0017: Soap Lake Petition for Review, City of Soap Lake, Petitioner, Grant County, WA, Respondent; 5. Petition No. 99-1-0018: Grant County Association of Realtors' Petition for Review, Grant County Association of Realtors, Petitioners, Grant County, WA, Respondent: and 6. Petition No. 99-1-0019: James A. Whitaker's Petition for Review, lames A. Whitaker, Petitioners, Grant County, WA, Respondent. DISTRIBUTION LIST... The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board issued decisions on all Petitions, except fof-Petition No. 99-1- 0017, which was settled by facilitated agreement. The various decisions, certain of which have been appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court, include, but are not limited to. a requirement for revisions to the limited areas of more intensive rural development, elimination of the Rural Residential 2 land use designation. Availability of Documents: Copies of the Comprehensive Plan/FEIS and the 2001 Addendum to the EIS are available for review at the Grant County Planning Department, 35 C Street NW. Ephrata. Washington, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of the 2001 Addendum to the EIS and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on the proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted to the Contact Person stated below by 4:30 p.m . The lead agency has identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision -maker. Name of Agency Adopting Document: Grant County Planning Department. Contact Person: Billie M. Sumrall Responsible Official: Scott Clark Position/Title: Planning Director, Grant County Planning Department. Phone: (509) 754-201 [ or (800) 572-0119 Address: P.O. Box 37, 35 C Street NW, Ephrata. WA 98823 Date: 6vz SCOTT CLARK SEPA Responsible Official GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2001 ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Grant Countv Planning Department P.O. Box 37 35 C Street NW Ephrata. Washington 98823 February 2001 H:\Planning\Long Range Planning\SCLARK\Setup\2001 Comp Plan Amend\2001 EIS Addendum (a).doc TABLE OF CONTENTS ' 2001 EIS Addendum Fact Sheet .............................. ............ ............................................................ i Distribution List ........................................................................................................................ ut ... Introduction...................................................................................1 Grant County Comprehensive Plan/EIS.........................................................................................2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process.....................................................................................3 EnvironmentalReview.............................................................................................................3 ReviewProcess.....................................................................................................................3 Criteriafor Approval...............................................................................................................3 Appeals..................................................................................................................................4 Proposed Plan Amendments........................................................................................................4 ProposedAction......................................................................................................................4 Location..................................................................................................................................4 Scope of Environmental Review.............................................................................................4 Land Use & Housing Unit Analysis........................................................................................5 Additional Background Data and Maps ................................................................................5 Summary of Environmental Analysis...........................................................................................5 PotentialImpacts.....................................................................................................................5 Potential Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................................6 List of Tables Table 1 — Grant County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket 2001 ....................................... 8 Table 2 — Land Use Designation Proposals. 2001 ... ...................................................9 Table 3 — Rural Land Use and Housing Analysis.... . ..................................................................10 Table 3 — Environmental Impacts Relative to 1999 Comprehensive Plan EIS .............................10 EIS Addendum Table of Contents 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/EIS ADDENDUM Introduction In accordance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), Grant County reviews and considers proposals to the adopted Grant County Comprehensive Plan. There are four types of Comprehensive Plan Amendments: (1) Plan policy or text changes; (2) Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary or Plan Map changes; (3) Site-specific land use redesignations; and (4) Emergency amendments. The County (Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission, or any Departments of the County) or other entities, cities, towns, agencies, organizations, or individuals may initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment. A request for a site-specific land use redesignation or to change density may be initiated by a property owner. A land use designation change or density change is a mechanism by which the Comprehensive Plan land use designation or density applicable to property can be changed to reflect such things as changed circumstances, new land -use needs, or new land use policies. Proposed comprehensive plan amendments are considered on an annual basis (no more frequently than once per year), in accordance with the requirements of Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions. The proposed amendments included in the 2001 Docket includes Plan policy/text changes; UGA boundary changes; and site-specific land use redesignations. Proposed changes will initially be reviewed by the Grant County Planning Commission, who will make an advisory recommendation to the Grant County Board of Commissioners regarding which, if any, of the proposed amendments to adopt. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's EIS Addendum 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments I advisory recommendation, the Board of County Commissioners will conduct an Open -record Final Decision Hearing. At the conclusion of its initial hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may continue the hearing, or may adopt, modify or give no further consideration to the proposed amendments. The Board of County Commissioners may adopt none, one, several or all of the proposed amendments included in the 2001 Amendment Docket. This, EIS Addendum, however, evaluates and considers the environmental impacts of each of the proposed amendments; as if they were to be adopted. Washington State's Environmental Policy Act or SEPA (RCW 43.21C) requires government officials to consider the environmental consequences of actions they are about to take, and seek better or less damaging ways to accomplish those proposed actions. Officials must consider whether the proposed action will have a significant, adverse environmental impact of the following elements of the natural and built environment: Earth. • Air; • Water; • Plants and animals; • Energy and natural resources: • Environmental health: • Land and shoreline use: • Transportation; and • Public services and utilities. Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) classifies the adoption and amendment of a comprehensive plan as a "non -project action"; that is, it involves policies, plans or programs rather than a site-specific project. Under SEPA rules, an EIS for a non -project action does not require site specific analyses; instead, the EIS discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non - project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal. However, environmental review should consolidate, as much as practical, site - COMPREHENSIVT- ''LAN/EIS ADDENDUM... specific SEPA review with review of the entire package of proposed comprehensive plan amendments to ensure adequate consideration of cumulative effects of the proposed amendments. Under SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-630), existing environmental documentation may be adopted if the impacts associated with a new proposal have been adequately evaluated in a previously issued SEPA document. The Grant County Planning Department intends to adopt the 1999 Comprehensive Plan/EIS and 2000 EIS Addendum as adequate to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and make a new threshold determination as required under WAC 197-11-340(1)and 197-11-360(2). This addendum describes the findings of additional review conducted for the proposed Amendments. This addendum adds only minor new information and will be issued with the threshold determination and EIS adoption notice. Grant County Comprehensive Plan/EIS The Grant County Comprehensive Plan/FEIS was prepared and adopted in accordance with the Growth Management Act and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21.C). The Comprehensive Plan includes the mandated elements on land use and rural areas, resource lands, housing, transportation, capital facilities, and utilities. The document also includes sections on economic development, siting essential public facilities. natural setting. and intergovernmental coordination. The Comprehensive Plan includes fifteen Urban Growth Areas surrounding incorporated cities and towns and the unincorporatgd Lakeview Park UGA. The Comprehensive Plan encourages development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The Comprehensive Plan provides for limited areas of more intensive development in rural areas as authorized under the Growth Management Act; these areas are designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Village, Rural Communities, Recreational Developments, Shoreline Developments, Agricultural Service Centers, Commercial and Industrial. EIS Addendum 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2 The Plan also recognizes three saparate Waal residential land use designations: Rural Residential 1, Rural Residential 2, and Rural Remote. Allowable densities vary between the rural land use designations as follows: 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the Rural Residential 1 designation; 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres in the Rural Remote designation; and 1 dwelling unit per 2% acres in the Rural Residential 2 designation. The County will fund capital transportation and other capital improvement projects, as designated in the Capital Improvement Plan and Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan included in the Comprehensive Plan. The environmental review of the comprehensive plan provides a broad overview of future development alternatives considered to achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act. The environmental review considered impacts to the natural and built environment and included a discussion of relative impacts, potential mitigation measures and unavoidable adverse impacts of the development alternatives. A Draft EIS was prepared and published in March 1999 to examine and disclose to the public and local decision makers probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of comparative analysis, the DEIS examined the probable adverse impacts of three land use alternatives—the Preferred Alternative and two alternatives: (1) an alternative proposing lower densities in rural lands of the County, and (2) a No Action Alternative. The analysis of three alternatives was intended to help decision makers understand the range of land use options considered by the County and to disclose the tradeoffs between the benefits and impacts of the various alternatives. By understanding these tradeoffs and potential adverse impacts, local decision makers were able to make informed decisions when reviewing the C omprehensive Plan for adoption. The Rural Residential 2 land use designation was reviewed by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board which issued a decision finding the designation to be non -complaint with the requirements of the Growth Management Act regarding urban sprawl. Grant County filed an appeal to the Thurston County Superior Court regarding the Rural Residential 1 designation, and which is currently under review. COMPREHENSIV' "LAN/EIS ADDENDUM... The draft EIS (DEIS) was available for review by the general public and a wide range of public agencies with an interest in the impacts of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan. The DEIS was widely distributed to agencies and the general public, and written comments were encouraged. A number of written comments on the DEIS were received. Significant oral testimony was also made during the public hearings conducted on the Comprehensive Plan and draft EIS. The written comments and the oral testimony were reviewed and considered in preparation of the Final EIS (FEIS). On July 8, 1999, following a series of public meetings and hearings, the Grant County Planning Commission adopted a recommendation for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Grant County Commissioners conducted open record public hearings and closed record public workshops in August and September, 1999, where they reviewed the complete record on the Comprehensive Plan. On September 30, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners accepted the recommendations of the Planning Commission with minor amendments and adopted the County's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan/FEIS. The Grant County Comprehensive Plan/DEIS and the FEIS are available for review at the office of the Grant County Planning Department. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Environmental Review In, July, 2001, the Grant County Planning Department solicited petitions for amendments to the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. Petitions received by the Planning Department were reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board directed the Planning Department to proceed with further review of the petitions and to prepare environmental documentation consistent with the requirements of RCW 43.21C and Grant County Code Chapter 24.04 (SEPA). The adoption of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/FEIS, supplemented by this Addendum, serves as the environmental review under GCC Chapter 24.04. EIS Addendum 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 3 Review Process In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the Grant County Planning Commission will conduct an Open - record Predecision Hearing on the Proposed Action. The Planning Commission will make an advisory recommendation to the Grant County Board of Commissioners. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's advisory recommendation, the Board of County Commissioners will conduct an Open -record Final Decision Hearing. At the conclusion of its initial hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may continue the hearing, or may adopt, modify or give no further consideration to the one or more of the proposed amendments. The Board of County Commissioners intends to issue a written decision regarding the proposed amendments within 14 days after the date of the conclusion of the public hearing. The Grant County Planning Commission Open - record Predecision Hearing on the Proposed Action is anticipated to take place in March 2001. The Board of County Commissioners anticipates conducting its Open -record Final Decision Hearing in April 2001. Shortly thereafter, the Board of County Commissioners will issue a written decision regarding the proposed amendments. Public notice of all hearings will be made in accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12.020. Criteria for Approval A petition for a site-specific land use redesignation will be reviewed for conformance with pertinent provisions of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. In reviewing the petition, the Board of County Commissioners will consider testimony provided at public hearings and recommendations provided by interested and affected agencies and jurisdictions. The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or reject an application for a change of designation or density of property if all of the following criteria are met: (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 COMPREHENSIVT -'LANIMS ADDENDUM... 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 has merit and value for the community as a whole; (6) 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 justifies 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 Grant County Code Titles 22. 23, 24 and 25; and (9) The change complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC Chapter 25.12. The County is specifically authorized to require that the applicant enter in to a concomitant agreement with the County as a condition of any site-specific land use designation change. Through that agreement, the County may impose development conditions designed to mitigate potential impacts of the use or development that may occur as a result of such change. Appeals Appeals of any final decision of the Board of County Commissioners regarding a Plan amendment that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Growth Management Hearings Board shall be processed according to the law governing such challenges. If a decision of the Board is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Growth Management Hearings Board, appeals may be made to the Grant County Superior Court according to applicable requirements of state law and GCC Section 25.04.430. Proposed Plan Amendments Proposed Action The proposed action for which this EIS Addendum 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 environmental review is being conducted is a non -project proposal to consider adoption of amendments to the Grant County 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments considered for adoption include site-specific land use designation and zoning district changes, changes to Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map; amendments to the UGA boundary of Moses Lake; and correction of technical mapping errors. A listing of the proposed amendments is provided in Table 1. Location The proposed site-specific land use amendments are located within the rural lands and urban growth areas of Grant County as shown in Table 1. A listing of location, tax parcel ID and legal description of the site-specific land use amendments sought by petitioners is provided in Table 1. Scope of Environmental Review This addendum to the 1999 EIS does not examine the impacts of any specific development proposal or attempt to quantify adverse impacts in detail. The main purpose of the analysis is to review the general impacts of the proposed amendments, including site- specific land use amendments sought by petitioners. Environmental review should consolidate, as much as practical. site-specific SEPA review with review of the entire package of proposed comprehensive plan amendments to ensure adequate consideration of cumulative effects of the proposed amendments. The issues discussed in general herein should be among those examined in more detail when specific development projects are proposed following adoption of any 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals. In addition, consideration of and compliance with the Grant County Unified Development Code will be required upon receipt of any specific development permit application for the sites. Land Use & Housing Unit Analysis Tables I and 2 on the following pages present a summary of the impacts of the proposed amendments to both land use area and the COMPREHENSIVF 1AVEIS ADDENDUM... number of potential housing units supported by the proposed land use. As noted in Table 1, the proposed amendments (specifically, Dockets No. 2001-4, through 2001-11 include a "shift" of 3,310 acres from Rural Remote Lands of the County to Agriculture. As shown in Table 2, the proposed changes in land use designation results in a net decrease of 55 in the number of potential housing units in the Rural Lands of the County. As shown in Table 5-5 of the Grant County 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan, there were a total of 9,564 potential housing in the rural land use designations. Additional Backeround Data and Maps Additional background data, including the petitions for site-specific land use redesignation and other amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, SEPA checklists prepared for proposed amendments, Grant County Planning Department staff reports, zoning and land use maps of the specific sites, and Grant County Assessor and Treasurer real property data for the sites, are available for review at the Grant County Planning Department, 35 C Street NW, Ephrata, Washington. In addition. the 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan and the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Summaries are available for review. Summary of Environmental Analysis This section of the EIS Addendum reviews the proposed amendments and seeks to identify significant environmental impacts, potential mitigation measures and unavoidable adverse impacts. The identified effects of each proposed amendment are presented with respect to elements of the natural and built environment in order to provide decision makers with an understanding of the potential impacts. Potential Impacts Relative potential impacts of each proposed amendment are presented in summary matrix form in Table 4. Impacts of the proposed amendments are assessed relative to the preferred land use alternative of the 1999 GMA EIS Addendum 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments S Comprehensive Plan. Because this is a "programmatic" or non -project analysis, a range of impacts has been identified and a summary of relative impacts is presented. However, detailed descriptions of the anticipated effects of each proposed amendment are not presented. Detailed descriptions of the potential. impacts of similar land uses to those proposed can be found in Part III – Environmental Review of the 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan. Each of the proposed amendments ai•e gauged over a broad range of elements of both the natural and built environment, and a determination made if the amendment has no, minor or significant potential adverse impact. The proposed amendments are rated as to whether they are expected to have no, minor or substantial environmental impacts relative to those identified in the 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan. The environmental elements include: • Earth ---geology, soils, topography and erosion; • Air—air quality; ■ Water --surface water, stormwater runoff, Floods, ground water and water supply; • Plants & Animals—fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and /or endangered species, and migration: ■ Environmental Health—noise and environmental health hazards: • Land & Shoreline Use—land capacity, character. agricultural preservation, density, housing, light and glare, aesthetics, historical/cultural preservation, land supply and infrastructure; ■ Economic Development—economic base; ■ Transportation --capacity, circulation, parking, and mobility; ■ Capital Facilities—administrative offices, law enforcement, corrections, juvenile detention, parks, and fire protection; and • Public Utilities—schools. communications, electrical power, solid waste, stormwater and sewer. A summary matrix of environmental impacts of the adopted land use alternative is presented in Table 14-3 of the 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan. Table 14-3 is organized consistent with the .A COMPREHENSIVF ' LANIEIS ADDENDUM... elements of the Comprehensive Plan and accordance with Grant Couqj3Cs Unified incorporates major issues identified during the Development Code. Comprehensive Plan EIS scoping process and public participation process. Water Resources An increase in pollutant loadings within the receiving waters of the The proposed amendments listed in Table 1 include County is an unavoidable consequence of only minor intensification of land use and result in a increased development. New development decrease of 55 potential new housing units, which could result in reduced recharge of the represents a net decrease of 0.1% in the number of aquifers as well as increased pollutant potential housing units from those envisioned in the loading from on-site septic systems. Any 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the impacts are mitigated through administration impacts associated with the proposed amendments of the Grant County Unified Development do not differ substantially from those of Alternative Code and Health District regulations No. 1 of the EIS and represent no significant regarding on-site sewer systems and other increase in impact from that described in the 1999 water quality issues. GMA Comprehensive Plan. • Housing—The proposed amendments result Potential Mitigation Measures in a net decrease of 55 potential new The primary potential mitigation measure for the housing units in the rural lands of the impacts of the proposed amendments is the County. implementation and administration of the Grant County Unified Development Code, especially Light and Glare—Potential sources of light Chapters 23.04 Zoning Districts, 23.08 and glare may increase as development Performance and Use -Specific Standards, 23.12 occurs. Any impacts are mitigated through Development Standards, 24.04 SEPA, 24.08 administration of the Grant County Unified Critical Areas & Cultural Resource Lands, 24.12 Development Code, specifically Section Shoreline Master Program. 24.16 Flood Damage 23.12.190 Lighting Standards. Prevention and 25.20 Concurrency. • Transportation, Utilities & Capital Additional measures may be necessary to Facilities—The proposed redesignations to minimize impacts and reduce the level of commercial and industrial parcels will result significant impacts that may be identified during in increased vehicle trips, the need for the permitting and development review process utilities, and the requirements for capital for each site. facilities and public services and contribute to a lessening (although very minor) of level Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of service. Any impacts are mitigated The proposed amendments result in a potential through administration of the Grant County for slightly increased development over that of Unified Development Code, particularly the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. Land Chapter 25.20 which requires that capital development associated with the proposed facilities and services necessary to amendments may produge certain unavoidable accommodate the impacts of development impacts, including: are available and adequate to maintain the •' Critical Areas and Cultural level of service standards specified in the Resources—Over time, increases in 1999 GMA Comprehensive Plan at the time a intensity in land use and development project is first occupied, or that a financial patterns could result in increased risk of commitment is in place to complete the impact on critical areas and cultural facilities within six years. This concurrency resources. No unavoidable adverse impacts analysis and conditioning of development to critical areas and cultural resources are permits is in addition to and separate from the expected with development managed in evaluation and conditioning of environmental impacts that occurs under separate SEPA review of each project action. EIS Addendum 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 6 COMPREHENSIVF �LAN/EIS ADDENDUM... w.. Water and Sewer—Through proper administration of the Grant County Unified Development Code and Health District regulations regarding on-site sewer and water supply, no unavoidable adverse impact is expected. Stormwater—Increased development will result in increased surface water runoff causing increased erosion, surface water pollution and groundwater impacts. Given the low rainfall intensity in the County, no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Any impacts are mitigated through administration of the Grant County Unified Development Code, specifically Section 25.12.080 which regulates grading and drainage. Air Emissions—Increased development and its associated increase in automobile traffic will result in increased air emissions. Air emissions of industrial site development are regulated under the Grant County Unified Development Code, specifically Section 23.08.230, and the Washington State Department of Ecology air quality regulations. Noise—Increased development will result in increased noise levels. Any impacts are mitigated through administration of the Grant County Unified Development Code, specifically Section 23.08.230 which requires that on-site noise levels for industrial site developments not exceed standards established by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. EIS Addendum 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 7 —a H ti Go rN d 767p �al elf.0 r 8�' �N Y .gym � LD '" aae E 3LLQ �ii FLL 75 S2 A 25 15 ',+gd N�� N¢ rm y� ccii ln N= G uS�� J ¢�8¢�a`a�3��»aa ¢1¢ !rx jig a:M 1'¢ ¢ mw i m ¢ K UNC i a U n a ala a IS J v M V � ' CE E E E E = cr ! a C m 1 a- J U ! � Cl N C L d p 0 N 1 00 O 0 O O 1 0 Z O O ;Z Z 2 IZI Z Z� Z Z iZ U I D w 1 a �o d V t Ol ¢ J !O Ol Of a Q � !� Q 01. T 01 C J tdJ E � U= C E am n n Im oo �o o r�R. �Ki!m uoi m a CL 1 o C O 'C J N CO !A N !IO In Yl 1O 10 lh llf N v i o_ � <�(/iNo OI N N N IN A 1N N N N N NN TOa�l'CiN CL CO 1pp8 O V O N S O8CQ� !008 V OO 'O88 Np88 NOBSS O S 1S0 S 8085 I<t0 ppopb8 pO OBpp S!OOO S O S OO pQ S1000S tia 0!0000 pp O O U_ a 9 O !4D OlO Vf A^ m Ip 't; 01 O� Of OOO h O O O m'aD Nt� a O �-tD A 1 m Q << YJ 10 CCII <'uS6In A 1 N N N N t0 YJ O Cx i0 ^ O ^^!mm0 � 0 c4im0 m 0 0 m m m4 0 1 0 0 Oi lnio 000^ 0 m O N r ^ ' � It'J ' � LL'Y ^ ^ ^ ' I(] 1h N � N O ' N ^ In N I(1 ^ 11J 1 A ^ A riN Ih C7 V O d I� mm 'mom m L' q i� u3f!3 Z/1!c W C/) •O N r r1 N `O m !- 1 of S !A R• 10 � O IaAD � �'O � 100 N o 0 g J ' y O 00 KO d'.'tr I i 1 1 C5 C 5 I Q 61 j O C��ii F lN0 C I v o € t 116 9 $�1(7� QQ Imm 111(7 2210=U X45 1� AT" Q iF tG iM iG 4i4 2GQiiG 4 4 u,1 I I I J N g 11 v �fi N J d j I W y c� IIU Eiv1 a m iM 1n � ! I yi ONO W'I 1, 1 !m I 1 Q N C O J ! N�. K !U 1 J �.� = J !� 'Q ry J (t K = EIS j= J N Jim O 1 N J d l N a I � �� a.j� 0L m ¢ ! aia2'' ' 0 'O Q• Iln J liEt la' Q Q C 1_C OI d 1q a!D c 1 o N cr A` O I'O 0 10 O 10 i0 N O O O 10 0 Z 12 Z1Z 'Z 12 Z y v } IZ IZ Z 12 Z1i C C Q. . 01 C 011 C uCD >; C Q 01 Im tD N i(O I (O I� 6 I� I I I Q !N • C ' 'SN INr 'NOC Jc'Q 0 Nrnpqp Nm O O) !O MCrNI !�Nd C ! � _ NmfNn Vdn M; 1^ LL1m.!1 CW✓) LL8m lmL � LLm J V O S S SS O! O O ! O < h 0 0 ppO 188 O U m O! W ��pf O <•f W W m O 0 0 0 0 f` n �� 0 0 O S m � O ['7 f'f t7 Ay m!m uS !j,,6 C Cd VN Vf N!01 I ^.W map O� lO O mC?l�< *7'i ip 'l• N 'O t0 fb1� 1000 0 ! I � 'O I X000 Ol 1r I � V1 O> [D (p ^ fp 0000 1f lT1� (D IA '' d 1Y d lY Y d � 10 m d V N1 E O C 1 N C N T T 1 T 1E N N C O d 0 d C d d J O O O V O p_ O O � ac'� 1� W m ood 1 1 i M i. =;,s 1 `V IW O 1 iLD i0 'N x }i Id a 0 im oLL1 0 01i N 1Q p 110 m im O Y p 1➢ S i p i m O Io N1 1 I J Id Ej� J 1J dI,U '.0 J J J IJ JIBq%1 �{Q,,1j N 1�"� LLI N N IN NIS U N T J � Vl N ;N N mNp !YI J 1A Im O ! p . I T 1 V1 L N N 1 fn l S. Zy1 !U Ii .aF !� ! M! U ai CI i 1 N iN 8 IU Hi UI 1 OI d d O qC V! LLLI ' m L V N Z'' N N W J d o LL !JI ! cc N 1C (r N i ad p dd tjm Lo) 9 O j IU y l >> j m t5 l0 (0 L m O !d d!l0 i� aImz0o: Ix c7'U x x $LLa m Iz ;m 010 a �.•Z � Im � Im ^1 iN r1 n 10 m p1 p i� � jddX1{ [p� ;8• 18N lsN88V 3F• 8 8 8 8 S 8N 8N 8 8N N N I(lI IN Xj 1 u,1 C i I� m tD `tlI J =, F C M! UNC x i i C p 'O R wLL CO ILL ENrIN Ew;tr a N'O CNN �I�N�d' N EI() N 0LLJ0 '; JI Q' rl(J d ;(7 U U �;� :D 'a i2� �' Kiera' i(.JJ �! i7 m �� '�� m > ! C R > �iK > 'i U I� IK 4 a �¢ i� 4 a° K C 1 r r i N Yj�a R m 0 O z z 0 1 0 z;z N O O r 0 O r 0 y r z z z 0 O r O m V I a+ m v cmi c -'Z E c E Ci E E c m ,m Q r^ m c 1 r 1 r 1 N a 7y Y 1 1 m 1 V N N N!N N NOVIN ti N N N' ;m N ,N L J m im'N!O m! NlA !O ,^ ,� r C N N!N N I � r^ rN CL t7 NLLN. N 'N N;1'i .N N N t7 vo o tq �o l�wmmmaoo �o $'o ro �Ioo77S '0 0 � ! [0 r I(J O) Of 01 QI O Of 01 t0 (`7 pp � O r N N N i of YJ r N R% O Q i 10 O '0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ r m (O tO�_ O ID r(6 ID (D (D; i rcp (O 116 L9 CE rvi w <9 I8 U9 d Im = (off yN� O O Q 0 i= 8 !~ t0 'V 10E N I zrIm U) 1 YJ! V N Ire M ,� N'O!Z, p Q C m iT NI mi � im im m' i� J IT6 r;E R JIR R q R iJ 1J Jr .s S ` j J q 1` N J J i yr N N J N IU 0I>� NN N Noo INO Or 1 G= O ORrO U; r !m im I}p$m� V 1 �1� tIJ 'iN � RiryC C r !Z' 1 ald Q vita �� ir,JT tnii� 'SIV OE i� £l$ctn i6io R !VIY�!ca Ila Q!c q!�QU rgmi c g13o It 'mS16zloy 01% !o !v z 42 IZ fii w g C i E z spue-1 jejna 100 N fl• N O LO y 0 CO N 0 CT M m C6 0 V 0 0 0 O 0 C7 Cn R NO CO r R) 00 CO CO O do CO CD � a) ' a C.) N M N CO O O N r r N 0 IT r 0 r r ' C') N E r O V O O V 0 0 0 0 0 N O 00 Lf) Ci O O r O CP O O 0 4 O r r 0 0 O co O V' O 0 co � N co 0 co f0 r N O N CD O r O N r CO O Cl) I N CD r00000000 LC? oo(m OO CO W NOO CO000(O CO CO V) r 0 0 r n M NO(ON(DNOrOr V r� d d � H O r N 0 O N d N G CO CV R1 N CD N a) a) • V C J ;a) :O O— U C c E E y ro FL cu E o: Q 0000= FL -E -200-0a: o �� ��xCL (D — UU� m la La (6 (a �U V C a) (a (a (a N N O ¢ CC CC fr Q O OC (r a: ¢ � (1) spue-1 jejna 100 N fl• N O LO y 0 CO N 0 CT r M d (D LO Cl) co 0 CA V r r v" R) RS a) a V (O a E z ,IMI, 0 Cn CO re{ n wwwwwwww E INIONNNI CC i, O O V r 0 0 0 LO d 0 E z m ro m C a -a -o E N y N� E Y m 0) a) a o (a cc ac Cc c U -1 c c c c c Ca (a C") la (a Q) d fl M.0 -0 N =(a)=C")� 1 :D MV 43MOJE) uegan a 01 n ..a 00000 0) O (P N , Q O 00 r C7 p IR o Cf C = U') V' (D N to O u r 'C N C► m - c c _( ' th C C 'N. m CU C) Y { f3c Q c = V C 7 qa :37 L. .cn a ir cr a: Q 0 0 0 0 p ..y Di000v� D N Co V (D 00 (p 0. N n C � o 0 00 p a c c 00 o (° N (° r Oo (D T N Q 7 N (n 'N U a Q Itf m N m A m O) m N C V N o O a 0! = C aZf L V O V F- vU Cl)o 00 v N W n N r (\ LO N M N Q c L A J K O 'V 00 Cl) O CO I, N M CL 0 O LO CO CD L r N CCI a r d a o000 M r r (D r CNN co (P d In O V m �(D(o �(O (% r N r 'C N C► m - c c _( ' th C C 'N. m CU C) Y { f3c Q c = V C 7 qa :37 L. .cn a ir cr a: Q Table 41- Environmental Impacts Relative to 1999 Comprehensive Plan/El cO H O y Grant Grant Current t Land Use County County Historic Designation .e N E Ep Docket # Tax Parcel UseZ6 Z.€ C o $ ; d ID Number Current Requested W ¢ a s w _; rn w r U U- a' 2001-1 07-1390-002 Aq RR1 Ag N N N N N N N N N N 2001-2 17-0150-004 Ll ULI UC N N N N N N N N N N 2001-3 -31-1178-- - --0 -00-- ----- L-1 -------- R-R1---- -----R-LI--------N- -N- - N --N ---N -- --- N - N M --N--- N-- 31-1179-000 31-1180-000 31.1181-000 2001-4 15-1554-001 Ag RRem Ag N N N N N N N -- N N -- N 2001-5 15-1516-000 ---g A -- --- - -- RRem A---- - ---- Ag N - N N -- N --- --- N N N N N N N N -- - N -- 2001-6 15-1513-000 Ag RRem Ag N N N N N N ----------- N N ---- N ----- N --- -1-5- -1-5-0- 9---0,0,-0 Ag RRem - Ag N ---- N -- N - -- N ----- N N N N N N 15-1509-001 15-1509-002 15-1510-000 15-1510-001 15-1510-002 2001-8 15-0978-000 Ag RRem Ag N N N N N -- N --- ------ N N --N-- N --N--- N ------- — 2001-9 ------------- 15-0336-000 ----A- g RR----- --R-em ---- -----A-g N --------- --N-- -N- N ---- --- N N N-- N --- 15-0341-001 15-0342-000 15-0343-000 15-0344-000 15-0350-000 15.0351-000 15-0356-000 2001-10 Ag m RRem Ag N N N N N N N N N N 115-0979-000 ---------- Ag ---- RRem --------------- Ag N ---- N --- N 1 --NN ----- N -----NN-------- N N N N N 2001-12 17-1025-010 RR1 RR1 AP or RLI N N N M N N N Y Y M 17-1025-020 17-1025-030 17-1025-000 ----- 1 -13 ---- 200 000 ------------- ---- L--1---- ---RR ----- -----L-I -------- N- -N-- -N-- --N--- ---N-- ---N ------ N-- --N-- --N --- — N N- 2001-14 2001-14 15-0358-001 Vacant RRem RGC N N M M N Y Y Y Y Y 2001-15 1---- -- -6-1585-002--- 1 ---- ------Ind --•-R1---- R -----R-LI--------N - -- N N -- ---- N --- N ------ N ------ N- --N-- --N--- N- 16-1585-003 2001-16 15-0942-000 Vacant OSC Ag, OSR N M M Y M Y Y Y M Y & Comm 1 Rec 2001-17 15-1534-000 Vacant, - - - -R--Rem ------ ---'"14—N— R- R1 - M M -- 4 N -- N N - N N N N Res 2001-18 11-0685-000 Ind RR3 RLI N N N N N N N N N N 11-0683-000 11-0685-001 2001-19 19-0671-000 Ind Ind M.L. UGA I N --N--j N N N N N N N N Sclark/sctup/2001 Comp Plan Amcnd/Tablc 3 Environ. Summary Table 41- Environmental Impacts Relative to 1999 Comprehensive Plan/El Grant Grant Current! Land Use w 16 County County Historic Designation . y E ,a = E gED � Docket # Tax Parcel Use E t .E s o o ID Number Current Requested u, a b a a w n w v LLa 2001-20 17-0073-010 Res Ag UR2, N N N N N N N N N N include in M.L. UGA 2001-21 Non l applicable 2001-22 21-0699-000 Ag RR3 Ag N N N N N N N N N N 21-0700-000 21-0700-010 - --- -- -- 2001-23 - -- --- -- ------ 15-1400000 ----- ---- Res Ag --U--R-3 •-- ---- A-------- g N N N N N N N N N N N - N 2001-24 21-0078-000 Ag UR3 Ag N N N N N N N N N N ---- ---- Ind Ag RLI N N N N N N N N N N 2001-26 16-0620-000 Vacant Ag RR2 N N M 1 M N N N M N M 2001-27 161553004 Ind RR1 RLI N N N N N N N N N N 16-1553-005 16-1553-006 2001-28 19-0467-000 Ind Ind M.L. UGA N N N N N N N N N N 19-0466-000 2001-29 18-0196-000 Ind Ind M.L. UGA N N N N N N N N N N 2001-30 16-1605-000 Mining POS RRem N N N N N N N N N N 2001-31 07-0629-000 ------ - Vacant ---- --- UR3 ----- ------ UClor N --- N --- - N N ----- N ---- N ----- M ---- M ----- N --- M UC2 2001-32 16-0568-000 Vacant RUR CFS M N M; M N N Y Y Y Y --- - 2001-33 20-1753-000 ---------- Vacant -- ----- RRem ----- ------•--- RFC N -- N -- - -- N S M ---- N ---- N ---- Y -- Y -- M --- M 2001-34 08-1190-000 Comm Res RR2 N N N N N N N N N N --- ---- •--- - RRem RR2 N N N N N N N N N N 07-1992-804 Subd vision 07-1792-805 07-1792-806 07-1792-807 07-1792-808 2001-36 17-0760-000 Vacant UR2 UR3 N N N N N N N M N N ---- 2001-37 ------- ---------- No -t app----licable -------- --------------- ---- - — ---- ---- ---- ---- -- 2001-38 16-1639-015 Vacant RRem RR2 N N N 1N N N N N N N 16-1641-004 2001-39 18-2314-001 Vacant RRem RR2 N N N M N N N N N N adjacent subdivision 2001-40_12 0-0510-000 Vacant Ag RR2 N N N iN N N N --------- -- ------- ---- I N N N 2001-41 16-1833-000 Vacant Ag RRemN N N N N N N N N N 2001-42 16-1819-000 ------- Vacant RR - ---- RFC M -- M ------ Y� Y N N Y -M- M Y 16-1820-000 RL1 16-1822-000 RCFS 16-1825-000 2001-43 Deleted --------- 2001-44 ----------------------- ------ 16-1583-001 Vacant RR1 RFC w! 'M M M MM --- --- - N Y -- Y ----- M --- M Sclark/setup/2001 Comp Plan Amend/Table 3 Environ. Summary Table 41- Environmental Impacts Relative to 1999 Comprehensive Plan/EIS Grant Grant Current/ Land Use `O N O N County County Historic Designation -a N E Cc E d Docket# Tax Parcel Use E o o a ID Number Current Requested w a d a Ww 9 o Lou U U- a RLI 2001-45 16-1553-007 Ind Ag RLI N N N N N ----- N - -- N ---- N ---- N -------- N 2001-46 ---ted - ------ Dele --------- -------- -------------- ---- -•---- 2001-47 Multiple Vacant RR1 & MPR N N N M N Y Y Y N M w/ PUD RRem 2001-48 - -- --- Coulee City --- City Comm. UGC M M M M M I M M M M M Legend: "N" no new identified potential impact WI. Minor new potential impact "Y" Substantial potential impact Sclark/setup/2001 Comp Plan Amend/Table 3 Environ. Summary EIS ADDENDUM FACT SHEET ' TITLE Grant County Comprehensive Plan — 2001 Amendment Docket PROPOSED ACTION A non -project proposal to consider adoption of amendments to the Grant County 1999 GMA .. Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments considered for adoption include site-specific land use designation and zoning district changes, changes to Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map and the. Official Zoning Maps, and amendments to the UGA boundaries of Ephrata and Quincy. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed site-specific land use amendments are located within the rural lands and urban growth areas of Grant County. ACTION SPONSOR Grant County Planning Department P.O. Box 37 35 C Street NW Ephrata, Washington 98823 LEAD AGENCY AND RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Scott Clark, Planning Director & SEPA Responsible Official Grant County Planning Department P.O. Box 37 35 C Street NW Ephrata, Washington 98823 PROJECT PLANNER Billie M. Sumrall Grant County Planning Department PRIOR SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Proposed Action will amend the 1999 Grant County GMA Comprehensive Plan which was the subject of non -project SEPA review, including: • Grant County Comprehensive Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (March 1999); • Grant County Comprehensive PlardFinal Environmental Impact Statement (September 1999); and • Determination of Significance and Adoption of Existing Environmental Documentation (February 18, 2000) DATE OF ISSUANCE OF EIS ADDENDA April 13, 2001 Comprehensive Plan/FEISAddendum April 13, 2000 2001 Amendment Docket t EIS ADDENDUM F "T SHEET... �s AVAILABILITY OF EIS ADDENDUM AND BACKGROUND DATA Copies of this EIS Addendum were distributed to the agencies, organizations and individuals listed on the distribution list follows this fact sheet. This EIS Addendum is available at the Grant County Planning Department, 35 C Street NW, Ephrata, Washington 9881") COMMENTING A DNS was issued for this Proposed Action under WAC 197-11-340(2) on April 13, 2001. The lead agency will not act on the proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance of the DNS. Comments must be submitted to the Contact Person stated below by 4:30 p.m , Monday, April 30, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING AND ANTICIPATED ADOPTION DATE In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the Grant County Planning Commission will conduct an Open -record Predecision Hearing on the Proposed Action. The Planning Commission will make an advisory recommendation to the Grant County Board of Commissioners. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's advisory recommendation, the Board of County Commissioners will conduct an Open -record Final Decision Hearing. At the conclusion of its initial hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may continue the hearing, or may adopt, modify or give no further consideration to the one or more of the proposed amendments. The Board of County Commissioners intends to issue a written decision regarding the proposed amendments within 14 days after the date of the conclusion of the public hearing. The Grant County Planning Commission Open -record Predecision Hearing on the Proposed Actions is going to commence on March 27, 2002 and continue to the first part of April, 2002 . The Board of County Commissioners anticipates conducting its Open -record Final Decision Hearings commencing in late April, and early May, 2002. Public notice of all hearings will be made in accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12.020. DATE OF FINAL ACTION Action to adopt any or all of the proposed 2001 Amendments to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan may commence no earlier than the date of issuance of the DNS. The Board of County Commissioners will not issue a written decision regarding the Proposed Action until at least fifteen days after the date of issuance of the SEPA determination. Comprehensive PlanIFEIS Addendum April 13, 2000 2001 Amendment Docket ii DISTRIBUTION LIST Copies of this 2001 EIS Addendum have been distributed to the following agencies and individuals. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRK DUNN AMENDMENT PETITIONERS FRENCHMAN HILL ROAD 5303 RD I I SW QUINCY. WA 98848 IN JERRY AMORUSA ROGER FAIR 14397 CROOK RD SW EPHRATA, WA 98823 OTHELLO, WA 99344 P.O. BOX 1199 COLUMBIA FROZEN FOODS MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 NORTH AMERICAN FOREIGN TRADE ZONE 7810 ANDREWS ST NE, SUITE 200 5200 SOUTHCENTER BOULVARD, SUITE 100 NORM JENSEN TUKWILA, WA 98188 4879 RD 7.8 P.O. BOX 867 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 BROWN CHILDREN TRUST MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 12088 RD 1I SW DUANE JENKS ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 10158 KINDER RD DOROTHY BROWN MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 2240 W BROADWAY, #242 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 RUSSELL FODE 2022 WESTERN AVE FRANK & JUSTIN BROWN WENATCHEE, WA 98801 12088 RD 1 I SW ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 HUCK GOODRICH GERALD "SPUD" BROWN 415 SCENIC DRIVE S.E 6987 HIGHWAY 26 W MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 CRAIG JANETT MIKE BROWN P.O. BOX 328 1288 RD 11 SW ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 HAROLD JANETT CHUN�W CHANG P.O. BOX HSIN LUNG CHANG I ROYAL CITT Y, WA 99357 CHUN HAO CHANG 5200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD TUKWILA. WA 98188 JOHN BRITT FIRST LINE SEEDS ALAN CHLARSON 11703 RD I SE 684 RD Ni S. E. MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum 2001 Amendment Docket iii PAUL LAUZIER ESTATE TERRY & JEFF COCHRAN C/0 MIKE TABLER, ATTY AT LAW 5303 RD I I SW P.O. BOX 1230 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 EPHRATA, WA 98823 LEW NIC CULLOUGH COLUMBIA FROZEN FOODS PORT OF MOSES LAKE P.O. BOX 1368 7810 ANDREWS ST NE, SUITE 200 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 RICHARD DE JEAN NATIONAL FROZEN FOODS P.O. BOX 867 P.O. BOX A SUMNER. WA 98390 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum 2001 Amendment Docket iii DISTRIBUTION" 'T... DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES T.D. INVV-STMENTS 713 BOWERS RD ASPI GROUP ELLENSBURG, WA 98926 5200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD, SUITE 100 TUKWILA, WA 98188 DANIEL NIELSEN P.O. BOX 1654 RANDY FAIR SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1405 S. PIONEER WAY MARTELL PALMER MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 14600 RD 1 N.E. MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 TRANS CASCADE DEVELOPMENT 5200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD, SUITE 100 RON PALELEK TUKWILA, WA 98188 10431 TOMBLEY RD SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 AL WILLIS 2294 ADMIRAL ROAD NE NICK WALLACE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 876 TOWN OF COULEE CITY EPHRATA, WA 98823 CITY CLERK COULEE CITY, WA 99115 JASON PATTISON 145 HWY 28 WEST FEDERAL AGENCIES SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 WILLIAM D. GRAY JOANN PEARSON US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TOM SCOTT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION P.O. BOX 293 EPHRATA FIELD OFFICE BEVERLY, WA 99321 PO BOX 815 EPHRATA, WA 98823 RICHARD PENHALLURICK 905 STRATFORD ROAD US ARMY CORP OF ENGNEERS MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 PO BOX 273 CHATTAROY, WA 99003 CITY OF SOAP LAKE P.O. BOX 1270 SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE PO BOX 1157 EDWARD SIVULA MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 12574 CO. RD C.l NW EPHRATA, WA 98823 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PO BOX 620 D£L SANFORD GRAND COULEE, WA 99133 BANKS LAKE DEVELOPERS 1829 SR 124 US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT GRAND COULEE, WA 99133 915 N. WALLA WALLA ST WENATCHEE, WA 98801-1521 WALTER STEPHENS 3171 ROAD 20 N.E. US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SOAP LAKE, WA 98837 SPOKANE DIST. OFFICE 1103 N. FANCHER CHUCK STORFA SPOKANE, WA99212-1275 23537 DRY COULEE ROAD SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 US DEPT OF THE INTERIOR 1133 N WESTERN AVE WENATCHEE, WA 98801 Comprehensive Plan/FE1S Addendum 2001 Amendment Docket iv US DEPT OF GAME TRACY LOYD PO BOX 1237 EPHRATA, WA 98823 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 1601 LIND AVE SW RENTON, WA 980554056 STATE AGENCIES KATHERINE MARCH DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 1550 ALDER STREET NW EPHRATA, WA 98823 MARK C. SCHULZ WA STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 2201 N. DUNCAN DRIVE WENATCHEE, WA 98801-1007 DAVID L. BIERSCHBACH, PE REGIONAL PLANNING ENGINEER WSDOT NORTH CENTRAL REGION OFFICE OF REGION ADMINISTRATOR PO BOX 98 WENATCHEE, WA 98807-0098 HEIDI I. RENZ DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4601 N. MONROE, SUITE 202 SPOKANE, WA 99205-1295 DEPT. OF HEALTH WEST 924 SINTO AVE, L3-24 SPOKANE, WA 99201-2595 DICK WEDIN DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES SOUTHEAST REGION 713 E BOWERS RD ELLENSBURG, WA 98926-9341 HOLLY GADBOW DCTED PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-8300 PATRICK BABINEAU DCTED PO BOX 48300 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-8300 .DISTRIBUTION LIST GREGORY GRIFFITH OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 420 GOLF CLUB ROAD SE, SUITE 201 PO BOX 48343 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-8343 ELIZABETH McNAGNY DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO BOX 45000 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-5000 MILLARD DEUSEN DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE PO BOX 43155 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-3155 DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK ROAD MILL CREEK, WA 98012 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES PO BOX 44000 OLYMPIA, WA 985044000 LORINDA ANDERSON COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION PO BOX 40917 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0917 JUDY MCNICKLE STATE PARKS & RECREATION PO BOX 42653 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-2653 SUSAN YORK WA STATE PARKS & REC 2201 N DUNCAN WENATCHEE, WA 98801 BILL FRASER WA STATE PARK COMMISSION 2201 N DUNCAN DRIVE OLYMPIA, WA 98801-1007 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION BILL WIEBE PO BOX 47300 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7370 LORI OCHOA DEPT. OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 47600 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7600 Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum May 3, 2000 2001 Amendment Docket v DISTRIBUTION L -'T... DEPT. OF ECOLOGY N 4601 MONROE, SUITE 100 WA STATE ENERGY OFFICE SPOKANE, WA 99205 PO BOX 43165 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-3165 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-3155 ERIK FAIRCHILD DEPT, OF HEALTH PO BOX 47822 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7822 ERIC HUART DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES PO BOX 47014 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7014 DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEPA CENTER PO BOX 47014 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7014 TERRY MICHAELSON SUPERINTENDANT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PO BOX 47200 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7200 JEFFREY SHOWMAN WASH. UTILITIES & TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 47250 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7250 DEPT. OF HEALTH & DRINKING WATER 1500 W 4TH AVE SPOKANE, WA 99204-1639 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PO BOX 43113 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-3113 DEPT. OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PO BOX 41000 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-1000 DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE PO BOX 42563 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES PO BOX 47822 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7822 PAMELA McPARTLAND DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES PO BOX 45848 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-5848 BOB BERQUIST DEPT OF CORRECTIONS PO BOX 41112 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-1112 CITIES MAYOR AND COUNCIL TOWN OF COULEE DAM PO BOX 156 COULEE DAM, WA 99166 MAYOR AND COUNCIL TOWN OF ELECTRIC CITY PO BOX 130 ELECTRIC CITY, WA 99123 MAYOR AND COUNCIL CITY OF EPHRATA 121 ALDER ST NW EPHRATA, WA 98823 MAYOR AND COUNCIL TOWN OF GEORGE PO BOX 5277 GEORGE, WA 98824 MAYOR AND COUNCIL CITY OF GRAND COULEE PO BOX 180 GRAND COULEE, WA 99133 MAYOR AND COUNCIL TOWN OF HARTLINE HARTLINE, WA 99135 MAYOR AND COUNCIL TOWN OF KRUPP PO BOX 227 KRUPP, WA 98832 • MAYOR AND COUNCIL TOWN OF MATTAWA PO BOX 965 MATTAWA, WA 99344 Comprehensive Plan/FE1S Addendum 2001 Amendment Docket vi MAYOR AND COUNCIL CITY OF MOSES LAKE PO BOX 1579 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 .DISTRIBUTION LIST MAYOR AND COUNCIL GILBERTALVARADO MAYOR AND COUNCIL CITY PLANNER CITY OF QUINCY CITY OF GEORGE PO BOX 338 PO BOX 5277 QUINCY, WA 98848 GEORGE, WA MAYOR AND COUNCIL SPECIAL DISTRICTS TOWN OF ROYAL CITY 530 W VALLEY ROAD PO BOX 1239 DOUGLAS M. ANCONA ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 GRANT COUNTY PUD NO. 2 MOSES LAKE. WA 98837 PO BOX 878 MAYOR AND COUNCIL EPHRATA, WA 98823 TOWN OF SOAP LAKE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 PO BOX 1270 SHERYL DOTSON SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 GRANT COUNTY PUD NO.2 EPHRATA, WA 98823 BOX 878 MAYOR AND COUNCIL P WA 98823 EP EPHRATAA,, TOWN OF WARDEN EPHRATA LIBRARY PO BOX 428 GRANT COUNTY HEALTH DIST WARDEN, WA 98857 PO BOX 37 PO BOX 1239 EPHRATA, WA 98823 MAYOR AND COUNCIL TOWN OF WILSON CREEK GRANT COUNTY FARM BUREAU PO BOX 162 4625 ROAD M NE WILSON CREEK, WA 98860 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 MAYOR AND COUNCIL GRANT COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY TOWN OF COULEE CITY 530 W VALLEY ROAD PO BOX 938 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 COULEE CITY, WA 99133 MOSES LAKE. WA 98837 GRANT COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY JIM CHERF 1139 LARSON BLVD CITY MANAGER MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 CITY OF EPHRATA PO BOX 37 121 ALDER STREET SW GRANT COUNTY WEED BOARD EPHRATA, WA 98823 PO BOX 1115 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 EPHRATA, WA 98823 JOSEPH GAVINSKI GRANT COUNTY EDC CITY MANAGER PO BOX 369 CITY OF MOSES LAKE EPHRATA, WA 98823 PO DRAWER 1579 MOSES LAKE. WA 98837 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ENGINEER GILBERT ALVARADO GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CITY PLANNER PO BOX 37 CITY OF MOSES LAKE EPHRATA, WA 98823 PO DRAWER 1579 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 LIBRARIES GILBERT ALVARADO EPHRATA LIBRARY CITY PLANNER 45 ALDER ST CITY OF ROYAL CITY EPRHATA, WA 98823 PO BOX 1239 ROYAL CITY, WA Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum May 3, 2000 2001 Amendment Docket vii DISTRIBUTION Llrl� CHAIRMAN MOSES LAKE LIBRARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONIMS 418 E 5TH AVE DOUGLAS COUNTY MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 PO BOX 747 WATERVILLE, WA 98858 QUINCY LIBRARY 108BSE QUINCY, WA 98848 SOAP LAKE LIBRARY PO BOX 86 SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 COULEE CITY LIBRARY PO BOX 387 COULEE CITY, WA 99115 GRAND COULEE LIBRARY PO BOX 62 GRAND COULEE, WA 99133 ROYAL CITY LIBRARY PO BOX 548 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 WARDEN LIBRARY PO BOX 813 WARDEN, WA 98857 N CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY 128 OLDS STATION RD WENATCHEE, WA 98801-8130 COUNTIES CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADAMSCOUNTY 210 W BROADWAY RITZVILLE, WA 99169 CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BENTON COUNTY PO BOX 190 PROSSER, WA 99350 CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LINCOLN COUNTY PO BOX 366 DAVENPORT, WA 99122 Comprehensive PlanIFE1S Addendum 2001 Amendment Docket viii CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FRANKLIN COUNTY 1016N4THAVE PASCO, WA 99301 CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY 205 W 5TH AVE ELLENSBURG, WA 98926 CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OKANOGAN COUNTY PO BOX 791 OKANOGAN, WA 98840 CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YAKIMA COUNTY 128 N 2ND STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LEE GRAHAM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3735 HWY 281 N QUINCY, WA 98848 OLLIE CLICK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 19345 RD A.3 NE SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 NORMAN ESTOOS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 6428 WINESAP RD NE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 DOUG RATHBONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 8591 RD 11 NE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 JOHN HYER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 14493 EMPIRE RD NW EPHRATA, WA 98823 SCOTT ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PO BOX 776 COULEE CITY, WA 99115 PORTS PORT OF MATTAWA DISTRICT #3 PO BOX 2328 MATTAWA, WA 99349 PORT OF MOSES LAKE DIST #10 7819 ANDREWS NE, BLDG 1202 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 PORT OF ROYAL SLOPE DIST #2 PO BOX 147 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 PORT OF EPHRATA DISTRICT # 9 1990 DIVISION AVE E EPHRATA, WA 98823 PORT OF QUINCY DISTRICT #I 912A CENTRAL AVE S QUINCY, WA 98848 PORT OF WARDEN DISTRICT #8 PO BOX 841 WARDEN, WA 98857 FIRE DISTRICTS GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. #3 110 C ST SW QUINCY, WA 98848 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. 44 PO BOX 364 WARDEN, WA 98857 . nISTRIBUTION LIST GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. 45. 11058 E. NELSON ROAD MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. 97 PO BOX 1449 SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. 98 PO BOX 1728 MATTAWA, WA 99349 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. #10 PO BOX 220 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. #I I 11522 1 ST AVE ROYAL. OTHELLO, WA 99344 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. 912 PO BOX 101 WILSON CREEK, WA 98860 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. # 13 PO BOX 812 17915 ROAD 4.5 NW EPHRATA, WA 98823 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DIST. # 14 PO BOX 622 GRAND COULEE, WA 99113 JIM STEPHENS HARTLINE FIRE DEPT. PO BOX 132 HARTLINE, WA 99135 SCHOOL DISTRICTS WILSON CREEK SCHOOL DIST PO BOX 46 WILSON CREEK, WA 98860 GEORGE/QUINCY SCHOOL DIST PO BOX 907 QUINCY, WA 98848 ROYAL CITY SCHOOL DIST PO BOX 486 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 EPHRATA SCHOOL DIST 499 C ST NW EPHRATA, WA 98823 Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum May 3, 20,00 2001 Amendment Docket ix DISTRIBUTION LIS!`... WAHLUKE SCHOOL DIST. BLACK SANDS IRRIGATION DIST~— PO BOX 907 PO BOX 2325 MATTAWA, WA 99349 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 WARDEN SCHOOL DIST. MOSES LAKE IRRIGATION DIST PO BOX 308 PO BOX 98 WARDEN, WA 98857 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 SOAP LAKE SCHOOL DIST. QUINCY IRRIGATION DIST. PO BOX 158 PO BOX 188 SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 QUINCY, WA 98848 MOSES LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT WEED DISTRICTS 1318 W IVY MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 GRANT COUNTY WEED DIST. #1 GRAND COULEE SCHOOL DIST PO BOX 731 STEVENS & GRANT 102 B STREET SE COULEE DAM, WA 99116 QUINCY, WA 98848 COULE£/HARTLINE SCHOOL DIST GRANT COUNTY WEED DIST. 93 PO BOX 428 PO BOX 5097 COULEE CITY, WA 99115 GEORGE, WA 98824 HOSPITAL DISTRICTS GRANT COUNTY WEED DIST. #51 PO BOX 632 GRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DIST. # 1 WARDEN, WA 98857 801 E. WHEELER ROAD MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 GRANT COUNTY WEED DIST. #52 PO BOX 29 GRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DIST. #2 ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 908 10TH AVE SW QUINCY, WA 98848 POST OFFICES GRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DIST. #3 200 SOUTHEAST BLVD. EPHRATA, WA 98823 EPHRATA POST OFFICE GRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DIST. 94 119 ]STAVE NW PO BOX 818 EPHRATA, WA 98823 SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 MOSES LAKE POST OFFICE 223 W 3RD AVE GRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DIST. #5 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 PO BOX 1581 MATTAWA, WA 99344 QUINCY POST OFFICE 20CSTSW GRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DIST. 46 QUINCY, WA 98848 PO BOX H GRAND COULEE, WA 99133 ROYAL CITY POST OFFICE 164 EVERGREEN ST IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 RICHARD L. ERICKSON SOAP LAKE POST OFFICE EAST COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION DIST. 110 DAISY S. PO DRAWER E SOAP LAKE, WA 98851 OTHELLO, WA 99344 Comorehensitie Plan1FE1S Addendum 2001.4mendment Docket x WARDEN POST OFFICE 301 IST ST WARDEN, WA 98857 WILSON CREEK POST OFFICE 225 RAILROAD ST WILSON CREEK, WA 98860 ELECTRIC CITY POST OFFICE 5 COULEE BLVD ELECTRIC CITY, WA 99123 GRAND COULEE POST OFFICE 407 MIDWAY GRAND COULEE, WA 99133 COULEE DAM POST OFFICE 402 MEAD AVE COULEE DAM, WA 99116 COULEE CITY POST OFFICE 101 N 4TH ST COULEE CITY, WA 99115 HARTLINE POST OFFICE 867 WILLARD HARTLINE, WA 99135 OTHERS MICHAEL McCORMICK AICP 2420 COLUMBIA ST OLYMPIA, WA 98501 BERT & GAYLE BARGMANN PO BOX 789 LEAVENWORTH, WA 98826 EPHRATA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PO BOX 275 EPHRATA, WA 98823 DESERT AIRE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 215 N DESERT AIRE DRIVE MATTAWA, WA 99349 STEVE 14ALLSTROM PO BOX 37 EPHRATA, WA 98823 WENATCHEE WORLD PO BOX 1149 DISTRIBUTION LIST EPHRATA. WA 98823 KAREN WAGNER MOSES LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 324 S PIONEERWAY MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 CENTRAL BASIN AUDUBON SOCIETY PO BOX 86 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 BIG BEND COMMUNITY COLLEGE 7662 CHANUTE ST NE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 WENATCHEE DAILY WORLD 127 1ST SW EPHRATA, WA 98823 FARM BUREAU 6500 X SE WARDEN, WA 98857 MOSQUITO CONTROL DIST. 1100 MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RD MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 COLUMBIA BASIN HERALD 813 W 3RD AVE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 GRANT COUNTY JOURNAL 29 ALDER ST SW EPHRATA, WA 98823 HAY GROWERS ASSOC. PO BOX 2891 PASCO, WA 99302 MOSES LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 324 S. PIONEER WAY MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 KBSN RADIO 2241 W MAIN MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 BOARD OF REALTORS 1000 S. PIONEER WAY MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 KWIQ 11768 KITTLESON RD NE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum May 3, 2000 2001 Amendment Docket xi DISTRIBUTION LIS'r EPHRATA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 90 ALDER ST NW GRANT COUNTY ASSOC OF REALIQRS EPHRATA, WA 98823 101 BASIN NW EPHRATA, WA 98823 LIND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 211 N. I LIND, WA 99341 QUINCY VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 119 F SE QUINCY, WA 98848 RITZVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 201 W RAILROAD AVE RITZVILLE, WA 99169 COLUMBIA BASIN DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE 8582 ROAD K SW ROYAL CITY, WA 99357 NORTH COLUMBIA COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL 604 W 3RD AVE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY PO BOX 1685 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 GRANT COUNTY FARM BUREAU 4625 ROAD M NE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 O'SULLIVAN GRANGE NO. 1136 14724 ROAD 3 SE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 GRANT COUNTY VETERANS SERVICES 1208 MATHER MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 HOME BUILDERS ASSOC. PO BOX 1156 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 ROYAL SLOPE FARM LABOR HOUSING CORP 1139 LARSON BLVD MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 NATURAL RESOURSE CONSERVATION 2145 BASIN ST EPHRATA, WA 98823 QUINCY ROTARY CLUB 10663 ROAD U-7 NW QUINCY, WA 98848 Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum 2001 Amendment Docket xii MOSES LAKE REALTORS ASSOC. PO BOX 393 OTHELLO, WA 99344 CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION PO BOX 151 TOPPENSIH, WA 98948 SOIL CONSERVATION 2145 BASIN ST SW EPHRATA, WA 98823 EMERGENCY SERVICES 6200 32ND AVE NE, STE 911 MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 YAKAMA INDIAN NATION JOHNSON MENINICK PO BOX 151 I OPPENISH, WA 98948 SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS PO DRAWER T MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 SUNLAND ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 799 BOYER AVE SW QUINCY, WA 98848 BIG BEND EDC 226 W 3RD AVE MOSES LAKE, WA 98837 REX BUCK WANAPUM BAND OF INDIANS PO BPX 164 BEVERLY, WA 99321-0164 ROBERT TOMANAWASH WANAPUM BAND OF INDIANS PO BPX 164 BEVERLY, WA 99321-0164 JAMES A. WHITAKER LEMARGIE AND WHITAKER 260 WEST DIVISION AVE PO BOX 965 EPHRATA, WA 98823 ...MSTRIBUTION LIST KATHERINE L. KENISON LEMARGIE AND WHITAKER , 260 WEST DIVISION AVE PO BOX 965 EPHRATA, WA 98823 Comprehensive Plan/FEIS Addendum May 3, 2000 2001 Amendment Docket ziii GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mav 1, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Piercy -Chairman, Jim Fleming -Vice Chairman, Wayne Sahli, Martell Palmer, Al Brower, 011ie Click and Dorothy Black - Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT Kirk Sager & Lee Graham STAFF PRESENT: Billie Sumrall & Scott Clark LEGAL COUNSEL Not present D. Black: We are now on the record G. Piercy: We will now... D. Black: Do you need to swear people in" G. Piercy: We will do that... the hearing that we are opening now is a continuance of the Comp. Plan amendments for 2001 and I think it will be apparent to everyone shortly why we had a little longer delay then we originally thought. Before I start we are going to go ahead and swear everyone in again just for fun. Unidentified: (inaudible) covered the first time. G. Piercy: Is there anybody who didp't swear In earlier... (several raised their hands) (laughter) O.K. Do you hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of Washington that the testimony that you give is truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief' Yes? Audience: Yes G. Piercy: Thank you. With that we will open the public hearing of Palmer, number 32, Martell Palmer land use designation :hange from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural. Freeway Commercial. B. Sumrall: I think there is some light bulbs burnt out in the... A. Brower: That thing is worthless... (laughter) G. Piercy: Al is back.. He has been sleeping o� er there for the first two hours. O. Click: No, he has been complaining about it. (laughter) B. Sumrall: Just to showy on the proximity of Mr. Palmer's property ... Oh, I'm sorry... 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - I - May I, 2002 D. Black: Billie you need the mic it is way to far away from you. B. Sumrall: Billie Sumrall, Grant County Planning, Mr. Palmers property is along the freeway and the County Road "0", right down in the corner here. there is a frontage road on the North side of the freeway and a frontage road on the South side of the freeway. City of Moses Lake is right here going towards Spokane. This is an aerial photo of the property itself which is this piece you see right here. This is County Road -0", the freeway interchange and the City of Moses Lake would be to the West. Mr. Palmer owns approximately 60 acres in portion of Section 33. Township 19... G. Piercy: Billie, I am going to have to interrupt you, we have a procedural issue that we need to address. I am sorry. We have a letter here from Mr. Nicholas Wallace. N. Wallace: Correct. G. Piercy: And I will read lust a short portion of it so that... let me see, Die County is hereby noticed that the appearance offairness doctrine will be violated if Mr. Piercv is allowed to participate in anv wit r on the Planning Conunission hearing for Mr. Palmer. I7ie Short Plar course on Local Planning put on by the AG office some weeks ago, Mr. Piercv told Mr. Palmer that he had already made up his mind and that he was voting against Mr Puhner ',y request. 34r. Sager told Mr. Palmer several weeks ago that lie also was voting against it. In other words, Mr. Piercv and Mr. Sager prejudiced Mr Palmer 's application. The County allows .... If the Countv allows these individuals to participate after they admittedly prejudge 11r. Palmer's application. the appearance doctrine will be violated. I guess I need to answer that. I disagree with the assertion that is made here. I think I told Mr. Palmer that I was uncomfortable with the situation. I have however in the past, we have had this hearing, we had this same hearing several years ago on the same piece of property, I did vote against it at that particular time and maybe that is where chat came from. We got a little bit of a problem here, we got five members and if I step down you have hearing that will come with no recommendation, because you have four members voting on the application. We can have the public hearing. if I step down there will be no decision made and then it will move to the t 'ounty Commisstoners. Mr. Wallace would you care to respond'? N. Wallace: Certainly. For the record Nick Wallace of Schultheis & Tablet representing Mr. Palmer. Mr. Hallstrom and I have spoken prior to the hearing tonight and it is our conclusion I believe and Steve will ,:orrect me if I am wrong, for purposes of the record, that if you were to recuse yourself that would not prejudice my client, Mr. Palmer from making an open record presentation in front of the County Commissioners. It is our position that is the best way of handling this matter. At least, that is my opinion that's the best way to handle this matter, in that it allows us to avoid the issues that I raised in my letter in that this group, particular yourself dont participate. If you don't participate then there is no appearance of fairness issue. So I guess our position is that we should not have a public hearing tonight, we should simple go directly to the Board of County Commissioners. But that is all predicated upon whatever it is you choose to do. If you choose to not recuse yourself, we will make a record and we will have a public hearing. If you choose to recuse yourself we will lust go straight to the County Commissioners. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - - May I, 2002 .1. G. Piercy: Well. we may.... We might do it differently even at that because we can hold a public hearing and it might be insirucnve for the members that are here to have at least a voice even though thev don't have a recommendation. So ah I will recuse myself and I will turn it over to Mr.. J. Fleming: Thanks a lot!! G. Piercy: Mr. thanks a lot... ( laughter) and you can decide whether you want to hold a public hearing. but there are people acre that have waited Z '/z hours to give testimony and so.... J. Fleming: It is my decision. G. Piercy: It is your decision. you can decide whether you hold the public hearing, because it is not... 1 mean it is stili worthwhile to hold the public hearing. W. Sahli: Sure it is. G. Piercy: Steve'? S. Hallstrom: Steve Hallstrom, if you hold a public hearing the testimony and evidence presented would be still be before the Board. If you don't hold a public hearing that evidence could be presented to the Board of County Commissioners when it comes before them. G. Piercy: It is like I guess if you guys want your voices heard. hold the public hearing. J. Fleming: You don't get to go home! G. Piercy: No I won't go home, I will come back... (laughter) J. Fleming: I guess it is my decision. Jim Fleming here. so I guess everybody knows that, I think it would be worthwhile to go ahead and hold a public hearing, get the testimony out, we can vote vea or na} and it is going to go to the County Commissioners without a recommendation anyway, just a bunch of us will hear what is going on. If it goes to the County Commissioners we have to take another day off and go listen to see „hat happen to. So, if that is O.K. Steve to do it that wav? S. Hallstrom: It is not illegal to do that. J. Fleming: O.K., if it is not illegal we will do it. I have done some things that are illegal but that isn't one of them. So go ahead Billie. Is this your wishes Wayne? W. Sahli: Yes, definitely. B. Sumrall: Ah Mr. Palmer owns approximately sixty acres in a portion of that section that I showed you along the Interstate of County Road "0" and I-90. The property presently is designated as Rural Urban Reserve and what that is a designation that was placed on a piece of property until a more appropriate use is established. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - May I, 2002 The changes consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in -!he Comprehensive Plan. The use of the property has always been vacant, but with close proximity of the interchange to Moses Lake. commercial development would be likely along the freeway. Mr. Palmer would like the opportunity to develop that land and feels this would be the highest and best use. He is asking the subject property be re -designated as Rural Freeway Commercial and that is all that I have at this point and time. Unless You have any questions'? J. Fleming: No I think we understand where it is B. Sumrall: O.K. J. Fleming: I guess ... B. Sumrall: We kinda have gone over these before.. . J. Fleming: Right, the proponent for Mr. Palmer' N. Wallace: Good evening, for the record again my name is Nick Wallace and I am with the law firm of Schultheis and Tabler right across the street here and I represent Martell Palmer. As Billie indicated Martell is seeking a site-specific land use re- designation for a parcel of property he owns. Specifically, he is seeking to go from Rural Urban Reserve, which Billie pointed out is a temporary holding zone to Rural Freeway Commercial. In addition to my comments and testimony this evening and my analysis you will hear testimony from Mr. Terry Brewer, of the Grant County Economic Development Council. Mr. Brewer is going to testify that the change of zoning on the parcel in question from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial will have a positive economic impact upon Grant County. In addition to Mr. Brewer I have some statements that have been written by local property owners in close proximity to the parcel in questions and I will take a moment to read those into the record and to suffice to say ail of those folks are in favor of the re -designation. What is critical to note in this case that the property in question is located adjacent to an interchange along Interstate 90? Moreover or in addition to there is Road "O" which Billie pointed out on the map which is to the east, properties adjacent to Road "O", which is a major corridor, major thoroughfare Wheeler Corridor and Interstate 90. To the South of the property is the Frontage Rd as well. All of those facts are critical as you will see in a moment when you start to examine what a Rural Freeway Commercial designation, where that is suppose to be utilized. To help you get a better understanding, to get a visual appreciation as to the property I have a couple of photographs here that I will put on the overhead. Exhibit #1, two photographs of the parcel The top photograph of the exhibit currently on the overhead is a picture taken from Mr. Palmer's property looking to the West, towards Moses Lake. I have the red beam on the access road is the Frontage Road to the left of the photograph and further to the left of the photograph you can observe I-90 and you can see the different colored asphalt down here as part of the repaving project. Please take note that there is a variety of industrial development going on to the west of Mr. Palmer's property. A variety of business down there including but not limited to 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 4 May I, 2002 Flodine. There is an eternal plant. United Rental. Basin Diesel and Hvdraulic Plus. Those are the businesses down in this area. These are approximately haff mile to a mile away from Mr. Palmers property The photograph on the bottom of the exhibit is yet again another photograph taken from Mr. Palmer's property. This time however, you are looking to the east on the far left hand side of the photograph you can see the ramps and Road O and over here in the extreme left hand corner a variety of construction equipment that is being used right now to improve the ramps in questions. Both the on ramps and the off ramps are being extended in length; again you have the frontage road you can see to the South and then 1-90 to the South. So this property the critical point being, this propem is located adjacent to right at. it straddled the I-90 interchange. D. Black: Thank you, they tivill be marked as exhibits. N. Wallace: In deciding whether to grant Mr. Palmers request the property to be rezoned from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial, the place to begin, to start is m the UDC's Specificaliv in 23.04 520 which describes the purpose of the Rural Freeway Commercial zone district. Exhibit #2 Copy from Grant Countv UDC 23.04.520 Again let the record reflect I have put an enlarged copy of 23.04.520 on the overhead. Just want to walk you through this because it is critical, it is very important in the context of what we are seeking. As set forth in the Grant County Code the purpose of the Rural Freeway Commercial zoning district is to provide for commercial facilities and uses outside of the Urban Growth Areas in the vicinity of interchanges and frontage and access roads of limited access highways, specifically Interstate 90. Lets walk through that at this point, kinda step by step. First of all, Mr. Palmer's property is outside of the Urban Growth Areas. So we have satisfied that condition or element of the Text. Second- and more importantly as evidenced by the pictures that you saw on the overhead and you are currently looking at. this property_ � is not only in the vicinity of an interchange and frontage or access road- it is adjacent to an interchange and frontage road and specifically Interstate 90 1 would submit to you that the property in question fits the purpose as articulated in Grant County Code to a "T„ As you analyze and make a decision whether or not to grant Mr. Palmers application you must consider a variety of criteria, again those criteria are set forth in the UDC and again I will put those up on the overhead for you so you (inaudible). In Grant County UDC Code 25 12.030 sub (IT) Exhibit #3 — copy of UDC 25.12.030 (H) The criteria for approval of a site specific land use re -designation which is what Mr. Palmer is seeking are set forth, and the overhead is not doing a good job of projecting those but there are nine of them. We will just go through them one at a time here. The first one. will the change that is being requested benefit the public health, safety and or welfare? I would submit to you that it will benefit 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 5 - May 1, 2002 Grant County both in an economic sense and In a general welfare sense to allow for this change. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan literally thousands of vehicles pass along 1-90 and many vehicles turn off of I-90 and onto Road O. Please note that in the Comp. Plan, in Grant Counties current Comprehensive Plan they make specifically mentioned that the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development commonly referred to DCTED estimates that visitors spend over a hundred and four million dollars each year in Grant County. However, Comp Plan goes on to say that Grant County has yet to make a full effort to capture all the dollars that are literally passing through Grant County on I-90 from all the travelers that are passing through. Reclassifying Mr. Palmers land from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial is simply an acknowledgement that the best use of this land is to allow Rural Freeway Commercial development to try and capture some of those dollars that are specifically identified by DCTED as being out there. What you must also know, what you must also consider is the data from the Washington State Department of Transportation which shows just how many trips, just how many vehicles are actually using the interchange in question and the roadway in question. In specifically I am referring to Road O Exhibit #4. DOT Annual Traffic Report This is hard to see I acknowledge because of a lack of a light bulb. This actually says at the top of this exhibit the average daily traffic volume. We read across this and this is the ,year 2000 in the furthest right hand column, average daily traffic volume is 8600 vehicles. Once again going to the idea or the notion that we have a significant amount of traffic volume there. At this point because we are dealing with that first criteria still, of general economic health and welfare, I want to turn the floor over to Terry Brewer and give him an opportunity just address directly the issue of the economic impact that approval of this project will have. D. Black: We need the document for exhibits that you showed on the overhead. N. Wallace: I am not done with them. D. Black: O.K., when you are done. T. Brewer: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Terry Brewer reside at 19797 Fairway Drive NW in Soap Lake. D. Black: And were you swum? T. Brewer: Yes, I was sworn in. D. Black: Thank you. T. Brewer: Speaking as the Executive Director of Grant County Economic Development Council with regard to the economic potential that we might see if a given property we have seen described here tonight were made available for development as a result of the change to Freeway Commercial type zoning. My 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - V - May 1, 2002 remarks are based on earlier conversations although not recent with the �. developers and owners of the type of facilities that we might expect to see on a site like that and I would further continent that in case of these kind of developments that I am going to describe, location. location, location is pretty darn important to the developers and the owners. It is not good enough just to have the zoning but it takes a good location to make it successful business and property such we have seen on the print. or screen here tonight is pretty good location. What we could normally expect to see on Freeway Commercial in an area like we have seen described here tonight would be on the order of a travel plaza, service center accommodating vehicles both automobiles and truck for refueling and other light maintenance type activates that one needs to have accommodations for when you traveling across the country. Restaurants, convenience store. serviceable items that people need to purchase when they are traveling, that sort of activity probably in a developed or in a facility that would be equivalent to five to seven million dollars worth of expenditure, Generating an estimating property tax for the community of 67 thousand up to 94 thousand dollars annually. We could also see a motel develop in the situation like that. Very often some of the larger travel plaza companies ingrate a motel on the same property, probably a facility in the order of three to five million dollars invested generating property taxes annual of 40 to 67 thousand dollars a year. If you were to see a travel plaza, restaurant. motel in a situation like this you will see annual sale of twenty to thirty million dollars, generating two to three thousand dollars of sales tax revenue to the local community. Normal employment between a restaurant, convenience store and a motel could add up to 95 to 150 fobs, annual payroll could reach as high as one half million dollars. The jobs are pretty important to us at the Economic Development Counsel. History of unemployment in Grant County in 1998 we averaged 9.3 % unemployment, in 1999 it was 9.5% unemployment, in the year 2000 it was 10.3% unemployment, it was a little better in 2001 it was only 10.1% unemployment, and so far in 2002 with three months reported it is averaging 12.3% unemployment. What that typically means is that there are between 3,500 and 4,500 people out of work in our County in any given month over the past four years. The medium household income in Grant County is $33,966 dollars in 2001 as compared to $50,689 in the State of Washington. Per capita personal income in Grant County is $19.424 dollars as compared to $30,380 in the State of Washington. My point is there are a lot of people that reside in Grant County that either don't have jobs or have seasonal jobs that don't allow them to earn a family living wage. We see the kind of development that could occur in Rural Freeway zone as being beneficial to our economy and to the many of the citizens who choose to take jobs there. Thank you N. Wallace: For purposes, two purposes, one keeping you guys awake I'm not going to turn the light out again and put the overhead of all the criteria up there again, two simply to move this thing along, because I know we have other people here who need to have their projects addressed. The second criteria when you are dealing with a proposal such as one submitted by Mr. Palmer, is the criteria is the change warranted because of change of circumstances or because of the need for 7.001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1 7 May 1, 2002 additional property in the proposed land use designation. We all need to understand that there is no property under the current Comp. Plan that is designated Rural Freeway Commercial. The Idea was when they set up the most recent version of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted as Billie pointed out. They put property such as this in some other holding zone and the idea was when the particular individual was ready to do some sort of development that they would literally step forward and grab the Rural Freeway Commercial zone and put it onto the property. So specifically with respect to the criteria is there a need for additional property? Well there isn't any so obviously the answer to that questions is ya there is a need for Rural Freeway Commercial property. Now in all candoor I have to be honest with you, I was here a month or 6 weeks ago making a similar request for another party and this Commission unanimously sent that up with a recommendation for approval. What we were seeking there again is the Rural Freeway Commercial designation for property that was located at an I-90 interchange out at Silica Road near the Gorge. So although that is pending, there is no Rural Freeway Commercial property under the current Comprehensive Plan. I think what is also important to note particular in what I have heard in the past from this Commission is a concern about pulling Ag ground out and re - designating it as something else. What each of you needs to understand that no Ag ground is being pulled out. This property is already been zoned Rural Urban Reserve, we are not taking Ag ground, prime Ag ground and converting it into Rural Freeway Commercial. We are wanting, requesting Rural Urban Reserve be converted to Rural Freeway Commercial. The Third criteria - is the change consistent with the criteria for land use designation specified in the Comprehensive Plan. Well briefly again, and you saw it earlier under the Grant County Code the property must be in the vicinity of I-90 and I-90 interchange and it is. It is not only in the vicinity it is adjacent to. It is outside the UGA. The Comprehensive Plan also make specific mention, the property has to be large enough in size to insure a high degree of visibility from I-90. Mr. Palmer's property is approximately 60 acres in size and I would submit to you, that allows for development sufficient in size to insure a high degree of visibility. We are not requesting you know a two acre parcel, or five acre parcel be rezoned Rural Freeway Commercial. The code also makes specific mention of the existence of Frontage Roads, we got a frontage road in this case and moreover Road O, which is a mayor thoroughfare. You also need to take in mind the type of uses that will be made if you grant the change are going to be localized in nature. They are not going to conflict with the rural character of the properties. Remember the pictures I showed you just west of this property along the Frontage Road there is all sorts of commercial development that is occurring and again Ms. Sumrall pointed that out in her comments as well. I guess the bottom line seems to me it is illogical to not utilize the millions of dollars that have been invested in that infrastructure, in those on ramps, in those off ramps, there intended use is to allow people to get off of I-90 and fill your place things in the vicinity of interchange which people are looking for, gas, food, lodging, just doesn't make any sense. The bottom line is the infrastructure, the investment should be utilized. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -8 - May 1, 2002 Criteria Four — the chance will not be detrimental: to uses or property in th immediate vicinity of the subject property. The change from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial is not going to be detrimental to the immediate vicinity again look directly to the west. you have Commercial Development going on. I would submit in fact that the change if you so choose would be beneficial to the surrounding property in the sense that what is allowed under Rural Urban Reserve, what Mr. Palmer can currently do has a greater degree of conflict then what he can do with Rural Freeway Commercial. Just give you two examples. under Rural I Irban Reserve he could place manufactured homes on the property, he could construct. residential duplexes, he could construct a kennel. he could construct a bed and breakfast, a daycare, a residential care facility. a resort and a church. In contract the Rural Freeway Commercial the allowed uses under the existing plan include auto service repair, convenience store, eating establishment. overnight lodging, again I will submit to you that the first set of uses that he currently is allowed under the code have more of a detrimental impact upon the surrounding properties than there would be under the changed Rural Freeway Commercial. Number five. Criteria number Live — the change has merit and value for the community as a whole. I'm not going io go into that because f have already made comments that go to that criteria Number six - the change if i*ranted will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges an opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justifies different designations. Well clearly in this case there are substantive differences. Mr. Palmers property is adjacent to the 1-90 interchange and thus we are consistent with that criteria. Number seven - the benefit of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change. One thing that you have to realize is that a change at this point from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial doesn't result in any adverse impacts. The adverse impacts are going to occur if at all when development of the property occurs and guess what? There is a process that you have to go through, i.e. Got to go through the Planning Department. you got to do SEPA analysts, you may have to get a Conditional Use Permit, those adverse impact are considered at a later point and time. I submit to you more generally that there aren't going to be any environmental or adverse impacts which changing from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freeway Commercial. Ali... Criteria Eight — the change is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirement of GCC 22,23,24 and 25. Again I have addressed all of those issues. The Ninth Criteria — The change complies with all applicable and standards in chapter 25.12. Again to address those. I guess my final comment would be you don't necessarily have to take my word for it that this project complies with and is consistent with all these criteria. Take a look at the Planning Department said in their staff report and I will just briefly reference that. On February 25, 2002 staff report from Billie Sumrall, she wrote as follows, 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments May 1, 2002 Comprehensive Plan - The change is consistent with he criteria for land use.... designations specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Grant Coutuv Code Titles 22,23. 24 and 25: and the proposed changes complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. I submit to you the Planning Department is the agency in Grant County that has the most expertise and the most knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan, the UDC and the criteria and whether or not various projects comply with those criteria. Bottom line is this one does. Earlier this evening, I believe it was in the DeLeon Long Plat I thought I heard. I know 1 heard Mr. Sahli say something to the effect of this plan meets all the criteria: we have to grant it we don't have any options. I believe Mr. Piercy said something to the same effect. If a proposal meets all the criteria there is nothing more for you to do other than to say ya I recommend that this be approved. Grant County Planning Department says it meets all the critena. I submit that all the evidence that we have submitted here indicates it meets all the criteria and thus if it meets all the criteria it needs to be approved. In closing what 1 wanted to do was to make part of the record the written statement that have been submitted by various neighbors and individuals. Very quickly read these into the record, the good hews is they are very brief. Exhibit #5. Letter from Joe Kimer To the Grant County Planning Commission From Joe Kimer Regarding the Martell Palmer rezoning I believe his would be an asset b_v creating more freeway commercial development. There would be a greater tax base and relieve some of the congestion off Kittelson and Him, 17. (am in support of Martell Palmers request for a rezone. Next letter Exhibit #6, Letter from Steve and Deanna Pryor To the Grant County Planning Commission From Steve and Deanna Pryor, who apparently own Basin Diesel Service, which is one of those industrial developments lust to the west of the property. We would like to make you aware we are in support of the palmer re -zone request. We reel it would be an asset to our business and surrounding area. From United Rentals Exhibit #7, Letter from United Rental Again, one of the businesses in the vicinity of Mr. Palmer's property. In specific from Chuck Sorger. We are in favor and support this action This would help local businesses in this area not to mention the added tax base. We are sorry to see the auto dealers not move out here and would like to see improvement of the local area. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 10 - May 1, 2002 From Carl Watts Exhibit #8, Letter from Carl Watts Dear Sirs Regarding the proposed commercial zoning of the plot of property proposed by Mr. Martell. 1. This property is in an appropriate location for commercial development. 2. Development of this property provides a tax base for Grant County 3. Job development for the area 4. 1 am convinced that the property owners have certain rights ofproperty disbursement within reason. 5. My address in 1812 Road O N. E. approximately 1 % miles fYom the proposed propern, development and 1 have nn objection to this venture. And lastly from Gene Pittser and fame I v Exhibit 49 Letter from Gene Pittser I Gene Pittser live on O road. It wouid be a benefit to me and nry family ifyou would rezone O road exit as Palmer has requested. D. Black: Thank you they will be marked as exhibits N. Wallace: As I mentioned earlier 1 was here about a month ago with a very similar project, property located adjacent to 1-90 at Silica Road. The facts are identical in this case in the sense that the property is adjacent to I-90 we have frontage road, we are not taking ground out of Agriculture. This is the highest and best use of this property. We have satisfied all of the criteria the recommendation from this body needs to be that the project or application be approved. Any questions? J. Fleming: Any Questions! No. N. Wallace: All right, I am going to... Mr. Palmer may have a few words to say. I would just reserve a few minutes for rebuttal. M. Palmer: 1 reserve my time also. J. Fleming: OK at this time I guess we will open the public hearing. Any one in the audience wish to speak for or against this proposal please come to the mic and state your concerns. R. Warrick: My name is Roy Warruck 1 live at 241 Rd O SE. D. Black: I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name R. Wamick: Roy Warrick D. Black: Thank you 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - I I - May I, 2002 R. Wamick: 241 Rd O SE. and I have been sworn in. D. Black: Thank You. R. Wamick: I live on Road O since 1975 and this land in questions is right in the irrigation district and I have always seen it irrigated as farm land. This request was denied back in 1999 by the Commissioners. I don't know where they came up with the Urban Rural Reserve terminology as it was, it has always been as I known Agriculture Irrigated Farm land. I object to this basically because of the fact it plain just isn't needed. Three miles west of Road O is the main exit or entrance into Moses Lake on Hwy 17 and you already have food, lodging and fuel establishments already present there. We have infrastructure already set up with new roads such as Kittelson Road extended through there which connects with Yonezawa Blvd and there is commercial ground already sitting there vacant. So why do we need to take irrigated farmland out in the country and make that commercial where just three miles into town we have infrastructure we have the land available for this. Also Hwy 17 is a main county highway leading into Moses Lake and the problem is if you have a development or rezoning out on this location here then that is going to create, or could create a tremendous potential for increase traffic on Road O which is a short cut from 17 to I-90. It is already utilized and it is just not set up to handle increased traffic when again I don't think it is necessary because three miles into town we already have the land and the infrastructure to handle this and speaking of these other business that were mentioned, dust to the west of Mr. Palmers land, I have never seen any irrigation on those business. It is un -irrigated farmland. where those businesses are established so that is not the case of the land we are talking about here, because it has irrigated farmland. So I don't want to take any more of your time, it has been a long night, so thank you. J. Fleming: Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak for or against? D. Robel: Ah, Thank you my name is Debbie Robel and I have been sworn in. My address is 15798 Rd 2 NE, Moses Lake. My husband and I farm 320 acres within 1 mile northeast of the proposed property. We are a second -generation farm family and hoping to be a third generation farm family and I always felt it is our responsibility as farmers to be good stewards of farm ground. Mr. Palmer's farm ground happens to be better then some of the farm ground we are farming. If his farm ground is taken out of Agricultural production in the long run and I am not talking about tomorrow, I am talking about a long time from now, the possibility of about 1000 families not being able to have a loaf of bread. We can do this mathematically if we have to. Farmable grounds acres are being swallowed up and someday this could be a real concern of ours. I did not realize that there had been a change in the entitlement or whatever it is called from Ag to what is being called now. He has mentioned that south or west of his property is business, but there is also four comers in that interchange and they are all farm acres and it would be a detriment to have the kind of zone change to this because we are farmers and I don't see that there is going to be a buffer zone between our farm ground and this proposed area. The traffic is already.... Truck traffic is already a little bit disagreeable on Road O, as Carnation. or Simplot's trucks are traveling to get to the highway and that there are several families that live directly on Road O. There are three bus stops there that would be affected with additional traffic. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - I? May I, 2002 We farm and you mention location. location. location this piece of propet�ty is within five miles of the potato plant. the sugar beet plant when it is working, ah wheat processing, bean plant location, location, location means a lot when you are trucking farm products to be processed. The Grant County Commissioners and you have all done a wonderful job in maintaining Agriculture businesses in our area and I really hope you don't change your mind and I realty hope you consider voting no for this proposal. Thank You. J. Fleming: Thank you. Next'? K. Counsell: I'm Karen Counsell. I live at 15188 Baseline Road East, Moses Lake and I have been swom in. My husband George and I farm in the southeast corner of that interchange and so we have known Mr Palmer and his family for several years. We have lived there since 1973 and our property has been in our family since the late 50ies. This field that Martell wants to get rezoned, that has been classified previously as prime farm ground. It is an excellent piece of ground to farm and I'm like the other people that spoke. I dont know when this was changed from Ag to Rural Urban Reserve. I dont Lnov, ho%� that happened because it is prime ground. As far as traffic. it is a real hazard out there on Road O now with slow moving farm equipment. ['he trucks go up and down Road O coming from the Wheeler Corridor going down to Hwv 17 down Road O and they are going o extremely fast. It is very dangerous on that road now and that is more trucks is certainly something we do not need out there. There are a lot of small children along that road and it is dust a matter of time before there is going to be a very serious accident. Yes, there is the development east or west of Mr. Palmers ground there but like Mrs. Robe[ said none of that ground is fatmable because it is all caliche down there. If they didn't take prime ground to make that commercial. Another problem that we have out there and it is real bad out there now is the litter problem. I know that Mr. Radach who farms directly across the road from this property I know for a fact that his hired hand picked up a full pick- up load of litter form his fields lust from over the winter. We fight litter constantly. People pull off of the freeway there and they dump their litter and it is not stuff that lust blows away. it is dirty diapers, its bottles of urine. They just dump it. A lot of time.... And those people are not just going to go into the rest... the truck stop there to use the iestrooms or whatever. A lot of people won't do that even with it right there So litter would be a real problem and it effects the selling of our crops. If we have glass in our potato crops they can turn our whole potato crop down. So it would be a very big financial loss to us and also to Mr. Radach and anyone else who farms along that road. If there bottles and cans in our alfalfa and that get bailed up the dairyman don't like that and they will quit buying from us. So there again we could suffer financial loss. Noise and pollution would be a very major concern we have the truck stop that is three miles west down the road and we have dined at Shari's Restaurant and especially on winter nights when there is an inversion in there and the trucks are sitting out there idling to keep warm the aroma and the pollution from the diesel is really bad. You wouldn't want to be there very long because it is very unhealthy and it is very bad. Not to mention the noise and this was all turned down once before and I just ask that it be turned down again. It is just not needed with all of the facilities just down the road just a few short miles. It may be a prime location for this type of business but we have also got that prime 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments t Mav 1, 2002 location just down the road with all those facilities already built and I know tax motels down there they are full on summer weekends, but there are a lot of times when they are not full during the week so there is always that possibility if they put a motel in and it doesn't make it then we have this shell of a building there and that is not good in an Ag community. We don't need that: we like to keep that area a farming area. Thank you for time. J. Fleming: Thank you, anyone else who would like to speak for or against the proposal? Anyone who would like to speak for or against the proposal? Last time. anyone would like to speak for or against? W. Sahli: I make a motion that the public hearing be closed. O. Click: I'll second. J. Fleming: Motion has been made and second that the public hearing be closed. All in favor say AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye 0 O. Click: Aye J. Fleming: O.K. group, Mr. Wallace'! N. Wallace: Thank you. What the opponents fail to recognize is that the horse is out of the barn. This isn't Agricultural ground any more. Grant County, you and the County Commissioners made a decision approximately a year and half, two years ago to take this ground and change it from Agriculture and change it to Rural Urban Reserve. I am not going to go through the laundry list of things Mr. Palmer can currently do. I told you what he could do under Rural Urban Reserve again I submit to you that all of those things should be more of a concern to the opponents then the uses he can make under Rural Freeway Commercial. I don't have any further comments at this time. J. Fleming: Thank you. M. Palmer: Martell Palmer D. Black: Address? M. Palmer: 14600 Rd 1 NE, Moses Lake D. Black: Were you sworn? M. Palmer: I was sworn D. Black: Thank you. M. Palmer: AW (laughter) This is kinda an awkward situation for Gwen and I where we have been concerned and working with and for Grant County. Gwen in the Commissioners office and I on the Commission for eight years. Yes we went 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1 14 May 1, 2002 through the ordeal of writing the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC book.—The County enlisted 30 some people as advisory board to give Denny Cearns and his company input. We had 12 meetings that I knew of cause I still have the notes that I took at the meetings and there were many more than the 12 meeting that I sat at. We gave Denny Cearns advice and counsel and true the Comprehensive Plan isn't fool proof and written 100% and changes ( inaudible). That is where the Comprehensive Plan and the rulebooks was made from. The public had an opportunity to come and put their input at that time, and they did. We have a good Comprehensive Plan and a good t IDC rulebook. This property is located along 1-90 it is a high point along I-90. Several years ago back in 1996 a person contacted me that would like to purchase that for a Freeway Commercial site for freeway service. I didn't go out and try and sell it, he owns a big (inaudible) and sites throughout the United States and he wanted it. He came to me and we did try it and it was turned down in 1997, but there is a lot of things that has happened since 97 and we have the opportunity now to come back before you and the County Commissioners and try and get this piece of property zoned Freeway Commercial. It is needed, the person who came to me and talk to me about it at that time owned 108 stations and complexes throughout the United States and operating and he had several others under construction. And who knows better then a person like that'? We have two other people that is concerned and looking at this piece of property besides the one who came to me first. It has good access, north. south. east and west. I don't know how Washington and the County could supply better road systems then we have at that site. At that specific time the State Department is redoing the freeway they are lengthening out the on ramp and the off ramp of exit 182 and making it more compatible for the traffic to get on and off. The County has a north frontage and south frontage road: O Road goes directly into Wheeler on the 4 -lane road going that way. There are over 9,000 cars that pass that point, an average per day. There is 1,000 cars or vehicles turns off on Road O per day, not by my count but by the State Department's count and Mr. Wallace showed you that. It is needed. I farm along that road and like Mrs. Counsell said there is a lot of trash. People pull off and relieve themselves: you know there isn't much modesty any more. There is junk clear along the road but a complex like this would help us as neighbors and farmers and everyone in that area to provide a place for them. As far as taking Ag ground out, the Counsell's and Schwab's took Ag ground out and put a tower on, lust one mile north of where I reside. It was still, it was zoned Ag and it is still zoned Ag. I can go through and name Warnick's, when Warnick was up here talking and they took.... They have several home sites on their farm. The people who come from the City and don't live on the farm and don't do anvthir:g on the farm, just living in the Country on Ag ground. So I feel that DOT is very interested in this to relieve the traffic. I have talked to them out of Wenatchee and Ephrata. as of as late as Monday. They are very excited about it to try and relieve the traffic congestion in on Kittelson Road, 17 and I-90. To relieve some of the traffic in there because of the hazards, they have lots of stoplights in there and they would like to see the congestion and some of the traffic stopped there. As far as the Ag ground and taking the water off of the Ag ground. if we take 10 acres out of irrigation it is reallocated back to the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 5 May I, 2002 Bureau of Reclamation and back to the East High Irrigation. We don't lose drat water it is allocated out to some place else along the East High Canal. So we don't loose any Ag ground at all by taking it out. At this time and Mr. Brewer can verify this. on the west side of my property Mr. Walker is trying to develop and sell land to an ethanol plant. And at this time there is a study going on through DOT, for the DOT for Dave (inaudible) in Spokane a traffic study and developing that. So the development that is coming to the east, Dave Sparks (inaudible)... 1997 rezoned 360 some acres for Dave Sparks down closer to Moses Lake Side B and they are starting to get their building permits right now. Next week they will probably start breaking ground down there. Discovery Ford, Mr. Sparks I was talking to him yesterday, they are going to come out that direction. So the business is moving out that way and you can go anywhere along any interstate in the United States and see where the business is located and it is along the interstate because it is highly visible and that is what this point is. Highly visible and it is a good area to have this type of (inaudible) in the area. Any questions? This is fun on this side of the table guys' (laughter) J. Fleming: I guess that is it and as everybody knows this is going to go to the Commissioners without a recommendation because there is just four of us here and are we going to make a motion and recommendation anyway? W. Sahli: Well, I think so. I'm... I think that is one of the purposes of Freeway Interchanges is for commercial uses, for people to stop and go through there so I guess I would like to make a motion for the land use designation change from Rural Urban Reserve to Rural Freewav Commercial. 0. Click: I'd second that. J. Fleming: Motion has been made and seconded anvone want to have a discussion? W. Sahli: Question J. Fleming: O.K. a question has been called for and I guess the motion was to approve Mr. Palmer's Comprehensive Plan amendment to.... I have to get my glasses working here... Rural Freeway Commercial from Rural Urban Reserve is that correct? W. Sahli: Ya J. Fleming: O.K. all in favor say aye W. Sahli: Aye O. Click: Aye J. Fleming: Opposed: A. Brower: Aye D. Black: How did you vote Jim? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - !6- May 1, 2002 J. Fleming: I didn't, but I will. I will vote for it. �. W. Sahli: You vote for it. J. Fleming: The County Commissioners will make the final decision on it. I thank everybody for coming and staying it is a late hour. but all... S. Clark: I will get Mr. Pierev and we can finish up the last few and we... D. Black: Can we take five minutes'? J. Fleming: We will take five gang. May 1, 2002 tape 1 side B D. Black: We are on G. Piercy: We are on, let me ask, go ahead Billie lets start with number 40 here Walter Stevens a land use designation change from Ag to Rural Residential, B. Sumrall: These will go really fast because you have already seen most of these before. A. Brower: That didn't make anv difference on the last one! (laughter) B. Sumrall: This is County Road 20. D. Black: I cant hear you over the machine, you speak to softly! B. Sumrall: I'm not quiet in the office. Soap Lake would be to the west of this property and this is county Road 20 along... agoing east and west. Last amendment cycle you changed this parcel right here for Juanita Longacre I believe. Mr. Stephens parcel is this piece right here. Basically when Mr. Stephens brought the parcel before the Board of Equalization for reevaluation of the tax assessment it was determined that the land could not be classified as grazing land and they determine the site to be rock piles unable to be classified as pasture of any kind and it cannot be grazed. He is asking that the property be re -designated under the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Residential 1 or 2. The area to the North of them has been alreadv been platted and approved and the parcels of land in that areas are land from one to forty acres in size. During the 2001 amendment cycle that adjacent property to the west was changed to Rural Residential I and basically that is all I have. G. Piercy: O.K. I think we know what we are doing. For the record Martell and I are back, we arm -wrestled and we are back. M. Palmer: We are half way anyway. G. Piercy: He won! (laughter) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 17 May 1. 2002 G. Piercy: O.K. let me see 0. Click: Billie can I see that map, please? Oh there is ,ome up there. A. Brower: You can't see by that thing. B. Sumrall: No A. Brower: No good, NG. M. Palmer: We just paid our taxes why don't we get a new one with the tax money. G. Piercy: It is already spent! Doesn't you wife tell you anything? (laughter) M. Palmer: All this new decoration (laughter) G. Plerey: Rural Residential did they make a designation I Is it Rural Residential on this particular one S. Clark: I'm sorry what are you asking? G. Piercy: Did they make a designation... oh (several people speaking at one time) what do they want to do'? S. Clark: There is a request for RRA or RR -2, correct') B. Sumrall: This Mrs. Longacre which is the adjacent to him, this is Mr. Stephens parcel here and Mrs. Longacre here and you changed hers to RR -2. G. Piercy: RR -2, O.K. we have a proponent, I guess that is the next thing we need. Mr. Stephens. W. Stephens: Walter Stephens, 3171 Rd 20 NE, and I have been sworn in and I am just asking do you want to give me five minutes or fifty minutes"? G. Piercy: Two. Time is up!! (laughter) W. Stephens: Well, I am just asking what the time... So I can change this property into Rural Residential -2. G. Piercy: Two? W. Stephens: I think so. G. Piercy: OX..... O.K. the public hearing is now open for anyone who would like to comment for or against this proposal please come to the microphone, Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? M. Palmer: I move that the public hearing be closed. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - I & - May 1, 2002 J. Fleming: Second. G. Piercv: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye M. Palmer: Aye O. Click: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Just hold it up S. Clark: Are you ready for the next one. G. Piercy: I think we are going to make a decision on this one right now. S. Clark: Som I thought you had. 1 %%as u-vin2 'o 2Cl mrough (lots of laughter) G. Piercy: Well we are not that fast!!!! Man.... i lots of laughter) There has been no movement up here 1 haven't gotten a motion Net. S. Clark: I'm sorry. A. Brower: Who was next door that we.... B. Sumrall: Juanita Longacre. A. Brower: I don't remember doine that G. Piercy: That was a year ago.. B. Sumrall: Yes A. Brower: No wonder I don't remember (laughter) G. Piercy: It could have been last week and you would have had the same comment, no wonder I don't remember. A. Brower: I remember doing something with that. S. Clark: You may also remember the preliminary plat that come through after that amendment was completed. There have been several actions they have taken since then. O. Click: What is the minimum lot size on 2? S. Clark: Right now it is one unit per five acres maximum density. Lot sizes can vary G. Piercy: I need a motion.... I need a motion. (laughter) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments . ; 9 - May 1, 2002 O. Click: I know that feeling. I move that it be approved. W. Sahli: I'll second it. G. Piercy: We have a motion to approve with a second. discussion? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. The motion before us is a land use designation change from Agriculture to Rural Residential -2 All in favor signify by saying Aye J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye O. Click: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: I assume that was unanimous. Are there Findings of Fact? D. Black: They use to be one through nine. G. Piercy: The recommendation one through nine that will work. Thanks. Then we will go to the Daniel Nielson number 31. A land use designation change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial. B. Sumrall: We are going to do 31 & 48 together. G. Piercy: You are? B. Sumrall: Because Mr. Nielson is in 48. Several parties: Huh? B. Sumrall: The County made an application and Mr. Nielsen make an application and Mr. Nielson happens to be in our application. G. Piercy: O.K., we trust you. S. Clark: And perhaps dust for clarity we will want to make a decision individually just so the record is clear. G. Piercy: We will do that. S. Clark: This will work. M. Palmer: That is the best one tonight B. Surnrall: Ya... This is the Town of Coulee City, the highway going northeast to Grand Coulee. There is an area just to the outside of Coulee City called Hollywood 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - ?n . May I, 2002 Manor and what it is is an old unrecorded plat and is divided into very small lots. Mr. Nielson come in and asked for the individual parcel land adjacent to this highway be changed to Commercial and this area to the north that you see here inside this black line is Commercial. It is inside the Urban Growth Area for the Town of Coulee City. Under the old zoning this area was also zoned Commercial, but when the maps were made for the Town of Coulee City that was not designated. So what we would like to do would be to make the zoning within this green area consistent with the commercial to the north of it and change Mr. Nielson's parcel as well as these other parcels all to commercial to be compatible with the zoning. G. Piercy: And this is jointly done by Grant County and Mr. Nielson'? B. Sumrall: Mr. Nielson has a separate application yes. but it is within the County application. G. Piercy: 0. K. S. Clark: The Counties proposal is broadei and :_ncorrpasscs his area. G. Piercy: O.K. B. Sumrall: Mr. Nielson has a representative here tonight. G. Piercy: If the proponent would like to come torward. L. Nielson: (inaudible) D. Black: I am sorry i cant hear you L. Nielson: Lyn Nielson, P.O. Box 1654 Soap Lake and I have been sworn in and I will be very brief. This is... I am not a drafter. this is not in CAD and this is not to scale, but I just wanted to show a little bit of the existing business that are already on Highway 2. Here is our property and wouldn't name them to save time, unless you want me to. But Billie really summed it up well what we are doing. So I don't really think I need to say anything more. except we would like to contribute business wise on that Highway. Do you have any questions for me? O. Click: Those letters are pretty small could %ou read them off for me please, Lyn? L. Nielson: Sure O. Click: Where the businesses are. L. Nielson: Oh, ya I was going to read them..... those were not meant for you to be able to read. This is the Cenex Station, this is a kinda conglomeration of Stuff, antiques I guess, Big Wally's Texaco, Ala Cozy Motel. Coulee City Storage and Ceramics, Western Farm Service, Odessa Trading Company, Prathers Welding and like I say it is not to scale. This is probable the spacing that would apply out here but I ran out of paper. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 21 - May t, 1.002 Exhibit #1, map of business on Hwv O. Click: And the rectangle is your property? L. Nielson: Ya, not to scale but I put it where it sits, in very close proximity across the street from Bie Wally's. That is all I have unless. . G. Piercy: O.K. Thank you. Ali your wife is going.. no, she is going to turn the light on. We are not going to open the public hearing on this land use action. Anyone who would like to speak for against this. Last call, anyone who would like to speak for or against this. W. Sahli: I make a motion that this public hearing he closed. J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearmu be closed. All in favor signify by saying Ave J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye O. Click: Aye M. Palmer: Aye W. Sahli: I would like to make a motion on the Damei Nielsen, Coulee City proposal to change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that on the Daniel Nielsen matter the land use designation change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial be made. Question no l mean discussion... (laughter ) It is getting late.... M. Palmer: Question G. Piercy: Uh... I heard him say it he said question' The motion before us is a land use designation change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial, all in favor signify by saying Ave J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye O. Click: Aye G. Piercy: The same motion for 48? D. Black: Did Al vote? I didn't know if he voted for or against it. W. Sahli: He is still asleep... 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 22 - May 1, 2002 w. J. Fleming: He is numb... How do you spell that a -d- or an "n" (laughter)? D. Black: Motion? G. Piercy: We need a motion on number 48 O. Click: So moved. G. Piercy: O.K. do we have a second'? J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion before us for a land use designation change from Urban to Commercial, discussion'? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. The motion before us is a land use designation change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial. all in favor signify by saying Ave W. Sahli: Aye J. Fleming: Aye A. Brower: Aye O. Click: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: He is getting stronger over there on the end. He is making a comeback! D. Black: We need findings on both of those G. Piercy: We need findings on both of those, O K. One through nine on both of them, is that right! W. Sahli: Ya G. Piercy: O.K. that will work. Number 16, Richard DeJean, Crab Creek, east of Beverly, land use destination change from Open Space Commercial to Ag and Commercial Recreation. W. Sahli: Matter that boat lake boat or whatever'I B. Sumrall: Mr. DeJean's property, this being the town site of Schawana, Beverly. This proposed site is right along Crab Creek right here. He asked for as Gary said Agriculture Commercial Recreation and Open Space Recreation. I contacted Mr. DeJean several times and indicated to him that he should in accordance with our regulations pick one zone. I never heard back from him. I have not heard back from him within the last two or three months. The uses that he would like to put the property to are allowed within the zoning he has under a Small Scale 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - '_3 - May I, 2002 J. Fleming: He is numb... How do you spell that a -d- or an "n" (laughter)? D. Black: Motion'? G. Piercy: We need a motion on number 48 O. Click: So moved. G. Piercy: O.K. do we have a second'? J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion before us for a land use designation change from Urban to Commercial. discussion? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. The motion before us is a land use designation change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial, all in favor signify by saying Aye W. Sahli: Aye J. Fleming: Aye A. Brower: Aye O. Click: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: He is getting stronger over there on the end. He is making a comeback! D. Black: We need findings on both of those G. Piercy: We need findings on both of those. O K. One through nine on both of them, is that right? W. Sahli: Ya G. Piercy: O.K. that will work. Number 16, Richard DeJean, Crab Creek, east of Beverly, land use destination change from Open Space Commercial to Ag and Commercial Recreation. W. Sahli: Matter that boat lake boat or whatever? B. Sumrall: Mr. DeJean's property, this being the town site of Schawana, Beverly. This proposed site is right along Crab Creek right here. He asked for as Gary said Agriculture Commercial Recreation and Open Space Recreation. I contacted Mr. DeJean several times and indicated to him that he should in accordance with our regulations pick one zone. I never heard back from him. I have not heard back from him within the last two or three months. The uses that he would like to put the property to are allowed within the zoning he has under a Small Scale 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - .'3 - Mav 1, 2002 J. Fleming: I move the public hearing be closed (Several members speaking at one time) W. Sahli: G. Piercy: J. Fleming: W. Sahli: A. Brower: M. Palmer: O. Click: G. Piercy: W. Sahli: A. Brower: G. Piercy: J. Fleming: G. Piercy: Second it. Jim. It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye Ave Aye Aye Aye Make a motion. quick I make a motion to denv the change. Second It has been moved and seconded to dem denial of a land use change, discussion? Question The motion we have before us is a Question has been called for. The motion that we are voting on is to deny a land use designation change from Open Space Commercial to whatever something that he wanted. All in favor signify by saying Aye. J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye O. Click: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: B. Sumrall G. Piercy: That will move forward with a recommendation that it not be approved. Richard Penhallurick. Moses Lake land use designation change.... 36 from UR -3 to UR -2 B. Sumrall: Mr. Penhallurick owns property down in Cascade Valley as you come down off of the hill and the lower portion of Cascade Valley. (Inaudible) he is on the west side and he thought the density was too great. Most of the parcels down there are one acre in size which would allow him etght to sixteen units per acre, dwelling units per acre and he would like the UR -2 to change it to a lesser of a density to be more compatible with the surrounding property that has been developed. Same zone just one classification less dense. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 'S - May 1, 2002 G. Piercy: We can do this! We will open the public hearing. Last call. anybody who would like to speak for or against this proposal. A. Brower: (inaudible) the public hearing. J. Flemme: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing, all in favor signify by saying Ave J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye O. Click: Aye G. Piercy: Motion'? J. Fleming: Approve it. G. Piercy: Approve. We have a motion by Mr Fleming to approve and a second by A. Brower: Second G. Piercy: Mr. Brower, discussion. J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. The motion we are voting for is a land use designation change from UR -3 to t IR -2 All in favor signify by saying Aye. J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye O. Click: Aye G. Piercy: That will move forward with a recommendation. findings one through nine, right D. Black: Yes. G. Piercy: 32 has been done, City of Soap Lake number 37. Map change showing added Industrial area as a result of Growth Management Hearings Board recommendation and changing boundaries for City Limits. B. Sumrall: I think probably the easiest for you to do would be to look on your map in the books. G. Piercy: This was something that you negotiated with the City of Soap Lake. B. Sumrall: Actually it came from the Growth Management Hearings Board. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 2e, - May 1, 2002 A. Brower: We will deny it then! (laughter) B. Sumrall: That (inaudible) S. Clark: CTED, said that. CTED make that suggestion to the City of Soap Lake that when they had done their Comprehensive Planning that they hadn't included any industrial lands in their plan. G. Piercy: They tried to annex the whole damn County in the Port District thing!! S. Clark: Ya, in the Port District. um but in their Comprehensive Plan land use designation they failed to identify any industrial lands so on their recommendation the Cities made this application to identify what actually previously was industrial and they decided to rededicated it aeam. G. Piercy: Simple as that. O.K. You didn't see anv problems Billie when you reviewed this one'? B. Sumrall: I'm sorry. G. Piercy: You didn't see any problems with this" B. Sumrall: No. it basically followed the proposal that (inaudible) A. Brower: Which one of these maps... G. Piercy: Where does this land lay? B. Sumrall: (inaudible) several members speaking at one time - We are having trouble figuring out what is going on. A. Brower: Too many maps!! S. Clark: I waslust kmda discussing that with Billie. I think in addition to the Industrial designation they also through there review and identified the corporate limits hadn't been appropriated or accurately defined in the mapping. I think what they gave us was inaccurate and that was what we used initially as a template to draw our map. They have since found some areas that I believe that they had annexed or had not actually annexed as it had been shown on the map and they simply made the correction. A. Brower: Didn't we deal with something like that last time'? Corporate limit thing? J. Fleming: They are not trying to get into Lakeview' G. Piercy: Well they got Lakeview in this one. J. Fleming: Ya, Lakeview is right in this one. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 27 May t, 2002 S. Clark: Well. that Lakeview park is Indicated there but it is outside the Urban Growth Area that we all Lakeview Park is now included in the Urban Growth Area at this time. Now that is a separate issue and one that is an ongoing issue before the Growth Management Hearings Board and that is yet unresolved. But that has nothing to do with this particular request. They are dealing with what we have identified in the Urban Growth Area. O. Click: Scott, with what they have as designated Industrial is that little piece that lies just north of Road 20. is that it? Is that all they are putting in? S. Clark: Just that. That's the same site that historically had been zoned Industrial and for whatever reason through their process they decided they wanted to change it and now they have changed their mind again So . G. Piercy: So which O. Click: This piece right here in the corner G. Piercy: That little piece down there. B. Sumrall: The map... this is the map that is the one It has all of them on.... S. Clark: Ya, but I don't think this whole thing has been iinaudible) G. Piercy: You are talking about the piece on the very last page in our book`.' S. Clark: Ya, that showed hatched and says Industrial in the legion. I think that is what it is and Billie you have it highlighted there. G. Piercy: So that is the only action we are going to take is just that one small area. S. Clark: Right and as I am looking through this there are many hatched...I think A. Brower: Well. can't you guys work it out. cant you' We can approve it and... G. Piercy: Well, the problem I have is on this piece of paper there is two things it seems to me we are doing. A map change to add an Industrial area as a result of and changing boundaries for City Limits. S. Clark: Right, I believe that is correct, Yes and there may be multiple spots but again it is where it was incorrect mapping or representation of the City of Soap Lake. G. Piercy: On the Counties part S. Clark: No, it was originally from the City but it was identified through the County record keeping. The Grant County Assessor maintains those records and annexations. G. Piercy: So on this piece of paper right here I'm showing three areas that they want changed for their city boundaries. Is that right? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 73 - May 1, 2002 S. Clark: Yes �. G. Piercy: We have the ones with arrows, all the ones with arrows they want changed. J. Fleming: We did act on this one! G. Piercy: O.K. then on the last page then you have the one with the real small industrial area that is the land use (several peopic speaking at one time) G. Piercy: We just want to make sure we know x� hat we are doing. We didn't want them to annex all of Ephrata into Soap Lake.. O. Click: This does annex all of Lakeview Park '.hen' S. Clark: No it does not. O. Click: It looks like the City limits go that.. . S. Clark: I'm sorry_ we dont have a better man nut it definitely is out. I don't have a better map for you. G. Piercy: I think actually all of Lakeview park is underneath where it says Map A. S. Clark: Do you see where that big square is and on two sides of it, that is the side? A. Brower: Can't we call this a mapping change and let 'you guys take care of it. G. Piercy: Ya, this would overlay right here. S. Clark: Well, perhaps the portions technically with regard to the corporate limits, yes, but their request to change the land use designation. no. That is something that needs to go through the process and they threw it all in the bag, so you would have it all in one package. G. Piercy: O.K. S. Clark: They decided to do that. I didn't. I think you are right Al on the corporate limit stuff. J. Fleming: Are you going to open the public meeting stuff so I can close'? G. Piercy: - Oh, O.K. we are going to open the public meeting on this matter. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal... I knew you did, 1 knew you did. (laughter) J. Fleming: Have you been sworn at'? I move that the public hearing be closed. W. Sahli: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed, all in favor signify by saying Aye. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 29 - May 1, 2002 J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye O. Click: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: O.K. Motion'? A. Brower: Scott is going to take care of it. M. Palmer: We are just going to act on this one' A. Brower: Well there is two in one. J. Fleming: Ya. G. Piercy: Two separate thmgs we are doing here. changing the boundaries and adding the Industrial area. So that is what we need n motion for. A. Brower: I make a motion that we do both of those G. Piercy: OK, we have a motion and a second, discussion on the motion. J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for the motion that we have before us is a map change showing added Industrial area and changing the boundaries for the City limits of Soap Lake. All in favor signify by saying ,Aye J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye O. Click: Maps are not clear enough to show me where they at G. Piercy: We have a dissenter here. He is right. O. Click: The maps are not clear enough G. Piercy: They are not clear enough. So this moves without a recommendation. The County Commissioners with hopefully have a little more light when they take it up. A. Brower: They will get it fixed. G. Piercy: Move on to number 21, the last one, Historic Plats Issue, how important is this. S. Clark: Very important to the Board of County Commissioners. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - to - May 1, 2002 G. Piercy: Oh. O.K. S. Clark: And I think probably to the citizenry of Grant County. B. Sumrall: Historic Plats are those that were platted prior to the enactment of the State Platting Code in 1969. What basically this is is the verbiage that you see behind the regular (inaudible) is in the regular Comprehensive Plan as it appears right now and D. Black: Billie can you speak a little closer to the mic. O.K. B. Sumrall: And what the Commissioners wanted to do was to change it to where Plats that have a certain amount of development or money expended to develop the plat such as roads or water systems or sewer system, that they would be considered a Historic Plat and would not be required to go back and develop to the standards that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan but be recognized as Plats that had a standing. G. Piercy: Is there a date that we are gomg hack to" I heard 1969? J. Fleming: Prior to 1969 S. Clark: Exactly G. Piercy: Prior to 1969 S. Clark: Right that is when the Planning Enabling Act came into effect so it is in reference to that very fact. We have a number of.. we have many plats actually in this County that actually fit that description. G. Piercy: So you are proposing that the.... B. Sumrall: that they be recognized as Historic Plats and not be required to come back in and plat over again under the current regulation. That they be allowed to exist .... such as to the dad or.. G. Piercy: So this brings to mind Wheeler as an example, we have had some of those come before us where they have those really small lots and they have had problems getting building permits. So would this change. B. Sumrall: This would change and as long as thev had enough room to put a septic tank and a well they would no longer have to come before the Planning Commission or the Board of Adjustment for a Variance to develop those home sites. G. Piercy: Those lots. But that just can't happen in Wheeler because some of those lots are so small they would never meet the criteria. O. Click: Well Wheeler is all zoned Industrial anvhow isn't it? S. Clark: No. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - • 1 - May 1, 2002 A. Brower: No. O. Click: Oh ya it is a mess. J. Fleming: Now do they get... What is Wheeler zoned? S. Clark: Now let me add something, actually B. Sumrall: Wheeler is a town site though. S. Clark: No it is not, it is an unincorporated, it is a historic town site, it is not an incorporated place. Originally when the thing, the Comprehensive Plan was land use designation was adopted and subsequently the zoning it was identified as Industrial and if you will recall back in 2000 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle it was addressed and it was changed- But I am sorry I can't tell you where it is I don't remember now what that was changed to. G. Piercy: I was just trying to get a reference point. Some of those lots are so small they would never meet the criteria for septic tanks or setbacks or anything. S. Clark: That is correct and actually I think you ate right. fhe Health District is not going to approve something, I mean they still have to meet the other jurisdictional approvals. Whether or not they can that ;. G. Piercy: So you just want to go back and restore any of the problems that we have had with the new Comprehensive Plan with I hstoric Plats. S. Clark: Let me add a little bit to this, because 1 don't thank everything is here that needs to be out in front of you for this issue. When we adopted the regulations a figure of 50% was recognized. When the historic plats have 50% or more development then they are recognized and development is allowed to take place. If they can meet all those other jurisdictional approvals. So that figure was picked earlier in the process. The Board of County Commissioners is asking for now is saying gee we don't know if really that 50% is the right number and perhaps then their suggestion may be to consider a range. say 25 to 50% and if it falls into that then we can recognize them in the same fashion that we were previously cutting it off at 50%. So if we find a historic plat where it is 50% historically developed we go ahead and process the applications. If they are less then 50% then they are required to go through alternative options. which often mean perhaps they have to do subdivision or consolidation of multiple lots to try to create or meet the density requirements. I am speaking a 1 tttle bit from memory but I think there suggestion was 25 to 50%. G. Piercy: I am finding that here on the last page that is what it looks like to me on the last page of this they put 25% to 50% S. Clark: Oh, there it is O.K. G. Piercy: Ya, so that is what they would like it changed to. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 32 - May 1, 2002 S. Clark: They would like it changed to that range as opposed to a fixed 50%. Thatavould give the opportunity for landowners to develop in those historic plats within that range. That is it. sorry I am done A. Brower: I'm dead! G. Piercy: O.K., so that is basically what we have before us, then we are gonna vote on changing this historic plat issue of those plats that existed prior to 1969 and will recognize them if the developed from 25 to 50% we will recognize them as short plats. S. Clark: that the proposal. G. Piercy: That is what we have before us S. Clark: Yes G. Piercy: We will open the public hearing J. Fleming: Question. what is the difference bemcen �On'o and 25 to 50% why don't we just go to 25%? Several members speaking at one time A Palmer: 50 they will go ahead and develop it but if it goes down to 25% they use some other criteria? S. Clark: No actually... O. Click: Jim is right 25 to 100% what difference. G. Piercy: Ya there is no sense having both of those numbers in there. S. Clark: Ya, I can't explain why that was written that way. That was what the Board originally suggested 1 don't know if that %% as explored. but I under stand your point and 1 think you are right. J. Fleming: The way this is written if you have 5�,°/� you are out. S. Clark: Yup G. Piercy: OX, so we have opened and closed the public hearing and Jim has just made a motion that we recognize historic plats which are anything over 25% developed they are recognizes as Historic Plat. That is his motion J. Fleming: Yes G. Piercy: And we have a second. A Palmer: Second. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendmenis 1 0 - May 1, 2002 G. Piercy: J. FlemmQ: G. Piercv: A. Brower: W. Sahli: G. Piercy: And we have discussion. we alreadv had that. Question So now we are going to vote on it. Fhe motion we have before us is to recognize Historic Plats prior to 1969 if they are 25", developed or more. All in favor. Is that in land volume or parcel? Historical Site land he got new life, what did you take somethmt; over there? (laughter) A. Brower: I just asked a question! G. Piercy: For the sake of discussion we will go with lots, not size dust lots. S. Clark: That is how we read it, it is the number of lots developed. 25910 or more. What it effectively does it reduced the standard it, allow ereater flexibility O. Click: For example in Trinidad where they took fine or six lots that would count. S. Clark: If they are consolidated they are one lot. f they are multiples they are going to count for however many they are. O. Click: Ya. but they had to be consolidate to meet the (inaudible) S. Clark: Ya, more recently true. historically there has been other stuff done, but... G. Piercy: So that's... we have a motion before us and we have a question and we understand the motion, everyone. all in favor signify by saying Aye, J. Fleming: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye O. Click: Aye J. Fleming: That will move on M. Palmer: Scott what is this letter? J. Fleming: And we are adjourned and we are done with the Comprehensive Plan 2001. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - ,J . May 1, 2002 23.04.520 Rural Freeway Commercial (RFC) (a) Purpose: The purpose of the Rural Freeway Commercial (RFC) zoning district is to provide for commercial facilities and uses outside of Urban Growth Areas in the vicinity of interchanges and frontage and access roads of limited access highways, specifically Interstate 90. This zoning district provides facilities and services to accommodate conventions, tourists, local populations, and provide the traveling public with necessary goods and services. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 =V"hibit f 75 -ile f � tl - Date, (ii) A change in circumstances beyond the control of the landowner pertaining to Ike subject property. (iii) An error in initial designation. (iv) New information on resource land or critical area status. (3) A petition for a site-specific land use redesignation shall include, at a minimum, all of the requirements for a policy amendment, plus the following additions: (A) Historic use of the property and adjoining land: (B) Population density of the surrounding area; (C) Existing soil and sewage disposal conditions; (D) Description of existing water availability; (E) Description of the land's suitability for agricultural purpose; (F) Known archaeological or cultural resources located on the property; (G) Known critical areas located on the property; (H) Availability of existing public services and utilities; and (I) Names of abutting property owners. If the proposed amendment applies to a specific number of parcels which are in readily identifiable ownership and is in conjunction with an identifiable development proposal, then the petitioner shall pay a fee with the petition as prescribed by the approved fee schedule as now or hereafter amended. (h) Criteria for Approval of Site-specific Land Use Redesignation. A petition for a site-specific land use redesignation will be reviewed by the reviewing authority for conformance with pertinent provisions of the comprehensive plan and development regulations. In reviewing the petition, the reviewing authority shall consider testimony provided at any public hearing and recommendations provided by interested and affected agencies and jurisdictions. The reviewing authority may approve or approve with conditions an application for a change of designation or density of property if all of the following criteria are met: (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 has merit and value for the community as a whole; (6) 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 justifies 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 Titles 22, 23, 24 and 25; and (9) The change complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this Chapter. (i) Concomitant Agreement. The County is specifically authorized to require that the applicant enter in to a concomitant agreement with the County as a condition of any site-specific land use designation change. Through that agreement, the County may impose development conditions designed to mitigate potential impacts of the use or development that may occur as a result of such change. 0) Appeals. Appeals of any decision regarding comprehensive plan amendments shall be in accordance Chapter 25.12 7 October 1, 2000 W F C) O a W F a O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o O o O O o O o O O O O O O O F 61 01 01 Q1 O� O� 0. O Q1 01 O a\ O\ 0. P 0 01 01 0 0 01 m m ,_ O O 0 O 0 O O O O O coo O O L4 I m N t E O O O O O O O O O O O F W O O O O O O rn m O C O _ O r N rl O O O O C O O Z U C) a p w U a �k 4 I �J T i m m « + - + • R U tt O O O o O o o O o O O o 0 0 0 o P m m O O o O O O O F �..� q I � 01 In P P ^I Q1 N t'1 'J C •'1 N N O\ (� m P P [A P P P a W I Z O C7 I O 1 W I 7 m P (•1 P � rel 'Y � 01 01 O rl �� .'l O1 r m C M P (l C Q m V1 I • + a_ Z E N N N N O V1 O w E F a < a W F F O w N a U a tt E z w m N F M ❑ F U W F O a O W o F Z In rn r e FF (Z N E F m F a+ U U m .n .n In .n In In ul .n vv In .n N n u� ,n ,r In In �i In In v� In u� ✓1 In a r Z a W ❑ F O F w I a z a � rl F a O x rn u) tt w — a 3 ❑ ❑ w w � a a x z a W O ❑ W n a a M a w a S N o O a u m F O cn ❑ tt It1 O Go 0. a M O O O Ir O .+ m Z H 0 F U m O w a m .y .-+ Z w r r tt O d O r = N O N m m 0) O M F IT za W Z 01 m z N N N £ i 0 Z Z z S O w 0 a a s O a O a tt y a o a a a a m a a z o x a m tt m a m E 3 C7 E 0 W m F m m h a❑ F ❑ F h m W G. z It a a o. a a a d It E- a w ad da N as as a a0 ° a5 U U U U w w w w U U W W W Oa Q w w 4 w w w¢ w o w w w w w 0 0 0 Q w Q Gal o w 0 w w 0 F E F F F F F W W E[� E W FC. I F F W w W F W F W W w W W w a a a a a a a a a m a a a a a m m m a a a a m a m a a m F E W F C) O a W F a O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o O o O O o O o O O O O O O O F 61 01 01 Q1 O� O� 0. O Q1 01 O a\ O\ 0. P 0 01 01 0 0 01 m m ,_ O O 0 O 0 O O O O O coo O O w.a MAY 1, 2002 Exhibit 9„ File d -A Date ' TO: GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. FROM: STEVE AND DEANNA PRYOR LOCATED AT: BASIN DIESEL SERVICE 12976 N. FRONTAGE RD F MOSES LAKE, WA. REGARDING: THE MARTELL PALMER RE -ZONING FROM RUAL URBAN RESERVE TO FREEWAY COMMERCIAL. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PALMER RE -ZONE REQUEST. WE FEEL IT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO OUR BUSINESS AND SURROUNDING AREA THANK YOU Uniter'C3- ��.�. Rental, :�= _,,.,� The Right Equipment. w' 4y. / - 2002- �D' ijR-aNr Co v.✓i����pNni�..;(� �_'•�r,H�s_��J.1 (J,✓ i rt;--� � � iv to � 5 l �5� iJ• 17i0N7 A%,Lpp JZ9 1\13-(�4a%)! j %HE /-1 AR rt LL 14LM c -p --_ C Ly,.J,'�y ! OM -- - r2 L t wA / ( O rl rf c P- C /.9 L. R J. A t- V (L &,4.,j I\ 1: 5 t-iz v c:----rp— W i ARC- I nl Acnor.i. IMis try �•1 /-ticZ%� Ducar CJ ✓Sr�/rSsiS i-1 TNt ro O J 7-1-1 tr A50c-4) TA L3 A5 cF. %I) I_- v✓c-a SU2R/ ---5 C -C TtaAJrJ t��Z7L� iV0' MOyc 01i c Aejw�0u=C) Li KE TU Sr`l IN1?2JJti�t� Or j {_�c LJc�L AR Ul2A..i CN Mn+v.A.Len Form APC3006 e# Date Grant County planning commission Dear Sirs: w.a Regarding the proposed commercial zoning of the plot of property proposed by Mr. Martell Palmer. 1. This property is in an appropriate location for commercial development 2. Development of this property provides a tax base for Grant County. 3. Job development for the area. 4. I am convinced that the property owners have certain rights of property disbursement within reason. 5. My address is 1812 Road O, N.E. approximately 11/2 miles from the proposed property development and I have no objection to this venture. Sincerely, Carl I,. Watts 17 IZ,�,._ G � �� SY wpt " V l .,.. GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment April 3, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT Gary Piercy -Chairman, Jim Fleming -Vice Chairman, Wayne Sahli, Martell Palmer, Al Brower and Dorothy Black - Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT Kirk Sager STAFF PRESENT: Billie Sumrall & Scott Clark LEGAL COUNSEL Not present G. Piercy: We are back on the record. O.K. we are going to start the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications with the Janett's and then have got three items before us. 22.23 and 24 and then we are going to start a lottery. If you live the furthest away we will hear your hearing nest. So that you can get home before whatever time. So if you live in Seattle. Snohomish or where ever it is. Roval Citv is a long ways awav to. so. D. Black: Gary do you want to state on the Record that you sworn at the beginning at the last meeting. G. Piercy: O.K. maybe I will do it again, I think I see a couple of new faces. We will just do it again. Before we open this part of the hearing we are going to re -swear everybody in. I am going to read this statement and you can affirm it when I get done and we will consider you sworn in. Do You herehv swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the testimonv that you give is truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief.? Audience: I do G. Piercy: Thank you. when you come to give closed testimony as before state you name. address and we will ask you if you have been sworn in. then you can give your testimony. Now we are waiting for the women to charge. oh. While we are waiting for Billie, is there someone who lives a long ways away is there someone where. Unidentified: Seattle G. Piercy: Seattle, Unidentified: Spokane G. Piercy: Spokane, O.K. you guys... same project. O. K. Which number is that? Unidentified: We are 47 G. Piercy: 47, O.K., you will be second one up. O.K. Where is it, first page? O.K. 47. Let me see we have. Seattle, Spokane, O.K. who is next furthest away.... Not you I know Unidentified: Russ Fode is from Wenatchee. but he has two after him that are very much related to that area. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 - April 3, 2002 w.. G. Piercy: So. what number are you. gentleman in the back. Wenatchee? Unidentified: 19 G. Piercy: 19, we will take you after 47 Unidentified: How manv times we have been here will count on the nuleage? (laughter) R. Fair: Chairman. probably should be heard with 28 and 29. They are all trying to get in the UGA and all right to the same..... G. Piercy: Ya, all right.. . R. Fair: Sol....If we cant do it... we can't do it. G. Piercy: We can do it. We can do that .... Billie are you ready for us? We are ready for you. B. Sumrall: O.K. tonight what I did seas group them together. G. Piercy: O.K. B. Sumrall: To make it a little bit easier like I did last month and you will see that Mr. Craig Janett. Harold Janett and another piece of property for Harold Janett are all items 22. 23 and 24. The first item is Mr. Craig Janett. Mr. Janett owns Farm Unit 62 and 63 in Block 85 near Royal City. Both units are under a single center pivot irrigation system and wheel line with his residence and shop facilities are to the comer of the circle. The land use designation of the property was changed to Rural Residential -3 from Agriculture during the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He feels the zoning of RR -3 is not consistence with the current land use Agriculture. Also the current zoning would infringe on this ability to expand or modify his farming operation. He is asking for the land use designation to be changed back to Agriculture. G. Pierev: So how fast can we do this? We can do this one fast hurry up. B. Sumrall: O.K. Mr. Janett's property is up here in the... this is the Urban Growth Boundary Area for the Town of Royal City and it is just to the outside here. Basically he wants to change it back to Agriculture. which is how it is being used. G. Piercy: O.K. B. Sumrall: that is all I have. G. Piercy: That is on number 22 B. Sumrall: That is 22 G. Piercy: How about 23? B. Sumrall: OX number 23 is Mr. Harold Janett right next door. Mr. Harold Janett has five or I don't know if it is five farm sites for his house. shop, various out buildings there. He is within the Urban Growth Boundary Area for the Town of Royal City, but it is being farmed. He would like that to be taken out of the Urban Growth Boundary area and the Urban Residential zone and be put in the Agricultural zone. Mr. Janett's property is this area up in here. It includes both his farmstead. which is right here and the rest of the farm unit. To be put back in Agriculture 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 2 - April 3, 2002 .w. G. Piercy: O.K. that is number 23 and number 24? B. Sumrall: Number 24 is the remainder of the farm unit. also zoned at the present time urban Residential and they would like it put back into Agriculture as it is being used. G. Piercv: I think we know what we are doing. B. Sumrall: Yes. G. Piercy: O.K. Thanks Billie. Is there are proponent who would like to talk to us about this project? C. Janett: Craig Janett. P.O. Box 328. Royal City. D. Black: and where you sworn? C. Janett: Yes. I was, several times. D. Black: Thank vou. C. Janett: First off I would like to say that Billie did an excellent job stating what we wouid like to do. I will put this up this is a little bit better map. Just to begin this is a drainage canal that basically goes through the Roval City area and maybe... a little bit. this is my property right here. I currently have a center pivot irrigation system that runs around in there. Here is my home area. This is my folk's property right across here and you will notice this boxed in area right here. That is where the home. shop, fuel storage. chemical storage, and in addition mobile homes are located. The rest of this area is currently farmed, again this is the homestead area. home, farm shop. agricultural storage that sort of thing. Basically. again my property Farm Unit 62 & 63. Block 85 in the Columbia Basin Irrigation District it was changed to Rural Residential -3, which is 5 homes per acre, the zoning is not consistent with the current land use. It is currently farmed, it will infringe on my ability to expand. to modify my farming operation. Areas where current land use is not consistent with zoning, ie: prohibited land uses and I am currently engaged in. One. mobile homes there is two installed on the property, one is for a farm worker, which is another prohibited land use with that zoning. Agricultural equipment storage is prohibited, currently Agricultural equipment is stored there. storage of fertilizer. pesticides. herbicides. again for the farming operation that is prohibited and it is currently in use there. Bulk fuel storage, again prohibited Heavy Construction equipment storage, farm worker accommodation. livestock maintenance all of those are prohibited and they are currently in uses. Conditional and Discretional use permits that would be required on that property are farm housing, animal facilities and potential for road side retain stands for Agricultural products, ie. Kids selling whatever all prohibited or those that require Conditional Use. This zoning apparently was put into place to allow for future growth at Royal City. I have lived in Royal City for over 30 years and so far Royal City hasn't even built half of its boundary. Currently growth rate I wouldn't expect it for over a hundred years to fill it current boundary let alone go over the next two farm units adjacent to ever reach me. So that is why I request that my property be converted back to Agriculture to be consist with the current land use. Also. I will just make a few comments for my folk's property which was the adjacent land use. Again, every one of the things that I described on my property are prohibited on their property also. Some of the additional things, they do have quite a few pesticides, fertilizers stored there on that facility, also bulk fuel storage and we have not updated to the current concrete bunker style. we still have underground tanks. That is something that we will have to do and we will be prohibited from doing that at future date in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 3 - April 3, 2002 current zoning. So that would severely infringe on the ability to modify or expand —. existing farming operation. Equipment storage. outdoor storage yards of equipment all prohibited uses. G. Piercy: We are convinced. (laughter). you convinced us. we surrender! (laughter) Sorry. Craig. C. Janett: Thank vou. G. Piercy: At this time we will open the public hearing for those who would like to speak for or against this proposal. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call. is there anyone would like to speak for or against this proposal. M. Palmer: I move that the public hearing be closed W. Sahli: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave A. Brower: Ave W. Sahli: I will make a motion to approve the zone changes back to Agriculture and that is on 22. 23, and 24. J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: O.K- we have a motion to change the land use designation on all three parcels is there discussion? Unidentified: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. The motion before us is a land use designation change from Urban Residential to Agriculture three separate proposals. All in favor signify by saying Aye. W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: We have findings B. Sumrall: I wanted to remind you that this is one of the ones that we discussed last time that anytime you change a UGA that the City or the Town gets notification of the change recommendation and we get concurrence from them. G. Piercy: Right, O.K. B. Sumrall: I would like that to be part of the record. G. Piercy: O.K. so that you understand there needs to be concurrence with the City of Royal City for number 23 only. This will move to the County Commissioners with a recommendation 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 4 - April 3, 2002 that they make the land use designation change. No we haven't Findings, what da4ve have. I through 9. we like that. findings 1 through 9. O.K. we will move to number 47 which is Sandra Boyd Morrison. Sun Canvon land use designation from Rural Residential and Rural Remote to Master Planned Resort. W. Sahli: Billie is this the one we have kept extending over the years? B. Sumrall: Yes. W. Sahli: O.K. B. Sumrall: There are quite a few people here that wish to speak to this item, so I will keep my comments short. The ownership of this property has remained the same over the last twenty-five or thirty years with a proposal for a Master Planned Unit Development/Resort was submitted back in the early 70ies by Sandra Boyd Morrison. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed on the project and was dated May. 1978. A rezone from Open Space Recreation to Recreation Commercial was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 22, 1978, and the Planned unit development for Sun Canyon was approved in 1979. Subsequent extension for filing of the final PUD have been issued over the years. The present land use designation for the property was changed upon the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to encompass two separate land use classifications. Rural Remote and Rural Residential. It is the Counties intention to change that designation from Rural Remote and Rural Residential to the Master Planned Resort designation. which was originally proposed for the property. Subject property is located to the west of Hilltop Lake and 1 am sure they have some better maps then what I have here. but you will find in your packet or notebook three or four different maps for those who are not familiar with the proposal as it was originally given to us. Sandra Boyd Morrison and her brother are both here tonight and would like to speak to the issue. Basically what we would like to do is change from Rural Residential and Rural Remote back to the Master Planned Resort to allow them to go forward with their project. G. Piercv: Is that it? B. Surnrall: Yes. G. Piercy: O.K. thanks Billie. now we looking for a proponent. S. Morrison: Hello I am Sandra Boyd Morrison. I live at 10000 Meydenbaurer Way SE, Bellevue. WA and I have been sworn in. I would like to introduce my brother, Tom Ferguson who is also a co-owner with me of the property which we inherited from our father. who originally bought the land for duck hunting and Hill Top lake is part of our property. We also have our planning consultant Dwight Hume who is with CLC Consulting in Spokane and I would like Dwight to speak to the.... D. Hume: Tbank you Sandra. I am Dwight Hume and I am from Spokane from CLC Associates and you have a letter there in front of you that gives the address and the details there. I have been sworn in. Exhibit #1 -letter from CLC Associates, Dwight J. Hume The letter articulates the rational or the justification attached if you will for our proposal. Essentially, it is a fairly simple request from the stand point that a great deal of effort was done by this body, Planning Commission and by the agency Planning Department and the Board of County Commissioners in 1978. 1979 as Billie just explained. To approve the subject property to Commercial Resort and remainder some 50 plus acres and the balance 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment April 3, 2002 of which was subsequently approved as a Planned Unit Development. The delay imthe development of the property would directly affected by the water rights issue and the Department of Ecology, as you probably know meets very infrequently. Thev will be meeting this year and since that original approval we have been waiting that interim for the Dept. of Ecology to act on our water rights. That therefore caused the lengthy delav and as you know in the interim Growth Management Plan and other regulations of the State have taken over and changed the definition of Commercial Resort to Master Planned Resort. I note in my letter to you that the only master planned resort that was adopted into the GMA Plan is at Soap Lake and it is a State Park, no not at Soap Lake. Unidentified: Sunlake D. Hume: Sunlake and my point in that is that the justification for the designation in the GMA plan for a MPR for that particular project was based upon a two year earlier action by the parks department to approve a master plan and as the text of the Comprehensive Plan goes on to explain since that master plan was done and the primarily benefit the public and it was recreation orientated and it was centered around natural amenities of recreation type, ah. it should be approved and designated as a Master Planned Resort. For reasons unexplainable to us it was overlooked on this property and the history of detailed plans and impact statement and court actions that upheld the actions of the Board of County Commissioners to approve this property for a commercial resort. all of that was overlooked and as a result we were inappropriately classified into Rural Reserve and Rural Residential. We are here tonight thanks to the efforts of -the Staff working with us to simply correct that mistake. that oversight and to once again put us on course as we receive the Dept of Ecology's approval we can move forward with the support of the Growth Management Plan designated as Master Planned Resort. This property in anticipation as being used as such has undergone a couple of off site infrastructure improvement. One of which. is the efforts of Sandra Boyd Morrison was the interchange to the amphitheaters on Silica Road off of I-90 near George, Washington. It was her efforts and others that lobbied for that and that road access was created. It almost immediately upon leaving I-90 goes by the property and through the property and because of the 300,000 cars per season that are going to the amphitheater, that road needs some improvements and the interim Sandra Boyd Morrison and others have worked collectively with the County to do a joint venture improvement of that road. We come before you tonight with full expectations that we will be able to correct its mistake and move forward and have the ability to work with the staff and work in full compliance with all of your regulations. We have assembled a team of experts including wetland experts who work on mitigation that will be required to improve the property. We will approximately doubling the amount of water bodies on the property when it is all said and done. So this is the starting point and we appreciate the staff putting as on the agenda for this year so that we can correct this and subsequently move forward. We intend to start immediately on the necessary application to prepare and have before the various bodies, including yourselves, for review and scrutiny prior to ever having the project on the ground. I will just mention in passing that we have also obtained the consulting services of an architectural golf course, a golf course architect out of Australia. They have flown up here a couple of times, half way around the world, they are in love with the property in the stand point its almost identical terrain and vegetation like they are use to working with down in Australia. Thev want to do a major project up here. They see a (unidentified) market. If there ever was some positive in all of these delays caused by the Dept. of Ecology so on it has been the strengthening of the residential market for a project here. With this before the County in its earlier version 78 & 79 one of the correspondences of support was from the Dept. of Economic Development Commerce, sighting that this particular proposal even in 1978 & 1979 was one of the top four projects in their mind for Washington State. There is a history if you peruse the volumes 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 6 - April 3, 2002 of material that have transpired in the earlier land use decisions. There is a histol Aof support clearly indicating that this is not a particular piece of property that has Agricultural value per say and one of your criteria for Master Plan Resort is that you are not displacing Agricultural lands. This is a piece of property because of it amenities, Cabin Lake. Hill Top Lake and the added water bodies that we would be putting to it in our proposal, lends itself as a great amenity, for the networking of this golf course design and the 300,000 cars per season that come by. A motel and a trust essentially a retirement village will be created and benefit the County in terms of a tax base which is what we have not. But this is a starting point. this is a correcting issue that we can make, it certainly is another plan more akin to the County as the County was involves, than that of the State Parks Department of the plan that was then two years old when the GMA was a adopted and assigned to MPR designation to that property. This one is very much something we are trying to restore the history of the land use decisions on and this is the starting point and we trust that. Unless you have further questions that... I also have brought for the staff a legal description essential the same property as before. There has been a forty -acre parcel added to the property from its original 1978, 1979 actions. It was necessary to include in order to obtain the water right that we are now waiting for the Dept. of Ecology to act on. That is included in .... and I will give it to staff. Any questions? A. Brower: What kind of a feeling do you get from the Dept of Ecology on the water? D. Hume: The water rights. I will let others speak to that because... perhaps Tom. Sandra S. Morrison: I can do.... D. Hume: Sandra can do that. I will let her answer that question. S. Morrison: Thank you Dwight, the 44 acres... D. Black: Please state your name again. S. Morrison: Sandra Boyd Morrison. D. Black: Thank vou. S. Morrison: The 44 acres that we recently purchased abuts the NE corner of Section 21 and it is in Section 15 which is within the Federal Irrigation Boundary. Our consultants have had verbal approval from both the Dept. of Health and the Dept. of Ecology that we will be able to.... We have obtained a twenty -foot easement through neighboring property that we will be able to drill wells in Section 15 and pipe water to the main project. We have not yet purchased water rights until we can get this zoning with this Comprehensive Plan matter resolved, any further questions on that? 1. Fleming: Do you feel the Dept. of Ecology is not going to give you the permits for the original chunk. S. Morrison: Ah, we come up in the year 2004. J. Fleming: Cause I'm right after you. so S. Morrison: with the Dept. of Ecology and it has been a long wait. D Hume: Just to add to that, the Dept. of Ecology in my conversation with them, based on the nature of the action that we are requesting, it isn't as perplexing to them as asking for totally new water rights, we are assigning creating water rights within an adjacent to the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 7 - April 3, 2002 property and that type of action.... I'm not an expert but the assurance I am receiving from DOE that is a far different simpler request then asking for new water. G. Piercv: Mrs. Boyd Morrison I.... As a proponent is there anvthing further you want to add before we open the public testimony? S. Morrison: Ah.... G. Piercy: You will get a chance to come back... S. Morrison: I guess I would just say this that Remote Residential and Rural Residential has totally diminished the value of our property and of course we are very, very concerned. We are very sincere in our efforts to go forward. G. Piercy: O.K. at this time then we will open the public hearing on this matter for those who would like to speak for or against this project please come to the microphone, state your name and address. is there anvone who would like to speak for or against this project? Last call. is there anvone who would like to speak for or against this project? W. Sahli: I make a motion the public hearing be closed. J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. all in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercv: Well, the proponents we will give them a chance. Anything further you would like to sav? O.K. J. Fleming: I move that the Comprehensive Plan amendment 2001-47 be approved M. Palmer: Second G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded to approve the land use designation change is there any discussion on the motion? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: A question has been called for. The motion that we have before us is a land use designation change from Rural Residential and Rural Remote to Master Planned Resort. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye J. Fleming: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: We will make that unanimous and this will move forward to the County Commissioner with a recommendation that they approve that change. Findings of Fact 1 thru 9 with the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - R - April 3, 2002 recommendation. So let me see that moves us to what did we say. 19. 28 & 29 theseare all similar Billie? They are. aren't they B. Sumrall: The reason these three are together because they are all in the same general area. The subject property consists of a farm unit this is number 19. Russ Fode. the subject property consists of a farm unit that is located just outside the UGA for the City of Moses Lake off the Wheeler Corridor. The applicants property is adjacent to property owned by National Frozen Foods and Amencold. Moses Lake water is extended to the National Frozen Foods which is approximately 160 yards away from the applicants parcel. Mr, Fode is asking that Farm Unit 226, Block 41 be include inside the UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lake and the other two. what numbers were they? J. Fleming: 28 & 29 B. Sumrall: Number 28 is the National Frozen Foods parcel 61 acres north of Wheeler Road and Between Road N and the railroad right-of-way in Farm units 80 & 81. Block 41 and they also wish to include their property within the Urban Growth Area of the City of Moses lake. The remaining parcel is owned by the Dept. of Natural Resources and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan this parcel would also be proposed to be included within the Citv of Moses Lake. I do have a map that shows all three of these parcels. National Frozen Foods southeast. DNR parcel on the west... and Russell Fode to the North this is the town site of Wheeler. Mr Fair is here representing at least two of the applicants. G. Piercy: Where is the current UGA line. do you know' Billie. Randy is volunteering to help you here. if you are not sure? M. Palmer: That would be on the west side of the road then. B. Sumrall: The fire station ves. M. Palmer: The UGA? B. Sumrali: Oh. the UGA. would be on the east. the UGA is on the West. G. Piercy: O.K. I think we know what we are doing Is there anything else Billie? B. Sumrall: No. G. Piercy: No. O.K. I guess at this time then we will have a proponent. Mr. Fode, you are first up here. Are you represented by Mr. Fair, so you are going to let him take... and wear us out. R. Fair: There are three applicants here tonight. Mr. Fode. Frozen Foods and Dept of Natural Resources, D. Black: Randy would you state your name and address R. Fair: My name is Randy Fair and I have been sworn in and my address is 1405 Pioneer Way, in Moses Lake. Actually I am only speaking on behalf of Mr. Fode here tonight, I don't represent the other two applicants. Of course this is all very similar the application and I don't want to get too elementary I guess in my presentation. I think last week, I might have taken advantage of the microphone a little bit. But the application of course is to be included inside the Urban Growth Ares. The Urban Growth Area for the most part is where the city limits are expected to be twenty years from today. I assume. The Comprehensive Plan encourages it to be revised every year based on where the expected 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - April 3, 2002 boundaries are expected to be what every given year. I though there would be more.-. applications regarding inclusions within the UGA and I see there are only three I believe in this entire wave this year. But if I could just have that picture put up here one more time. B. Sumrall: Sure R. Fair: Of course Wheeler runs along the bottom. Mr. Fode's parcel of course is designated here up top. We had a.... some of the environmental documents earlier that were put on file. O.K.... Showing the property Mr. Fode had thought at one point I believe that a portion of his property was Industrial and a portion wasn't and he was not really sure, what we have here is the documents showing the current zoning district as being Industrial. We hadn't actually looked that up because we weren't expecting to change zone only to be included inside the Urban Growth Area. I just wanted to point out a few provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. Very few if I could. What we currently do have a goal in the Comprehensive Plan that is mentioned that shows what the UGA amendments would be looked at on an annual basis if they could be. Another provision here which seems to indicate where the Wheeler area is headed of course, indicated an inventory of developable land. this is out of the Comprehensive Plan by the way, and I am starting at the second sentence shows the inventory that has been conducted they are excellent prospect for high rates of industrial growth in the County. The primary prospects of course are the Wheeler Comdor and the Port of Moses Lake. There is mention of course that there is the available suppiv it is not expected to be adequate to accommodate potential industrial growth. I'm sure that is probable where some of these applications are stemming from. Lastly we have another policy that show when you are requesting to go inside an Urban Growth Area they want you to be right there, they don't want to you be too far away, so they could simply pull you in the existing structure. The city services I believe go just up to within a few feet of Mr. Fode's parcel. We had a staff report that recommends approval of this request and states that it is within compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. I don't know how much further we should go with this. but I think that the application for the most part appears to comply with where this area is headed. Again we are not asking for a rezone just to be included inside the Urban Growth Area. We would support the other two applicants coining forward. I'm not sure if they are here. right now at this time. But I am not representing Frozen Foods or the DNR we would ask that Mr. Fode's application be granted. He is here to answer questions if necessary, but he probably would prefer not to speak unless of course you folks have questions Exhibit #1. Maps Exhibit #2, Copies of pages from the Comprehensive Plan G. Piercy: O.K. Since we are holding all three of these hearing at the same time is there a proponent for National Frozen Foods that would like to speak to us? Is there a proponent for the Department of Natural Resources that would like to talk to us? O.K. if not we will open the public testimony portion of this hearing. Anyone who would like to speak for or against these proposals. please come to the microphone and state your name and address. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against these proposals? Last call, is there anyone who.... That last call brings out . T. Brewer: Thank you Mr. Chairman Terry Brewer, and I have been sworn in. D. Black: Address? Sorry... T. Brewer: 19797 Fairway Dr NW, Soap Lake is my address. One of the critical areas from time to time that we consider is rail in our county. Access to rail for industrial property would be considered important for some projects. We have seen over the past years opportunities 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 10- April 3, 2002 that we hope will continue to develop for inter -modal transfer facility near the „ community of Quincy. It is adamant that be tied to the rail. Moses Lake from ones perspective might have a lot of railroad line but it is not very functional and the reality is that... and I have a meeting scheduled with some key parties and the railroad owners next week to discuss this. The railroad is proposing cutting off rail service at about Monte Homes scrap yard in Moses Lake. where they have Monte on one side of Broadway and a gas customer on the other side and they are proposing to stop rail service from there north. Which would mean no more rail cars out to the industrial land around the airport. Now the Port is very cognizance of that and working with us at the meeting next week. But the reality of it is maybe in the fixture they will have to live without rail and there are a few customers out there that get a railcar now and then. but there is just to many miles of tract that need to be maintained. a bridge over Crab Creek and you are looking at a highway widening on 17 next year. It all becomes very expensive for the railroad and there is such a limited uses of cars going out there that there is absolutely no payback. So the reality is there may not be rail out there to that Heavy Industrial area. So then we look at the importance of the Wheeler Corridor area and where the rail line is that is in more stable condition and is used frequently by customers now, like JR Simplot and the food processing warehouse. excuse me the cold storage warehouse that is attached to the food processing plant. That rail line goes along the east edge of the community of Wheeler. north of Wheeler road and back is at the easterly property line of Mr. Fode's property. He and I have discussed that over the vears. Secondary component to the typical industrial company would be lumpmg the property that is suitabiv zoned and would have rail to them would have access to city services. There water and sewer is so important and we have learned, we know the Citv wouldn't expand their city services out beyond the Urban Growth Area. So is we are ever going to see that property used and I think it does have a great deal of value, particular in the future because of the railroad, it is going to have to be in the Urban Growth Area for the utilities to be available for it to be really developable. I feel this is a worthwhile proposal. G. Piercv: I think I will start with the last call thing again and see if that works, last call anyone who wants to speak for or against this proposal" OK. W. Sahli: I snake a motion public hearing be closed. A. Brower: Second G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Mr. Fode or Mr. Fair, anything further" R. Fair: Only that I spoke with one of the other applicants at National Frozen Food last July and they seemed to be very much in favor of this and I am uncertain why they are not here tonight, but I... they aren't, but we would be request that there application be granted also as neighbors right there. G. Piercy: O.K. D. Black: Randy. I will need the exhibits you just displayed. Thank you. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - I I - April 3, 2002 W. Sahli: Gary the only thing I'm thinking here that this letter, and I don't know if everybody has gotten a letter from the Moses Lake City Counsel but I see we just got one here and it beings up that they don't even know about this here and haven't had time to go over it, it looks like to me and I really think that this should be considered being the City of Moses Lake. I am surprised they haven't done something about it yet. S. Clark: Mr. Chairman. I guess to reiterate what Billie had already covered at the last meeting there are a number of amendments to the Urban Growth Areas and what she has indicated to you that approved... Well after your review and recommendation these would be forwarded to the City for the coordination that is required prior to any final decision. So this one is similar to the one she spoke about earlier with regard to the Royal City application to the UGA. W. Sahli: So in other words if they denied it. didn't want to do it. our recommendation don't mean nothing. S. Clark: To the City? W. Sahli: Ya. S. Clark: No. no. the County has jurisdiction over the issue, however. it does require that we have coordination with the Urban Growth Area and in this case that is the process that we are going to following it has been forwarded to you to make an initial recommendation which then they will have notice of and through there process of relief. A. Brower: I move that we approve the recommendation of the three. D. Black: All three. I sorry I didn't... A. Brower: Yes S. Clark I suggest that you have separate decision on each one of these as well as findings of fact. G. Piercv: I think we did that last time. A. Brower: So Mr. Fode's be approved G. Piercy: O.K. we will deal with Mr. Fode's. J. Fleming: Second. G. Piercy: We have a motion and a second to approve D. Black: I'm sorry I didn't catch who seconded it. Thank you Jim G. Piercy: A request to include Mr. Fode's property in the UGA, any discussion? M. Palmer: Question. G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion before us and a request to include Mr. Fode's property in the Moses Lake UGA. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye 2001 Comprehensive Pian Amendment - 12- April 3, 2002 M. Palmer: Ave w• G. Piercy: I won't vote for that one so this will move forward without a recommendation to the Countv Commissioners, so... no findings. We will go to 28. A. Brower: I move that 28 be approved. G. Piercy: O.K. J. Fleming: I'll second it. G. Piercy: It is moved and seconded. Same vote, discussion's Do you want me to tell you, A. Brower: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. O.K. the motion before us is a request to change the National Frozen Foods property to include it in the Moses Lake UGA, all in favor signify by saying Aye. W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: I am opposed. that also will move forward without a recommendation to the County Commissioners. number 29? A. Brower: Same motion G. Piercy: Same motion. J. Fleming: Same second G. Pierev: Same second. M. Palmer: Same question G. Piercv: Same question and the motion before us is a request for Nation.... Dept. of Resource Property be included in the Moses Lake UGA. all in favor signify by saying AYE. W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: I am opposed, so that also will move forward without a recommendation. A. Brower: There you are! G. Piercy: There you are! Um, let me see, where does that leave us on the agenda. We have... let me see who is from the farthest away, you know here is your chance to get in the front of the line! ! We had... otherwise we are just going to take them in order that they are on the sheet. J. Fleming: Take them to order 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 13 - April 3, 2002 G. Piercy Take them in order. O.K. number 45. Al Willis. land use designation change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial. Number 45... B. Sumrall: Number 45 is a Comprehensive Plan amendment request by Mr. AI Willis, you will recall last week we were talking about all the parcels of land along the North Frontage Road and the freeway. Inland Tarp and Cover was one of them that we talked about and Mr. Willis owns 13.48 acres adjacent to Inland Tarp and Cover fronting the I-90 freeway west of Moses Lake and he wishes to change the designation of this property from Agriculture to Light Industry to coincide with the existing and historic development surrounding this site. Just in case you don't remember. Fin sure you probably know right where it is at. The freeway is here, and.... D. Black: Billie you need to be by the mic... B. Sumrall: and I believe Mr.. his property is in this area here... Basically we had discussion about the fact that under the Rural Residential classification that is existing there right now the uses that are currently there can continue to operate and the fact that any new locations of industries can be considered a Rural Area of Intensive Development and Mr. Willis is here and he was here in behalf of the other people who also wished to locate there. Basicallv that is all I have. This is the same location as all the rest of them were. G. Piercy: O.K. and last time we met we made all of those changes. B. Sumrall: Exactiv. I think there were... G. Piercy: Three or four pieces that we did... B. Sumrall: Exactiv. G. Piercy: Mr. Willis. is there a proponent for this'? A. Willis: Al Willis. 22940 Admiral Rd. Moses Lake D. Black: And were you sworn? A. Willis: Pardon? D. Black: Were you sworn? A. Willis: Yes D. Black: Thank you. A. Willis: We have had several proposal here tonight that all consider economic activity of Grant County and I would like to pose a general questions of where economic activity take place. If you look at the town of Ephrata, a town of Soap Lake, the route in between, Quincy, wherever it all occurs along the major transportation routes. We just had a discussion about rail and I have here pictures of major routes around Moses Lake and we briefly consider then. We have 17 come here and out here we have Central Washington Concrete and we have a mini -mart there at the corner, you come on down to Patton Blvd is in here, there is a warehousing there, there is a mini -mart there, there is development on it. The next major one is Stratford Rd and we are all aware of the Wal -mart area here and the bowling alley here and there is some growth going here, the concrete outfit, the used car outfit and that is growing out there. Then Broadway Extended there is growth out there and of course we are all familiar with the Wheeler Road Corridor and all the growth that has been going on there. The request that was just made and Hwy 17, of 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 14- April 3, 2002 course. Pioneer Wav and then we get down here and they just built the Yonezawa Blvd for promoting commercial activity and we get down to 1-90 corridor. On the west side there has been quite a bit of commercial activity promoted. Kittleson Road right here by Ernie's Truck Stop and then you get to the Counn- line. is a commercial zoning. You go on out on the frontage road there is a proposal for an autoplex there. There is Sun Country RV. there is Basin Diesel. there is Flodin. there was Adi manufacturing, there is United Rentals on the South side there is if you go out a little further there is Western Polymer. there is Simplot. there is a potato storage. and close to this area in here there is I-90 RV. there is Basin Auto. there is a towing outfit. Exhibit #1. Map G. Piercy: Excuse me. Mr. Willis. A_ Willis: Yes G. Piercy: What is your point A. Willis: The point is G. Piercy: We got lots of hearing tonight and it is becoming fairly obvious with the testimony we are taking that we arc not going to get them done. So we are going to have to make a decision after this hearing on the ones we are riot going to get done. So. A. Willis: I will try to be brief G. Piercv: Get to it. A. Willis: O.K. the point is we are utilizing especially in the Wheeler Rd and what not we are utilizing major transportation route for development economically. Along the I-90 corridor, the most major one. on the west side we are not doing that. A lot of it got zoned Residential, why I don't know. My request is to rezone a particular parcel there and we were talking about, mine. Light Industrial. I'll put up this other map here. This will be the top. This is the particular piece I own. this is Inland Tarp and Cover, this is the hay compressing outfit and the hay storage outfit that I believe is Port of Moses Lake property. This is mine, this communication tower. this down here in black is the PUD switching station. or the PUD switch here with a transmission line from Rock Island down. I believe. high voltage transmission line in this corner here. With this on this side. this on this side, this on the north and this across the road and this is I-90 here and across the freeway here we have Moses Lake machinery. We have a gravel pit and there is a County refuge dump site, a drop site there and I believe not only for this property but along the corridor and I do not believe. I believe the County is not utilizing the full potential of the I-90 corridor if they zone it Residential. Thank you. Exhibit Q. Map G. Piercy: All right. at this time. D. Black: I will need those maps as exhibits G. Piercy: You will have to leave those as exhibits for the Public Testimony. At this time we will open the public hearing for those who would like to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? W. Sahli: I make a motion that the public hearing be closed. J. Fleming: Second 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 15- April 3, 2002 G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signifj by saying AYE W. Sahli: AYE A. Brower: AYE J. Fleming: AYE M. Palmer: AYE G. Piercy: AYE W. Sahli: I would like to make a motion to approve the zone change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial. A. Brower: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we approve this change. Question? I mean.... discussion? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. What we have before us is a land use designation change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial. all in favor signify by saving AYE W. Sahli: AYE A. Brower: AYE J. Fleming: AYE M. Palmer: AYE G. Piercy: I will vote with that and we will move that on as a recommendation to the Countv Commissioners and the findings 1 through 9. 1 need to give the rest of you some information. If your land is surrounded by land that is zoned the same as what you are requesting, the chances are probably 99% that we are going to approve it. You don't have to fight us for it, you are not going to have to testify for three hours to get it done. If you want a spot zone to change something to Freeway Commercial out in the middle of the sand dunes chances are 99% that it ain't going to happen so you can fight as long as you want. We got, we are going to be done at 10:00. After 10:00 this meeting is going to be closed. So as much as we can get done by ten that is what we are going to do. I'm sorry I'm a little testy but ah that is just.... happen to be that way tonight. Now we are going to make the... before we are going to continue we are not going to get this all done tonight. No way, so for those of you we are going to have to cut this list somewhere and for those of you that are going to get cut off I apologize but we are just, we are not going to get to it. Where are we going to make the cut. Chances are if you are on the last page hen; we are not going to get to you. Is there somebody who has traveled a long way that is on that page, the last page. O.K. you know actually some peoples bladders may not be as large as others, can we adjourn for 5 minutes, we will pick this up at 10 after. Tape 2 side A G. Piercy: O. K. we are back on the record and we are going to start with number 27 -Port of Moses Lake — a land use designation change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial, Billie. B. Surmall: This is in that same area that Mr. Willis was just talking about.... G. Piercy: O.K. let us vote on it. (laughter) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -16- April 3, 2002 B. Sumrall: O.K. hav storage right here. Mr. Willis's propertY NN as this area right here. Inland -fare and Cover and this is the Port of Moses Lake right here. J. Fleming: That is the chunk they want changed? B. Sumrall: Again it was Rural Residential and he would like it changed to Light Industrial G. Piercy: O.K. is there a proponent for the Port of Moses Lake? Is there anyone here who would like to present public testimony'? Open the public testimony portion of this hearing? Anyone who would like to speak please come to the microphone? Is there anvone who would like to speak for or against this proposal" Last call: is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? W. Sahli: Make a motion that the public hearing be closed. G. Piercy: O.K. there is no proponent J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: Oh, Cm ahead. all sigruA• by saving AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Public hearing closed. there is no proponent. W. Sahli: And I would make a motion to change this here from Rural Residential to Light Industrial. A. Brower: Second. G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercv: Question has been called for the proposal before us is a land use designation change from Rural Residential to Light Industnal. all in favor signify by saving AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: I will vote with that and that will move to the County Commissioners with a recommendation that they do so. Findings of Fact 1 through 9. We will move to item #26 which is a proposal from the Paul Lauzier Foundation a land use designation change from Agriculture to Rural Residential #26 D. Black: Could we take just a second. the machine is squeaking... G. Piercv: Yes it is... D. Black: O.K. now it is fine 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1 7 - April 3, 2002 G. Piercy: Billie are you ready? —. B. Sumrall: Yes. this number 26. the Paul Lauzier Foundation the subject parcel is located in Section 27. Township 20. Range 26. just outside of Ephrata. Nailor Junction. This property was before You last Year and went forward to the Board of Countv Commissioners without a recommendation. again thev are requesting reconsideration of the denial of the above property from Agriculture to Rural Residential as the Agriculture classification is described as being composed of mainly of land with highly productive soil. that is generally suited to crop agriculture. agricultural related industries. livestock maintenance, existing public irrigation facilities and potential future expansion of the Columbia Basin Project. There is a letter in your file from Mr. Jack Patrick immediately following the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners they requested a rezone, no a reconsideration of their property and there is various correspondence from Mr. Tabler. who is the executor of the Estate and an Agricultural checklist which I did when the property first came up for your consideration. Basically that is all I had. It is 640 acres and they would like it changed to Rural Residential. which would be developable in five -acre minimum dwelling units. G. Piercy: l am having trouble figuring out wherc this is jt' W. Sahli: Ya, I am too. G. Piercy: and the surrounding zoning? B. Sumrall: Ya. I got that... just make sure I am in the right place. Section 17 right here the orange that you see here is Rural Residential, the yellow is Agriculture. this is the highway going to Ephrata. Quincy. and down to George. The subject section is this section right in this area. it is bordered on the north by Rural Residential and half way down section... W. Sahli: Where is Ephrata now, did you say Billie? B. Sumrall: Ephrata would be straight this way. the chicken farm and the land fill would be over here, this would be the highway going to Quincy where the "Y" is and Quincy would be over in here. W. Sahli: Oh. O.K. B. Sumrall: This area here is that gravel pit site and Red Kriete use to have a junk operation right there on the corner. So, the green is Rural Remote. M. Palmer: What road faces on the bottom of the property. Billie? B. Sumrall: That would be road 8.8. G. Piercy: I think we know where it is at now. thank you Billie B. Strnrall: O.K. your welcome. G. Piercy: Is there a proponent for this project? M. Tabler: Mike Tabler, Box 1230, Ephrata, yes I have been sworn. The property to the north is zoned Rural Residential as you saw property to the left is zoned Rural Residential. There are in fact residences contiguous to the southerly boundary; there is a residence that is contiguous to the easterly boundary. When this got to the County Commissioners for 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 18 - April 3, 2002 some reason they voted to deny because they said according to their minutes that y02AI had given them a recommendation for denial. in fact you did not do that you by majority vote approved this change and I guess it went their with not recommendation, but the Commissioners didn't understand that and I wasn't there to keep them straight, so we are doing it all over again. When it was here before according to the minutes Mr. Sager that said this is in fact Agricultural ground because in fact it is dtyland pasture. It is true we have pastured that ground for a couple of weeks. for as long as four weeks in the spring a few times. The most money we have ever made as dryland pasture of that ground has been $300 bucks. less then .50 cents per acre. It can't be farmed, it wouldn't be farmeit we don't have water and the zoning doesn't work on that property. So I am asking you to do what you did the last time only do it this time unanimously and approve this zone change. G. Piercy: At this time we will open the public hearing for this matter. Anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone? Anyone that would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? A. Brower: I move that the public hearing be closed. M. Palmer: Second. G. Piercv: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saving Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: W. Tabler is there anything else you would like to say? M. Tabler: No thank you. G. Piercy: O.K. A. Brower: I make a motion that we approve the request. W. Sahli: I'll second that. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the request any disussion on the motion? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: O.K. a question has been called for. The motion before us is a land use designation change from Agricultural to Rural Residential. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: I will vote with this and move that to the County Commissioner with a recommendation that they approve it. Thanks for your bravery Mr. Tabler. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 19 • April 3, 2002 D. Black: Are we going to have Findings? G. Piercy: Findings? Yes, one through nine. Um which one. number 14 Terry and Jeff Cochran — Land Use Designation change from Rural Remote to General Commercial. You might have to wear us out on this one. but that is O.K. Randy can do the job, and Billie B. Sumrall: What number is it. I'm som. G. Piercy: Number 14, sorry we are jumping around so much. B. SumralL That is O.K. this is an 8.8 -acre parcel and is part of a larger tract. The property is located on Hwy 243 near Vantage. the Columbia River and the junction of Hwy 26. The current land use designation of the property is Rural Remote with a twenty -acre minimum lot size and the applicants wish to change the zoning to Rural General Commercial. This application was submitted to you in 1998 for a public hearing to Commercial Recreation. which they were successful in getting. They have invested quite a large amount of money on the fact that they were given that Recreation Commercial zone and there are documents within vour notebook that indicate the cost of the work that has been preformed pursuant to that rezone. There is a copy of the resolution approving the zone change by both the Planning Cori ussion and the Board of County Commissioners. There is a Highway access permit that has been given and the building permit for some grading and other documents that have been submitted on behalf of Mr. Fair on behalf of Mr. Cochran and his brother. The subject propertv... the map that 1 have, maybe Mr. Fair has a better one. this is the one that was submitted with the application. The subject property is... D. Black: the microphone. I can't hear you over the machine.. B. Sumrall: I'm sorry. The subject property is located in this little triangle right here. The rest of the property is Rural Remote... any improvements... J. Fleming: Do they want to whole property changed or just the corner they have graded? B. Sumrall: Just the corner that was originally given the permit for the Recreation zone. J. Fleming: All right G. Piercy: O.K. so we all know where it is at and what we are doing? Billie are you done? The proponent Mr. Fair. I presume that is you R_ Fair: Ah , yes. Randy Fair of 1405 Pioneer Way, Moses Lake Washington and I have been sworn in. I am here this evening representing the Cochran. Jeff and Terry and they have a 254 -acre parcel and this application only pertain to 8.8 acres. 246 acres of the parcel is actually on a cliff right there on the Columbia River and we have some pictures here that are very explanatory. The 8.8 on the lower end is the end that they had previously brought applications for to have zoned Commercial and then they started the development process and they were well on their way and then lost their zoning when the Comprehensive Plan was since adopted. It is on the east side of the river and I will show a couple of pictures here that Mr. Cochran took. This picture was taken from Vantage, which is across the river and on the other side of I-90. In the foreground here you see I- 90 and part of the park there. Across the river very low is the 8.8 acres. You can see it is about'/2 mile away from 1-90. That is the parcel we are talking about here tonight. This picture is taken from the top of the parcel up around the cliff area looking down on the parcel, of course you see the Vantage bridge in the background and the foreground is what they have had graded. They have had a well put in, they have had electric put in. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -20- April 3, 2002 they have obtained appropriate permits to access on and off of the highway that is off to the left here. In the back of the property you can see they have had their electric and their well installed and they are up and running right now. Exhibits 1 through 4. Photos of the area The history of the property is these folks bought it at an auction about five years ago. They then requested a zone change in 1998 to get this 8.8 acres to be zoned commercial and then their intention was to put a convenience store on the premise. There is an attachment on the file that shows some of the work that thev have done to date. It is actual substantial: it is more then lust applying for a few permits. In addition to that as the development stands right now, they have put to just over Two hundred thousand dollars on this parcel to have everything graded. It is kinda a turn -key business right now, I guess. It is a lot that is available for someone to be open for business. They would have to put in their own structure at this point. I believe the Cochran's don't plan to sell, through. They would plan to run whatever establishment they are going to have on the premises. We did have a resolution that is in the file that you can see, it shows that there were a number of findings made by the County Commissioners back in 1998 and this was all signed by the County Commissioners. The lower end of the page is the more significant. They find that there is a need for this type of commercial recreational amenities and there was an interest expressed by the public to have this zoned this way. The County Corniiussioners found that this property does have freeway access. they found there was sufficient fire and police protection. There was another finding that the zoning to commercial is in fact consistent with the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses and then there is a very favorable Environmental rating here. It says there is a determination of Non -significance that was issued in April, 1998, G. Piercy: Randy, one thing I forgot to mention is normally we try to give back what has been taken away by the Comprehensive Plan. Tliat is another thing that we do. R. Fair: O.K. G. Piercv: We have been pretty consistent with that. R. Fair: and you have seen that before and we do have a provision in the Comprehensive Plan that does mention previous development efforts. So I'm getting a signal here.. (laughter) G. Piercy: I was hoping you would... R. Fair: and the Cochran are both here for anv questions but they would like and this again is just for the 8.8 to go Rural General Commercial. The initial application said Rural General Commercial or Rural Freeway Commercial and I know now that we can only ask for Rural General Commercial that we are asking for. G. Piercy: Rural General Commercial. D. Black: Randy, I need those exhibits. Exhibit 5 - map of area Exhibit 6 — Copy of resolution #98 -90 -CC approving a zone change Exhibit 7 — Attachment I statement from proponents Exhibit 8 — itemized list showing cost of work performed pursuant to rezone Exhibit 9 — WA State Dept. of Transportation access Connect Permit Exhibit 10- Building permit #2000-420 Exhibit #11 — Copies of portions of the Comprehensive Pian 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -21- April 3, 2002 G. Piercv: O.K. at this time we will open the public hearing on this matter for those who wouldlike to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone? Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal'? Last call. is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? A. Brower: 1 move that the public hearing be closed. J. Fleming: Second, G. Piercy: We have a motion and a second that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signifv by saying AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Anything else Mr. Fair. I presume not. W. Sahli: I will make a motion for the zone change back to what it should have been in the first place. J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we make a land use designation change from General Remote to General Commercial question has been called for, all in favor signify by saying Ave W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: I will vote with that and we will move to the County Commissioners with at recommendation that they make that change. 18... D. Black: Findings G. Piercy: Findings -1 through 9 D. Black: Thank you W. Sahli: Sorry you guys had to pay so much money to come up and get this redone. Unidentified: This is tougher than farming (laughter) W. Sahli: Yes (lots of laughter) G. Piercy: Tell me about it! ! Number 18, Roger Fair, Norman Jensen and Duane Jenks, Moses Lake - land use designation from Rural Residential to Light Industrial, Billie. S. Clark: Mr. Chairman, Scott Clark, this is an application that is in the vicinity of my residence. I also believe there may be a public comment provided from my household, although I am know personally knowledgeable about the specifics of it. I am going to recuse myself from participating and so when you are done if you could have somebody come out and get me, I would appreciate it. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -22- April 3, 2002 A. Brower: We might just leave you out there G. Piercy: Are you sure you want to come back? M. Palmer: You could go get the donuts? G. Piercy: O.K. Billie we are ready for you. D. Black: Billie you want to move that mic down it is way to high. B. Sumrall: Subject property consists of 3 acres in a portion of Section 11. Township 19 Range 28 in Park Orchard Tracts. All three parcels have been operated... have been business operating on the premises for twenty years or more. In addition the PUD owns the parcel that wraps around the applicants parcels which is and always has been operated industrially, however, as with the other parcels which have been give a Rural Residential land use designation with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Each of the parcels are small in size and covered with blacktop or gravel and the applicants wishes are to have the three parcels re -designated as to their use which is Light industrial. 1 will show you a map here. This is Stratford Road running north. Kinder Road. the Park Orchard Tracts area is over here along the creek. The bowling alley is right down in this area. there are some grocery stores. Mr. Fair, Mr. Jenks and Mr. Jensen own business right on this side of Kinder Rd. The PUD owns property completely surrounding. I believe there is a warehouse of some type where they store equipment There are trucks parked out there. kind of a substation type business. This is Highway 17 going to Ephrata Moses Lake. The property that Mr. Clark was taking about is over in this area in here. Basically that is all I have. G. Piercy: O.K. B. Surarali: This is inside the Urban Growth Area this is outside. G. Piercy: O.K. and do we have a proponent for this proposal? R. Fair: Yes. G. Piercy: Mr. Fair. take as much time as you like. (laughter) R. Fair: I feel pressure here from both sides.. I won't be long. but this is a lot like the Knopp, Me Cullough.... D. Black: Excuse me. you need to state your name R. Fair: Yes, Randy Fair, I have been sworn in at 1405 Pioneer Way, Moses Labe, this is a lot like Mr. Me Cullough and Mr. Knopp and the Port where we have had a business existing for quite some time but the parcel is not zoned Rural Light Industrial it is zoned Rural Residential. In this case each of the parcels are just over, under one acre in size. On three sides they are surrounded by property that is used Industrially which is the PUD. The PUD parcel is also zoned Rural Residential and I imagine they are going to clean that us in the future. Across the street is vacant property. I have a few pictures here, that I would like to show. This is the Fair parcel, lets see, these all proponents are long time property owners. Mr. Fair has owned the parcel for 25 plus years. It was a dairy prior to the time he used it, it is now .... an insulation business is now run out of the property and there is heavy equipment there. etc 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -23- April 3, 2002 GIf Mr. Jensen ordinarily leases his property out. His parcel as well as Mr. Fairs are coy.ed almost entireiv with concrete and gravel I tun not sure what business he has running out of there right now. Mr. Jenks next door has run Basin Refrigeration for quite some time and he keeps all of his equipment there also. And I will try and be brief here, but for the most part there is simply no light industrial activity that is allowed and we have a "P" here for prohibited in ground that is designated Rural Residential 3 so we would like to have an appropriate zoning here for these parcels. I am not sure what the motivation was for having them zoned Rural Residential 3 but in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan I think it should be designated Light Industrial at this time. I am representing all three applicants at this time. This is actually one application not three different ones being heard at one time. Exhibit #1 — Photo Exhibit #2 — Photo Exhibit #3 — Photo Exhibit #4 — Photo Exhibit #5 — Photo Exhibit #6 — Copy of table 4. Chapter 23.04 from the UDC Exhibit #7 — Map Exhibit #8 — Map Exhibit #9 — Additional photos Exhibit #10 — copy of portion from the Comprehensive Plan G. Piercy: I do have one question for you. The zoning you are asking for reflects their use now? R. Fair: Yes. G. Piercy: So that is the best designation for the current use? R. Fair: Yes, it is G. Piercy: O.K. R. Fair: We are also not relying on any City services which is one of the criteria for properties outside. actually one of the train criteria for properties outside the Urban Growth Area. They are all on wells septic. etc, so. If you have any further question? W. Sahli: Did you say that it was in the Urban Growth Area? R. Fair: It is not W. Sahli: it is not, O.K. R. Fair: The Urban Growth Area is across the street. W. Sahli: O.K. G. Piercy: O.K. at this time we will open the public portion of this hearing. Anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone? Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, anyone would like to speak for or against this proposal? M. Palmer: I move that the public hearing be closed J. Fleming: Second 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -24- April 3, 2002 G. Piercy: It is has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercv: Mr. Fair? R. Fair: No further comments. G. Piercy: O.K. A. Brower: I'll make a motion that we approve W. Sahli: I'll second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we approve this. Is there any discussion on the motion? J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for- the motion before us is a land use designation change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial, all in favor signify by saving AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: That will move forward with a recommendation to the Countv Commissioners that they make that change, findings one through nine. We will move to number 30. which is the Dept. of Natural Resources land use designation change from Public Open Space to Rural Remote. B. Sumrall: Number 30. the Dept. of Natural Resources they own a complete section of ground. This is down across from the Inland Park. and all of the ones that you just did where they mentioned there was a gravel pit. Located on or in the vicinity where they said there was some mining going on there. This land under the Public Open Space keeps them from leasing that gravel pit should anybody else want to use it. So they would like it changed back to Rural Remote from Public Open Space. They have permitted Conditional Use Permits from the Board of Adjustment for the operation of that gravel pit and it is just about ready to be renegotiated to someone else and what they would like the opportunity to be able to continue that use on the property as well as the Agriculture use that is also located there and under the Pubic Open Space they are unable to do that - G. Piercy: So that is your report? B. Sumrall: That is my report. Would you like to see where it is? G. Piercy: I would kind of like to see where it is and what the surrounding zoning is? B. Sumrall: 36, 19.27 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -25- April 3, 2002 G. Piercy: I would hate to slow flus hearing up. but ... (laughter) B. Sumrall: The section that DNR is located in... D. Black: Billie. can you move that a little closer. it is way up there.. ..Thanks B. Sumrall: Is 36. the City of Moses Lake will be to the east. this is the freeway, all of those properties that you just changed would be located here. The property in the green is Rural Remote. which is what they would like there to be. To the west and the east of this parcel is also Public Open Space but it is pretty much owned by the government. So this is the piece that they own right here. adjacent to Rural Remote. G. Piercy: O.K. I think we know where we are at and what we are doing. Is there a proponent for this? I presume you are done Billie? B. Suntrall: Yes G. Piercy: Is there is a proponent for this project? Lacking a proponent we will move to the public hearing portion of this particular matter. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal. please come to the m)crophone? Is there anyone who would Iike to speak for or against this proposal? Last call. is anyone would like to speak for or against this proposal? J. Fleming: I move that the public hearing be closed. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. all in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: No proponent. We need a motion. J. Fleming: I move that the amendment be allowed W. Sahli: I'll second it. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded to that we change the land use designation. is there any discussion on the motion? W. Sahli: Question G. Piercy: The question has been called for. the motion that we are voting on is a land use designation change from Public Open Space to Rural Remote, all in favor signify by saying Aye. W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -26- April 3, 2002 G. Piercv: That will move forward with a recommendation that be changed. findings 1 through 9. That will move us it item #34 Jason & Karlve Pattison land use designation change from Commercial to Rural Residential. B. Sumrall: This subject property is located on the left side of the highway going through Lakeview Park on the wav to Soap Lake. You probably went right by. the old motel site there. The property has been zoned Commercial for manv years and Mr. & Mrs. Pattison are asking that the land use designation be changed to Residential because of the fact it would enable them to find more cost efficient financing. There are... they have converted the motel units into private residences. I think you will find a letter from them in the notebooks. The lots consist of two single residences and one duplex. They indicated thev have no intention of changing the use of these residences in any way. The motel has been there ever since there has been zoning in the County as far as I know of It has always been zoned Commercial along with the.... Both sides of the highway the front lots. so this could be considered a spot zone. Mr. Pattison or their representatives are here tonight to answer any questions that you might have. G. Piercy: O.K. Thanks Billie and you did say that all of the surrounding zoning is Commercial? B. Sumrall: Yes. both sides of the highway. G. Piercy: Ah is there a proponent that would like to speak to us'? C. Alberti: Chris Alberti. P.O. Box 1162. Ephrata and unfortunately I haven't been sworn in yet. G. Piercy: Do you here by swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of Washington that the testimony that you give is truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief? C. Alberti: I do G. Piercy: Thank you. C. Alberti: Just real quickly my parents bought the property about 12 years ago and at that time converted it to a family residence for us. Currently they live there along with my Grandma and my sister and brother-in-law and one other friend. For the last twelve years it has not spent one day in commercial use. For the entire time it has been used by our family and we intent to keep it in the family and use it in the future. We permanently disassembled the motel so to speak. The units are connected to each other now and we have removed kitchens and bathrooms and that type of thing t where they are set up as a duplex and you no longer could rent them as individual units like they originally were and that has been done permanently. We have had a very, very difficult time financing it as a family because we don't rent it and we don't want to finance it as a rental but it is about impossible to get financing for something that you live in that is zoned Commercial. So that is our request thank you. G. Piercy: O.K. We will now open the public testimony portion of this hearing. Anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? W. Sahli: I will make a motion that the public hearing be closed. J. Fleming: Second 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -27- April 3, 2002 G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed, all in favor signifyby saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: Anything else you would like to say? O K. W. Sahli: Billie you said it was zoned Commercial all around'? B. Sumrall: Yes. I have a map here, you can't see it to well but this is the highway going toward Soap Lake and this area here is known as Lakeview Park. There is two different colors of red here. a dark red and the area running through it that is red runs adjacent to the highway one block on this side. two blocks. I'm sorry '/ block. Ephrata would be to the southwest and Soap Lake. . ... This is the highway right here. This would be the golf course and the old drive-in theater would be right here. The subject propem, would be right here. S. Clark: This is located in the Lakeview Urban Grovoh area. W. Sahli: Il is? S. Clark: Yes. if that helps you... W. Sahli: That did it for me. G. Piercy: You will have to turn the lights back on before we go to sleep. Well gentleman we need a motion. W. Sahli: With it zoned like it is there and somebody coming in it and could always come in right next door, when it is commercial and maybe disrupting to a residence. so with that I will make a motion to deny the request. J. Fleming: Second G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded that we deny this request. and discussion of the motion. J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for, the motion that we are voting on is a.... where am I at. number 30 W. Sahli: 34 G. Piercy: The land use designation change from Public... no, no number 34, where did I get lost at? J, Fleming: I don't know... G. Piercy: Oh, there it is a land use designation change from Commercial to Rural Residential all in... we are voting against the land use designation change, all in favor signify by saying AYE 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -28- Apri13, 2002 W. Sahli: Ave J. Fleming: Ave G. Piercy: Ave G. Piercy: Show of hands_ we have three D. Black: Show of hands. G. Piercy: I am voting that this not move forward and you are voting that it does.... A. Brower: No. I'm not against. I'm against the motion . G. Piercy: O.K. so this will move forward without a recommendation to the County Commissioners and so there will not be any findings D. Black: Just to make sure I'm clear. Al c4[ Martell voted against the motion. Thank you. A. Brower: Did you vote for it? G. Piercy: I voted for the motion. That brings us to number 20. Huck Goodrich. Moses Lake a land use designation change from Agriculture to Urban Residential and a UGA boundary change for the City of Moses Lake. Billie B. Sumrall: Mr. Goodrich's residence is located on the south side of Pelican Point and I will show a map here real quick. Pelican Point by Moses Lake is this area right here and Mr. Goodrich has a five acre piece located down on the southern portion of this property that was left out of the UR -2 zone and put into the Ag zone, land use designation I'm sorry. The Rural Residential -2 to the east and Urban Residential -2 to the north and he would like to change this five acre piece to rnatch the Urban Residential -2 like the rest of Pelican Point. G. Piercv: Where is the section line or the road'' B. Sumrall: Right there. S. Clark: A portion was bisected by the UGA B. Sumrall: Yes. S. Clark: You should probably explain this. B. Sumrall: Is that .... His house actually sits right in this are& and half of it in the UGA and half of it is out. G. Piercy: So, I'm confused. Where is the UGA boundary currently? B. Sumrall: Right here. D. Black: Billie you want to grab the mic G. Piercy: Mr. Goodrich can you show us. Sure come forward and help us out. H. Goodrich: I'm Huck Goodrich and I haven't been sworn in. G. Piercy: He said he wasn't 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -29- April 3, 2002 H. Goodrich: I was not... G. Piercv: Are you sure'? H. Goodrich: I was sworn in a week ago. (laughter) G. Piercy: Here we go.... Do you here by swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the testimony you give is truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief? H. Goodrich: Yes. G. Piercv: Thank You. H. Goodrich: 1 better get up here. the urban growth boundary for some reason got drawn.... D. Black: You will need to take the microphone. I'm som,- H. Goodrich: All of this. my house is actually right here and for some reason the boundary got drawn. jogged around my house so it put this in the same zone as Pelican Point. UR -2 and a lot of this and left the house itself outside the boundary in the Ag property. G. Pierev: So which piece of property are we dealing with" H. Goodrich: Actually what I want to do is redraw this boundary so the house is in the same and I want all of this UR -2 the same as Pelican Point. It was RR -1 before the UGA was drawn. I'm not sure how this all occurred. But I don't want to be in it. G. Piercv: What is the red? H. Goodrich: Rural Residential -2 and I'm not sure what that does. B. Sumrall: That means it is outside the Urban Growth Boundary. H. Goodrich: So the Urban Growth Boundary comes around here. S. Clark: Exactly that is the red line. he RR -2 is outside the UGA and what Mr. Puller has... H. Goodrich: Goodrich.... S. Clark: I'm sorry. He has three parcels in this arm two of which are actually included in the Rural Residential -2 on that northern side. There is a red... right there. And a portion a piece that he owns that is the long rectangular piece there on the southerly portion is bi- sected by the UGA. So that one is bisected the other two in their entirety are out but they are all contiguous to each other and located by the black line that he has added in there. G. Piercy: Does that make sense. H. Goodrich: This black line actually shows and like Scott says it is actually three pieces• this is one piece, this is all of another piece and then in the center is a well which is the third piece. One of the wells services the water system for Pelican Point is in the middle of this and that is the third parcel. I would like the boundary redrawn and all of it designated UR -2 the same as Pelican Point. G. Piercy: O.K. is everyone clear on what we are trving to to do here? O.K. Billie is there anything else you would like to tell us? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -30- April 3, 2002 B. Sumrail: No. G. Piercv: and Mr. Goodrich you are the proponent is there an} tliing else you wish to add? H. Goodrich: No I think that is it. G. Piercy: O.K. H. Goodrich: Other than I might mention it is your policy to return stuff back to what it was before.... G. Piercy: I say we generally do that. (laughter) D. Black: I will need your map as an exhibit. Exhibit #1 — Map H. Goodrich: I did loose it A. Brower: Som about that. S. Clark: If you need a new one Mr. Goodrich we can get you one. H. Goodrich: O.K. G. Piercy: O.K. at this time we will open the public hearing portion of this particular hearing, anyone that would like to speak for or against tlus proposal please come to the microphone. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal. Last call. is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? J. Fleming: I move that the public hearing be closed G. Piercv: It has been moved and seconded the public hearing be closed all in favor signigty by saying AYE J. Fleming: Aye A. Brower: Ave M. Palmer: Ave W. Sahli: Aye G. Piercy: Mr. Goodrich anything else'? H. Goodrich: No G. Piercy: O.K. we need a motion J. Fleming: I move that this plan amendment 2001-20 Huck Goodrich be approved. M. Palmer: Second G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded that this land use designation change be approved all discussion... A. Brower: Ah does that change the density requirement at all? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 31 - April 3, 2002 S. Clark: Ultimately that would change the density. yes. It would be included in the UGA if-. approved. Yes. A. Brower: Up or down? S. Clark: It would have an overall increased density for those areas that are currently outside of the UGA. A portion, which is now, is in and a portion is out. So that is the change. 1. Fleming: It would make all of this property consistent G. Piercv: O.K. J. Fleming: Question G. Piercy: O.K. a question has been called for. the proposal we are voting on is a land use designation change from Agriculture to Urban Residential and a UGA boundary change for the City of Moses Lake. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: I will vote with that to move that on with a recommendation that be changed. You understand that this has to go before the City and they have to work it out... findings one through nine D. Black: Thank you. G. Piercy: At this point and time I am only going to take the hearing that the people are sitting around waiting for. S. Clark: Mr. Sivula is here. G. Piercy: Mr. Sivula is here. is that how you pronounce that? S. Clark: Sivula. I think. G. Piercy: Sivula and who else? Storpa B, Sumrall: Sivula and Storpa G. Piercy: O.K. so those are... B. Sumrall: Two more G. Piercy: Two more and that will be it. B. Sumrall: I think that is all that is here. O.K. here we go. D. Black: Billie you want to pull that mic down, it's way to high for you. G. Piercy: 38 - Edward Sivula, land use designation change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential, Billie... 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -32- April 3, 2002 B. Sumrall: This is bordered by County• Road 10 NE on the south and the Rural Residential !arta use designation boarded lus property on the south side of County Road 10. 1 have a map here, I though I did. 11. 13. 20. 27.... The orange property that you see here is Rural Residential. the green is Rural Remote. Mr. Sivula's property is located right here. Highway 17 and County Road 10 would be boarding the property on the south. This is McChonie Flats. That is all I have. Rural Remote has a twenty -acre minimum lot size for development and Mr. Sivula has 80 acres. G. Piercy: O.K. I think we, is it in section 1 I or section 13'1 You changed the point are you getting tired to? You say it is section I I B. SumralL I'm sorry.... 10 right here. I'm sorry. . G. Piercy: Right there. O.K. I think we know what we are doing. Mr. Sivula? E. Sivula: I am Edward Sivula. 12574 Rd C. I NW. Ephrata and I was sworn in earlier. My presentation is about three paragraphs. Well, we looked at the two forty -acre tracts and saw that they are not prime farmland and they are close in to Moses Lake. We pictured a neighbor hood very much like the nearby Neppel Road development. When the County decided a road needed to he built through this area. then that could be the time to get the two properties ready and available for sale for those who desired to live on five -acre tracts, to have them to look at and consider. When the state sand that Grant County must comply with the GMA and draw a map, the map that was drawn indicated that properties could become 10 -acre tracts. Then several months or so later the State complained that the map showed too much land that could become smaller tracts and that the maps must be redrawn. which then shows the two properties could only become 20 -acre tracts. Since the GMA does want density to occur close into a town and radiate outward and that both tracts border a new county road. newly County Road 10, please re -designate them as OX to become smaller tracts as you first did. Thank You G. Piercy: Any questions for Mr. Sivula? If not we will open the public hearing portion of this whatever we are doing, heanng at this time, anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone? Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call. anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? A. Brower: I move that the public hearing be closed J. Fleming: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: W. Sivula anything else? E. Sivula: That is all. G. Piercy: O.K. It is getting late. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 33- April 3, 2002 W. Sahli: Billie that was zoned what before we made it Rural Remote. B. Sumrall: It was Ag before W. Sahli: It was Ag before S. Clark: Before the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Is it clear where these two forty acre tracts are located? Billie I think w as referring to one of them. but there are two. One is at the north. va thev are kittv-corner. thev touch on the corner. W. Sahli: Ya. S. Clark: The northwest corner of Section 13 so A. Brower: Well according to the maps in the book... G. Piercy: Do these two pieces that we are talking about are they adjacent, do they touch. E. Sivula: No thev do not touch. thev both border one on the north side and one on the south side of road 10.... D. Black: He is going to have to be at the microphone G. Piercy: For the record his answer is no. A. Brower: The book is correct. G. Piercy: Yes, the book is correct. Mr. Sivula conformed that the map in the book is correct. O.K. Who is going to give me a motion here" J. Fleming: Who is going to do it... W. Sahli: No I am going to let you. M. Palmer: 1 move that we so approve it. G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion to approve is there a second? Motion dies for a tack of a second. Does anyone care to make a different motion" J. Fleming: I move that we disapprove it. G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved that we not approve it Is there a second to that motion. A. Brower: I will second that motion. G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded that we not make this change, is there any discussion on the motion? A. Brower: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for, all in favor of deriving the land use designation change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential please sigmiy by saying Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -34- April 3, 2002 J. Fleming: Ave G. Piercy: Martell you are voting against. OX it will move without a recommendation to the County, Commissioners. There is no recommendation Did you get the vote right Dorothv? D. Black: Yes G. Piercy: O.K.. that will move us to the last hearing for tonight #41. Chuck Storfa, Soap Lake. a land use designation change from Agriculture to Rural Remote. B. Sumrall: Mr. Storfa is the owner of a 40 acre parcel on the Dry Coulee road out Soap Lake in a portion of Section 2, Township 22 Range 27. There are no water rights on the property and he would like to change the land use designation from Agriculture which s a 40 -acre minimum lot size per dwelling unit to Rural Remote. This would change the dwelling unit density to one house per 20 acres Side B B. Sumrall: This is Highway 28. Soap Lake would be down this way and Section 2 and the Storfa property.... The yellow that you see is Agriculture and the orange color is Rural Residential. That has a dwelling unit density of one dwelling unit per five acres. There is no Rural Remote in this township. That is basically what I have. G. Piercy: O.K. thanks Billie. Mr. Storfa? C. Storfa: Yes, my name is Charles Storfa. P.O. Box 125 Soap Lake D. Black: I'm sorry. were you sworn? C. Storfa: Yes. I was. D. Black: Thank vou. C. Storfa: Can you show the map? I know there is no Rural Remote where I am asking for this. One of the consideration is my property actually sits %2 mile past Road 23 which this is' the canal. Road 23 is right here and my property is right in here. G. Piercy: Which side of Road 23 is your property on, North or South? C. Storfa: North, right here. I am exactly '/� mile from it and this is all Rural —1 which is I believe 5 acre parcels. All of this in here. G. Piercy: You say you are a %: mile north of Road 23? C. Storfa: My address 23537 G. Piercy: But the property is right.... C. Storfa: Right in this area .... Oh it is right here... From there, so I am in this area right here, in fact, I think that Wright be... it might be in here... just so I am right here. Right here, and this is all BLM land here, this is a commercial circle, and the ground that I live on is nothing but rock and sagebrush, a little bit of sagebrush and tons of tumbleweed. It's not even good grazing land. I can't get more then two or three weeks out of it with a couple of horses out there. I am looking to split the property in two, my parents want to 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -15 - April 3, 2002 purchase half of it and build. Thev want to move from Montana. that is the reasoetut other than that. that is what I am asking for It is pretty simple. and 1 hope you will rule in my favor. A. Brower: Is it a full forty acres? C. Storfa: It is a full forty. ves. A. Brower: What is that little corner.... G. Piercy: Mr. Storfa, Al had a question for you, on the map there was a little portion that was drawn out. apparently at some time there was a legal description of something else? A. Brower: There seems to be a little corner out of there. W. Sahli: It shows on our maps in our packet. C. Storfa: O.K. and I see the map again. The legal description of the pieces that were original sold. There is a 6 acre piece here and then there are three forty acre parcels. One of the forty acre parcels actually wraps around that five acre parcel right there. So from here to here is forty acres with a five, a forty and a another fom. And then the rest is BLM land. G. Piercy: The map we have in our book isn't quite correct. Because if it was, what is shaded in there looks like about 120 acres. W. Sahli: It does look like 120 acres... G. Piercy: At this time we will open the public hearing, anyone that would like to speak for or against this proposal. please come to the microphone. Since I don't see anyone here who would like.... Last call, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal'? W. Sahli: I will make a motion to close public hearing. J. Fleming: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing. All in favor signify by J. Fleming: We never did hear from the ladies in the back of the room. G. Piercy: I know. M. Palmer: Thank goodness... (laughter) G. Piercy: She will not give you a ride home, Martell you better be careful.... (laughter) G. Piercy: Mr. Storfa anything else you would like to say to us? C. Storfa: No, thank you. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -36- April 3, 2002 saying Ave. W. Sahli: Ave A- Brower: Aye J. Fleming: Aye M. Palmer: Aye J. Fleming: We never did hear from the ladies in the back of the room. G. Piercy: I know. M. Palmer: Thank goodness... (laughter) G. Piercy: She will not give you a ride home, Martell you better be careful.... (laughter) G. Piercy: Mr. Storfa anything else you would like to say to us? C. Storfa: No, thank you. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -36- April 3, 2002 G. Piercv: O.K. W. Sahli: Well. with that I would like to make a motion to go to the Rural Remote. M. Palmer: Second. G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion to approve the change and a second. discussion" J. Fleming: Question G. Piercv: Question has been called for. The proposal that we have before us is a land use designation change from Agriculture to Rural Remote. All in favor signify by saving AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Ave J. Fleming: Ave M. Palmer: Ave D. Black: So we have lour votes for G. Piercv: So we have four votes for. is that correct'' W. Sahli: Correct. G. Piercy: Is that right? O.K. we have four votes for I wouldn't vote for this and it will move to the County Commissioners without a recommendation. It is problematic for me where we have the kind of zoning around it to .. We leave that one up to the County Comausstoners. C. Storfa: What do you think? Will that go forward without a .... G. Piercv: I have no idea what they will do... It is one of those tough deals when you have that type of propert out there that is Remote W Sahli: We could all agree and then could sav no also. C. Storfa: Is there any comments from the public . G. Piercy: Ya, you can go to the hearing. I think the proponent anyway. The public hearing has been closed_ but the proponent can ahvays address the County Commissioners. With that we will be adjourned.... D. Black: We need to reschedule... continue the hearing. G. Piercv: Continue. My inclination is to do it in May S. Clark: May 1" would be the regularly scheduled meeting. G. Piercv: Thanks right. May l". S. Clark: That would leave looks like approximately G. Piercv: Seven 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 37- April 3, 2002 S. Clark: Eight G. Piercy: We don't know what Martell is going to do S. Clark: There is eight left on the agenda at this point. so G. Piercy: So that is what we are going to do.... 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment -38- April 3, 2002 Cl -C ASSOCIATC5 (Via Facsimiie) 3-28-02 Ms. Billie Sumrall Grant County Planning Commission 32C Street NW PO Box 37 Ephrata, WA 98823 File # ;' no 1- 41. Date 41310a, Subject: Sun Canyon Resort Request For Amendment To MPR Dear Ms. Sumrall and members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of Sun Canyon. Inc.. ! submit the following facts in aupporr of the requested amendment to Master Planned Resort. Supporting Facts: 1) The Grant County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolutions changing the zoning this 769 acres from Open Space Recreational to Recreational Commercial and Planned Unit Development on May 22, 1978 and January 29, 1979 respectively. 2) These actions were preceded by favorable action of the Planning Commission upon review of detailed plans and an Environmental Impact Statement. 3) The Superior Court and Court of Appeals upheld the actions of the County and further found that the actions were consistent with the then cirrent Comprehensive Plan goats and policies. 4) The ownership has remained the same throughout the intervening years and the County has routinely granted extensions to the preliminary PUD approval pending the developer's procurement of water rights and infrastructure development. 5) The GMA Plan Text describes a land use identical to the previously approved project, as Master Planned Resort. Inadvertently the plan failed to designate the subject property, previous!y approved as a resort and planned unit development, as a Master Planned Resort. 7137 \MEET 7TH AVENUE •®UITE 20C • 9POKANG • WA 99204 • P SOO 4E0 6040 • F 509 450 6644 DENVER • SPOKANE SALT LAKE CITY UP 6) The Grant County Comprehensive Pian text at page 5RU-20 defines Master Planned Resort as a "tourist oriented community surrounding a golf course located adjacent to a scenic area, such as a fake or river." The subject property matches this description. 7) The County's Comprehensive Plan identifies policies to guide the development of MPR's. We intend to comply with all applicable regulations. 8) The development regulations prevent sprawl beyond the boundaries of the MPR. 9) Critical areas can be protected and mitigated. 10) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts can and have been considered and mitigated, e.g., the 1-90 Interchange at Mile 143 and the subsequent five mile paved Silica Road project. 11)Pursuant to the Comprehensive Pian text at Page 5RU-21, Approval criteria for a Master Planned Resort are set forth in the comprehensive plan at page 5RU-21. The proposed project will compiy with these criteria. 12)The Comprehensive Plan text identifies only one MPR, as Sun Lake Dry Falls State Park. And, according to the text, this was based on the fact that the State Park Board previously approved a master plan for the park on July 12, 1998. The Grant County Planning Commission and the Grant County Board of Commissioners had approved the Sun Canyon project and sustained this approval until the current GMA Plan was adopted, inadvertently failing to carry forward the prior designation. The proposed amendment is simply a matter of formally restoring or correcting the GMA Plan for consistency with previous approved action. We respectfully request approval of this amendment to enable our development team to proceed through the rest of the regulatory process and to secure the appropriate approvals for the master planned resort. Respectfully submitted, Dwight J. Hume Senior Planner, CLC Associates Copy; W. J. Thomas Ferguson Sandra Boyd Morrison _4-2001 12:10 WINDERMERE—K2 t '.e,7 �vhj:��F st 171929 Li z z z z Q Fol 201929 W. CITY, COUNTY OR STATE ROAD PROPERTY LINE -- SECTION LINE bum mmu WON EXISTING URBAN GROWTH AREA EXPANSION BOUNDARY AREA OF REQUEST 1000 500 0 1000 2000 NATIONAL FROZEN FOODS = 61 ACRES± r! DEPT, OF NATURAL RESOURCES = 20 ACRES± SCALE IN FEET RUSSELL FODE = 92 ACRESt URBAN GROWTH AREA S. 16, T. 19, R. 299 E.W.M. I MUNICIPAL SERVICES DEPT. — ENGINEERING DWISION - - I- 1.6 ZONING: Approximately 30 acres in the southeast corner of the property is zoned heavy industrial, as it is part of the town of Wheeler zoning. The remaining acreage is zoned agriculture. Port 0f Moses Lake Terminal Building Grant County Airport Moses Lake, WA 98837 t (509) 762-5363 a a $ 0 9 Pr FIRE h INTERNATIONAL STATION yZ w, TITANIUM PLANT .P t� + • CENEX ON CARBIDE TE�RMICOLD ` FULL CIRCLE PLANT CORP. INC CARNATION A COMPANY A WESTERN CRAFT W 4 . ER WHEELER ROAD ( 3 NE)COMRINY �I pap PURE ORO U L I Sib STA. o COW MPANY F 46 COLUMBIA BEAN •N• • • Y B PRODUCE CO, INC. - 4 2 1 V Y lC pl p 3R OI SO! D d S p2� d R Ol f! N p DID Ol(Qr J �J MI 5;!!!! i w 3i{.Z/M M; TI x E N pT C 'C I N Oi Om o O O +� O �. N OiND 4iN�p O' O u w� A. V 5yj ! �_ N Ll I (,,f1 � A N �i t0 , f0 : • C] I �; {, n C imFl m, pmi g D, D x m' O J ,� � j N 3 N d, m d 'W' �w fu m'm ts' f x' I n vi rni oolm icirn rn m. ml IT G OI OI O +IGC c oo p O� Oar U P,m „> N' O t0'Of OIIU U UI N QJI O O O tL j 188p, N m,OSI Iu Cw wl O 100 Ogo � opC C G8 IC u, +O m m m' w QI VCI f8J tST� oP CN, CN tGl, CI O \� BV 1 O1 O 6;0 Oi� 00+ al o O O; C o O � OOIC+ O d, 00 00'u N O� ((�.� O U�OI N r OI' Q> ml VCr T r T+ + T N W T C- i, C ("ql r �'N w, N tD N NI r rl r N Ip r 99 r Q+' IPN T' �'N +I r r' r CN O i r m m y m 9r V �m Im m y G 2L co A r < m; ml N m In. DE r CD 7 g_ rL 3 CD Q I i Q C pr D Q p O O N 1 N N O p O D 5.G r1 N I I I S 1 G wlp 10 N D 9 m C C. ; Gli rn.\+iA DI DiD > s!In SI CI Dii W!O ly n, pl,.ZCI! w, w w•3 n� SL P $ (m CL r lC 'rhibit #_ -iie # Date y �- GOAL UR-9 Annually reviewed proposals for UGA amendments for consistency with the goals and policies of this plan. Comprehensive Plan, Page 4-12 tlWL\VOL2kDOCLNMDSSOI-RJF-FODE.DOC 4/3/02 -1- PAGE 5-15 An inventory of developable land has been conducted as part of the plan development process (see technical appendix A — Economic Profile of Grant County). The inventory concludes that there are excellent prospects for continued high rates of industrial growth in the county. Primary prospects for industrial growth are in the Wheeler corridor and adjacent areas of Moses Lake as well as in the vicinity of the Port of Moses Lake/Grant County International Airport. However, the available supply of developable industrial lands in both areas in limited and not expected to be adequate to accommodate potential industrial Growth. Page 5-15 ML\VOL.\DOC\MMDSSLF.RJF-KNOPP.DOC 411/02 Em UR -9.4 Policy UR -9.4 states: "The area that is designated for the expansion of any UGA should be contiguous to any existing urban growth boundary." Page 4-13 M1UVOL2IDOC%MMD55O1-RJF-FODE.DOC 413102 -4- i si m s or - --- n _, Exhibit dile # ):.�. Date 1' `c �• a q1 Ll 13hdd `ZZ yoo� j �— J ✓ � 5 E3 CJ � J C 7-1 c> c> u 'S c � s or - --- n _, se'Laoi ' �,cgyg�,oc N �• a q1 Ll 13hdd `ZZ yoo� ! 7 d -LYONS, Ni M aoo ✓ � Ta p� � J C �l p 'S w.. That portion of the West hall of the Southca�t quarter of Section 2(,, 'Township 11� North, Range 27 E.W.M., Grant County, W,IShmgton, dcscribcd as follows: Beginning at a 1./2 inch rcbar with Swr cvui'ti ( ,jp nm king the Norlhwest corner id that certain parcel of land described . � Paiccl "13" on that certain record of mn\•:�, recorded in Book 16 of Surveys, pages 35 and 36, records of Grant County and the true point of beginning; thence South Off 02'33" West, following the West boundary of said Parcel 575.50 feet, to a 1/2 inch rcbar with surveyor's cap; thence following Ih. boundary of said parcel and a tangential curve to the left, having a central angle k,l 9 00'00" and a radius of 25 feet, 39.27 feet, to an intersection with the North right of way boundary of 1-90, said point being marked by a 1/2 inch rcbar wilh surveyor's cap: thence North 31Y57'27" West, following said North right of way boundary, 696.32 feet. to an intersection with the West boundary of said Southeast quarter, said point hcin,_ also the Southeast corner of Lot 4, Goodwin Short Platt, as per the plat Ihcrcol recorded in Book 22 of Short Plus. pace 17 and tS, rccords of (;1,111t ('ounty, point being marked by a 1/2 inch rchar .uth Survc}or's Cap: thence Nnrlh Utl'•1(,'u East, following said West boundary and the Gast houndary of said Lot •1, (;nodN�m Short Plat and it's projection. MSTS5 feet, to a 1/2 inch rcbar with Surveyor's ( ap. thence North 3732'49" East, 136.87 feet, to a 1/2 inch rcbar with Smvcyor's Cap, thence South 33' 00'27" East, 190.33 feel, to a 1/2 inch rchar with Survey's C'ap; Ihcncc South 49°02'33" East, 206.04 feet, to a 1/2 inch rcbar with Surveyor's Cap; (hence South 5700'49" East, 314.19 feel, to a 1/2 inch rcbar with Surveyor's Cap; thence South W02'33" West, 15.17 feel, to the true point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH all water and watct rights, if any, ditches, appropriations. franchises, privileges, permits, licenses and casements that are on, connected with, m usually had and enjoyed in connection «nh the dhow-dcscrihcd read property. RANO LANK' FIRIN1 Y P,EE�022 Ps?747 bUDjeUl •..R:i __ Property �- 4 „"Ynh . _-1 •ice'-.. Y-� )> u `' Ar .. _ , ..- a -'• - ?t1`_ .. . 10 .1 S, - • lam- 3 Vantage ..d � Y '"___ rte•. s'�'" -=? SR 243::-: C 814 NURIm nun,. SEC. 33 P.u.0. "K" LINE E `e/ N P- N 87.22'20'�er�u 270.00' 3 M -33E BRASS w, CAP 8.84= ACRES \ o rn 5 v- \ z TANGENT � 0 -MRO BEARING hlb$ #� '\Fie #29$.00' te 228.24' 114.18' 228.18' N 28•02'17`V EXHIBIT 2940.00' 484.06' 242.58' 483.52' N 32.57'10'V Y Z � O _J �1 Dam . 1TY MAP NTS. \ �,VANTAGE 1 90 ` hlch4(q • G2, Y 1?6 ROYAL. CITY 9� S B1.45'S 35.10' i 9`' .... ........................... 28.2 \ H+ ` THIS PARCEL l \` BEVERLY \ 23'44' 26'00" CURVE DATA '45 84.98' S 45.39'11'E 63.39' S 154091-1E m 5 v- mius ARC TANGENT CHORO 0 -MRO BEARING hlb$ #� '\Fie #29$.00' te 228.24' 114.18' 228.18' N 28•02'17`V EXHIBIT 2940.00' 484.06' 242.58' 483.52' N 32.57'10'V m '� �_ '• r l -r L f �.p � r ,tn u t� r -r � � .kyr 'Is S-a'i�. / � ' �N 1 4A .�_� Y!E rte. �(}"�f'N �`�^ er' ii �' j✓t� �s'.��' M"' i- St _ t !1 [- 3. , if %' k n+"�t;`'`� Tf.. •:j! w i �c !: !4,—s^ 'tri. !' `�r.i2..i .�' q '.';. rk�",. ...a °C:. i`.e _.• � Ylt'i i'� It -N,_ � �y'aa.'�6t � a "�yc...`�..�ae1"_'„ _ ---.• :w ".°`'�.:''''�^c".mac:.. yr k—.+ t_._�.. }�... it.'♦ F �_{.. )� ��L�.,N �w (,rant P( 117 Power • V7 I ^ r — Yom•—iT is 515 4 0 I 1 �+ }rt Q2 t _-': � J _ i 1 GRANT CW Y OrAet of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ►oxv orreett Sox 27 [!'"RATA. W"MIMOTON $46" 150*1 7ZA-1011 BOARD OF COUNTY COhMSSIONERS GRANT COUNTY. WASHINGTON 1N THE MATTER OF CHANGING THE ZONING FROM PUBLIC FACILITIES TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL. OPEN SPACE RECREATION, AND AND AGRICULTURE, IN PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 27 k 33. TOWNSHIP 17 N, RANGE 23 EWM, GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON Resolution a 98 -90 -cc -.. Exhibit die a0a1-1q Date 4�= RESOLUTION APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE I=AND TERRY COCHRAN a i.a. JETT FARMS WiiEREAS, the Board of County Comnnsstoaers of Grant County have been advised by the Grant County Planning Comm, s -ion that a public hearing was conducted on May 6, 1998, and then continued to June 3, 1998 on the matter of changing the zoning from -PF (Public Facilities)" to "CR (Commercia) Recreation)', CSR (Open Space Recreation) and AG (Agriculture) on a 256+ acre parte: located to a portions of Sections 27 and 33, Township 17 North. Range 23 East, W.M., Grant County, Washington, and; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County have been advised by the Gram County Planning Department. that the Graaf Conary Planning Commission recommended approval on said matter with findings, and; WHEREAS, the Board of County Cottm issioners of Gran County having said recommendation for approval, have given notice this rnatter wouid be considered at a closed record public meeting on Jinx 29, 1998, and; WHEREAS, the Board of County Comnumioners of Grant County have upheld the recommendation for approval and findings of falx of the Grant Conary Planning Commission; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have found that the proposal does fall within a Critical Area as defined by the Gram County Resource Lands and Critical Arm Development Ordinance, and; d' WHEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners have found that there is a need for a Commercial Reaeatton amenities in the area by virtue of expressed interest of the pubbe and those residing in the immediate arca, and: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have found the property does have access to freeways, and; WHEREAS, the Board of Courcy Commissioners have found there is sufficit:nr r polite and fire protectiea,. and; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Grant Cotmty have found that the proposal is consistent with the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and surrounding uses, and; J WIiF,RF.AS, the Board of County Commissioners of Graaf County have found that a Determmadoa of Non -Significance was issued for this proposal on April 27, 19911and the requirements of the State Environmental Polley Act (SEPA) have been met, and; 42 GR;44T CO. N'_pNN1Nc Jcl ij-�Q> ,_ Page 2 of 2 IN THE MATTER OF CHANGING THE ZONING FROM PUBLIC FACILITIES TO COMMERCIAL RECREATION, OPEN SPACE RECREATION, AND AGRICULTURE IN A PORTION OF SECTIONS 27 do 33, TOWNSHIP 17 N., RANGE 23 E., W.M., GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON WHEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners have found that the proponent has presented sufficient evidence drat there is sufficient need in the area for the types of uses allowed and size of lots, and; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have found that the public interest will be served by the approval of this rezone request. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, Washington do by this resoiution approve the zone change request from Public Facilities to Commercial Recreation, Open Space Recreation, and Agriculture on the following described propcny. The Fast in of Section 33. Township 17 North. Range 23 East lying East of State Route 143 and adjacent to Tract 211, and the portion of Section 27, Township 17 North, Range 23 East tying South of State Route 26, Gram County, Washington. Done this_ day of July, 1998. Chairman ATTEST: leric of thi Soard Cotnntissioaer Commrssiorter CoaWtutlag the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, Washington. W.. M "ATTACHMENT - I" This property was once owned by Grant County and was zoned "Public Facilities." In 1997 we purchased the property at public auction We applied for a zone change in 1998 to CR (Commercial Recreation) and this was granted by Resolution 498 -90 -CC on July 7, 1998. A copy of this Resolution is attached hereto. We have invested a substantial amount of time and money in site development based upon the CR zone, including the following: (1) Installation of P.U.D. power; (2) Commercial access — W.S.D.O.T. Access No. 7211 (see attached copy of Access Connection Permit); (3) Drilled well; (4) Installed electrical service and pump; (5) Extensive grading and site preparation under Building Permit 2000-420. (See attached copy of Permit and Memo dated June 7, 2000 from Damian Hooper of the Grant County Planning Department to Dave Nelson, Director of Grant County Department of Community Development). A listing of the cost of work performed is attached hereto as "EXHIBIT No. 3." The new Comprehensive Plan changed the property from CR to RR (Rural Remote) and such change is incompatible and unsuitable to the recent history of this property. We are asking that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to RGC (Rural General Commercial) to allow the uses as intended when this property was rezoned in 1998 to CR (Commercial Recreation) or, in the alternative, to RFC (Rural Freeway Commercial). "EXHIBIT NO. 3 9 3LQa COST OF WORK PERFORMED PURSUANT TO REZONE DATE WORK PERFORMED COST AMOUNT 1997-01 Survey $ 1,600.00 1997-01 Professional Services $ 3,800.00 1997-01 General Labor $ 4,000.00 1997-01 Equipment Work $ 1,800.00 1998 Washington State D.O.T. Access $ 30,000.00 1998 Power Easement Across Adjoining Landowner (Myrick) $ 45,000.00 Property 1999 Well $ 7,500.00 1999 P.U.D. Power $ 78,000.00 2000 Well Pump $ 3,500.00 2000 Pump and Electrical Installation $ 2,300.00 2000 Seeding and Fencing $ 3,500.00 2000 Grading and Gravel $ 35,000.00 TOTAL: $2169000.00 0 i1ML\VODU)O 'kMWB3J 1-L WL -COCl IRAN-EX3.DOC6/ 1/01 r Per z shington State partment of Transportation 7211 ie Address of Applicant: J - 'OCHRAN & TERRY COCHRAN 55 OAD 11 SW R CITY WA 99357 Access Connection Permit CS 1341 SR 243 Region North Central e Ant, hereinafter referred to as the 'Grantee,' having applied for a permit to eo •t. PAVE, operate and maintain 32 foot wide 75 foot radii WITH TAPERS access connection RIGHT of HES 32 / MM Y 27.87+/-, SR -243, located in SEC33, T17N, R23FW. This permit and its Access Connection is ro Sc single BUSINESS only However, should land use conditions change, this pcmut and the physical access co on may need to be reevaluated. n a pof State Route No. 243 In GRANT County, Washington, ie Wa ton State Department of Transportation or its designee, herein after referred to as the 'Department," by that this permit be granted, subject to the terms and provisions stated upon the General Provisions of xhlbits attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof: 'A' - SpeGal Provisions for Highway Encroachments, Page(s) I & 2 "B" - Access Connection, 32 foot wide and 75 foot radii. "C" - Mail box location. "D" - Road Approach Detail, 18 " culvert. "E" - Map Wampum Dam to Sand Hollow, Sheet 8 of 9 Sheets, shall be void unless the construction herein !d Is started within go days of issuance and elthin 120 days of issuance, unless otherwise S accepted and approved by the Grantee e terms and provisions as herein set forth. ]i fame fillilIIIlillit EF Title: Date: 11 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Title- Regional Planning Engineer _ Date: a 0 ^it n I o X001-14 0 z O L N z z 0 U P U x a O V N m u H < m o�z m H F � Z p J a O O z cl M O M co U O .� a� A' � A W W W N y aZ z i 0 0 a nd a a d z a Y CA COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USESateW, Commercial and industrial uses throughout rural, unincorporated Grant County will be guided by the goals and policies contained in this comprehensive plan. ... while often related to natural resources, the area to be zoned industrial should itself have minimal potential for natural resource utilization. Industrial land should be capable of supporting industrial development with minimal environmental constraints. Particularly important is the ability to support intensive use without significant adverse effects on surface or around water... �\MUVOL2NDOClMMDS508-RJF-COCNRAN NK 413102 GMA GOALS The GMA requires Washington's fastest growing counties, the cities within them, and other jurisdictions opting into the process to plan extensively in accordance with the following goals: *Economic Development Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged person, and encourage growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. Page 1-3 Comprehensive Plan 'QNUVOL2\DOC\MMDSSOS•RJF-CCOCHRAN DOC 4/3/02 0.) II W VISION STATEMENT Grant County seeks to maintain and enhance its quality of life while achieving benefits of growth and minimizing any negative impacts. Our vision defines our future and how we will respond to growth and change. Our vision is comprised of the following basic values: *Promote a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by supporting existing local businesses, making prudent infrastructure investments, and encouraging new business that is compatible with and complementary to the community. 1ML1VOL2)DOCWMDS508-RJF-COCHRAN DOC 4!7/02 II L GOAL ED -3 Insure an adequate supply of commercial and industrial sites to provide opportunity for new and expanding businesses to locate or remain m Grant County. Page 4-31 County Comprehensive Plan \\ML\VOL2kDOC\MMDS508-RJF-COCHRAN DOC 0!3102 GOAL LU -1 Recognized development approvals that have been granted but may not have been constructed or acted upon such as subdivisions, short plats, planned unit developments, territorial plats, special use permits, conditional use permits, and rezones that are nonconforming with the goals and policies of this comprehensive plan, future land use map, and/or subsequent development regulations when they do not threaten public health and safety. Comprehensive Plan, Page 4-5 \\ML%VOL2\DOC\MMDS508.RJFLOCHRAN.DO(' 4/3102 116 POLICY LU -4.2 Policy LU -4.2 states: "Consistency, understanding, and efficiency of the permit process should be promoted." Comprehensive Plan, Page 4-7 uMLIVOLROOCMMMDSSOB•RIFCOCHRAN DOC VM2 POLICY RU -4.4 w "Existing undeveloped commercial and industrial zoned areas outside of UGAs may retain said zoning designations. Commercial and industrial uses in rural lands shall be guided by the goals and policies contained in this comprehensive plan. The zoning map to be adopted with the implementing development regulations will illustrate where such commercial and industrial zoning districts will be located throughout the county. Comprehensive Plan, Page 4-19 \\ML\VOL2\DOOMMD5508-R1F-COCHRAN.DOC 613102 POLICY ED -3.1 Policy ED -3.1 states: J +.a "Encourage of range of commercial retail and service businesses to meet local resident needs and serve visitors to Grant County." Comprehensive Plan, Page 4-31 to 32 \�M6\VOL2`,DOOMMOSSOS-RJF-COCHRAN.D(X' 4/3102 j\—" POLICY ED -3.4 Policy ED -3.4 states: "Facilitate the retention and expansion of existing local businesses and start up of new business particularly those that provide family wage job opportunities and operate in compliance v/ith applicable regulatory requirements. %\ML\VOL2\DOC\MMDS508-RJF-COCHRAN DOC 46/02 GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment :•'LARCH 27. 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Piercy, Chairman. Wayne Sahli, Kirk Sager, Martell Palmer, Al Brower and Dorothy Black - Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT Jim Fleming STAFF PRESENT: Billie Surnrail LEGAL COUNSEL Not present G. Piercy: At this time I would like to call this special session of the Grant County Planning Commission to order and the order of business or the agenda tonight is to review, take public testimony on Comprehensive Plan amendments. For those of you who are new to this process these applications come to this board and we conduct the public hearing. This will be the only public hearing that you will have on the matter and after we review it we make a decision. We will either make a decision to approve or recommend that this action be approved and that recommendation goes to the County Commissioners and then they act on it. They are the ones that make the decision. we make a recommendation to them based on the public testimony that we receive here tonight. When your matter goes to the County Commissioners there %N ill not be another public hearing. That public hearing is here now. That is how the process works. It takes five votes from this board to move something forward with a recommendation so obviously tonight to get five votes it will have to be a unanimous decision. If it is not unanimous decision either way it will move to the County Commissioners with no recommendation and then it is up to them. I am required to swear you in and I will read a short statement here and if you will affirm the statement that I read to you then we will consider you sworn in. When you come to give public testimony please come to the microphone as this is recorded for the public record and state your name and address and we will ask you if you have been sworn in and if you have indicated that you have we will continue and take your public testimony. So I will read that at this time Do you hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of Washington that the testimony that you give is truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes? Audience: Yes G. Piercy: Thank you. Having said that Billie do they have agendas or B. Sumrall: Yes. G. Piercy: What we will do tonight we are going to take item number l first and then we are going to skip number 2 and number 3 and we will take four through eleven, as they are all similar and then we will go back to number 2 and combine it with three others that are represented by AS PI group and do those and then we will go to item number 3 and there are three that we will group together there and then 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 1 - March 27, 2002 we have been approached by the person on item 33 atter we dispose of those -and then we will move to 39 and is that about what we have Billie? B. Sumrall: (inaudible) G. Piercy: I don't know if you were here earlier but if,,ou have traveled a long ways we will try and hear your action tonight so you don't have to come back. Because to dispose of a1148 items on this at is definitely going to take more then this meeting. So make sure when we get some of these done if you are here make sure that we get them done. We don't want to inconvenience you and make you come back. With that we will start with the number I item on the agenda. Billie. B. Sumrall: O.K. The application for the amendment, proposed amendment is by Mr. Jerry Amoruso. Mr. Amoruso has a lot in the plat of Crook Estates, which is a subdivision down located in the southern part of the County. He feels that current zoning which is on the property of Rural Residential is not consistent with the development that has taken place in the area and he wishes his lot #2 to be changed back to the land use designation of Agriculture. I can show you approximately where he is located. The subdivision of Crook Estates is located right in this area and basically Mr. Amoruso can continue doing the same thing under the Rural Residential -2 zoning. The reason that the property is designated Rural Residential -2 is because of the fact that there was a subdivision there and as you can see all of the orange is Rural Residential -2. The yellow being Agriculture, the green being Rural Remote and the Town of Royal City Industrial Area is this area to the northwest. fie wants the designation just for one lot out of that plat. That is basically all I have. I am going to make it short so that people will have a chance to talk G. Piercy: O.K., I think we all understand. A. Brower: How much acreage is involved in the one lot? B. Sumrall: I believe he has 10 acres. A. Brower: O.K. Thank you. G. Piercy: So at this time we will.... Let me see we have a proponent for this proposal that would like to speak to us. It is not required that you do however this is your opportunity if you are a proponent of a land use action to come forward at this time and after you make your presentation we will call for public testimony and then after the public testimony is closed the proponent can come again to the microphone and address any other concerns that he might think of in the interim period. So at this time we will call for the proponent. Is there a proponent in this action here? If not we will open the public hearing on this land use action. Anyone that would like to speak for or against this action please come to the microphone? Is there anyone that would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? W. Sahli: I will make a recommendation that the public hearing be closed. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 2 - March 27, 2002 K. Sager: Seconded G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE K. Sager: Aye W. Sahli: Aye M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: Ave A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: O.K. we will have to call for the proponent aumin, but I assume there isn't one. Gentleman? K. Sager: Are we going to make motions on these as we go along or... G. Piercy: I think we can on some of these. I don't see anv reason why we shouldn't make a decision on this one. K. Sager: I dust want to know what the protocol was. since last year we reviewed them all and then made all of the recommenoauons at one time. A. Brower: Does the 10 acres butt up against Ag or it is sitting out in the middle? B. Sumrall: It sits out in the middle. well as you make the first corner that is his lot and I do have a picture of it. G. Piercy: Al, on the very last page you will see where it is and you will see where the building is and it is basically in the middle of that. B. Sumrall: It is in the middle K. Sager: You would like a motion correct? G. Piercy: I think this is one that we can dig... K. Sager: If we start with this one we might as well make recommendations on all of these as we go. G. Piercy: Sure, some of them if we have a controversy where with more members here, we might be able to make a recommendations and it seems like we might have a division maybe it may be a good idea not to make a decision on them tonight. K. Sager: So some of them we may table for a I ittle later. O.K. G. Piercy: That may be true. K. Sager: O.K. Well I will make a recommendation to deny the land use designation change. A. Brower: I will second. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 3 - March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion to deny the land use action and a motion is there any discussion on the motion'? M. Palmer: Question G. Piercy: O.K. a question has been called for The motion that we have before us is to deny this land use action of a change from Rural Residential to Agriculture. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: I will make that unanimously. That will move forward with a recommendation to the County Commissioners that they not change it from Rural Residential to Agriculture. [tem a. . K. Sager: Do you need to go through and do the recommendations checklist G. Piercy: Do we have a recommendation checklist that we have to? B. Sumrall: The findings of fact. G. Piercy: Ah, it is not consistent and it is K. Sager: detrimental... G. Piercy: has no merit and is not consistent and there is still more B. Sumrall: You can just specify 1 through... G. Piercy: I through 9, works for me. So let me see I did say that now we are going to move to items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 1 I and we will hear the presentation on all of those items at the same time. However. we will make determinations on those individually. B. Sumrall: Let me show you first where these are located. D. Black: Billie take the mike with you B. Sumrall: In the office they tell me to be quiet all the time, here .... It is all in this area are identified as being Rural Remote, which is the green color. The Agricultural ground completely surrounding it. The Brown family owns various farm units and blocks within that general area, which use to be zoned Agriculture. In the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan it was changed to Rural Remote, which restricts them for various reasons among them the fact some of the property does have active orchard on it, as I understand it and circles and this type of thing. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 4 - March 27, 2002 The minimum dNvellmg unit. lot size in that particular designation is one d"lling unit per twenty acres and the other is one for fom� acres. G. Piercy: You mean Agriculture B. Sumrall: In the Agriculture and in all of the items numbers 4 through 11 as you said Mr. Piercy are all requesting the same thine that the property be returned to Agriculture. There is about 2500 acres at least represented in this total. That is kinda of an over -view. G. Piercy: I think we would probably like to idemiN each parcel as we go through this as to where it is in relation to that zoning man B. Sumrall: O.K. G. Piercy: I think we can follow along in our book. if that is probably the best place to look. B. Sumrall: Sure, the first one is for Dorothy Bro,,+n. ]'in som,. I do have photographs as well if you would like to see them. 4 & 5. the map that is under number 5 is... contains both parcels for 4 & 5 both apphcations are made by Mrs. Brown. Let me see... This contains pretty much c� er,thing that you see here, north of the section 18 and part ofsection 8. G. Piercy: Could vou... B. Sumrall: to the west and row crops to the east. G. Piercy: Could you help us out with what County road we are looking at here or do you know'? B. Sumrall: This is road... Unidentified: Adams Road G. Piercy: is Adams Road the dark line that has .2 running through it'? Unidentified: It runs straight up and down G. Piercy: Right, if you find the number 12 on section 12 there the number 12 is Adams Road, that dark ime that goes to the top of the page, that is Adams Road. B. Sumrall: That is 7 SW G. Piercy: That is the Frenchman Hills road. B. Sumrall: Oh, O.K. A. Brower: Is most all of that land up there Ag'? B. Sumrall: Yes 2001 Comprehensive Pian Amendments 5 - March 27, 2002 A. Brower: I mean really AG B. Sumrall: It all has circles on it. G. Piercy: It is irrigated farmland. A. Brower: Well how did it get the designation that t eat? G. Piercy: Because of the people on this Committee. A. Brower: You and I!!! G. Piercy: You and I!!! A. Brower: That is terrible.... (Laughter) B. Sumrall: On these two.... G. Piercy: Are both of these are in section 18? B. Sumrall: Well one is in section 8 and the other is in 18. K. Sager: Well we are looking at a half section or the north half of 18 and southeast quarter of 8. B. Sumrall: In section 18, 120 acres and in section S it is 160 acres. G. Piercy: O.K. B. Sumrall: It is in intensive farming at the present time. all of the land that she has before you here. G. Piercy: I think we have identified those sections and we can move to the next one. B. Sumrall: The next one, which would be the Brown Children trust, G. Piercy: Section 8 also B. Sumrall: That is correct, section 8, 17, 25 it contains 320 acres. G. Piercy: So it is the west half of section 8. B. Sumrall: That is correct. G. Piercy: O.K. So we have that one identified and number 7 B. Sutnrall: Number 7? G. Piercy: Is also in section 7 B. Sumrall: Is in section 7 which will be... 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 6 - March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: All of it`? B. SumralI: Let me see. yes all of it. G. Piercy: O.K. all of section 7 B. Sumrall: So that would be this one here. G. Piercy: O.K. let us move to number 8 B. Sumrall: Number 8 will be Frank & Justin Brown G. Piercy: Section 12. O.K. B. Surnrall: Section 12, 61.27 acres. G. Piercy: It is bound on the North side by the canal and the south side by the section lines. O.K. number 9 B. Sumrall: Exactly. Number 9. O.K. this one is all of section 21, in this section right down here and the west half of 22. 1 have a better map here. A. Brower: I don't think it is necessary. B. Sumrall: O.K. G. Piercy: O.K. we arejust trying... the west half of 22 and also.... B. Sumrall: All of 27 G. Piercy: and the west half of number 2 B. Surnrall: And the west half of 28 G. Piercy: So we have those identified. B. Sumrall: That is 1.920 acres. G. Piercy: and which number are we looking for" Number 10. B. Sumrall: Number 10 is Mike Brown G. Piercy: Section 13 B. Sumrall: Section IS G. Piercy: 13, B. Sumrall: The remaining part of section 18. That is 90 acres. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 7- March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: O.K. and then number I I B. Sumrall: and number 11 G. Piercy: That is actually 1S_ previously was pan of 1 ? and then 18 B. Sumrall: Right, D. Black: How many acres was the last one? B. Sumrail: Mike Brown was 120 acres that was number I 1 and ves, number 10 was 90 acres G. Piercy: O.K. we are comfortable with where these are. You know in Grant County you have to be a little careful when Mike and Spud want to do something!! (laughter) that doesn't Qo on the public record by the way. Hey they are my neighbors and I love them. (laughter) no malice intent. Is there a proponent that would like to speak to this proposal, either or any of these.) is there anyone would..... We will open the public hearing. I there who would like to speak for or against these proposals? Is there anyone who would like io speak for or against theses proposals? Last call. Anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? W. Sahli: I make a motion the public hearing be closed. K. Sager: Seconded. G Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded the public hearing be closed all in favor signify by saying AYE. K. Sager: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: No proponent so A. Brower: I make a motion we approve the request. G. Piercy: O.K. we are going to have to do them one at a time. A. Brower: On starting on number 4,5,6,7,8,9, 10, and 11. G. Piercy: I have a motion on each number K. Sager: I will second. G. Piercy: to do what? A. Brower: to approve the request. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 8 - March 27, 2002 G. Piercv: Oh. O.K. I was sleeping there and we have a second on that. - K. Sager: Yes on all G. Piercv: On all. O.K. Nve have a motion before u5 to approve individually each of these land use actions. Is there any discussion on that motion? A. Brower: Question G. Piercy: O.K. question has been called for. So the motion that we have before us is to approve the land use designation change from Rural Remote to Agriculture on items #4,5,6,7,8,9,10. and 11. All in favor signify by saying AYE A. Brower: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye W. Sahli: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: We will make that unanimous and it will move to the County Commissioners with a recommendation that they approve the changes requested with the conditions that are... findings of, fact that are here. With that we will return to item #2 the North American Free Trade ASPI Group and we will combine that with items, Billie you are going to have help me out here, 2 B. Sumrall: 2. 12, G. Piercy: 12, 42 & 44? B. Sumrall: Yes G. Piercy: O.K. so 12, 42 & 44. On these we have a little bit of a problem because... Billie if this would be a problem we could have you dust present them one at a time. I think the object was to have the proponent available to dispose of all of his at the same time. Why don't you just present them individually and we will do them in that order. I don't want to confuse vou, cause I know how much paper you got there at your feet. B. Sumrall: O.K. Number 2. this subject parcel is located east of Patton Boulevard and North of Loring Drive at the Grant County Airport. The property is currently zoned Urban Light Industrial. The Urban Light Industrial designation and permitted uses for Urban Light Industrial in tables 3 and 5 of the Unified Development Code prohibits commercial uses except in cases where the commercial uses primarily serve the uses with the light industrial district. The applicant feels that the definitions are vague as to what constitutes an allowable use and is requesting the land use designation be changed to Urban General Commercial. G. Piercy: Do you have the zoning map for us? B. Sumrall: Yes, I do. This is kinda small. This is the Grant County Airport housing area that you see right here. This is Maple Drive or Harris Road, I'm sorry.. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 9 - March 27, 2002 proposal is for the intersection east of Patton Boulevard. which runs.... and -north of Loring Drive. G. Piercv: So it is in that erav area`? B. Sumrall: the gray area right here, that you see right here. G. Piercy: and the Green'? B. Sumrall: The red area is Commercial G. Piercy: The red area is Commercial. K. Sager: Where is this piece in relation to that red area'? B. Sumrall: It is right adiacent to it. Parcel contains 38.74 acres and it is within the Urban Growth Boundary area for the City of Moses Lake, Mr. Foster is the representative here tonight, representint; the ASPI group and uh. G. Piercy: Do we have a comment from the City of Moses Lake on the land use designation? B. Sumrall: The City of Moses Lake because of the fact that it is within their Urban Growth Boundary area was sent a copy of the SEPA document, and they have not responded which is why any recommendation that is made will have to complete the SEPA process and give the City of Moses Lake a change to respond. No, other that the fact that they did receive the legal notice. We have received no comments from them. G. Piercy: O.K. All right I think everyone is acquainted with what we are trying to do here. If you are the proponent please come to the microphone and have Billie shut that off and we will.... K. Foster: Good evening, Commissioners, 1 am Kim Foster, I am the Attorney for the ASPI Group, Corporate Counsel, the address is 5200 SouthCenter Blvd. Suite 100, Tukwila. 98188 D. Black: and were you sworn? K. Foster: Yes. This actually out of the four that I am going to do is probably the most complex from our standpoint. Let me speak to the Moses Lake issue first, we own the property where you saw the red square, that you were asking about. We own that property too, which I think you are all familiar with where the Patton Park Gas station is. So the Patton Park gas station is contained in the north part of that red block and we are the south part of that red block. That property was annexed into the City of Moses Lake about a year ago and that is under their General Commercial zone so I think on this piece that they would understand that it is contiguous to their existing General Commercial zone that I think they understand what we are doing out there. The reason we asked for this change in designation is because it is confusing that property out there, I think it would be easiest for me to use an example to describe the frustration that we have with the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 10 - March 27, 2002 Urban Light Industrial zone. We see the entrance to Patton Boulevard tht' intersection of Patton Boulevard and 17 is the highest traffic count or tied with the highest traffic count in Grant County. It is a high traffic intersection there. Patton Boulevard is a four lane -five lane road going to the terminal. It is a main terminal going into there, all serviced by the City of Moses Lake utilities services. We see that area as being an mixed use big box retail area, light manufacturing, a general commercial district there on the east side of Patton between the railroad tracts and Patton. If you can dust imagine a Home Depot, a Costco store, both of which have been looking out here. and a John Deere dealership. All three of those in my opinion are pretty compatible uses to one another. Under the existing zone you could have a Costco store there but you couldn't have a Home Depot store. .And on a John Deere dealership you could have a John Deere dealership there if it sold Agricultural equipment but not if it sold yellow John Deere tractors because they would be considered construction equipment and you couldn't sell John Deere lawn mowers there because that would be considered general retail. So by going to the commercial zone you end up with an interesting result, now you can have Home Dept but now you can't have Costco, because thev are wholesale and now with John Deere you can have the lawn and Barden but you cant sel I the Ag equipment. So what we are asking for is to eo to a Commercial zone. You know the ASPI group has been involved in Grant County for about 12 years, trying to generate as much business as we can over here and we have primarily focused out there at the airport. We see that airport, Patton Boulevard as being a great opportunity for some big box users to come into town. I have made the comment before that you only get one chance with these people. When Costco comes to town if they don't get the right answer, or if someone tells them it is going to take a year to get the property zoned right, they are not going to come. So we need some flexibility out there along Patton and that is why we are asking for a General Commercial zone as opposed to the Light Industrial. What becomes frustrating is that you know the results that I just gave you right out of the tables in the code, were you know Home Depot yes, Costco no, John Deere maybe. fhen if someone wants to put up a tilt building to do some distribution out of that is incompatible with what is considered to be the retail zone. So it is really difficult right there on that transition zone between the Urban Light Industrial and the Urban General Commercial. It is really difficult since there are so many different status that you would literally have to tell Home Depot no and Costco yes. So that is what we are asking for in that corner there on Loring and Patton. oh by the way, in case you didn't know Loring Drive is being extended through this summer to Grape and Stratford. So that is going to increase more commercial traffic into that area and the County is getting ready to start that project as soon as the weather breaks. So that is another reason why the commercial character, it is much more commercial character there then it is for Light Industrial. Any questions? M. Palmer: The whole 38 acres is contained rieht on that comer? K. Foster: Yes, and there is a water tower there, the old one. That is all G. Piercy: O.K. you will have a chance to comment at the end of the public hearing, 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 11 - March 27, 2002 K. Foster: O.K G. Piercy: At this time we will open the Public Hearing for those who would like to comment for or aeamst this proposal? Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, anyone want to speak for or against this proposal? A. Brower: Move that the public hearing be closed. M. Palmer: Second it. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE. M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye K. Sager: Aye G. Piercv: Aye G. Piercy: Mr. Foster anything else`? K. Foster: No G. Piercy: O.K. W. Sahli: With that I will make a motion to change it from Urban Light Industrial to Urban Commercial. G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion. K. Sager: Second. G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion and a second to change this parcel designation from Urban Light Industrial to Urban Commercial. Any discussion on the motion? K. Sager: Does the fact that the City hasn't comment on this make the decision sort of mute at this point? Do we have to wait for comments from the City to make that? A. Brower: Question G. Piercy: O.K. the question has been called for. The action and the motion that is before us is a land use designation change from Urban Light Industrial to Urban Commercial, all in favor signify by saying AYE. A. Brower: Aye K. Sager: Aye W, Sahli: Aye M. Palmer: Aye 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 12- March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: I will make that unanimously and that will move forward to the County " Commissioners with recommendation that that change be made. D. Black: Findines? G. Piercy: Finding. We felt like it. I through 9 again. With that we will move to number 12. number 12. B. Sumrall: Number 12. we will let Mr. Foster pronounce the names, but it is the parcel is located in a portion of Section 30. Township 20 N. Range 28 containing approximately I60 acres. The property is zoned Rural Residential—I which allows residences on a minimum five acre parcel. The subject parcel is situated between Highway 17 and the Grant county International Airport. The applicants are seeking a land use designation change to either AP or Light Industrial. The AP was a designation under the old Comprehensive Plan given to the Grant County Airport. It is not a land use designation. so in speaking to Mr. Foster earlier to day. it is my understanding that you want to change that to the Light Industrial land use designation. I do have a map here, Mr. Foster is right here. This is Hew 17 going into Moses Lake. the runway is in this particular are right here, the college right here. the entrance going into the college is right here, property is located right in this arca here Oh I see I am in the wrong place. G. Piercy: Where is Hwy 17 there? K. Foster: This is 1' D. Black: You have to be closer to the mic, I can't hear. K. Foster: Where I pointed was 17 and the propem, is to the north of 17 right next to the main runway. G. Piercy: And it adjoins the K. Foster: It adjoins the blue, which is currently in the airport designation owned by the Port. The reason we are asking for the zone change is obviously no one want to have a house at the end of a mayor runway. The property that the Port owns which will be the (inaudible) of Nepel, right there that blue property. That was the old foreign trade zone for light industrial so we are asking that the property be zoned Light Industrial to be compatible with the airport. That is actually the main runway, the runway is right here. So you know this being residential is pretty silly, so we are asking that this be zoned Light Industrial and this is the light industrial that the port has where the Big Bend hangers are right here and this was formerly zoned as Foreign Trade Zone in here for Light Industrial. There is nothing south of 17 it is all the stuff out there. K. Sager: So it is the NE quarter? K. Foster: Yes B. Sumrall: Yes. 2001 Comprehensive Pian Amendments - 11 March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: Billie didn't we change as a matter of correcting some mistakes earlier this Gear. some of the zoning at the end of the airport'? B. Sumralt: Yes, we did. G. Piercy: and what did we do there? B. Sumrall: We changed it to Light Industrial. G. Piercy: And that was some of the stuff that was on the south side of Hwy 17, B. Sumrall: We did over there as well. There were some pieces within the Port District itself. K. Foster: I think the Port has that little mangle right there that goes south of 17. B. Sumrall: Yes. K. Foster: a little triangle there. A. Brower: What color is Light Industrial K. Foster: Well the Light Industrial, the reason this is blue is because that is what Billie was talking that Airport Overlay for the Airports property. So the actually Light Industrial I think is that light gray color that was on our last application so the blue would be the Ports Light Industrial and we would in effect be private Light Industrial and would be the difference in color there. That is why when I said that we would like the AP, I thought that when we had private property as long as we were within a Port boundary that we still had that Airport Overlay. That is why I ..... G. Piercy: Billie, do you have anything further on this? B. Surnrali: No, G. Piercy: You kinda got preempted there and we apologize for that. B. Sumrall: No that is fine G. Piercy: We are trying to figure out where this stuff is. B. Sumrall: Exactly, I think that is the most important G. Piercy: O.K. so everyone is familiar with what we are trying to do and where it is? O.K. B. Sumrall: Do you want me to leave the picture up for a while G. Piercy: Mr. Foster you are the proponent is there anything else you would like to say about this at this time? K. Foster: No just at... 1 think it presents a pretty, again a pretty clear visual image why this is not appropriate for Residential. I don't even know even if you proposed a plat 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 14 - March 27, 2002 in there. it may be so close to the runway that the FAA would have a nghrto object to the plat. You are clearly within the crash zone of the runway here. G. Piercv: O.K., I think you can go ahead and turn that off. B. Sumrall: Sure. G. Piercy: We will open the public hearing portion of this hearing for anyone that would like to speak for or against this proposal? Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? K. Sager: I make the motion that the public hearing be closed. W. Sahli: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed all in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: Mr. Foster, anything else? K. Foster: Nope. G. Piercy: O.K. W. Sahli: I may have a question for him. G. Piercy: Would you come to the microphone so... W. Sahli: As far as Light Industrial, if it is in the pathway that, aren't you limited to height and stuff like that to what you can do? K. Foster: Ya, that is what I thought that Airport Port Overlay was designed to do was to give the Port the ability to go to the FAA and get their input on any buildings there. There are absolute restrictions that the Port has to deal with, anybody has to deal with, as you go farther from the runway you get a higher heights and that's... 1 thought that was the intent of that Airport Overlay. There is not only building height restriction, you got light and glare, you can't have some big obnoxious light that would distract the incoming aircrafts and things like that. There are all kinds of issues whenever you build that near the runway. M. Palmer: How far back is the runway sit back about from your property line. the end of the runway? K. Foster: I will guess 500 feet maybe, something along that magnitude. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 15 March 27, 2002 w.. M. Palmer: Thank you K. Foster: Any building permit that you would ask for... the FAA building guidelines that you exceed that would be within a certain distance of the runway you have to get their approval on the design specs. G. Piercy: O.K. what would you like to do? W. Sahli: I will make a motion to go from, wait let me get on the right track here, make a motion to go from Rural Residential -1 to Light Industrial. M. Palmer: Second K. Sager: Second D. Black: Which one seconded? G. Piercy: We had a second and a third down here (laughter). The motion that we have before us is to change the land use designation from Rural Residential -1 to Light Industrial. Is there any discussion on the Motion:' M. Palmer: Question G. Piercy: O.K. question has been called for. We are voting on a land use designation change from Rural Residential -1 to light industrial. All in favor signify by saying AYE M. Palmer: Aye W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: That will be unanimous and it will move on to the County Commissioners with the recommendation that that change me made. Findings that we have 1 through 9 and that will dispose of number 12. That will move us to number 42 on the agenda which is also the ASPI group and similar request. B. Sumrall: As this parcel is located at the "Y" just out of Ephrata here heading toward Moses Lake at the intersection of Hwy 17 and 28 where it goes to Soap Lake. Right down in the very corner here... Hwy 17 going toward Soap lane and where it intersect with Hwy 28 where it goes toward Moses Lake. The subject property is right at the intersection there and I do have another map that might be a little clearer for you. Ephrata going this direction, Moses Lake this is the turnoff going toward Soap Lake and the subject property is located right in this area. K. Foster: Actually both sides. B. Sumrall: Pardon me, oh, that is right I'm sorry. G. Piercy: Ready 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 16 - March 27, 2002 B. Sumrall: The surrounding zoning that you saw on the other map was all Rural Residential - 1 and Rural Remote. This is.... Could be construed as being a RAID, a rural area of intensive development. in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. That is basically all I have. G. Piercv: O.K. I think we all know what is in pla% here. Mr. Foster if you would like.... K. Foster: Ah this one D. Black: Mr. Foster you need to state your name K. Foster: O.K. Kim Foster. Corporate Counsel. ASPI Group, 5200 South Center Blvd, Suite 100, Tukwila 98188 Ah, this one comes about for two reasons. First of all the intersection of Hwy 17 and 282 being a major intersection here in the County. We feel it is not unreasonable... it is unreasonable to expect that would be a residential environments the triangular corner of that intersection and that we are proposing that within 500 feet of that intersection that it be Rural Freeway Commercial. That would allow some commercial services there at that intersection as opposed to Residential. Then the property has that triangle as it backs up, it backs up against the shooting range there and it backs up against the Ephrata Airport. Again not very conducive to residential development, bound on one side by Hwy 17, 282 on the other, the shooting range and the airport on the back side. This is another one that we are proposing that that be Rural Light Industrial. K. Sager: Rural Light Industrial or General Freeway Commercial? K. Foster: What we are asking for is that within a short radius of the intersection where the triangular point be that that be allowed a Rural Freeway Commercial for a gas station or service station be there type of a use, but the remainder of the property be Rural Light Industrials, for some warehousing you know maybe some storage, some thing like that. It is too big... I mean obviously the more intensive zone would be to have it all Rural Freeway Commercial, but that is an awfully big piece of property to have for Rural Freeway commercial if you did the whole piece like that. So that is why we have asked for a 500 foot radius there for the more gas station type commercial and the rest of it to just allow some rural farm type of warehousing and some light industrial uses. K. Sager: How far are you from Ephrata in miles'? K. Foster: wow, holy cow, about 3 miles, maybe... It is right out here at the Soap Lake cut of. It may be about 3 miles maybe. A. Brower: It is about 5 miles... K. Foster: 5 miles? A. Brower: Yes. Is that small orchard part of that property? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 17 March 27, 2002 K. Foster: No, the orchard is a little farter north on 1 ". 1 think we butt up right against thy,, orchard and then we go around the old gravel pit that the State had there. and we circle that up to the gun club and the airport K. Sager: How many acres? A. Brower: On both sides of the highway? K. Foster: The parcel goes on the other side of the highway east of 17. D. Black: I'm sorry you need to be at the mic K. Foster: Sorry, the parcel goes as you saw there the east side of 17 there also. K. Sager: How many total acres are in the parcel? K. Foster: 325, I believe. 325. G. Piercy: At this time we will open the public hearing portion of this and we will take public testimony of those who would like to speak for or against this proposal. please come to the microphone. I there who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call, anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? They are all asleep. W. Sahli: I make a motion that the public hearing be closed. K. Sager: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed, all in favor signify by saying AYE. K. Sager: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Mr. Foster? K. Foster: Nope. G. Piercy: O.K. W. Sahli: I guess I'm not total clear on here. On the maps that we got in our brochures here where one shows the triangular and we talk about 325 acres, I am not totally.... K. Foster: It actually goes on both sides of 17 and it goes all around that intersection. That intersection just about in the middle of the property. W. Sahli: It doesn't show it here in my deals here and that is why I am confused. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Is- March 27, 2002 A. Brower: Ya. I agree K. Foster: Lets put the map back on. M. Palmer: Three different. K. Foster: We own all of... D. Black: Billie, could you give him the mic. I can't hear him at all... Sorry. K. Foster: O.K. so it is this triangular piece here and the State gravel pit. The State gravel pit is part of this right in here and then the gun club is up here an the airport is in the back and where you said that orchard is up here and then east of 17 this piece and then it is on the south side of 17, this piece. W. Sahli: So it is long and narrow then? Kinda pie shaped narrow? Is that what you are... K. Foster: I guess I would say it is big. So it is this area and if you figure 500 feet around here on this corner. is where we are suggesting where the commercial services part would be and the rest be an opportunity for Rural Light Industrial. You could have some of those hay barns out there and you could have a variety of the Light Industrial pole buildings out there in that area. Everything out in here is impacted with the gun club and the Ephrata airport, you back up to that. So I don't think you would ever see anybody v ant any of that for Residential. It is pretty noisy stuff. Does that clarify? G. Piercy: O.K. we need a motion so we can have a discussion. But that is all right. W. Sahli: Pardon me. I had to ask him the question G. Piercy: That is fine... laughter K. Sager: I will make a motion to deny the change from Rural Residential -I to Freeway Commercial and Light Industrial. G. Piercy: Well. I think that motion is going to die for the lack of a second. A. Brower: I make a motion that we approve it M. Palmer: I'll second it. Tape I Side B G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded. K. Sager: Granted it is close to the airport but it is also close to Ephrata and the Port of Ephrata and there are plenty of Light Industrial ground there as well as you are within five miles of the new Wal -mart so there really no reason for a freeway stop. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 19- March 27, 2002 A. Brower: I wish there was a gas station there sometimes myself. I think it is a natural crossroads for a commercial development and I doubt very much if anybody is going to building houses there. That is my personal feeling. W. Sahli: Question G. Piercy: Thank you. O.K. the motion that we have before us is to change the land use designation from Rural Residential to Rural Freeway Commercial on part and Rural Light Industnal on the other. All in favor signify by saying AYE. M. Palmer: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: O.K. we have three votes for and we will have two against. So this will go without a recommendation and there wouldn't be any Findings of Fact, but there will be an explanation. This would substantial change the nature of this piece of property and the surrounding neighbors and we are often times very reluctant to do that. Some of tis... We will go to number 44. B. Sumrall: Ah this is another application from the ASPI Group. The applicant owns 8.5 acres located at the Hiawatha Road Freeway interchange at I-90. Currently the parcel carries a land use designation of Rural Residential -1 ora one dwelling unit per five acres. The parcel fronts on I-90, the ramp to I-90 a high-tension electric transmission line is adjacent to the property as is Columbia Potato. The applicant feels this is clearly not residential property and let me see if I can put this one up for you. Sorry. G. Piercy: Billie where is all of your help tonight" B. Sumrall: Pardon? G. Piercy: Where is your help tonight`? B. Sumrall: Just Dorothy and I (laughter) O.K. Because of the high-tension power line in the area they feel this is not very desirable residential property. OX this is section 21, 19, 27. K. Sager: I believe it is down at the intersection of B & Hiawatha. K. Foster: Is it B & Hiawatha? G. Piercy: It is B because of the thing down there. K. Foster: See the curve down there. So it is right here. B. Sumrall: This is your other map..... K. Foster: So this is I-90 here, this is the ramp to get on I-90, this is Columbia Potato, so are your ready? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 20- March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: Yes, go ahead Mr. Foster. K. Foster: Kim Foster... G. Piercy: Billie you were I'm sorry.... B. Sumrall: l couldn't tell where it was from the maps that l had so that is fine. G. Piercy: O.K., go ahead Mr. Foster. K. Foster: Kim Foster. Corporate Counsel for the ASPI group, 5200 South Center Blvd Suite 100.. Tukwila 98188 On this parcel this is another one where you know on the properties where it is such a huge impact from traffic and roads, and it is just obviously not residential property I think you can make an arguments by having properties like that zoned Rural Residential that it can amount to a taking because no one in their right mind are going to build a house on some of these properties that are zoned Rural Residential. I think it opens the County up to exposure on that kind of argument, this one is a really good example of that. You are on the entrance ramp to 1-90, you have Columbia Potato processing plant right here, you have a zillion KV high-tension lines run down this way. So on your 8.2 acres that we have here on your Rural Residential zone, no one in their right mind would contemplate building a house right there. So this is one where we thing Rural Freeway Commercial is a good fit especially on Hiawatha because you know there is nothing on 1-90 all the way to George for gas station site or coming all the way back into town. It is kind of a nice half way for that too. But that is the purpose of our request of the rezone, is the absolute improbably that it has any value for residential. G. Piercy: Any questions? O.K. at this time we will open the public hearing portion of this action. Anyone who wants to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone? Is there anyone who would like to speak? R. Fair: ah yes, I would like to speak regarding this application. Billie could I have a picture of the map up there one more time'? Randy Fair, and I have been sworn. D. Black Your address R. Fair: 1405 Pioneer Way. This evening I represent Columbia Potato, also Inland Tarp. Columbia Potato is right about here and they have an application to change to Light Industrial. Inland Tarp is approximately 2 miles to the East, that direction; they also have an application change to Light Industrial. I believe there is another applicant here tonight also on this same Frontage road requesting a change to Light Industrial, I do not represent that applicant, Mr. Willis, I believe. Mr. Knopp of Inland Tarp and Mr. McCulllough are both here and I think would support this because there aren't any residence on this Frontage Road for quite some time. I don't believe there is next to the applicants parcel here, there is also not next to McCullough's parcel and so they would support this application. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 21 March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: Are there others that would like to comment nn this proposal either for or against. please come to the microphone ? A. Willis: Al Willis. 2294 Admiral Rd, Moses Lake. D. Black Were you sworn" A. Willis: Pardon'? D. Black Were you sworn? Did you swear at the beginning`? A. Willis: Yes, D. Black: Thank you. If we have it I would like to see a general map of the freeway extending east and A. Willis: Well I will just proceed without a west of Moses Lake, if we have such a thing.oad ink map. On the eat sde of L1shttindustr alsbut you have es Lake all lone ch side of the ong the Frontage there freewayyouhhave the zoning g I-90 RV. you have is another eRV Company ts Lake Auto or at rented Auto, shop there, s towing company, You have business location from Mr. Sparks I believe. They have moveRdvo the u north a e side of the freeway so they are still there. You have Sun Country ou had Ad e manufacture g when it was going. Flodin, you have Basin Diesel, yif is Light ere has been developed. [wouldn't know the That area along thidea of the use on Industrial it is probably more Commercial. BuetWest ern Polmar, you got that side of town. if you go out further y torage outfit out there. You are allowed that side Simplot, and you got a potato s of town to develop all along the freeway Heathevy trot ck traffic, which s, predominate and I can understand it is accessible. Heavy concern, exposure he Wet sanother business es re. Now y is not ide of Moses Lake? same trtruYou have Inland Tarp hand Cover• same V outfit that I you have t ob ay you have he he old waterslides and on heis it Clumbia tato'? you have t south side of thefreew think use ce of a two ential zont gall don't think s. it seems tis se that lflies uitablefor thatand if you add Rural add hefact of Restd the tension line that was mentioned before. this high-voltage elec here ro e trical rty transmission line runs down there and runs through Inland h comer of itTarp, I don't and runs right into mine. There is a big PUD switch in side think anybody is going to want to put a house there. outfit thereRight on th I other know f it is the agricultural commodity, the hay-compressing exactly, but it is owned by the Port of Moses Lake. It seems to me that the area has been allowed es develop somewhatzoning works a hardship on these businesseway already. To change ts to s and I enforce a Rural Residential zoning rowth for the area. I think there are don't think it is in to best ttraffic for resst of ereidenre ces has already been mentioned, but other reasons for the heavy my point is the development allowed on the east side of town and I think the n't they on the west side of town. It is pretty reasons are good there why are much the same situation. Thank you. March 27, 2002 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -22- G. Piercy: Is there anyone else who would like to comment'? Is there anyone that wotuid like to speak for or against this proposal? Last call: is there anyone that would like to speak for or against this proposal" W. Sahli: Make a motion that the public hearing be closed. A. Brower: Second G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded the public hearing be closed all in favor signify by saying AYE A. Brower: Aye W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: Mr. Foster anything further. K. Foster: No. G. Piercy: O.K. W. Sahli: Can I ask Billie a question? G. Piercy: Sure W. Sahli: Billie would you explain to us the... as far as Freeway Commercial with a Rural Light Industrial Overlay, what are you actually meaning by a Rural Light Industrial Overlay? B. Sumrall: That is what Mr. Foster requested, as I told him today when we spoke that he is going to have to pick one or the other because... or give an acreage upon what he want or both, because you can't have an overlay of a Rural Light Industrial on top of a commercial unless you change the Unified Development Code. G. Piercy: No we are not going to do that. W. Sahli: No. B. Sumrall: Certain light industrial uses within that particular area, no he is going to have to pick. K. Foster: That is what Billie and I talked about today and actually that was sort of the intent was to try and include some other uses in there, but we will just stick with the Rural Freeway Commercial and delete the Rural Light Industrial. It just makes more sense for that property right on the on ramp to a commercial site. G. Piercy: You don't play craps do you? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 23 - March 27, 2002 K. Foster: Well, it is kind of a comment... there are so many colors on here you almott have to have ,your own color chart to match them up... to many.... G. Piercy: You know you have to choose here. it's a roll... It is either going to be a seven or.... K. Foster: We dust want to be able to build something that is all. G. Piercy: O.K. so that is your pick. K. Foster: Yup G. Piercy: O.K. W. Sahli: With that I would like to make a motion to change it from Rural Residential -1 to Rural Freeway Commercial. G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion to make a land use change from Rural Residential to Rural Freeway Commercial W. Sahli: Correct G. Piercy: That is the motion. A. Brower: Second G. Piercy: We have a second, discussion on the motion'? K. Sager: I guess I would like to say with the rest of the proponents around him wanting Light Industrial is that going to create a problem being Freeway Commercial in the middle of Light Industrial? A. Brower:, I guess I would have the same concern. Where are we going with the rest of them? We are talking about Columbia Potato, Inland Tarp... K. Sager: The rest of the proponents seem to be in support of a Light Industrial designation. G. Piercy: And there seems to be already some zoning, or land uses that would be compatible with that type of zoning, Columbia Potato being a for instance. Although, an Ag use is outright permitted and that is basically where those things come from. K. Sager: Right A. Brower: Where do we stop with gas stations are they permitted in Light Industrial and Commercial, both? G. Piercy: No, they are not permitted in Light Industrial.. A. Brower: I guess I think you need those kinds of things around Light Industrial. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments .24- March 27, 2002 Sahli: Commercial and Light Industrial are fairly compatible. you know as beine:.�'The port down there at Mattawa its pretty compatible with the Industrial and Commercial A. Brower: I think it is probably all right. III stick to my .. G. Piercy: O.K. You were waffling there for a minute A. Brower: Ya I was. G. Piercy: Are you back on solid ground now:' A. Brower: I'm on solid ground G. Piercy: O.K. M. Palmer: Question G. Piercy: O.K. a question has been called for and the land use .... What we are doing here is the motion is a land use designation ( hange trom Rural Residential -I to Rural Freeway Commercial W. Sahli: Correct G. Piercy: Correct, all in favor signify by saying Aye. M. Palmer: Aye W. Sahli: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: All opposed G. Piercy: Aye K. Sager: Aye G. Piercy: Same thing it substantial changes the nature when it is Freeway Commercial. Personally I would have probably supported the Light Industrial Change because it does kind of reflect the uses that are currently there and I don't know what about Kirk K. Sager: I would agree. G. Piercy: So, anyway that will move without a recommendation to the County Commissioners. With that Mr. Fair, actually Billie we will let her take charge. We can be, try to be cooperative to a certain extent... A. Brower: Except.... G. Piercy: Except .... (laughter) B. Sumrall: You are going to do each of these individually? 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 25 - March 27, 2002 U G. Piercy: Yes we are going to do the same thing that we did with Mr. Foster's we will do for Mr. Fair. B. Sumrail: Number 3. G. Piercv: We are gomg to start with Number 3 then we will move to 13. then move to 15. So there are three. is that correct? R. Fair: Yes B. Sumrall: Mr. Knopp is the owner of Inland Tarp and Cover and owns four tax parcels on 11.9 acres. This is the same area that you were just in with Mr. Foster's proposal. Mr. Fair has submitted a map here. On the south is the Frontage Road and I-90. these are lots 1.2.3, & 4. Mr. Willis who was the gentleman who came and spoke in favor of the last proposal is on this side and I don't know who is surrounding him. Columbia Potatoes would be.... G. Piercy: To the left. K. Saeer: Left B. Sumrall: Left K. Sager: About a mile G. Piercy: about a mile, you can't get there with your pointer. B. Sumrall: You can't get there from here. O.K. l'hat is the Goodwin Short plat. G. Piercy: So basically Billie we are dealing with four separates parcels in this parcel? B. Sumrall: Yes M. Palmer: Within the 11.9 acres B. Sumrall: Yes, this was a short plat that was developed by former County Commissioner Don Goodwin, after he left office. G. Piercy: I think we are pretty familiar with what we are trying to do here on this one. So we might just let Mr. Fair go ahead. B. Sumrall: Sure, G. Piercy: with if you are O.K. with that. Mr. Fair, go ahead. R. Fair: Hi, Yes Good evening, Randy Fair, Moses Lake, I have been sworn in and my address is 1405 Pioneer Way, Moses Lake 98837 Glenn Knopp of Inland Tarp is here tonight, behind me to the left. Long time Grant County resident here and our request is to change the four parcels that you 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -26- March 27, 2002 see up here from Rural Residential -I to Rural Light Industrial. One of the --- differences that these next three applicants have compared to the applicant prior we are not really talking about the future of any parcels here. These parcels of Mr. McCullough and Mr. Knopp's and Mr. Chlarson have at least 10 years of light industrial use or twenty or more and have been continuously in use as light industrial and have not had any residences on theses parcels. Mr. Knopp has been in front of this Commission I believe or the Board of Adjustment trying to get Conditional Use Permits trying to be able to operate as a light Industrial piece and he has successfully had those and I believe it was his belief when the Comprehensive Plan came out that he was going to be granted light industrial use for his parcels. However. when the Comprehensive Plan came out it came out with his parcels being Rural Residential. He currently has Inland Tarp on that right now along with his entire business for the most part. To give you a better picture here and this is the property I'm talking about I'm sure you have driven by it one time or another. He manufactures storages right there on the premise and his property line is not until the greens structures here this in the foreground is not one of Inland tarp. This is another one of the pictures of the premise and the property line. the Frontage Road looking in and I- 90 of course right behind us directly to the south. As we go further to the east this is not Mr. Knopp's parcel this is Mr. Willis just to the east and I'm not sure of the name of his business. I'm sorry. Oh International Ag Commodities and it of course is use as Light Industry also. The history of the property again has not been for residential use. We don't believe there has been a residence ever on this property. Beginning in about 1990 to about 1993, Rocky Mountain Industries was on the property operating their offices. From 1993 to 1997 it was Mid -West Agri Commodities and from 1997 to today it has been Mr. Knopp with Inland Tarp. From this parcel all the way to road E there are no residences along side the Frontage Road. This parcel holds three temporary structures that are 48 feet by 30 feet; it has a parking lot for 60 vehicles at this time. There is a steel frame portable building that is 72 feet by 150 feet. The business is almost entirely Ag related. There is power on the property; 17,000 volts worth to supply any power needed for the entire parcel probably a couple of times over for industrial use. The business has been growing quite a bit recently and Mr. Knopp has been speaking with a Hyster dealership as well as Wilson Irrigation about using the last parcel on the end for a different type of dealership or another business. The problem with Rural Residential -1 he is not allowed to put another structure in there. Right now, he is not reliant on any city services at all, water comes from a well. It is an excellent piece of property for Light Industrial purposes right now. To grant this application isn't going to create any impact traffic wise or upon his neighbors because he is already up and running and existing, it will not create any water or environmental problems. However, with this property zoned Rural Residential -I you can see up here at the top, this is the Unified Development Code and it explains what you are allowed to do in Rural Residential -1. These are the uses Mr. Knopp would be most concerned about Ag related Industrial uses, light industrial uses, and light manufacturing. The P here in this column of course talks about what you can do in each of the other zones and I have been trying to draw everyone's attention here to the yellow, is that the P means prohibited, he is 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 2' - March 27, 2002 not allowed to do any of these uses at this time. So actually he as well as Mr. Willis and Mr. McCullough are all non-compliant even though they have been operating on these premise a number of years. So we would like of course to get into compliance. He cannot manufacture and cannot use the remainder of his property doing anything like that. Actually I will go ahead and use this. To determine whether or not he should be allowed to I guess have this zoning changed, I believe we have to go to the Growth Management Act as well as the Comprehensive Plan because there are a number of goals that are discussed there and policies and vision statement and the Plan directs we look at these statement if we are going to attempt to change zoning, I believe. So I have had some provisions from the Comprehensive Plan printed up here and it mentions this is up near the front of the book regarding the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It wishes to have each county pursue certain economic development and in the second goal which I would like to direct attention to. It does favor Agricultural type industries especially outside the Urban Growth Area and especially if you are not dependant upon the City resources or City services. The vision statement in the Comprehensive Plan which we found on the following page from the Goals, as seems to indicate the plan favor these businesses already in place being properly zones, especially if they are already existing local business, if they work to preserve or enhance Ag resources. We feel that Mr. Knapp parcel would do that if zoned Light Industrial. There is also a number of policies in the Comprehensive Plan at page 4-13 there is a specific policy that farming, mining and rural uses shall be preferred outside the urban growth area and we feel the use Mr. Knopp has here should be preferred also as it is entirely Ag related. There are other goals mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan at page 4-18. One of the goals that is more on point states that it is that goal of this county to provide of existing new small-scale commercial industrial development outside UGAs that are compatible with and continue to preserve, and enhance etc. Ag uses and resources. There are also some policies sited in the Comprehensive Plan including what is RU4.2 it is here on page 4-I8 it said the at the Industrial uses in rural areas should generally be those appropriate to the lower densities. I think this one is because I don't think his particular business would be expected to exist inside City limits but it should be preferred in use if it is an independent contacting service. It if it is related to and dependant to natural resources of Ag and minerals and if it requires large secluded area away from population center. I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be away from a population center here but it should be in a larger area way from.... And he doesn't use urban services as it stated at the end. One of the other goals in the Comprehensive Plan mentions it should be the goal of this County right now to insure an adequate supply of commercial and industrial. Sites to provide opportunity for new and expanding businesses such as this one so they would remain in Grant County. I could probably go on at length for a while here about some of these goals and policies.... Bedtime reading but as you can see here with the history of the parcel being light industrial and the future appearing to be certainly Light Industrial there is really no path for Rural Residential use. All the neighbors seem to be using the property in a light industrial manner it is just not zoned that way right now. We will ask that this application be granted and that Mr. Knopp be allowed to switch to Light 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 28 - March 27, 2002 0 Industrial as he. We think he is squarely in line with the goals and the pohines and the vision statements of Grant Countv. Thank vou. Exhibit #1. Site map, Copies of photos. & Table 4 from the UDC Exhibit #2. GMA Goals Exhibit #3. Vision Statement Exhibit 44_ Policy RU 1.1 Exhibit 95. Goal RU -4 Exhibit #6. Policy RU 4.2 Exhibit #7. Goat ED -3 Exhibit #8. Page 5-15 Exhibit #9. Goal ED -4 Exhibit #10, Policy ED 4.3 Exhibit #11, Commercial and Industrial Uses G. Piercy: At this time I will open the public hearing for those that would like to comment either for or against this proposal. please come to the microphone. Is there anyone who would like to speak either for or against this proposal? G. Knopp: I will try to keep it very brief. I know there are a lot of applications after me. I am Glen Knopp, President of Inland I am and Cover. and I have been part of D. Black: I'm sorry i need your address. G. Knopp: My address is 4172 N. Frontage Rd. Fast, Moses Lake. D. Black: Thank You. G. Knopp: I have been part of the Agricultural commodities since birth. I farmed with my dad up in the Coulee City area and kind of made a transition from farming to hay tarps when it came necessary for me to make the decision between the two. It has been a good business, it has been a good growing business and we bought the property along the Interstate 90 there with the understanding that at the time it was Agriculture. We bought it continued upon getting a Conditional Use Permit for the uses that we use it for and we went before a hearing of people in this same room and they... the comment from the committee was "why hasn't this already been zoned request come in for zoning Commercial" and that was directed to the County people and the County people said no body has applied and it had already come before them twice for and Conditional Use Permit for storage of hay and running a small office there and so 1 was shocked when it came our Rural Residential -1. 1 was just shocked and I think that the use that we have proposed here is the Light Industrial is a better use of the property and more clearing reflects what it the current use and the future potential is. So that is all. A. Willis: Al Willis. 1 had a question on this. Does anyone know the regulations governing the construction of these tall wireless communication towers in residential areas? G. Piercy: We have a code in Grant County that specifically addressed that issue. It basically stated where they can be and how big they can be. A. Willis: They are allowed in Residential areas" 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 29 - March 27, 2002 G. Piercv: In Rural Residential areas. I think A. Willis: I was wondering cause there is one. You have allowed one to be constructed right on the northeast corner of this propem in questions, Mr. Knopp's property and... G. Piercy: See how easy it is to get stuff done. A. Willis: Ya... you have that tower which is right on the north side of my property and the south west corner you have the PUD switch and yet somebody thinks somebody is going to build houses there. G. Piercy: Well let me see isn't Mr.Knopp's got a road on the Frontage Rd. A. Willis: Thank you G. Piercy: 4172 N. Frontage, Rd G. Knopp: That is an office. G. Piercy: Oh, O.K. there is a lot of houses along that Frontage Rd for those who don't think there are. But that doesn't ..... anyway that is neither here or there. We are.... this is still public hearing, for those who would like to speak for or against this proposal, please come to the microphone. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against. Iast call'? Anvone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? W. Sahli: Make a motion that the public hearing be closed. K. Sager: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye W. Sahli: Aye G. Piercy: Aye K. Sager: I make a motion to approve the change from Rural Residential -1 to Rural Light Industrial. A. Brower: Second. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we change the land use designation from Rural Residential -I to Rural Light Industrial, any discussion on the motion? W. Sahli: Question 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments . ;0 - March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: O.K. the motion before us is to change the land use designation from RuP,ql Residential to Rural Light Industrial. All in favor signify by saying AYE A. Brower: Aye K. Sager: Aye W. Sahli: Aye M. Palmer: Ave G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: That will be unanimous. You act shocks.... Findings, does reflect the use that is currently on the property and 1 through 9. With that we will move. Do we want to take a break now or see if we can get to the end of Mr. Fairs and then take a short break? K. Sager: We might as well go to the end of his and then take a break. G. Piercy: O.K. we will go to number 13 is that correct'? W. Sahli: Ya G. Piercy: So now we..... This might be the onh time we are doing everything in order, So you got the low down for us Billie on number 13 B. Sumrall: 13? Mr. Chlarson is the owner of Chlarson Trucking and Hillcrest Livestock, which are located in Farm Unit 16, Block 421 containing 35.8 acres. This property is also been used industrial for the past 40 years to accommodate these two business. Basic American Foods is located across the highway and these two facilities service many trucks, which unload at Basin American Foods. The current land use designation is again Rural Residential and the proposed change would be to Light Industrial. This is an existing business and has been designated Rural Residential rather then Light Industrial. That is basically all. I will let Mr. Fair take it from there. Let me see if I can find a map. R. Fair: I have another one Billie that is O.K.. Randy Fair, representing Alan Chlarson. I am from Moses Lake. I have been sworn in and the address is 1405 Pioneer Way in Moses Lake Washington. Alan Chlarson is the applicant and he is here tonight, behind me to the left. Our request is to change 36 acres from Rural Residential -1 to Rural Light Industnal. This property was zoned Light Industrial I believe as long as any parcel in Grant County and we were trying to find out originally when it was but we couldn t go back much further than the 60ies or so. But we had thought originally it was a mistake when the map came out and this was not zoned Light Industries. The parcel is on Hwy 17, it is not by the Knopp and McCullough parcels. This is about one mile south of Moses Lake, which is up here. and I-90 would come across the top. When you come up Hwy17 American Potato would be right here and Mr. Chlarson is right across Hwy 17. We have some pictures of the property also. Mr. Chlarson operated Chlarson Trucking, Inc as well as Hillcrest Li%estock Transportation on the premise. This picture was from kind of the southern point of the parcel. He has a number of trucks and trailers that go through this parcel. Before the Comprehensive Plan came out he also had a large portion of the parcel graveled so that the trucks can 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 31 - March 27, 2002 pull in as well as trailers. He has twenty plus trailers that is owned by Hillcrest. The picture was taken actually on a Sunday morning when we would expect traffic to be a little bit lighter. so this isn't staged at all. This is a different angle, the white building in the center is the office and a lot of the trucks and trailer over here. there is a shop back here which I will have another picture of. shed and tool right there. From the other side there is a shop on the premise. There is 120 x 40 with a garage and it has been for I belie% e for decades at this point. The history of the property is 1940ies and 1950ies, Vic Mackey owned it and I'm not sure of anyone remembers him around here and Hilltop Lumber was on the premises. In the 1960ies Ken Gabriel had a business that was Livestock Trucking eventually Glen Corning and Sons Construction was there throughout I believe some of the 70ies and then Mr. Chlarson had purchased the property in 1981. He has been running his business on that premise since that time. It was Light Industrial when he bought it. It had been farthest we can trace back is 1963 I am not really sure why it had been changes and on this parcel there is 120 feet by 40 feet garage and shed and he has his office a lot with the crushed gravel and rock, parking for 25 to 30 trucks and trailers. there is a truck wash rack there, he has three phase industrial power on this premise also. It is a mile and half from I- 90, which is not to far. and not to close for a trucking outfit. To grant this application we believe would not create any adverse impact on the traffic or the neighbors or the water or environment because they are already up and operating as is. The property is zoned RR -1 he would be out of compliance at this time as an Ag related industrial use. One item again the difference from this application and probably just about any one that will come in front of you is that this was Light Industrial ahead of time and the switch was made. One quick look at the map though if this is or would stay light industrial unfortunately with it being located on Hwy 17 I assume that five acre parcels would be allowed. I don't think on Hwy 17 at least for another four or five miles south of Moses Lake there is going to be any turnoffs allowed in here at least until it is blown through to be two lanes each way. So it is in some ways locked and will stay locked the way it is non-residential. A lot of the same goals and policies that were lust discussed are the same as they pertain to the Chlarson parcel here. This is an Ag related industries, it is a smaller type industry, it is outside the Urban Growth Area and it is not reliant upon City services with its water, sewer or garbage. He has a well on the premise. The vision statement at this time seems to support also a smaller business Ag related outside the Urban Growth Area and our plan also supports healthy diversified economy with these type of business in place. You can see again the land uses that are related to farm uses in this area are preferred under our Comprehensive Plan and we believe that he is in compliant with a lot of the same policies again that carried through from Mr. Knopp. One of the Goals of the County again are to provide for new or existing business to exist outside of the Urban Growth Area if the are Ag related and not dependant upon City services. One other item that I forgot to mention is that on this premise were trucks are pulling in and out of American Potato this premise services quite a few of those truck, what with wash rack services also a garage for maintaince that can be provided there. It interlocks nicely with American Potato. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 32 March 27, 2002 I think the worry was more that it wouid be switched to Heavy Industriailhen Light or Heavy Industrial rather than downward to Rural Residential. There is one policy also that seems to indicate that he would have the type of option to see if he would lose his zoning one of the policies here states that the existing undeveloped and a portion of the parcel is in Commercial and Industrial zones outside of the UGA's may retrain their zoning. and I would assume he would have some of an option here, but that option wasn't given I believe. So at this point we believe he seems to be very well in line with the policies, goals and vision statement of this County. This parcel has much more than any parcel in this County history of Light Industnal use, residential use would create more problems at this point than any benefit that would come out of this parcel. Then again with this final policy that we have shown of being able to retain your zoning, we lust feel this is a very strong application and it should be granted and the property switched back to Light Industrial. I believe Mr. Chlarson may have a word or two to say. Exhibit #1. Map. copies of photos and Table 4 from the UDC Exhibit #2. GMA Goals Exhibit #3, Vision Statement Exhibit #4. Policy RU -1 l Exhibit #5, Goal RU -4 Exhibit #6, Policy RU -4.2 Exhibit #7, Goal ED -3 Exhibit #8, Goal ED -4 Exhibit #9, Policy ED 4.3 Exhibit #10, Commercial and Industrial uses Exhibit #11, Page 5-15 Exhibit # 12, Policy RU 4.4 A. Chlarson: Good evening, Alan Chlarson, is my name, 684 Rd M SE Moses Lake, Washington 98823 D. Black: And were you sworn? A. Chlarson: Nope D. Black: You were not sworn? G. Piercy: Oh boy, you have to leave (laughter) Do you hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the testimony that you give is truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief? A. Chlarson: Yes sir, G. Piercy: Thank You A. Chlarson: O.K. I have been in the livestock business, trucking business for 29 years in this county; on this said property for 20 '/z years it will be 21 years in November. As a younger fellow I purchased this property with the intent of retirement and having something that was worth some money in twenty or thirty years. All of a sudden I find out my zoning was taken away for what reason I don't know. But 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 33 March 27, 2002 it is kind of like making house payments for twenty years and then someone repossess your house for no reason and you have never been late on a payment. I J ust appreciate it back. Thank you. G. Piercv: Billie I think... did we see a zoning map of that area? Did we.. Have you got one? B. Sumrall: I have one here, I need a section. township and range. Let me see here... the application doesn't have one. Do you have it Mr. Fair? R. Fair: (inaudible) G. Piercy: Well yes I am trying to figure out where it is though I can't tell. A. Brower: Billie it looks like that? B. Sumrall: I have the little map that was done .. G. Piercy: Well I tell you what lets open up the public testimony portion of this hearing and see if you can find that for us and see if you can get it before we move forward. Township IS North Range 29 East Section 6 or should be 7 K. Sager: 17 W. Sahli: 16 G. Piercy: no it's... that is unit a farm unit K. Sager: I think it is 17, 18.... R 29, township 18 north range 29 east G. Piercy: Now how do they number the sections because it is not number 6, it number whatever is next to it. K. Sager: what is that G. Piercy: They go in 6 squares so K. Sager: But if you go from the 8 above it... G. Piercy: But that is a farm unit... cause this is the irrigation district map. K. Sager: That would be section 5 try section 5. G. Piercy: It might be... B. Sumrall: You are good!! This is the Rural Residential zoning, Hwy 17, Baseline... G. Piercy: The gray part where number 6 is that is Basic American Foods? B. Sutnrall: Yes 200I Comprehensive Plan Amendments - t4 - March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: and zoning there is'? W R. Fair: Heavy Industrial G. Piercy: Heavy Industrial. and the gray area to the south'? B. Sumrall: Light Industrial G. Piercy: So there is some light Industrial zoning in that area. That is what we needed to see, that is what I needed to see. A. Brower: I didn't need to see it. G. Piercy: You didn't need to see A. Brower: I drive by it all the time... G. Piercy: At this time we will open the public hearing portion of this meeting, for anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal. Anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal I Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal'? K. Sager: I move that the public hearing be closed. A. Brower: I will second it. G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Aye G. Piercy: Aye, Mr. Fair or Mr. Chlarson anything else that you would like to say R. Fair: Yes, I forgot to mention there was a recommendation by the Planning Department to grant the application G. Piercy: O.K. so W. Sahli: I would like to make a motion to change it from Rural Residential to Light Industrial A. Brower: I'll second the motion G. Piercy: O.K. we have a motion and a second to change the land use designation, any discussion on the motion? A. Brower: Question 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 35 - March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: Question has been called for. The motion that we are voting on is a land use` designation change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Ave A. Brower: Aye M. Palmer: Ave K. Sager: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: We will move that forward unanimously that it be recommended to the County Commissioners that it be changed. Findings 1 through 9, um that is 13 we will move to 15. D. Black: Could we take just a second G. Piercy: Yes.... Tape 2 side 1 March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: This is Lew Mc Cullough, Columbia Frozen Foods B. Sumrall: This should be named Columbia Potato rather than Columbia Frozen Foods. The proposal consists of approximately 10.4 acres and is part of two parcels located in a portion of Section 29, Township 19 N., Range 27. This is back down on the freeway interchange again by Hiawatha Road. Mr. Mc Cullough has used the property to process, pack and store potatoes for the past 15 to 20 years. The old zoning ordinance allowed for such activities to take place under the Agricultural zoning. When the UDC was enacted, the old definitions of Agricultural was split and the activities which Mr. Mc Cullough now uses were encompassed by the Light Industrial classification and he would like to change the land use designation from Rural Residential -1 to Light Industrial. This is again down adjacent to the Hiawatha development Short Plat and Inland Tarp the ones that were previously discussed. G. Piercy: I think we all remember what we were working on. B. Sumrall: O.K. G. Piercy: Mr. Fair? R. Fair: Randy Fair, Moses Lake and I have been sworn in and the address is 14505 W. Pioneer Way, Moses Lake. I am here with Lew McCullough tonight behind me and to the left. The is application is his and Columbia Potatoes and our request is to change two parcels with total 10 acres from or to Rural Light Industrial from Rural Residential. We have a map here and I know you have already seen the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -30- March 27, 2002 map of our neighbors. A little bit dark here but it is an aerial shot of the twor' parcels. right here that Columbia Potato has and Mr. McCullough. Hiawatha is of course right here and I-90 out front. I think you folks may have passed by this or seen this at one time or another. The premise is here on the left and you can see in the distance on the right the overpass that goes over I-90. Mr. McCullough operated Columbia Potato for processing on the premise and Billie mentioned one of the difficulties we ran into is the Ag zoning previously was very broad and it was kind of agricultural and Rural Light Industrial combined and then when the Unified Development Code came out and the Comprehensive Plan all the zones seemed to have narrowed in scope and the Ag uses were kind of divided into Light Industrial and Ag.. The new Ag and Mr. Mc Cullough fell on the wrong side of that. This is the back of the processing plant. The history of the parcel is that Mr. Mc Cullough has been there I believe about 15 years. There has not been a residence on this parcel, and there is not a residence on the parcel right now. The premise itself has been used as a processing plant for 22 years. I believe Jack Sherwood owned it before Mr. McCullough. No adjacent property is used residentially and you can see Mr. Foster directly to the south represents the property owner just to the south has some plans to apparently do something with that parcel to take advantage of the freeway access. The property has a large parking lot that suits 25 vehicles and currently 35 people are employed at the plant. There are vehicles and trucks coming though almost continually. There is a large warehouse building on the property that also has the offices. There is a holding pond behind the premise and a 70 foot scale and a six-inch pump and well with 40 gallons a minute capacity. Again it is right on the intersection of I-90 and Hiawatha he is very pleased with that access. There is no reliance or dependence on any urban services. sewer water or garbage, etc.. It is a very sound piece of light industrial that is located right on I-90. There is an organic mint processing approximately a quarter of a mile away, there is also two farm machine shops about a quarter of a mile away also Mr. Knopp about a mile to the east, with Mr. Willis. Everybody appears to be out of compliance with the zoning code with what they are doing. To grant this application I believe as you can see there is an environmental impact statement that was issued on all of these projects tonight, there was no impact found regarding any environmental impacts that this project could possibly cause, there is no impact on traffic or neighbors as he has been existing there for quite some time. No impact on the water on the environment. If he continued to be zoned Rural Residential -1 he actually immediately out of compliance and one problem he would not be able to make any adjustment to what he is doing and would continue to be out of compliance and he would not be able to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. As you can see in our Unified Development Code for Rural Residential—1 property, if he is going to be involved with processing it is.... It has a P here most activities industrial related are prohibited. Mr. McCullough activity would be prohibited. He would not.... If there was a C in that space he would be able to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and right now that is not the case. We have some statements from the neighbors and I imagine some of these folks did not particular want to see any type of development there. I don't think there would be much anyway because it is 10 acres at this point. I don't want to 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 37- March 27, 2002 butcher any names. it looks like Hap Whittier at 1262 B.S. another neighbor -who signed a statement here, Aaron Woodiwiss. and I'm not sure which direction that would be from this parcel. Mr. Cole another one of the neighbors, Mr. Knopp also supports this application I believe. Co the north I believe it may be a parcel or two or a few parcels over a Mr. Blower also support the application. I will make sure these are exhibits O.K. Again the policy's that support what Mr McCullough is doing are the same ones that we have seen with the last two applicants. We have somebody who has a light industrial business and it has been in operation quite some it is entirely Ag related, it is not dependant on the cities services. We can go through these at this point, but I'm sure we are familiar at this point also. There are other policies Mr. McCullough particularly processing industries outside Urban Growth Areas. And at this point we believe this application is very much in line with the Counties is requesting and certainly with this area has going for it right now. Again, there is no at this point on this parcel any history of residences being used. We don't believe one is going to be anyway, we have a lot with a pond and a scale and 1 don't think that would be very conducive but the very scheme again prohibits Mr. McCullough from doing what he is doing, we would like to get the zoning to match up with its current use. At this point we would ask the application to change the use and zoning from RRA to Rural Light Industrial be granted. I believe that the Planning Department has also submitted in writing in the file a recommendation that this application be granted. So we would side with them and Mr. McCullough is here tonight and I believe he may have a comment. Exhibit #1, Map, site plan & copies of photos Exhibit #2, GMA Goals Exhibit #3, Vision Statement Exhibit #4, Policy RU 1.1 Exhibit #5, Goal RU -4 Exhibit #6, Policy RU 4.2 Exhibit #7, Goal ED -3 Exhibit #8, Goal ED -4 Exhibit #9, Policy ED -4.3 Exhibit #10, Commercial and Industrial Uses Exhibit #11, Page 5-15 Exhibit #12, Goal RU -5 L. McCullough: Thank you we have been.... There has.. Oh D. Black: You need to state your name, address and if you were sworn L. McCullough: Lewis Mc Cullough 701 Scooner Court, Moses Lake. D. Black: and were you sworn? L. Mc Cullough: Yes. D. Black: Thank you 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - +8 - March 27, 2002 +a L. McCullough: There has been an ongoing packing plant there since 1980 and I think Mr. Fair has said it all so I will sit down and watt for your consideration. Thank You. G. Piercy: O.K at this time we will open the public heanng on this matter, those who would like to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone. If you would like to speak for or against this proposal please come to the microphone. Last call, anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal. W. Sahli: Make a motion that the public hearing be closed. M. Palmer: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed, all in favor signify by saying AYE M. Palmer: Aye K. Sager: Aye A. Brower: Aye W. Sahli: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: Anything else Mr. Fair. A. Brower: I [Hake a motion to approve the request M. Palmer: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that we change the land use designation from Rural Residential -I to Light Industrial. Any discussion on the motion`? M. Palmer: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for the motion before us is a land use designation change from Rural Residential to Light Industrial. All in favor signify by saying Aye M. Palmer: Aye K. Sager: Aye A. Brower: Aye W. Sahli: Aye G. Piercy: That will also move on with a unanimous recommendation that this be approved. Findings 1 through 9 at this point and time we are going to take 5 minutes and stretch our legs and items 14, 17, 18 & 19 have basically been withdrawn, if I am correct is that right Billie? B. Sumrall: The only one I know of, or that I have received anything with regards to is 17. G. Piercy: Oh, 17 has been withdrawn, but Mr. Fair is going to at the next hearing is going to do 14,18 & 19 so we will move after we adjourn and come back to number 16 and then number 20. Did we have some that we wanted to do? You know if you 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments .39- March 27, 2002 live a long ways from Ephrata and you want to get home tonight talk to Billie- nd we will move you to the front of the line. B. Suinrall: Mr. Palelek. number 33. G. Piercy: Number 33 A. Brower: If you live close to Ephrata and want to get done tonight.... G. Piercy: You can go home now... A. Brower: No.... K. Sager: Really G. Piercy: Except for you. D. Black: We are back on the record. B. Sumrall: In order to expedite the proposal_ Mr. Palelek's proposal is in your book. He owns approximately 140 acres of property located near George a portion of Section 28, Township IS Range 23. Approximately 6 miles from the Gorge Amphitheatre and is literally bisected by I-90. Prior to 1996 the property was zoned Open Space Recreation. In 1996 Mr. Palelek applied for a zone change before you and was granted a zone change to Commercial Freeway Services. This is at the intersection of the freeway and Silica Road going to the Gorge Amphitheater. When the Comprehensive Plan came out Mr. Palelek was put in a Rural zoning district and the land use designation was changed were by he lost that Commercial Freeway Service zoning. In the application form you will find documentation to the effect that the zone change was granted to Mr. Palelek and he would like that to be restored to Commercial Freeway Services along with a proposal to change the other side of the highway which is the remainder of his ownership to match the Commercial Freeway Service that he was originally given. I do have some maps here. Mr. Wallace has put some exhibits with the application. This is where the property is located. G. Piercy: I remember this when we did the land change way back... W. Sahli: I do to. B. Sumrall: Yes, basically it is just a change back to where he was given the zone change. There is nothing new. Mr. Palelek has had numerous opportunities to develop the property and how he found out that it was not zoned properly was he was given the real estate people I believe called our office and talked to one of the planners and were told the property was not zoned Commercial Freeway Services. So, it was basically a change that needs to be made in addition with the other side of the freeway that he also owns kitty-corner. Let me get a map here and then I will turn it over to Mr. Wallace. N. Wallace: Thank you. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -40- March 27, 2002 B. Sumrall: (inaudible) change this area here as Rural Residential. yellow is Agriculture. D. Black: Billie can you use the mic. I can't hear you over the machine. B. Sumrall: I'm sorry. The property is located at the intersection of Silica Road that goes down to the winery this is the freeway, George would be to the north. Vantage Bridge down this way. As I say he already got the zone change approved through the County Commissioners and would like to lust expand upon it. The only concern was that on the other side of the freeway it was felt that the parcel was quite large to be in a Commercial Freeway Service classification. The total size of the property is 140 acres. That is basically all I have. G. Piercy: O.K. Mr. Palelek? Is that correct' N. Wallace: I am Nick Wallace with Schultheis & Tabler right across the street and I represent Mr. Palelek. He is here tonight he is sitting to my left. What is before you is a site specific land use re -designation request, but in essence as Billie has pointed out it is really an attempt to correct what I perceive as a mapping error? When they were going through the process implementing the new Comprehensive Plan somehow somebody didn't pick up that this had been rezoned Commercial Freeway Services which is the old designation. The new designation is Freeway Commercial. Rural Freeway Commercial. I think it was simply an oversight, nerveless it is very important for you to understand the history here. Mr. Palelek owns approximately 140 acres as you can see from the map I have handed you and which is part of the record, the property is literally bisected so you have approximately and equal amount of property on each side of I-90 there. The interchange in question is heavy used. I believe it is the primary access point for The Gorge. As Billie pointed out prior to 1996 it was zones OSR-Open Space Recreation. In 1996 Mr. Palelek successfully obtained from the Board of County Commissioners a re -designation of Commercial Freeway Services for the southern half. The part line to the south of I-90 no attempt was made at that time to obtain Commercial Freeway Services for the northern portion. Tonight Mr. Palelek is actually asking for two things. He is asking for a return of the Commercial Freeway Service designation for the southern half and he is also asking for Commercial Freeway Designation for the northern parcel as well. In addressing his request the first place you need to begin is the Code that you are bound to apply, specifically 23.04.520 is a good place to start. That is the definition for Rural Freeway Commercial and I will just quote it briefly. Sub- part A reads as follows: Rural Freeway Commercial purpose: The purpose of the Rural Freeway Commercial zoning district is to provide for commercial facilities and uses outside of Urban Growth Areas and the vicinity of interchanges and frontage and access roads of limited access highway, specifically Interstate 90. Just walking through that well you got an interchange obviously, that is a large interchange there, you got frontage road along that area as well and specifically we are dealing with Interstate 90. So 1 submit to you by definition you couldn't find a parcel that better fits into the description that the County Commissioners inserted there into the code. In addition there are specific criteria set forth in the code that are suppose to be used when determination whether or not to grant the site specific rezone designations. Specifically that is set forth at 25.12.030 sub 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 l - March 27, 2002 H, and there are nine criteria and I have submitted written materials with tw written application where I addressed each one of those criteria. I don't know what you exactly you have in your book, I guess for my question to you for simply of purposes of making the record here tonight, in case we have to address this again at a later point and time. is whether or not you have a document in titles Criteria for approval of site specific land use re -designation. G. Piercy: We have that N. Wallace: O.K. good. Briefly I am going to walk through those and you can scan G. Piercy: It is the last three pages in this particular item. N. Wallace: The first one there is the 1. Change would benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare: I think clearly in this case the re -designation would clearly benefit Grant County in both economic sense and the general welfare sense. Like it or not The Gorge has become a major tourist attraction. We have a ton of people coming into Grant County. It would seem to me it would be economically beneficial to place various businesses and establishments at that interchange which could address some of those needs. 2. Second criteria you all need to consider is whether or not the Change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of need for additional property in the proposed land use designation: Well as best I can tell there is no land designated as Rural Freeway Commercial so I submit that that in and of itself speaks of a need for some. On second change is warranted in the sense that The Gorge again has become over time a major tourist attraction here in Grant County and like it or not people are going to keep coming. 3. Is the change consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comp. Plan. I refer you back to the specific definition contained in the code for what a Rural Freeway Commercial land is suppose to contain, specifically access to I-90. So for the gentleman that was here earlier that was seeking Rural Freeway Commercial out at the intersection of 28 & 17, I submit to you that he was barking up the wrong tree because I-90 wasn't involved. I will also point out to you that the Planning Department has spent well number 1 they know the code better then all of us combined. They have marched through this and they have analyzed it and the Planning Department conclusions is yes this proposal, this change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that is in effect. 4. Change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the Subject parcel. Again, I would point out that The Gorge is in close vicinity here and is really kind of the target here that we are after and second you need to recognize that there are very few other uses going on at that local, at that interchange. The property some Agricultural activity did occur on that property in the past but it was in a very, very limited amount. I believe the amount was 29 acres was used for farming purposes on Mr. Palelek's parcel. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -4-1) March 27, 2002 5. 77ie Change has merit and vale _tor the community as a whole. I am not going to go into depth and detail because there are a whole lot of other people here that need to speak. Suffice to say that we take the potion that this re- designation would have benefit to the Community as a whole 6. The change, tfgranted, 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 a substantive difference in the properties themselves that justifies different designations. Well there is a substantive difference: he owns property that has an interchange on it. That means something and moreover it is an interchange on I-90. 7. The benefits of the change will outweigh am, significant adverse impacts of the change. One of the documents I suspect was submitted to you by the Planning Document is that they did an environmental impact assessment. If you were to review that, I have an overhead for that and I'm not going to put that up. If you were to go and look at that you would see that this request for Freeway Commercial Services as compared to all of the other ones that have been before you tonight or will be before you next Wednesday. the Planning Departments conclusions is this project has the least amount of environmental impact as compared relatively to all of the other ones. 8. The change is consistent with purpose and intent of the Comp Plan bla bla bla. Again all defer to the Planning Department. The Planning Department said ya this project is consistent with the Comp. Plan. 8. The Change complies with all other applicable criteria and standards. Again defer to the Planning Department that a conclusion has been made. Now in addition I think there is a couple of other things that you need to bear in mind. That is the specific criteria that you need to focus on. But there is a broader set of purpose, broader set of goals that are contained in the Comp Plan. Again I am not going to spend a lot of time on that but simply for the purposed of making the record. I will have you refer to another written document that I submitted entitled Amendment to Grant County Comprehensive Plan or Unified Development Code and that is a five page document, that hopefully is part of your record there. G. Piercy: It is N. Wallace: Just a couple of points from all of that written material. From the Grant County Comprehensive Plan at page 5 RU -16 "The County should consider designation of areas outside of urban growth areas suitable for highway -oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the traveling public, require large acreage sites that have a high degree of visibility from I-90, and that do not conflict with the rural character of land and are limited in size and scope so as to not significantly diminish commercial agricultural production. Such "Freeway Commercial" areas should be limited to I-90 interchanges outside of UGA's. Let us just break it down. Is it outside of the UGA? You bet. This property is clearly not in an 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -41 March 27, 2002 UGA. Is it at an I-90 interchange? You bet. Is it a large parcel that is visible from 1-90. with a high degree of visibility'? Again you bet. Again I would submit to you the common sense and practicality you look at this, if there is going to be a property that is going to be designated Rural Freeway Commercial in Grant County this is the one. The other policy or goal that I would direct your attention to is located at page A-53 in the technical appendices of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and I will simply quote it in part. I am not going to quote the whole thing "Grant County is u tourism magnet in eastern Washington. Visitors spending generated 1, 996 full-time equivalent jobs during 1995 in Grant Couniv. The majority of this employment was in lodging and eating and drinking industries. The importance of tourism to the local economy has grown in recent years. Visitor industn, employment represents approximately 8 percent of the total non-farm employment in Grant County. The outlook for tourism and recreation within Grant County is robust, what is my point? My point is this Grant County made a conscious decision to place an emphasis on promoting tourism in Grant County. This proposal does that to the extent that we are servicing the needs of the people that are coming to Grant County. One of the other attorneys here. that guy that was, 1 can't remember who he was with, ASDP or something of that sort. lie actually had a good point and one of his points was .... (laughter) there has only been a few... (laughter) you only get one chance a lot of times when you are dealing with large developers. I can tell you in this instance if you don't strike while the iron is hot the money goes. Costco comes in they want to go now, a hotel chain come in the want to go now. They have got money, they can develop, they can bring jobs, they can bring industries, they can bring business. You are not ready they are not going to sit around and wait for you. Bottom line is we need to get this done and we need to move forward with this son of re -designation, if we are interested in meeting and directing our attention to the goals that are set forth in the Comp. Plan Last I would again emphasize Planning Department has spent a lot of time looking at this. We have worked very closely with Billie and other people within the Planning Department. They are all in accord that is proposal should be granted and it is consistent with the Comp Plan and you should approve our request Ah Mr. Palelek is here and may have a few words to share with you. R. Palelek: Thank you very much, my name is Ron Palelek, I have been sworn in and I reside temporanly at 10431 Trombley Rd. Snohomish WA. I operate Vantage Point Farms, on the river from 1963 to 1994 when I moved over to Snohomish and will be moving back to this side. Just a quick note about the property. I was helping a gentleman that was quite a force in your County for a few years, Les Turner, Rural Land Farms, in the 60iest and brad thoroughbred horses and I kept diving by that sign that was rickety and nailed on a post and I finally got tired of looking at it. So I asked some body if this property could be purchased and ultimately it was part of a section ultimately there was 160 acres that I was able to get out of it and so it was by sort of accident that that happened. And then several years later the interchange came through the middle of it. I have been around this part of the country and have enjoyed it and plan to be back. That is all I have to say. Thank You. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -44 March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: At this time we will open the public hearing, ter those who would like to -- comment for or against this proposal. We have worn everybody out and all have gone home. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this proposal'.? Last call, anybody that would l ike to speak for or against this proposal? K. Sager: I move that the public hearing be closed. W. Sahli: Second G. Piercy: I knew there would be a second but it was kind of slow (laughter) It has been moved and seconded all in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: Anything else you want to say Mr Wallace' N. Wallace: No, there is not G. Piercy: O.K. W. Sahli: Well I can remember like Gary can when we did this before, so I guess I am going to take and make a motion to let this go to Rural Freeway Commercial. M. Palmer: Second G. Piercy: We have a motion and a second to approve the land use designation change. Any discussion on the motion? I do remember this when we did it and I think we were trying to encourage the County or a place where people were able to access The Gorge. Boy it is really sad when you drive down there on the south of the Vemita, no not Vernita. south of I-90 bridge and look at the way that has been.... That landscape there has been totally been denuded. It is just..... W. Sahli: Ya, it has. the PUD has chained it off so it cant be now. G. Piercy: It is terrible, well anyway. W. Sahli: Question. G. Piercy: Question has been called for and the motion before us is a land use designation change from Rural Remote to Rural Freeway Commercial. All in favor signify by saying Aye W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: I'll vote with that, there is hope for Martell. (laughter) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 45 - March 27, 2002 M. Palmer: I don't believe it dear.... I hope that isn't on the record..(laughter) K. Sager: You know we are all going to have to excuse ourselves now. G. Piercy: I know D. Black: Findings'? G. Piercy: Findings... l through 9, seems to be our standard answer N. Wallace: Thank you G. Piercy: You are welcome: we have two guys lett, let's take them in numerical order, 35 B. Sumrall: Number 35 G. Piercy: Yup we want to do 35. B. Sumrall: Um this is... was another area that the map shows something entirely different than what happen down there. The property is located between Beverly and Schawana and it is an approved subdivision of 2 '/ acres parcels. This was approved by the County in 1992 and was developed and finalized and it is a final plat. When the Pearson came into the office to check on the property she found out it is Rural Remote and that is a 20 acre minimum lot size. It is kind of hard to see but... 'You can see but... I will be whispering. The lots in questions tiou see are 1. 2, 3,4,5,6... This is the highway going from Beverly to Schawana and it is a fully developed subdivision and recorded and it is called Columbia View Plat. The parcel sizes are about 2 acres in size so it certainly doesn't fit the Rural Remote. which is a 20 acre lot size. They are asking for the zoning to be changed and the land use designation to be changed to fit the plat. G. Piercy: So we got a proponent that would like to talk to us'? I presume you were about done with us Billie. B. Sumrall: Yes, I am G. Piercy: O.K. If I walk on your presentation you just say something. B. Sumrall: No. I forget to have a mic anyway. G. Piercy: Is there a proponent that would like to talk to us? J. Pearsen: My name is JoAnn Pearsen, I live at P.O. Box 293 Beverly Washington and I was sworn in. We purchased this property and at the time we purchased it was zoned Suburbia. We platted it with the County like Billie said, everything was done through the County legally and whatever way we did it. We developed it like they said except we had no intention of developing the lots. They were for sale. That there is a power line that runs through it. There is road to it, ah there 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -46- March 27, 2002 is one residence there. fhe only way we found out it had been changed from Suburbia to Rural Remote was we had an inquiry to put an apartment house on the property and found out that all of a sudden we had 15 acres that were worthless. G. Piercy: Some of our better work. J. Pearsen: Ya (laughter) it was a surprise. Yet we are still being taxed per lot. G. Piercy: See, I said we do good work. A. Brower: Mapping error. J. Pearsen: Oh. I see. O.K. we would request that the property be put in a zone that would allow residences for each lot. I do have a map here of the lots with the size. G. Piercy: It is not necessary, you can include it in the public record if you want J. Pearson: That is tine. We need places down there tier people to live. You know we are being influenced by a lot of people comme into our property and Schawana and Beverly are both limited right now because of the water situation. Thank you G. Piercy: Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this proposal? T. Scott: Tom Scott, I was sworn in from Ellensburg. And it was unbelievable to think that when you go to all the expense and work to plat a piece of ground and it is O.K. by the County and the Commissioners and everyone says it is fine and then you find out that hopefully it was just a mistake on map work. It is up to you to decide what we are going to do with it and Thank you very much. G. Piercy: Anybody else? Last call, anyone who would like to speak for or against the proposal. K. Sager: I move that the public hearing be closed W. Sahli: Second G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: Anything else? O.K. K. Sager: I will make a motion to approve the change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential -2. W. Sahli: I will second it. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 47 - March 27, 2002 W.. G. Piercy: We have a motion to approve the land use designation change is there any discussion on the motion'? A. Brower: Question G. Piercy: The question has been called for. Lhe motion before us is a land use designation change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential -2. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: That will move to the County Commissioners with a unanimously recommendation that it be approved with the findings 1 through 9 and finally T. Scott: Thank you G. Piercy: Thanks for your patience. A. Brower: And that was a mapping error. G. Piercy: Well, yes and no. A. Brower: There is a lot of that stuff that has happened. B. Sumrall: This is another M. Palmer: What number? B. Sumrall: 39 G. Piercy: 39 B. Sumrall: As you go up to Electric City Mr. Sanford has developed two plats on the right hand side of the road, Northshore Acres and.... These were developed under the Open Space Recreation classification and his total ownership included the parcel of ground that was left off of the zoning map again. He was given the proper zoning for the plats that were already developed but his entire ownership he had developed the other property in phases and he hadn't completed this phase and G. Piercy: Well, he is out of luck, tell him to go home. B. Sumrall: and he is in Rural Remote now, which doesn't allow him to further subdivide the rest of the property. He would like to change that portion of the property that is zoned Rural Remote and make it Rural Residential -2 as the rest of it is already 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -48 - March 27, 2002 zoned. He has two plats on the property. Northshore Acres and Lake Ridge Hills. Oh it is not is it adjacent to you Unidentified: They are on the opposite side of the highway, B. Surnrall: Oh. OX... oh that is right. but that is your property that is shown on there Unidentified: O.K. B. Sumrail: O.K. and what is it Unidentified: Section 21 is left out.... (inaudible) B. Sumrall: I got you... you want to come up and D. Sanford The property is outlined here. D. Black: He needs to state who he is. D. Sanford: My name is Delmer Sanford. 1721 SR 174 Box 545, Grand Coulee WA 99133. D. Black: And were you sworn? D. Sanford: Yes 1 was D. Black: Thank you D. Sanford: Our entire property is outlined right here like this. What you see there. We have a subdivision in this area right here, this is called North Shore Acres, we have a short plat right in the corner right down here that is called North Shore Acres South Short Plat consisting of two lots. When the new designation came out this part right here was designated RR -2. This part right up here was designated as Rural Remote and we would like this up here to be in the same as this right here if we could. We are trying to develop this whole property in phases, this was phase 1, phase 2 will go to approximately right there. This will be phase 2 and we are working on that right now and then phase 3 will be this one right here. So we would request that you would change that to be RR -2 like the rest of the property. Thank you. Any questions? G. Piercy: Sir, is there anything you would like to say about this? Unidentified: (inaudible) G. Piercy: O.K., there is no one else here to present public testimony we will K. Sager: Move that the public hearing be closed. G. Piercy: O.K. W. Sahli: Seconded. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1 49- March 27. 2002 G. Piercy: It has been moved and seconded that the nublic hearing be closed. All in favor signify by saying Aye A. Brower Aye K. Saler: Ave M. Palmer: Aye W. Sahli: Ave G. Piercy: Ave A. Brower: I make a motion that we approve the request G. Piercy: OX we have a motion to approve the request. M. Palmer: Second G. Piercy: And a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? W. Sahli: Question G. Piercy: Question has been called for. The motion we have before us is a land use designation change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential -2. All in favor signify by saying AYE W. Sahli: Aye K. Sager: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: Aye G. Piercy: That also will move on with a unanimous recommendation that that be approved with findings I through 9. and Mr. 25 is here and has waited patiently and he is going to be the last one, if somebody else comes through that door it is over. A. Brower: I am getting tired. G. Piercy: Drive safely to Grand Coulee will you please. B. Sumrall: This is Mr. Britt, he has First Line Seeds. M. Palmer: You could hear better if you took those ear muffs off ...(laughter) G. Piercy: 25.... A. Brower: Microphone (laughter) B. Sumrall: O.K. Mr. Britt's application is also near... in your notebook he owns a portion of farm unit 153, block 41 and he is asking that the property be designated Light Industrial in accordance with the use that is there. Rail serviced is available which services McKay Seed, Wolfkill Seed and Fertilizer Corp. is located to the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -50- March 27, 2002 east of this site. The size of the property is 33.5 acres. This property sits—in' between the two that I showed vou. Maybe Mr. Britt (inaudible) J. Britt: I am John Britt. 11703 Rd t SE. Moses Lake and I have been sworn in. First Line seed.. D. Black: I'm sorry you have to have the micronhone J. Britt: Oh, O.K. D. Black: Thank you. J. Britt: First Line seeds is on this parcel here in 152 which is Rural Light Industrial that unit and Wolfkill Fertilizer is over here, McKay Seed is in that area. I own 153 which is Agricultural and a portion of 154 which is Heavy Industrial and the balance of this 154 is Heavy Industrial. this entire unit so to be consistent and so we can move this property we ask that this would be changed to Rural Light Industrial and I have a sale that I am workma on for First Line Seeds and we have taken out this upper portion We have submitted a short plat for the top pan of this that is parcel -1 and parcel -2 the lower part of it. The other building lies in 153 which I need that zoned right so I can pull out a section of that in phase -2 to complete the sale of First Line Seeds. 1 dont know if you have maps of that portion but I have some here, showing one building on this portion ad there is on this portion. G. Piercy: Mr. Britt, can the Heavy Industrial parcel there to the left, is there anything on that property? J. Britt: This is being farmed it's used as Agricultural. G. Piercy: How in the world in the new Comprehensive Plan did that stay Heavy Industrial right there'? J. Britt: That was changed some years ago by the previous owner that was expecting some industry like a car manufacture to come in and that was when that got changed to Heavy Industrial and I think some of this up in here was also..... G. Piercy: But that is an anomaly and I'm surprised they didn't paint that back in the Comp. Plan. A. Brower: We do things backwards G. Piercy: I take it north is up at the top of the page J. Britt: Right, ya this is road 1 SE, railroad comes along here and there is a spur that comes in to our property here. Wolfkill who is not operating a business right now, has the rail spur between our adjoining property. Like I say I have this sold, and I am doing this in two phases and 1 would like to have this piece over here put into light industrial so we can complete that sale and make the parcels fit. Can I leave you a map or... 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - SI - March 27, 2002 G. Piercy: We have the exactly the same map. J. Britt: O.K. G. Piercy: That you have on number 4 there. J. Britt: Is there anything else`? G. Piercy: This is going to be tough, there is no public to comment. But we will open the public hearing in case somebody is asleep back there and we don't see them. B. Sumrall: Just the girls... G. Piercy: Just the girls, O.K. W. Sahli: I make the motion the public hearing be closed M. Palmer: Second. G. Piercy: O.K. it has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed all in favor signify by saying AYE. A. Brower: Aye W. Sahli: Aye M. Palmer: Aye K. Sager: Aye G. Piercy: O.K. what do you want to do? W. Sahli: I will make a motion to change from Agriculture to Light Industrial. M. Palmer: Second. G. Piercy: We have a motion and a second to make the land use designation as requested. Is there discussion on the motion? M. Palmer: Question. G. Piercy: O.K., I am having trouble with what we are trying to do here. It is getting late. The motion is a land use designation change from Agricultural to Light Industrial, all in favor signify by saying Aye W. Sahli: Aye M. Palmer: Aye A. Brower: Aye G. Piercy: All opposed the same sign K. Sager: Aye G. Piercy: The vote is three to two. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 52 - March 27, 2002 w.. D. Black: I'm sorry I didn't catch the vote, itjust went right by me. I'm sorry (laughter) G. Piercy: Three votes for D. Black: OX, who voted for'? G. Piercy: Wayne, Martell & Al. the property rights activists on the board and the socialist on the board voted a¢ainst it. This will move with no recommendation to the County Commissioners. Mr. Britt. It is a (inaudible) and because there is no recommendation there will be no findings of fact. so. No, they will take the public testimony that has been presented which is basically the things in the packet and the things that you said tonight and they will make a decision based on the public testimony. M. Palmer: He can come to the meetine. G. Piercy: You can come to the meeting. K. Sager: You need a motion to continue to the G. Piercy: l think that we are going to... yes, please. K. Sager: I make a motion that we continue the remaining items until the 3rd of April. G. Piercy: O.K, it has been moved and seconded and unanimously approved that we move this heanng to the 3`d of Apnl, same time. same place. D. Black: The 3`d of April after our regular hearing G. Piercy: The 3`d of April after our regular hearing It has been moved.... 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - i3 - March 27, 2002 I rE 1.. I1. EOL 58+31 3 El nH-- I' 20' n ' 1 3290 25' f h0 N 89051' I Z w N 69°51 E 1056 9 L 20 N 89051- " 271 O 300 O' - 00°26' W 6 76. 5 676 4 w N 89052' w 90 I o1 V h 23 -17 El 29H-2 24 9 EOL 24 X671 -EL 29H-2 •3� 150,C 9 < e0 Yr, N / 2 X� i N 89052' \ 92.6' �< �32 � 26 0� EL 29H \ 0a00 EL 29H -I y0 a5 2 EL 29n \ l s 0+00 EL29H-2 \ 20. �� r rc a �. �, , _ N 8 e9 ,V4 w -1-- - - —_—�12739'- 55_O / 25 3 I IN O � N IM OI I- I of 1 . 1 _ 35 -- N 69°51 E 1056 9 L 20 N 89051- " 271 O 300 O' - 00°26' W 6 76. 5 676 4 w N 89052' w 90 I o1 V h 23 -17 El 29H-2 24 9 EOL 24 X671 -EL 29H-2 •3� 150,C 9 < e0 Yr, N / 2 X� i N \N _89°51 _ E 55 0 25' N 89052' \ 92.6' �< y0 � l s 00 O-� �� r rc a �. �, , � h r • 2 N \N _89°51 _ E 55 0 25' kc, 6 �� r' .. .. � •�i ,'` . ' •, �, i.- � ., _. n. ,, e s <' .. .. Sales & Rental Services—�_� 36 L P P L 37 Heavy Industrial Uses ��� � �-- — P LP ;g 39 40 41 42Al Vtv --" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 i•, Table 4 Allowable Land Uses lbr Rural Lands. S ecial and Overlay Districts, & Resource Land Use Rural Lands Zoning Distric S ecI I/Over) a x +:� Y. .� •� �� e., _ n" P no P r "`"ffnti P C Agriculturally -Related Industrial Uses P Light Industrial Uses P P P P P C Light Manufacturing P i0ftj PN P 7W&J P P C Mining & Mineral Extraction' Mineral Processing Accessory to Extraction Operations` P p P P P D hC P P D P P P P DhjD P C nds Outdoor Storage Yards Reclamation of Mineral Extraction Sites P D Recycling Center P P P P P Slaughter, Packing & Rendering Facilities P P P P C Div Storage & Treatment of Sewage SludgeP and Septage P P P P Onsite Storage & Treatment of Hazardous or Dangerous Waste P P QL-P P D Veterinary Clinic, Hospital C C CV4 hP VW4LP P Warehouse Facilities P P P p P p p p D , rdei Wholesale Distribution Outlet P Wrecking & Salvage Yards, Automobile P P pq p P Un -named Industrial Uses P P P P P C Agricultural Processing p p p p p Agricultural Product Visitor and Retail Sales Facilities p D A P1111111111ilic A A pq p P Agricultural Uses and Activities A Farmworker Accommodations P P p C Feed Lots, Commercial P P P Np p p Feedlot, Farm Oriented C P C p p c Under Livestock Maintenance P P p q p P p p p Livestock Sales Yard P Nursery, Wholesale P P P p p A P Retail Sales of Agricultural Products P p 1111L p p Roadside Retail Sales Stands, Agricultural Products, Permanent Roadside Retail Sales Stands, Agricultural Products, Seasonal C D p C C D C p C pq P C p D C p PA P C Un -named Agricultural Uses C Zonis Same riyini lame -lying GMA GOALS The GMA requires Washington's fastest growing counties, the cities within them, and other jurisdictions opting into the process to plan extensively in accordance with the following goals: *Economic Development Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged person, and encourage growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. *Natural Resource Industries Maintain and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Page 1-3 Comprehensive Plan %WL\VOL2\DOC\MMDS5LF-RJF-KNOPP DOC 32W02 3 cg VISION STATEMENT Grant County seeks to maintain and enhance its quality of life while achieving benefits of growth and minimizing any negative impacts. Our vision defines our future and how we will respond to growth and change. Our vision is comprised of the following basic values: *Promote a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by supporting existing local businesses, making prudent infrastructure investments, and encouraging new business that is compatible with and complementary to the community. *Protect and conserve our agricultural resources, and prevent inappropriate conversion of prime agricultural lands. %WL%V0L2\D0C\MMDSSLF-KJF-KN0PP DOC 3126102 T- CC I I POLICY RU -1.1 Land uses in rural areas that are related to farming, mining, rural residential development, tourism, outdoor recreation, and other open space activities shall be preferred. Page 4-13 Comprehensive Plan \\ML\VOL2\DOC\MMDS5LF-PJF-KNOPP DOC 7C6/02 GOAL RU -4 Provide for continued existing new small scale commercial industrial developments outside UGAs that are compatible with and continue to preserve, maintain, and enhance the vital rural and agricultural uses in the county. Page 4-18 County Comprehensive Plan WNLUVOLIkDOQMMDS5LF-RIF-KNOPP.00C 146/02 POLICY RU -4.2 Industrial uses in rural areas (other than small scale home based industries) should generally be those appropriate to the lower densities and land uses of rural areas such as: *Independent contracting services; 1Rain � *Industries related to and dependent on natural resources of agricultural and minerals; *Industries requiring large secluded areas away from population centers and not requiring urban services. Page 4-18 County Comprehensive Plan �WUVOL21DOCWMD55LF-RJF-KNOPP DOC 3/26/01 .erfai GOAL ED -3 Insure an adequate supply of commercial and industrial sites to provide opportunity for new and expanding businesses to locate or remain in Grant County. Page 4-31 County Comprehensive Plan %\MUVOL2WOCIMMDSSLF.RIF.KNOPP DOC y26j02 GOAL ED -4 Preserve the strength of the existing agricultural industry while diversifying the local economy by strengthening manufacturing and promoting producer services and other basic industries. Page 4-33 County Comprehensive Plan gMLIVOL21t)(XWMD55LF-RJF-KNOPP.DOC 3/26/07 POLICY ED -4.3 Encourage the establishment of industrial parks and other light manufacturing facilities and provide zoning of facilities engaged in producer services, including computer, health services, and telecommunications. Page 4-33 County Comprehensive Plan '\ML\VOL2IDOC\MMDS5LF•RJF-KNOPP DOC 3126102 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES Commercial and industrial uses throughout rural, unincorporated Grant County will be guided by the goals and policies contained in this comprehensive plan. ... while often related to natural resources, the area to be zoned industrial should itself have minimal potential for natural resource utilization. Industrial land should be capable of supporting industrial development with minimal environmental constraints. Particularly important is the ability to support intensive use without significant adverse effects on surface or around water. Enough land should be available in an industrial zone so that expansion of individual industrial establishments may be accommodated, or so that several establishments may be served in one contiguous area. At the same time, buffer areas must be provided to separate industrial uses for many adjacent nonindustrial uses. Few residential or commercial uses should exist on lands considered for zoning as industrial. aMLkVOL2MDOC\MMDS5LF-RJF,KNOPP DOC 306/02 PAGE 5-15 An inventory of developable land has been conducted as part of the plan development process (see technical appendix A — Economic Profile of Grant County). The inventory concludes that there are excellent prospects for continued high rates of industrial growth in the county. Primary prospects for industrial growth are in the Wheeler corridor and adjacent areas of Moses Lake as well as in the vicinity of the Port of Moses Lake/Grant County International Airport. However, the available supply of developable industrial lands in both areas in limited and not expected to be adequate to accommodate potential industrial growth. Page 5-15 IWL1VOL2'•DOCIMMDS3LF-RJF-KNOPP DOC 7/26/02 POLICY RU -4.4 Existing undeveloped commercial and industrial zoned areas outside of UGAs may retain aid zoning designations. Commercial and industrial uses in rural lands shall be guided by the goals and policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan. The zoning map to be adopted with the implementing development regulations will illustrate where such commercial and industrial zoning districts will be located throughout the County. Page 4-19 Comprehensive Plan ;MUVUL2�DOCU7MDSSML RIF KNOPi' DO( 1116,02 JAY: t« 4$z 117 `Rsy' ft♦ si��-~' � > i :t ., s' s ty{� _.� 'w'Sl � y. 'dl's xt' v:.�pn i'> Ia. Y* �� a. a�,Y.. ,w� Y C�� + .�Y � l * �Y l���� .-. L �,�t�..°��(�'} t✓.. ".t+♦ S-�12 ♦�x'J i�y �'�' ♦ i �-•'tr - �� L� /IYj��".�s Ltr .^ u '�Y fss,,�y�� r�' C -�3� Y♦•a. w x J. .C'Y�#`� � I "�'J"�?Y�i>��VtLx CAS- k } � � .r iI . l.✓ �... ""15 L Y x slit P 1 3� f' 4+[ p.y r C L +� 1 � _ - n11, J'. Z Z% "�. ✓' > s _ � ^n r t '. wt ". ' ~ r ai�'.r."�i � i ! .Ca' '-f`"" � � 5 J' �' '• �.-_. - .Yip c� .r•�i�'° H�:� 4 >`..i ey � +'"a '-> ..- v Mti e Y� ���Y�Aq��j,.� , 1T ViVC�ySr 31��• �'7F T ♦A t YAM �: '� >n�x 5; k~f ri' `�> 1 TMx. : 1�,.. jd. L,.✓J �y�,yy♦r 3 u�— r T: �-'��vi Jj+"'Y.. ��`.'y.,.f�-:� ,fes;�. .✓''._ ° f's J� �.. .;.' v l�"a ♦w...� 7`. uX '.I �"'\� .i t� _ t 'a� int -t... "'Cs y�ViYry,♦�� v'=•>'�`^S W-...� ���� t S .•/.,/r.��l > i '�..,.Fj Cti^• Is��:._�_ ���� ss._ tTws+[n. Y x.. fY-T.b�.L•t4.T9 •! .t.%��/ri .s ���5. 'v r i 4♦ �k�i?�I�.d.♦��r t �7 .e� > t � i.K' 1 e < Cr ;, < t �+waeKY ^^'.. .-.- —. _ 1T'��+�+a. K � t �+.�"t�.}y�r�Y'�+�%^+w�b..a�Ja"..'M•tMl^'.. a0. -W lr .L ,T : ry fit �s . • �. �� 4 A hT C'f' +Y"v-id r Jet It) � boa. ao" - - d.ze.7 t � 1 " L rix racce� eie 1585 e.rwL E 9 Y. +I 5.6 l,rres ay �q n M w = F y w ty Y1 .� xNN .r pY .. 4 .=S�g+s• IN \ O NJ 5. a+! Q NJ F qy Nr) Nr) g 5Q 6 +3 N 50 38 S4' 84 sl 06e If/ vv " +- ^- � yvNM7y P•iPO,VTh�F SF.l Vif�' .}H./O .-r�� / f J�- ._a L r �4 i - i' � wr T _ � .,i 1 r •y � la ~ales & Kental Jers ices -- 4 -_ - - -- Ilcavv industrial Uses - ----- �'-- -_�' , _ —1—I l I 1` F C ;9 �... .tn 41 t4l-i,t I 7ahle 4 111owable Lund I .se's Jur Rural I 'wcc cal unci Overlay D _ Rural Lands Land Use 6 .y ry r1 _ In A2riculturally-Related Industnal Use; P P I Light Industrial Uses 1' P 12 right Manufacturing P P 13 Mining & Mineral Extractions 14 Mineral Processing Accessory to P P 151 Extraction Operations' UL Outdoor Storage Yards P P 17 Reclamation of Mineral Extraction Sites D D 18 Recycling Center p P 19 Slaughter, Packing & Rendering p P 20 Facilities 21 Storage & Treatment of Sewage Sludge P P 22 and Septage 23 Onsite Storage & Treatment of p P 24 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste 25 Veterinary Clinic, Hospital C C 26 Warehouse Facilities P P 27 Wholesale Distribution Outlet p p 28 Wrecking &Salvage Yards, Automobile P P P 29In Un -named Industrial Uses P p 16 Agricultural Processing p p 17 Agricultural Product Visitor and Retail P D 18 Sales Facilities 19 Agricultural Uses and Activities A A 20 Farmworker Accommodations P P 21 Feed Lots, Commercial P P 22 Feedlot, Farm Oriented C P 23 Livestock Maintenance p P 24 Livestock Sales Yard P p 25 Nursery, Wholesale P p 26 Retail Sales of Agricultural Products P 27 Roadside Retail Sales Stands, C P 2Agricultural Products, Permanent 299 Roadside Retail Sales Stands, D 30 Agricultural Products, Seasonal 31 — Un -named Agricultural Uses _ C C C & Resource nine Distric ram �00m re"'IM" Districts Underlying r�a;.v�va r�.�iraa.��aar�iderlying ©�►�0�,� TIMI �n:7 Date` 3 Al -[..)2 GIA GOALS The GN1A requires \VashinLrton's lastest <<rowinLT counties, the cities within them, and otherjurisclictions optlnLy Into the process to plan extensively in accordance vv ith the 16lkm ing goals: Economic Development Eneoura�e ecunumic development '1hrou�rhout the sate that is consistent with the adopted corniprehensiv c plans. promote economic opportunit% for all ol'thls state_ especially for unemplo%ed ani! ),)I disad\ and cnconra1-1e Uroxvth, all within the capacities otthc states natural resources, public services, anti public Iacllities. *Natural Resource Industries Maintain and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive timber, a�(Uricultural, and fisheries industries. Page 1-3 Comprehensive Plan VII A11,_ PI 1 01 h\� �n=� VISION' STATEMENT Grant County seeks to maintain and enhaure its quality of'lite while achieN ink benefits of'cyrm� th and minimizin(y any ne��ative impacts. Our vision defines our futurc and ho%v v%c \v ill respond to growth and change. Our vision is comprised of the tOlto« inUT r;isic v clues: -kPromote a healthy, diversified. and sustainable local and regional economy by supportmLT existim-i local hu, imcsses, makinur prudent infi-astructure investments. and encour,JLT)H 1 nevN business that is Compatible with and complementarN 1�� 11w:omill till ity. Protect and conserve our a«ricultural F�2>,A rces. and prevent inappropriate coni ersion of'primc Li(Yrirt-J,ur�il lands. 'J'. „u_1)1u W\W�IIAM KAUPPInu „ POL1C Y RL -1.1 r -'ate. La Land uses in rural areas that are related t(l iarmin(Y, minim. rural residential development. Colli-ISI71, outdoOl* recreation, and ether open space actix hies shall I e prclerrcd. Page 4-13 Comprehensive Plan Tr GOAL RL --t ate 3 j Provide for continued existiil ne%v small kale commercial industrial developillents outside UGAs that are comhatihlc with and continue to preserve. maintain. and enhance the \ it,tl rural and agricultw-al uses in the county. Page 4-18 County Comprehensive Plan ,I _,„_I,,It .I%II1,-I,4(!, n.tA9•IA11 , p�< lC% POLIO KU -4.2 Industrial uses in rural areas (other than '�nlall -)Cale home based induStrieS) Should generally he those appropriate to the loci er densities and land LISCS Of rural areas SLICK aS: -rindependent contracting Services: *lndustries related to and dependent on lmtural resources ofauricultural alld Illlnerals, 111dllStl'1eS I'eC�lnl-111�� lal"<_re -)eClLlCled �ll�l'll� aA\ aA lI'011l pOpulal1011 Cen[el'S .Illd not rcgLIII'IllLy lll-ball tier\ lce-,. Page 4-18 CountN, Comprehensive Plan m-- /� � (-ONL L' U-� aLe 3 �% G Insure an ade(,luate supply ol,conimerc►L ►I and industrial sites to Pl'ov isle ��pportunity for ne\\ and c�panclin« husu�e�sc� to locate or rema►n ►n Grant County. Page 4-31 County Comprehensive Plan GOAL ED -4 Preserve the strength oi�the eXlstlIIU a�(rlculturai inCLIStry vv�hile d1Vel-sllVlnu the local ccollolllv h\ strewithenlnLr mallLlfaCtLll'l(,)' LInd promoting producer scry ices and odlcr hash lnclustries. Page 4-33 County Comprehensiv e Plan I ,11.. 1.u 11V1"ai NI -i Vn•r In" POLICY ED -4.3 Encourage the establishment 01' industriLd and < UICI- li�(ht manulaCturin<UT fliCl ItleS and pro% ide toning en<ura<accl in prod icer SCI-ViCCS. includtM-1 computer. hCalth ices, and teleCOMMUMCatlons. Page 4-33 County Comprehensive Plan k Artl.U.y VAII1viii R ,", "In1 CO.NME'RCLU AND 11DL STRIAL CASES Commercial and industrial uses throuLThout rural. Lill incorporated Grant Countv will be �)-,uidccl by the goals and policies contained in this comprehensive plan. ... Nvhile often related to natural resources_ the area to be zoned industrial should itself have minimal potential for natural resource utilization. Industrial land should be capahle oCsupporting industrial development `v ith minimal ens u'onmental constraints. Particularly IlllPOI'tant is the ahlllt% to support lntentiltc II -Sc %� lthollt SIL_T111IIcant ,1d%cl-s e((ects ()Il ,wl ice Or L_'roUnd \\,l( --I Enou�-yh land should he a`` aiiahle in Ml Industrial zone so that c\pan,lon of individual industrial establishments may be accommodated, or so that several establishments may he served in one contiguous area. At the same time, buffer areas must be provided to separate industrial uses for many adjacent nonindustrial uses. Few residential or commercial uses Should exist on lands considered for zoninL as industrial. PAGE 5 -If �uiz An inventory ofdevelopahle land has been conducted as part ofthe plan development process (see technical appendix A — Economic Profile of Grant COLUItV). The iMentory concludes that there are excellent prospects for continued hiuTh rates of industrial (growth in the county, Primary prospects for industrial gyrowth arc in the Wheeler corridor and adjacent areas of Moses Lake as %v ell as in the v icinity of -'tile Pert of Nlo,�cs Lake/Grant COuntti lnternatiomil Airport. However, the available supply of developablc indu,triai Iands in 110th areas in limited and not �:\hccteci to he adequate to iccommo(hte notcntmi industrial LTI-OWth. Page 5-15 ..., .I Vi ',I i_1:❑ 1.iu9',p .. GOAL Rt -3 FaCllltale the INroduction ul'aLJricultiu-e nIinCral 1)1-0ductS b\ IIION\ in -r related nrocessin(-Y facilities. limited direst rc�Ourcc sales and limited natural resource sup}xu t seri ices and suhh()rt natural resource actio hies. and which are not harmful to the lone tei m nattu-al resource. `.li Aril'_ en VA1111<14-KIIAJIII lI'll . W111, "-I- S MI h M 4� 4 NII b h' l o � w W � o _ O 0 1�> w.. � �_� � t � _ rr-•... I � � I� Idtl�� ✓V r � �. �����®�,,��.' pie' - :Gtr`. . __ , .� _T..—..—.—� -- _ _ _. �'j � ��� .�-r-----_� U 1*1/.E1-e- %O AE5-F5/ _ 36 Sales &Rental Services P -- �— P J-:: -j- - p p P C 37 Heavy Industrial Uses Y 1- 1- 38 p� 39 i 40 41 42 1 2 Allowable Land Uses for Rural Lands 3 4 5 Land Use 6 7 8 9l,c 10 Agriculturally -Related Industrial 1 1 Light Industrial Uses 12 Light Manufacturing 13 Mining & Mineral Extraction 14 Mineral Processing Accessory to 15 Extraction Operations` Outdoor Storage Yards 17 Reclamation of Mineral Extracti 18 Recycling Center 19 Slaughter, Packing & Rendering 20 Facilities 21 Storage & Treatment of Sewage 22 and Septage 23 Onsite Storage & Treatment of 24 Hazardous or Dangerous Waste 25 Veterinary Clinic, Hospital 26 Warehouse Facilities 27 Wholesale Distribution Outlet 28 Wrecking & Salvage Yards, Aub 29In Un -named Industrial Uses 16 Agricultural Processing 17 Agricultural Product Visitor an 18 Sales Facilities 19 Agricultural Uses and Activities 20 Farmworker Accommodations 21 Feed Lots, Commercial 22 Feedlot, Farm Oriented 23 Livestock Maintenance 24 Livestock Sales Yard 25 Nursery, Wholesale 26 27 Retail Sales of Agricultural Pro Roadside Retail Sales Stands, 28 Agricultural Products, Permane 29 30 Roadside Retail Sales Stands, 31 Agricultural Products, Seasonal — z,, Un -named Agricultural Uses Table 4 oecial and Overlay & Resource mine Distric la"aft. `q -m"` L`©h- ,q M."w Distticti 'q cac�� Same US'&=_Rg WNW Ofi► M. "AE "L�'qaj mffb ©MN MM6 ffilffilhL MMK.; 0bLlqw EMEN& Uqw n U14b, o�� �Mi Table 4 oecial and Overlay & Resource mine Distric la"aft. `q -m"` L`©h- ,q M."w XJDA—T 1© Mbk-'NW �/►.`iOLt.��Same �oah:40ja.: p 1 Underlying Q-'NvWA'. eoi.-a C44HON MMMEM© Distticti 'q Same US'&=_Rg XJDA—T 1© Mbk-'NW �/►.`iOLt.��Same �oah:40ja.: p 1 Underlying Q-'NvWA'. eoi.-a C44HON MMMEM© -- File GMA GOALS [)ate The GMA requires Washington's fastest growing counties, the cities within them, and other jurisdictions opting into the process to plan extensively in accordance with the following goals: *Economic Development Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged person, and encourage growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. *Natural Resource Industries Maintain and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Page 1-3 Comprehensive Plan MIL\VOL2lDOCWMD$5LF-RIF-KNOPP.DOC N:6/02 VISION STATEMENT mate Grant County seeks to maintain and enhance its quality of life while achieving benefits of growth and minimizing any negative impacts. Our vision defines our future and how we will respond to growth and change. Our vision is comprised of the following basic values: *Promote a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by supporting existing local businesses, making prudent infrastructure investments, and encouraging new business that is compatible with and complementary to the community. *Protect and conserve our agricultural resources, and prevent inappropriate conversion of prime agricultural lands. �\MUVOL21DOCWMD55LF-fl1F-KNOPP.DOC 7/26102 ✓ u t:i .u.a 1j ^� a' POLICY RU -1.1 Land uses in rural areas that are related to farming, mining, rural residential development, tourism, outdoor recreation, and other open space activities shall be preferred. Page 4-13 Comprehensive Plan %MLWOL2%DO0MMDSSLF-RIF-KNOPP DOC 1n.6.02 GOAL RU -4 Provide for continued existing new small scale commercial industrial developments outside UGAs that are compatible with and continue to preserve, maintain, and enhance the vital rural and agricultural uses in the county. Page 4-18 County Comprehensive Plan �ML\VOL2\DOC\MMOSSLF-RJF-KNOPP DOC 7/26,02 POLICY RU -4.2 Industrial uses in rural areas (other than small scale home based industries) should generally be those appropriate to the lower densities and land uses of rural areas such as: *Independent contracting services; *Industries related to and dependent on natural resources of agricultural and minerals; *Industries requiring large secluded areas away from population centers and not requiring urban services. Page 4-18 County Comprehensive Plan aML\VOL2\DOC\MMD55LF-PJF-KNOPP.DOC 3R6/02 0.1 =3 GOAL ED -3 Insure an adequate supply of commercial and industrial sites to provide opportunity for new and expanding businesses to locate or remain in Grant County. Page 4-31 County Comprehensive Plan ,1ML1VOL2\DOCWMDS5LF-RJF-KNOPF DOC 3/26102 S PAGE 5-15 An inventory of developable land has been conducted as part of the pian development process (see technical appendix A — Economic Profile of Grant County). The inventory concludes that there are excellent prospects for continued high rates of industrial growth in the county. Primary prospects for industrial growth are in the Wheeler corridor and adjacent areas of Moses Lake as well as in the vicinity of the Port of Moses Lake/Grant County International Airport. However, the available supply of developable industrial lands in both areas in limited and not expected to be adequate to accommodate potential industrial growth. Page 5-15 \MUVOL25DOC\MMDS5LF-RIF-KNOPP DOC 126102 GOAL ED -4 Preserve the strength of the existing agricultural industry white diversifying the local economy by strengthening manufacturing and promoting producer services and other basic industries. Page 4-33 County Comprehensive Plan , MLIVOL2\DOCIMMDSSLF-RJF-KNOPP DOC 3/26/02 Date GOAL ED -4 Preserve the strength of the existing agricultural industry white diversifying the local economy by strengthening manufacturing and promoting producer services and other basic industries. Page 4-33 County Comprehensive Plan , MLIVOL2\DOCIMMDSSLF-RJF-KNOPP DOC 3/26/02 K1 POLICY ED -4.3 Encourage the the establishment of industrial parks and other light manufacturing facilities and provide zoning of facilities engaged in producer services, including computer, health services, and telecommunications. Page 4-33 County Comprehensive Plan \\ML\VOL2\DOC\MMDSSLF-RJF.KNOPP DOC 726/02 ' c3— COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES Commercial and industrial uses throughout rural, unincorporated Grant County will be guided by the goals and policies contained in this comprehensive plan. ... while often related to natural resources, the area to be zoned industrial should itself have minimal potential for natural resource utilization. Industrial land should be capable of supporting industrial development with minimal environmental constraints. Particularly important is the ability to support intensiv e use without significant adverse effects on surface or ground vvatcr. Enouizh land should be available in an industrial zone so that expansion of individual industrial establishments may be accommodated, or so that several establishments may be served in one contilluous area. At the same time, buffer areas must be provided to separate industrial uses for many adjacent nonindustrial uses. Few residential or commercial uses should exist on lands considered for zoning as industrial. "MUYOL21DOCWMDS5LF-RJF-KNOi'P DOC 3rb/01