HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 06-158-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 6 — Esc—C-C`
A Resolution Relating to Comprehensive Planning in Grant County in
Accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70 A) and amending the September, 1999 Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, in 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed
into law the Growth Management Act (GMA) as contained in SHB No 2929
(Washington Laws, 1990 lst Ex. Sess., Ch 17), which was subsequently codified as
among other chapters, Chapter 36.70 A RCW, and;
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 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, forest, and mineral) and protect critical areas (cultural, 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 addendums through 2005, and;
WHEREAS, over the past years, the Comprehensive Plan's policies may have changed
to insure that the development patterns in the County remain consistent with the intent of
the community's vision for the future and the Plan's goals and policies, and;
Grant County
Bond of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2005
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
WHEREAS, it is important that amendments to this plan retain the broad perspectives
articulated in the community vision statements, 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, December 13, 2005, by the Grant
County Board of Commissioners in compliance with Grant County Unified Development
Code Section 25 12.030, for the purpose of considering Planning Department Staff's
recommendations whether to initiate application review for each of the individual
submitted proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and to 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 initiate the SEPA review
process and schedule each of the amendments proposed, along with staff analysis and
recommendations before the Planning Commission for an Open Record Public Hearing,
and,
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2005
To the Grant County C omprehensne Plan
2
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on January 4,
2006, continued to January 18th, and February 1, 2006, to hear staff recommendations and
take public testimony on each of the proposed amendments to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan; making a recommendation and listing Findings of Fact for each
amendment, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission staff reports and recommendations are made a
part of the record of this public hearing as it relates to SEPA and the attached
amendments, and,
WHEREAS, a non project proposal to consider adoption of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, including site-specific land use designation changes, changes to
Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map, amendments to the UGA boundaries of the City's of
Soap Lake and Moses Lake were considered, and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, UGA boundary
expansions were supported by and dependent upon criteria set forth in the GMA: 1) in
areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility
and service capabilities to serve such development; 2) in areas already characterized by
urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public
facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are
provided by either public or private sources; and 3) in the remaining portions of the urban
growth areas, and;
WHEREAS, when considering inclusion of rural areas within urban growth boundaries,
attention was given to recognizing the high priority Grant County places on conserving
and protecting both agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and those
lands characterized by rural development as well as changes that have occurred on the
perimeters of the City's Urban Growth Boundary, and;
WHEREAS, copies of this EIS Addendum were distributed to agencies, organizations,
and individuals listed on the Planning Department distribution list, requesting that
comments be submitted in accordance with WAC 197-11-340 (2), and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners
for Grant County adopts the attached Decisions and record pertaining to the approval or
denial of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendments, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners for Grant
County adopts the Findings of Fact as per Attachment "A" in support of these actions
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2005
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
3
PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata,
Washington, by the following vote, then signed by its membership and attested to by its
Clerk in authorization of such passage this �- day of 1441
2006.
DATED this 1 day of �m tY 2006.
Yea Nay
ATTEST: 19/ ❑
J
Clerk of Me Bo /
[IJi' ❑
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Abstain G COUNTY, ASHINGTON
❑ Richard Stevens, Chair
❑ "aci' "WZL
Deborah Kay Moor, ember
❑ LeRoy Allison, Member'
Grant County
Board of County Comnusstonets
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2005
To the Grant County Comprehenswe Plan
4
ATTACHMENT"A"
GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT 2005
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 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment process responds to the environmental
concerns raised during the public hearing process, whole protecting property owners
from unconstitutional takings and substantive due process violations.
1.4 RCW 36.70A.020 sets for a list of 13 goals "to guide the development and adoption
of comprehensive plans and development regulations." During the amendment
public hearing process, and in the 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 2005, 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 43.21C and Grant County Code Chapter
24.04 (SEPA)
Attachment "A"
Grant County Comprehensive Pian
Amendment 2005
General Findings of tact
2.3 In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the
Planning Commission held public hearings on January 4, January 181h. and February
1, 2006, at which time testimony was taken from interested agencies, organizations,
and individual citizens, regarding the proposed amendments, as well as the 2005
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 2004
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 Petitions for site-specific land use redesignahons were reviewed for conformance
with pertinent provisions of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Code.
3.2 In reviewing the amendments, the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners considered testimony provided at public hearings and
recommendations provided by staff and interested or affected agencies with
jurisdiction. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
approved, approved with conditions, or rejected applications for a change of
designation or density based on the following criteria:
(a) The change would benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare;
(b) The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need
for additional property in the proposed land -use designation.
(e) 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"
Geant County Comprehensive Pian
Amendment 2005
General FMndmgs or Fact.
(e) The change has ment and value for the community as a whole
(f) The change, if granted, will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying
greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners
in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties
themselves with different designations
(g) The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change
(h) The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and the requirement s of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and
(i) The change complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC
Chapter 25.12
Section 4 — 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 Detailed applications along with supporting documentation and staff
reports are made a part of this recommendation.
Attachment "A"
Grant County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2005
General Finding% of Fact
ATTACHMENT B'
FINAL ACTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2005 AMENDMENTS
*2005-1 File 05-4288 RIVERVIEW AT CRESCENT BAR
Land Use Designation Change request from Recreational Development to
Master Planned Resort and Approval of the associated Master Plan.
The subject area consists of one parcel totaling -26-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation of "Recreation Development " The applicant has submitted an application requesting a site-
specific land use re -designation to "Master Planned Resort" and approval of the associated Master Plan.
LOCATION:
The site is located south of Trinidad, east of Crescent Bar Road, north of Crescent Bar, and hes between the
Sunserra at Crescent Bar Master Planned Resort and the proposed Crescent Bar Ranch Master Planned
Resort in a portion of the south half of Section 18, Township 20 N , Range 23 E , W M
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a Master Plan Resort (MPR) land use designation and approval of
the associated Master Plan The intent of the MRR land use designation is, "to allow Master Planned
Resorts having urban characteristics to be located outside of Urban Growth Areas" It is the policy of
Grant County to allow the development of fully integrated destination resorts at appropriate locations
within the County to promote tourism and take advantage of the area's scenic and natural amenities
Provisions will be made in the development regulations of the County that provide for the review and
approval with conditions of master planned resorts" (1999 Comp Plan pg 5RU-21) MPR's should be a,
"self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities,
with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations
associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational activities " (1999 Comp. Plan
pg. 5RU-20)
The applicant's have submitted a Master Plan for their proposed MPR The Master Plan includes the
designation of approximately 26 acres as MPR, which will include: 1) 47 single-family residential units; 2)
a public softball field, 3) 6 RV sites, 4) tennis courts; 5) maintenance facilities, 6) garages and associated
amenities to the already existing Sunserra development
The proposed MPR shall comply with the development standards and zoning requirements of the
Recreational Development zone As proposed the main resort aspects of the MPR will be the water related
recreational activities
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Master Plan Resort was discussed at the January 4 meeting of the Planning Commission at which time
the conceptual Master Plan was shown stating there would be from forty to fifty single family residential
units consistent with the development being presently constructed next door at Sunserra Even though, they
felt there was no problem with the change in Land Use Designation to' Master Planned Resort", they asked
the developers' representative, Mr Phil Bloom of Columbia Northwest Engineering, to make a more
detailed drawing with a site plan show mg the exact number of units proposed Also, they requested further
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Comrmssioneri
Comprehensrne Plan
2005 Amendments
1
information on the septic system design The motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to
have the developer come back at the next meeting with a revised drawing and more detailed information
At the January 18 Special meeting of the Planning Commission, Mr Phil Bloom, representing the
applicant, presented a more complete Master Plan for Development and additional information requested
by Mr Dale Walker of the Planning Commission It was the unanimous recommendation of the Planning
Commission that the land use designation be changed from Recreation Development to "Master Planned
Resort" and acceptance of the Master Plan tot Development was approved and recommended to the Board
of County Commissioners
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission established the following criteria in making a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners for approval of the Land Use Re -designation to Master Planned Resort and
approval of the Master Development Plan
L The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation.
3 The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4 The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations.
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
10 The area is an adjacent parcel purchased after the original parcel of Sunserra was approved
and developed as a Master Planned Resort in Phases 1, 2, and 3, with the same developers,
and as a continuation of the existing development already in the Crescent Bar area
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from "Recreational Development to
"Master Planned Resort" for Robert Hadley, President of Riverview at Crescent Bar, and inclusion
of Parcel # 15-0637-003 as being re -designated "Master Planned Resort'. The Board of County
Commissioners also approved the Master Plan for Development as submitted based on the following
Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensn� Plan
2005 Amendments
2
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC.
10. The area is an adjacent parcel purchased after the original parcel of Sunserra was approved
and developed as a Master Planned Resort in Phases 1, 2, and 3, with the same developers,
and as a continuation of the existing development already in the Crescent Bar area
11. The Board finds that the proposed resort has been designed in such a way, and/or has
provided reasonable mitigation measures that mitigate both environmental impacts and
potential incompatibilities with adjacent uses and,
12. The Board finds that the resort plan is and/or will be consistent with the County's
development regulations established for critical areas, and
13. The Board finds that on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been
considered and mitigated, or will be mitigated through conditions of approval or the
requirements of the County's development regulations, and,
14. The Board finds that the resort amenities, facilities, and the natural and man-made
recreational features are the primary focus of the resort, and,
15. The Board finds that the proposed commercial establishments within the resort are
supportive and integrated into the resort, and will provide the services and activities
reasonably necessary for the needs of a self-contained resort, and,
16. The Board finds that the Master Planned Resort is located in a setting of significant natural
amenities, which include the Columbia River, Crescent Bar Resort and golf course, and the
Sunserra Master Planned Resort and Golf Course,
17 The Board finds that the Master Planned Resort will comply with GCC23 12.220 and GCC
25 12.070
*2005-2 File 05-4289 PORT OF MATTAWA
Land Use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Agricultural Resource
The subject property is an approximately 146 72 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation of "Rural Remote" The applicant has submitted an application requesting a Site Specific
Land Use Re -designation to "Agricultural Resource"
LOCATION:
Approximately 1.5 miles north of the Town Mattawa in the NW quarter of the intersection of State
Highway 243 and Road 23 -SW, and is a portion of S 27, T 15 N, R 23 E, WM. Grant County, WA (parcel
# 15-0195-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a land use Te -designation of —146 72 -acres from `Rural Remote"
to "Agricultural Resource" The application materials state that the basis for this request is to provide a site
for future development of agricultural support facilities (e g CA storage, packing sheds, wineries, and
similar agriculture related industrial uses), which are not allowed uses in the Rural Remote zone The
application material also states that although the property has been designated Rural Remote the subject
property has road frontage on all sides including fronting State Route 243 on the eastern edge of the
property, making the property very accessible and not very remote.
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commsvoners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
The surrounding properties to the north and east are designated Agricultural Resource, the property to west
is designated Rural Remote, and the property to the south is designated Rural Residential 1 The Port
District previously completed a development similar to what will be proposed on this parcel on the property
to the north Based on Staff's review it appears that a re -designation of the subject property would not
create an incompatible use with the surrounding lands The applicant has stated that benefits of re -
designating the subject area to Agricultural Resource include, but are not limited to, providing lands that
will "Facilitate a healthy, diverse and competitive agriculture industry."
Based on Staffs review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff
recommends approval of the Land Use Re -designation to Agricultural Resource
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The applicant's agent spoke to the need for additional lands to support Agricultural Industrial uses in South
Grant County The Port's interest in developing this property into an Agricultural Industrial area was
discussed. No other issues were discussed during the planning commission hearing
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use
Re -designation of an - 146.72 -acre parcel from "Rural Remote" to "Agriculture"
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact in making its decision to recommend
approval of this Comprehensive Plan Land Use Re -designation
1 The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8 The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23.24 and 25
9 The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
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 "Agricultural
Resource" for the Port of Mattawa based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare,
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3 The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4 The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensne Plan
2005 Amendments
4
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difterence in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
10. The BOCC adopts the Staff Report, complete Staff file and Planning Commission report
findings and analysis
11. The BOCC finds that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the
Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been completed utilizing the required Classification
and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term
Commercial Significance
12 The BOCC finds that the property is primarily devoted to agricultural production
13 The BOCC finds that the property has long-term commercial significance because the land:
(1) has productive growing capacity, (2) is productive, (3) has good soil composition for
long-term commercial production, (4) is not located in close proximity to population areas,
and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses
14. The BOCC finds that the Unified Development Code requirements, including but not
limited to Right -to -Farm regulations and notification on plats, building permits and other
development approvals that the property is in proximity to agricultural activities, will
provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with
incompatibilities
*2005-3 File 05-4290 JOSEPHINE MARTENS, ETAL
Land Use Designation Change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential 1
The subject area is four (4) parcels, totaling —171.6 -acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation of "Rural Remote' The applicant has submitted an application requesting a Site Specific
Land Use Re -designation to "Rural Residential I"
LOCATION:
The subject property is located in a portion of Section 18, Township 18 N, Range 23 E W.M. and is
accessed off of Silica Road by a "reserved" 30 ft right-of-way
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a land use re -designation of 171.6 -acres from "Rural Remote" to
"Rural Residential 1" The applicant has stated that the basis for this request is that the subject area is not
suitable for agricultural use due to lack of irrigation water and its close proximity to higher density
residential uses, such as the area known as Sunland Estates and the Gorge
The subject properties are surrounded by lands designated as Rural Remote lands in the County's
Comprehensive Plan Based on 2002 aerial photography it appears that lands to the north, northwest, east
and south are not in agricultural production
The applicant has stated that the proposed amendment will comply with various portions of the County's
Comprehensive Plan by 1) providing County residents with the opportunity for living a rural lifestyle,
meeting friendly people and housing close to recreational opportunities, 2) providing the opportunity for
rural lands related to farming, mining, and rural residential development, and 3) complying with Rural
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 4mendments
5
Lands Goal RU -1.4, "to allow rural property owners reasonable economic opportunities for use of their
land."
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
At the Planning Commission meeting held on January 4, 2006, Commission members discussed how the
applicant gains access to the property The representative for the application, Mr Dave Taylor, indicated
that there was a reserved access or nght-of-way that has been dedicated to the county but never been
activated, located roughly a quarter mile away There was also concern over the mining activity in the area,
and questions aq to whether this be a good location for residential use.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact in making its recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners for denial of the Land Use Re -designation
1 The change would not benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2 The change is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change may be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property.
5. The change does not have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change, if granted, will result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges
and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is
not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations.
7. The benefits of the change will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on March 8, 2006, continued to March
22, 2006, at which time they voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and deny the land use designation change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential 1
based on the Findings of Fact as given by the Planning Commission.
A letter was received from the consultant of the proposal Mr. David Taylor on March 30, 2006,
asking the Board for reconsideration of the denial of the Josephine Martens, etal application to
amend the Grant County Comprehensive Plan Land Use map to re -designate the property from
Rural Remote to Rural Residential 1 based on the following reasons:
1. Based on the comments [Wade during Commissioner's deliberation, there appears to have
been a misunderstanding of the request. The proposed map amendment did not grant the
applicant any specific project approval' rather, the proposal was simply asking permission
to seek a rezone to RRl.
2. During the County Commissioner's deliberation, concerns were raised with regard to "178
houses" being developed on the property and that the proposal was "too big". Had the land
use amendment been approved and if a subsequent rezone and subdivision were approved,
the maximum number of houses allowed on the property would be 34 under current Grant
County Code.
3. The Commissioners applied a standard of review appropriate for project specific
applications to the proposed map amendment, but should have reviewed the proposal as a
non -project application.
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Comnussioneis
Comprehensve Plan
2005 Amendments
6
4. Because no specific development activity is proposed at this time, no significant adverse
impacts are associated with the proposal. In addition, any future development of the
subject property will be subject to review and approval by Grant Counh in accordance with
all applicable development standards contained in the Uniform Development Code.
5. No verbal testimony was presented opposed to the proposed map amendment during the
Planning Commission public hearing or either of the two public hearings held by the County
Commissioners. In fact, a neighboring property owner testified at the Planning Commission
public hearing in support of the project.
The Board of County Commissioners agreed to re -consider the denial of the Josephine Martens, eta]
application as part of their regular hearings on the Comp Plan amendments for 2005 and that it was
to be a "Closed Record Hearing" for questions to be asked by the County Commissioners of Mr.
Martens and his representative, Mr. Taylor on April 8, 2005.
At the Closed Record Public hearing the motion was made by LeRoy Allison, seconded by Richard
Stevens to approve the Josephine Martens Comprehensive Plan Amendment application, File
Number 05-4290. Commissioner Deborah Moore voted against the amendment application,
expressing concerns over the size of the area under consideration, and the ultimate cost to the county
of maintaining the road system, as well as supplying the area with fire, police, school bus and medical
protection. She further indicated that even though this application was not "project specific' the
Comprehensive Plan Designation change would allow the applicant to apply for a greater density
(five acre parcels) than the present twenty -acre minimum lot size. A great deal of time and effort
had gone into developing various land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan for areas
throughout the county and changes to the land use designations effect the county later on, in cost of
services.
It was the feeling of Commissioner Allison, that the proponents had clarified issues that had not been
brought up before the Planning Commission, mainly that this was not a project specific application,
and the applicants would have to go through a zone change, and plat application before anything
could be done with the property. Mr. Stevens agreed with Mr. Allison stating that sometimes the
focus is too far ahead of what is being applied for in a land use re -designation application.
The motion carried two votes to one. The following Findings of Fact were used in reaching the
decision for approval:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
Attachment `B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
7
10 The Board has reviewed the entire record and hereby incorporates, including, but not
limited to, the Board's files, the entire Planning Commission file, the entire Planning
Department files for File No 05-4290, the Comprehensive Plan. SEPA documentation etc.
11. The Board finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence that a change in
circumstances has occurred which warrants the requested land use designation change from
Rural Remote to Rural Residential 1
12. The Board finds that the application submitted by Josephine Martens etal, (Jerry Martens)
has adequately shown how the proposed site no longer meets the purposes of the Rural
Remote designation, which is (to)
(A) Differentiate from the higher density rural land use to reflect the area's remoteness
and/or limited opportunity for development
(B) Such areas are those not suitable for intensive farming and are generally not
attractive for residential development
(C) The primary land uses in the remote residential areas include, but are not tinted to,
resource -oriented activities (farming and mineral extraction), open space, and
residential at 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres
(D) Are generally locations outside existing main road networks and distant from
existing utilities
13. The Board funds that the application submitted has shown how the proposed site is better
suited to and better meets the purpose and intent of the Residential 1 designation, which is
(to)
(A) Maintain the rural aspects of the County.
(B) To provide buffering or transitions between existing rural developments and areas of
higher or lower densities
(C) Rural Residential I areas are generally characterized by activities including, but not
limited to, small scale farms, dispersed single-family residences at a density of 1
dwelling unit per 5 acres, and open space
14. The Board finds that having reviewed the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and criteria
established for the designation of Rural Remote and Rural Residential 1 lands, one of the
primary differences between the two appears to be the intensity of use, 1 dwelling unit per
20 acres — verses — 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres In this case, a 171 -acre area in Rural
Remote would allow 8 dwelling units and Rural Residential 1 would allow an increase to
34 dwelling units
15. The proposed densities allowed in the Rural Residential 1 zoning (one DU per five acres)
will allow future development activities in this location which will maintain the area's rural
character, retention of open space, minimize the demand and opportunities for use of the
land
16 The proposed amendment from Rural Remote to Rural Residential I does not alter the
overall "rural" land use designations which are intended to maintain the rural aspects of the
County and to provide buffering or transitions between existing rural developments and
areas of higher or lower densities
17 The area proposed for land use designation change from Rural Remote to Rural Residential
1 is comintent with the land use and zoning designations of surrounding properties
18. The Board finds that the consultant. Mr Taylor stated this application is not a specific
development activity, The Board finds that the application is a proposed "site specific land
use re -designation change' and NOT a site-specific land development application
*2005-4 File 05-4291 PORT OF MATTAWA
Land Use Designation Change from Industrial (Urban) to Commercial (Urban)
Anachment"B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of Coemy Conmussioners
Comprchmsr�e Plan
2005 Amendments
8
The subject property is an approximately 9 -acre portion of two parcels with a Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designation of "Industrial (Urban)' The applicant has submitted an application requesting a Site
Specific Land Use Re -designation to "Commercial (Urban)"
LOCATION:
An -9-acre portion of two parcels inside the Town of Mattawa's UGA Boundary, just west of town, in the
NW quarter of the intersection of State Highway 243 and Road 24 -SW; and is a portion of S 34, T 15 N, R
23 E, WM, Grant County, WA (parcel #'s 15-0224-009 & 15-0224-013)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation of an -9 acre (285' x 1453') portion of two (2) parcels inside the Town of Mattawa's Urban
Growth Area boundary (UGA) from "Industrial" to "Commercial" The re -designation has been requested
in order to return this property to its previous zoning of Commercial, prior to the adoption of the County's
Comprehensive Plan in 1999 and UDC in 2000
Currently, the Port is operating an industrial park with sewer and water service provided by the Town of
Mattawa The Port would like to allow some commercial developments to locate on the subject parcel.
Included in the application material is a letter from the Mayor of the Town Mattawa, Ms Judy Esser,
stating that the Town is in favor of the proposed rezone
The surrounding properties to the east and south are designated Commercial (Urban), the properties to west
are designated Rural Residential 1 and Industrial (Urban), and the property to the north is designated Rural
Remote The Port District is currently operating and industrial park and orchard on the remainder of the
subject parcels. Based on Staffs review it appears that a re -designation of the subject property would not
create an incompatible use with the surrounding lands
Based on Staff s review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff
recommends approval of the Land Use Re -designation to Commercial (Urban)
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
For this project the discussion centered on the best use of the property. The Port's agent stated that the
location of this property in relation to State Highway 243 made this site ideal for future commercial
development and that previous to the adoption of the current zoning in 2000 the subject area was zoned for
commercial development Thus, if approved this request would allow the Port to develop their property as
originally planned prior to 2000 Wayne Sahli, a member of the public spoke in favor the proposed re-
designation No other issues were discussed during the planning commission hearing
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use
Re -designation of an - 9 -acre portion of parcel #' 15-0224-009 and 15-0224-013 from "Industrial" to
"Commercial"
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact in making its decision to recommend
approval of this ComprehenmN e Plan Land Use Re -designation:
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.
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprchensne Plan
2005 Amendments
9
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5 The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6 The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8 The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9 The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from "Industrial (Urban)" to
"Commercial (Urban)" for the Port of Mattawa based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or weltare,
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property.
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations.
7 The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8 The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9 The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
*2005-5 File 05-4292 NAOMI CORDELL
Land Use Designation Change, from Rural Residential 2 to Urban Residential 2 and
Inclusion within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Boundary area.
The subject area is an —54.94 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Rural
Residential 2 " The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject property be included
within the boundary of the City of Moses Lake's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a site-specific land use
re -designation to "Urban Residential 2"
LOCATION:
The subject area is located in the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 11, Township 19 N.,
Range 28 E W M . south of Maple Drive. west of Wenatchee Drive, east of Stratford Road and north of
Sagedale Road, Moses Lake (parcel # 17-0485-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and a UGA boundary change of a 5494 -acre parcel from Rural Residential to Urban
Attachment"B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commwaoners
Comprehensne Plan
2005 Amendments
10
Residential, Low Density. The proposal contemplates the expansion of the City of Moses Lake's UGA and
the re -designation of the subject area
Currently, the subject area is adjacent to the Moses Lake UGA boundary on the west The agent for the
applicant has stated that sewer and water services are located in the adjacent right-of-way and that the City
of Moses Lake has tentatively agreed to extend services to the subject area if included within the UGA
Although Staff has not received any material specifying that the City has agreed to extend services to the
subject area, information concerning this proposal has been forwarded to the City for their review and
comment Favorable comment was given by City Planner, Dale Schultz
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The applicant and his agent, Phil Bloom explained to the Commission the UGA for the City of Moses Lake
already adjoins this property. And utilities are close enough to be reasonably brought to the property at
such time as the area is developed and sold
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the following Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the
Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve the request for land use re -designation
of a 54 94 -acre parcel from Rural Residential 2 to Urban Residential 2 and inclusion of the area within the
City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Boundary
Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, both staff
and Planning Commission found that the applicant met the criteria for subnuttal of the application and
supports the request for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commisvon established the following Findings of Fact in making its decision to recommend
approval to the Board of County Commissioners in the proposed land use re -designation.
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan The
The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
The change, it granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations
The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comorehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from Rural Residential 2 to Urban
Residential 2 for Naomi Cordell and include Parcel #17-0485-000 within the Urban Growth
Boundary Area for the City of Moses Lake, based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare,
AI Wchment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Comtmssioners
Comprehensne Plan
2005 Amendments
I1
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 The
4 The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25 12.
*2005-6 File 054293 PEN-JEN GUH
Land Use Designation and Urban Growth Area Boundary Change from Urban
Reserve (Rural) to Commercial (Urban)
The subject area consists of three parcels totally -30 87 -acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation of "Urban Reserve (Rural) " The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject
property be included within the boundary of the City of Moses Lake's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a
site specific land use re -designation to "Commercial (Urban) "
LOCATION:
The site address of the subject area is 503 RD M -NE, in the SE quarter of the intersection of RD M -NE and
S Frontage RD, and is a portion of S 32, T 19 N, R 29 E, WM, Grant County, WA (parcel #'s 21-1753-
003, 18-0262-000, & 18-0271-002)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and a UGA boundary change to include three parcels totaling -30 87 acres within the City of
Moses Lake's UGA and re -designating them from "Urban Reserve (Rural)" to "Commercial (Urban)".
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the amount of land designated for
commercial use within an UGA is to be determined by demand calculated using population forecast, as
established by the WA Office of Financial Management, for the required twenty-year planning period. As
adopted in 1999 and based on a Land Supply and Land Demand Model (See Grant County UGA Analysis,
1999), Grant County's Comprehensive Plan found that in the City of Moses Lake's UGA the land supply
for commercial lands exceeded land demand by 189 6 acres
Grant County's Comprehensive Plan state that lands designated as Urban Reserve (Rural) are, "areas that
appear to be transitioning, at varying rates, from rural to urban, and are appropriate for areas of increasing
density and potential future urban services " (Comp Plan 1999 pg 4-15) As such, it would appear that as
designated in the comprehensive plan the intent is that the subject area will one day be included within the
Moses Lake UGA Currently, the subject area is adjacent to the Moses Lake UGA on the north, across
Interstate 90 Although, it does not appear water and sewer services are readily available to the subject
parcel
Previously, the subject area had a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Rural Commercial.
However, based a decision by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB),
Attachment' B'
Decisions and Findmgs of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensi,c Pian
2005 Amendments
it was deternuned that the subject parcel did not meet the criteria for designation as a Limited Area of More
Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) and consequently the land use designation was changed to Urban
Reserve (Rural)
For your consideration, currently located on one of the subject parcels (#21-1753-003) is a residence If the
designation of this parcel is changed to Commercial (Urban) the property owner may have problems with
this property in the future.
Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff does
not oppose the UGA Expansion and Land Use Re -designation to Commercial (Urban)
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
During the Planning Commissioner the main issue of discussion was in regards to Staff recommendation
for approval on this project and recommendation for denial on the adjacent David Sparks re -designation
and UGA expansion request Staff explained that the main reason for a different recommendation on
adjacent projects was that the Sparks project encompassed -600 and this project was only requesting the re-
designation of 30 -acres Staff stated that if the Sparks proposal had been more limited in scope, Staff
possibly would have recommended approval for that project as well Also the applicant's agent clarified
that he did not believe the subject area had ever been farmed No additional issues were discussed during
the planning commission hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to deny the proposed Land Use
Re -designation and UGA expansion of -30 87 -acres from "Urban Reserve" to "Commercial (Urban)".
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact in making its decision to recommend
denial of this Comprehensive Plan Land Use Re -designation and Urban Growth Area Boundary Change
1. The change would not benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property.
5. The change does not have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations.
7. The benefits of the change will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22.23. 24 and 25
9. The change does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25 12 UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and deny the requested Land Use Designation and Urban Growth Boundary
Change "Urban Reserve (Rural)" to "Commercial (Urban)" for Pen -Jen Gob based on the following
Findings of Fact:
1 The change would not benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
Attachment 'B"
Decisions and Fmdmes of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
13
2 The change is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation.
3 The change is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property
5. The change does not have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change will result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25 12 UDC
*2005-07 File 05-4294 STEVEN AND GAIL ADAIR, RAY BROWN, JOAN
HERMAN, AND PAMP MEIERS
Land Use Designation Change, from Urban Residential 2 to Urban Commercial
The subject area is a —0.97 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Urban Low
Density Residential." The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject property be re-
designated to "Urban Commercial" The area is located in Cascade Valley which is already designated as
being within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area Along with the applicant's application are letters from
property owners within the area who have expressed an interest in joining in the request for Land Use
Designation change Those property owners are Pamp Meters. Ray Brown and John Herman Combined
total of the area under consideration would be approximately 10 acres, more or less
LOCATION:
The subject area is located in the northeast quarter of S 17, T 19 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA, at the
intersection of Stanley and Valley Roads, and northerly along Konrshi Road, Cascade Valley, Moses Lake,
WA
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation of approximately 10 acres. The proposal contemplates the re -designation of the subject area
from "Urban Residential" to "Commercial (Urban)" The purpose of this request is to locate a commercial
business on the site consistent with other development along Valley Road The area has been developed as
commercial property since 1923 and prior to the adoption of the Unified Development Code in 2000, this
area was zoned as "Commercial" There are several existing businesses located within the vicinity and the
Adair property abuts the concrete and asphalt plant located directly to the north The applicants plan to
utilize the property for watercraft rentals and storage and to use the existing warehouses for this purpose
Grant County's Comprehensive Plan states that lands designated as Urban Commercial are, "areas that
appear to be transitioning, at varying rates, from rural to urban, and are appropriate for areas of increasing
density and potential future urban services " (Comp. Plan 1999 pg 4-15) As such, it would appear that
when originally designated in the Comprehensive Plan the intent was that the subject area would be
included within the Moses Lake UGA as an existing commercial area The City of Moses Lake City
Council at their April 12, 2005 meeting agreed to support the application and directed staff to initiate the
process to consider a land use designation change of the City's Future Land Use Map
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of C'ounn Commissioners
Comprehensn e Plan
2005 Amendments
14
The Planning Commission agreed, this area had been in commercial use since the 1920's and if the uses
that are there now are still in existence, then it should be reverted back to its original zoning classification
as commercial property No other issues were discussed during the Planning Commission Hearing
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on Staffs review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Land Use Re -designation to
Urban Commercial to the Board of County Commissioners for final decision.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following Findings of Fact in making its unanimous
recommendation for approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
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 to the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
Where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations.
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from "Urban Residential 2" to "Urban
Commercial" for those parcels owned by Steve and Gail Adair, along with those parcels added to the
initial request as submitted by Pamp Meiers, Ray Brown and John Herman containing the following
parcel #'s and based on the Findings of Fact listed below:
Parcel # 17-0725-021 Adair
Parcel# 17-0653-000,17-0720-000 17-0723-000 Meiers
Parcel # 17-0713.000 and 17-0714-000 Brown
Parcel #12-1647-000, Herman
Total area, approximately 10 acres.
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 �%ith the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
6 The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Comnussionm
Comprehensne Plan
2005 Amendments
15
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations
7 The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC.
*2005-8 File 05-4295 CITY OF MOSES LAKE
Land Use Designation Change
The subject property is an approximately 12 -acre portion of a 2 55 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Designation of "High Density Residential' The applicant has submitted an application
requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re -designation to "Commercial (Urban)"
LOCATION:
An -1 2 -acre portion of parcel #17-1037-000 located on the south side of Newell St, lust south of the Grant
County International Airport, and is a portion of S 32, T 20 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation of an -1 2 -acre portion of a parcel within the City of Moses Lake's UGA, owned by the City of
Moses Lake, from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial (Urban)".
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the amount of land designated for
commercial use within an UGA is to be detemuned by demand calculated using population forecast, as
established by the WA Office of Financial Management, for the required twenty-year planning period. As
adopted in 1999 and based on a Land Supply and Land Demand Model (See Grant County UGA Analysis,
1999), Grant County's Comprehensive Plan found that in the City of Moses Lake's UGA the land supply
for commercial lands exceeded land demand by 189 6 acres
Currently located on the subject parcel is Well #21 and Tank #2 for the City of Moses Lake, and these rises
will continue to be the primary uses of the subject property Additional, the subject parcel currently is split
land use designation, with portions being designated as commercial and others high density residential
The application material states that the main reason for this re -designation is to allow the development of a
cell tower on that portion of the subject parcel designated high-density residential
Based on Staff s review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff
recommends approval of the Land Use Re -designation to Commercial (Urban)
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
During the public hearing for this project the Planning Commission discussed the City of Moses Lake's
involvement with the proposed re -designation The main concern was whether the City was aware of the
requested re -designation and if the City had provided any comment or verification of consent Staff stated
that the City was owner of the subject area, but no comment or verification of consent had been received as
of the date of the public hearing 'I he Planning Commission stipulated in their recommendation that the
City be contacted and comment be received verifying acknowledgement of the proposed re -designation,
and be in agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendation to re -designate the subject parcel to
Public Facilities and not Commercial No additional issues were discussed during the planning commission
hearing
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of Coumv Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
16
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve a Land Use Re-
designation of an -1 2 -acre portion of parcel N 17-1037-000 to Public Facilities (Urban), with a
Contingency that the City of Moses Lake confirm that the amendment has been submitted on behalf of the
City and that the City of Moses Lake be in agreement with the re -designation to Public Facilities and not
Commercial
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact in making its decision to recommend
approval, with an amendment, of this Comprehensive Plan Land Use Re -designation:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare,
2 The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
6 The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater pnvileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25 12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from "High Density Residential' to
"Urban Public Facilities" for the City of Moses Lake based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5 The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
*2005-9 File 05-4396 DAVID SPARKS
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County ( ommissmners
Comprehenqie Plan
2005 Amendments
17
Land Use Designation and Urban Growth Area Boundary Change from Urban
Reserve (Rural) to Commercial (Urban)
The subject area consists of ten parcels totally -592 89 -acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation of "Urban Reserve (Rural) " The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject
property be included within the boundary of the City of Moses Lake's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a
site specific land use re -designation to "Commercial (Urban) "
LOCATION:
The subject area lies on the north and south side of I-90 east of the city limits of Moses Lake; and is a
portion of S 30 & 31, T 19 N, R 29 E, WM, Grant County, WA (parcel #'s 17-0901-000, 18-0246-000, 18
0247 -000,18 -0252 -000,21 -1764-000,21-1765-000,21-1772-000,18-0250-000,21-1773-000, & 21-1771
000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and a UGA boundary change to include ten (10) parcels totaling -592 89 acres within the City
of Moses Lake's UGA and re -designating them from "Urban Reserve (Rural)" to "Commercial (Urban)".
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the amount of land designated for
commercial use within an UGA is to be determined by demand calculated using population forecast, as
established by the WA Office of Financial Management, for the required twenty-year planning period As
adopted in 1999 and based on a Land Supply and Land Demand Model (See Grant County UGA Analysis,
1999), Grant County's Comprehensive Plan found that in the City of Moses Lake's UGA the land supply
for commercial lands exceeded land demand by 189 6 acres, this is not including the unincorporated UGA.
The Moses Lake UGA Analysis includes a summary of lands designated for commercial development
within the corporate limits of Moses Lake as well as the unincorporated UGA surrounding Moses Lake.
The summary states that in 1998 there was a total 908 acres of land zoned as commercial within the
corporate limits, of which 266 6 acres were found to be vacant and available for infill opportunities The
UGA Analysis also states that in 1998 there was an additional 156 8 acres of commercial land in the
unincorporated portion of the UGA, for a total of 1064 81 acres of commercial property within the Moses
Lake UGA The analysis determined that for the 2018 projected population of 24,762 for Moses Lake,
718,4 acres of commercial land would be needed If approved as submitted this proposed amendment
would increase the available commercial lands within the Moses Lake UGA by 55 6`70, well above the
amount determined to be needed Although, Staff believes that if limited in scale some of the subject areas
could be included in the UGA and re -designated, Staff does not believe that the developer has provided
sufficient justification for the change as proposed
Grant County's Comprehensive Plan state that lands designated as Urban Reserve (Rural) are, "areas that
appear to be transitioning, at varying rates, from rural to urban, and are appropriate for areas of increasing
density and potential future urban services " (Comp Plan 1999 pg 4-15) As such, it would appear that as
designated in the comprehensive plan the intent is that the subject area will one day be included within the
Moses Lake UGA Currently, the subject area is adjacent to the Moses Lake UGA However, because the
property has been designated Urban Reserve (Rural) does not on its own justify inclusion within the UGA
or a re -designation
Previously, portions the subject area had a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Rural
Commercial. However, based a decision by the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(EWGMHB), it was determined that the subject parcel did not meet the criteria for designation as a Limited
Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) and consequently the land use designation of those
properties was changed to Urban Reserve (Rural). It n some of these areas that Staff believes could be
included within the Moses Lake UGA
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensne Plan
2005 Amendments
18
For your consideration, Staff would like to note that if approved as proposed, this proposal would result in
an island of property under the County's jurisdiction that is outside of the UGA yet completely surrounded
by the Moses Lake UGA
Based on Staffs review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as currently
configured and without additional justification Planning Staff cannot support the proposed UGA Expansion
and Land Use Re -designation to Commercial (Urban)
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
During the Planning Commission Hearing the main issues of discussion included the availability of capital
facilities to the site including roads, water, and sewer services, the creation of an island of non-UGA land
surrounded by the Moses Lake UGA, potential reduction of the proposed amendment, the location of
incompatible commercial uses in rural areas of the county, and the impact of projects as proposed on the
WA GMA
The Planning Commission members wanted to know what types of capital facilities were available to the
areas being requested for inclusion in the UGA. The applicant's agent stated that right-of-way had been
dedicated for access to those properties north of I-90 He also stated that the City of Moses Lake was
willing to serve the entire project, however, only the properties north of I-90 have sewer and water services
readily available.
The discussion regarding the island of non-UGA land was mainly about the size and location of the
potential island Staff stated our concerns with the creation of the island and identified its size, -2 sections,
and location, north of the project boundaries
The Planning Commission also discussed the potential reduction of the proposed project Staff stated the
scope of the project could be reduced but not expanded beyond what was being proposed
Mr. Jean Polhamus spoke at the public hearing in opposition to the proposed amendment. His main
concern was the location of commercial developments in a rural area Mr Polhamus stated he has lived in
this area for many years and the surrounding lands have historically been in agricultural use In general,
Mr Polhamus felt that commercial uses would be incompatible with the existing uses on those parcels
south of I-90
The Planning Commission's discussion ended reflecting on how projects such as the one proposed have
been the drivers in the adoption of the GMA by the state of Washington. And, that this type of
development would encourage sprawl instead of infill development
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve an expansion of the
City of Moses Lake's UGA Boundary and re -designation to Commercial (Urban), of four parcels north of
I-90, -206-acres, including parcel #'s 21-1771-000, 18-0247-000, 18-0250-000, and 21-1772-000
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission estabhshed the following findings of fact in making its decision to recommend
approval, as amended, of this Comprehensive Plan Land Use Re-devgnation and Urban Growth Area
Boundary change
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is �+arranted 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
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
19
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5 The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference m the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8 The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to amend the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from "Urban Reserve (Rural)' to
"Commercial (Urban)" for and expand the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area Boundary to include
parcel #'s 21-1771-000 and 21-1772-000 for David Sparks based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3 The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
*2005-10 File 05-4297 BERNICE STUMP
Land Use Designation Change from High Density Residential (Urban Residential 4)
to Urban Commercial
The subject area is a —0 58 -acre parcel with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "High Density
Residential." The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject property be re -designated
to "Commercial (Urban) " It is located within the Moses Lake Urban Growth area
LOCATION:
The subject area is located on Lot #1 of Turnkey Estates No I in a portion of Section 4, Township 19 N.,
Range 28 E W M with the west boundary being Patton Boulevard, the East being Turnkey Road N.E., and
South being 22"d Avenue N E, Moses Lake (parcel # 12-1089-002)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation of a —0 58 acre parcel The proposal contemplates the re -designation of the subject area from
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
20
"High Density Residential" to "Commercial (Urban)". The purpose of this request is to locate a
commercial business on the site consistent with other development established within the area
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission recognized that in this area were already located a real estate office and drive in
restaurant, and felt the re -designation request was appropriate for the area
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION;
The Planning Commission feels the applicant has met the criteria for submittal of this land use re-
designation change, although there is no supportive document received at this point from the City of Moses
Lake The subject property is located on a busy traffic corner surrounded by commercial and light
industrial uses and zoning Based on the Findings of Fact, and land use of the area, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the site-specific
land use re -designation be approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following criteria in making a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioner for approval.
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Use Designation from "High Density Residential', UR 4
to Urban Commercial on Parcel #121089002 for Bernice Stump based on the following Findings of
Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare,
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6 The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
Auachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different
designations.
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23. 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25 12
UDC.
*2005-11 File 05-4299 BUTCH MILBRANDT
Land Use Designation Change
The subject property consists of three parcels totally approximately 96 -acres with a Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Designation of `Agricultural Resource". The applicant has submitted an application requesting a
Site Specific Land Use Re -designation to "Rural Residential 1".
LOCATION:
The subject property Ives east of the Town of Soap Lake on the south side of RD 20 -NE, lust east of RD
B 7 -NE, and is a portion of S 28, T 22 N, R 27 E, WM, Grant County, WA (parcel #'s 16-1953-000,16-
1954-000, & 16-1956-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re -designation of —96 -acres from
"Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential I" The developer has stated that the basis for this request is
that the subject area is not suitable for Agricultural Production and has no long-term commercial
agricultural significance The developer states that the subject area no longer has irrigation water rights and
in combination with a rocky terrain the land is unsuitable for agricultural production
The surrounding properties to the west, east, and south are all designated Agricultural Resource and the
properties to the north, across RD 20 -NB, are designated Rural Residential I Based on Staff s review it
appears that a re -designation of the subject property would not create an incompatible use with the
surrounding lands. The developer has stated that benefits of re -designating the subject area to RR 1 include,
but are not limited to, providing additional residential opportunities within close proximity to the Town of
Soap Lake
Based on Staffs review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff
recommends approval of the Land Use Re -designation to Rural Residential 1
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The primary issues of discussion during the Planning Commission hearing for this project were the
conversion of Agricultural Resource lands and the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to existing
Agricultural operations
During the Planning Commission Hearing a member of the public, Mr Oliver Brown of Soap Lake, spoke
in opposition to the proposed re -designation Mr Brown was concerned with the potential adverse impacts
from the development of 5 -acre tracts_ He stated the potential impacts to include additional dogs in the
area, which may be problematic to livestock, the lack of weed control, the siting of residences in close
proximity to existing farming operation creating incompatible uses, and increased garbage in irrigation
canals Mr Oliver stated that these potential impacts would be hazardous to the surrounding agricultural
operations
The Planning Commission discussed their concerns with the continued conversion of agricultural lands to
residential use In general the Planning Commission was in agreement with Mr Oliver's concerns
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Comrrussioners
Comprehensi,c Plan
2005 Amendments
22
regarding the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to existing agricultural operations The Planning
Commission also stated that they felt this was too much land to convert to Rural Residential 1 in this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to deny the proposed Land Use
Re -designation of -96-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1"
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact in making its decision to recommend
denial of this Comprehenso,e Plan Land Use Re -designation.
1 The change would not benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property
5 The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations.
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to amend the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approve a Land Use Designation Change from "Agricultural Resource" to
"Rural Residential 1" for Butch Milbrandt based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2 The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation.
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensioe Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7 The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8 The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9 The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25 12
UDC
10. The BOCC adopts the Staff Report, complete Staff file and Planning Commission report
findings and analysis.
11. The BOCC finds that pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the
Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been completed utilizing the required Classification
Attachment "B'
Deusions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensise Plan
2005 Amendments
23
and Designation Criteria for the identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term
Commercial Significance
12 The BOCC finds that the property is primarily devoted to agricultural production.
13 The BOCC finds that the property has long-term commercial significance because the land:
(1) has productive growing capacity, (2) is productive, (3) has good sod composition for
long-term commercial production, (4) is not located in close proximity to population areas,
and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses
14. The BOCC rinds that the Unified Development Code requirements, including but not
limited to Right -to -Farm regulations and notification on plats, budding permits and other
development approvals that the property is in proximity to agricultural activities, will
provide effective notice to area land owners and physical buffers lessening concerns with
incompatibilities
*2005-12 File 05-4301 MARC JANETT
Land Use Designation Change from Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential I
The subject area is forty acres in size with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of "Agricultural
Resource" The applicant has submitted an application requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re -designation
to "Rural Residential 1" which would allow the subdivision of this property into five -acre tracts
LOCATION:
The property is located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 28, Township 17 N., Range 26 E., WM near
Royal City, WA
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a land use re -designation of —40 -acres from "Agricultural
Resource" to "Rural Residential 1". The applicant has stated that the basis for this request is that the
subject area is not suitable for agricultural use due to lack of irrigation water and its close proximity to
higher density residential uses.
The subject properties are surrounded by lands designated as Agricultural Resource lands in the County's
Comprehensive Plan. Based on 2002 aerial photography it appears that lands to the east are in agricultural
production however, it also appears that none of the subject parcels are in agricultural production The
applicant has stated that the proposed amendment will comply with various portions of the County's
Comprehensive Plan by 1) providing County residents with the opportunity for living a rural lifestyle,
meeting friendly people and housing close to recreational opportunities, 2) providing the opportunity for
rural lands related to farming, mining, and rural residential development, and 3) complying with Rural
Lands Goal RU -1.4, "to allow rural property owners reasonable economic opportunities for use of their
land "
In the Resource Lands Sub -Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the County has established criteria for the
designation of Lands as "Agricultural Resource Lands of Long Term Significance" In review of the
proposed redesignation of 40 acres of Agricultural Resource Lands (Irrigated) to Rural Residential 1, staff
has evaluated the subject area against the specified criteria for designation as Agricultural Resource lands.
The criteria evaluated includes, but is not limited to, 1) the current and historical tax classification, 2) soil
classes, 3) adjacent land uses, and 4) availability of irrigation water A checklist specifying all the criteria
used for the evaluation and which criteria were or were not met can be found in file 05-4301.
In review of the Agricultural Resource Lands criteria, it appears that in 1999 when Grant County adopted
its Comprehensive Plan, the subject area 1) was in the Agricultural Current Use Classification property tax
classification, 2) minimally 50% of the soils were Class I —IV soils, 3) did abut agricultural resource lands
Attachment `B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
24
on at least three sides, thus, the subject parcels did meet the criteria for designation as Agricultural
Resource Lands (Irrigated)
Since 1999, there has been a change in circumstance, including but not limited to, a request for re-
designation by the applicant that merits a re-evaluation of the subject parcels against the criteria for
designation as Agricultural Resource lands The change in circumstance includes, but it not limited to, the
fact that the property owner has not farmed the subject property Without available irrigation water, the
subject parcel does not meet the criteria for designation as Irrigated Agricultural lands Typically, only
Class I — IV sods meet the criteria for designation as Agricultural Resource lands However, because the
subject parcel 1) does abut Agricultural Resource lands on at least three sides, it does meet the criteria for
designation as Agricultural Resource lands
In conclusion, based on the review of criteria for designation of Agricultural Resource lands, the subject
parcel still meets sufficient criteria as listed below
1. There is no change in circumstances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan or public policy.
2. There is not a change in circumstances beyond the control of the landowner pertaining to the
subject property
3. There wag not an error made in designation of the property as Agricultural Resource.
4. There was no new information on natural resource land or critical area status submitted by the
applicant
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
After listening to Mr Janett's proposal, several members of the Planning Commission felt this might be a
potential spot zoning issue and they had specific concerns about locating residences anywhere near orchard
developments or other farming operations due to the problems inherent with over spray, crop dusting
planes flying over, and operation of farm machinery in the early morning hours. This area is not anywhere
near any Rural Residential zoned property, and would be a forty -acre spot out in the middle of an active
agricultural area
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact, and testimony given, the Planning Commission is forwarding this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to DENY the proposed Land Use
Re -designation of 40 acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential I"
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission r the following criteria in making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners for denial of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Re -designation request
1. The change would not benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3 The change is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4 The change will be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property
5. The change does not have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change, if granted, will result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges
and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is
not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify ditferent designations.
7 The benefits of the change will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8 The change is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Comnussioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
25
9. The change does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25 12 UDC
10. The Board funds that although the site meets the criteria to be classified as Agricultural
Resource, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that a designation change is
warranted because of (1) there has been a change in circumstances pertaining to the
Comprehensive Plan or public policy, (2) there has been a change in circumstances beyond
the control of the landowner that has occurred pertaining to the subject property, (3) there
was an error in the initial designation of the land as Agricultural Resource, or (4) there is
new information on natural resource land or critical area status
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and deny the Land Use Designation change request from Agricultural
Resource to Rural Residential 1 based on the following Findings of Fact, and consideration of Staff's
analysis:
1. The change would not benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2 The change is not warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is not consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property.
5. The change does not have merit for the community as a whole.
6. The change, if granted, will result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges
and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is
not substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations.
7. The benefits of the change will not outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9 The change does not comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25 12 UDC
10. The Board finds that although the site meets the criteria to be classified as Agricultural
Resource, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that a designation change is
warranted because of (1) a change in circumstances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan
or public policy, (2) a change in circumstances beyond the control of the landowner that has
occurred pertaining to the subject property, (3) an error in the initial designation of the land
as Agricultural Resource; or (4) new information on natural resource land or critical area
status
*2005-13 File 054302 SLOUGH INVESTMENT CO.
Land Use Designation Change Urban Growth Area Boundary Change.
The subject area consists of five parcels totaling -10-acres with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation of "Rural Residential 1". The applicant has submitted an application requesting the subject
property be included within the boundary of the Town of Soap Lake's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a
site-specific land use re -designation to "Suburban Residential
LOCATION:
The subject area consists of Lots 1, 15, 16, 17 & Tract A of the Soap Lake Terrace Plat, lying just north of
the Town of Soap Lake on the east side of HWY 17, and is a portion of S 18, T 22 N, R 27 E, WM, Grant
County, WA (parcel #'s 08-1633-201, 08-1633-215, 08-1633-216, & 08-1633-217)
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
26
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and a UGA boundary change to include four (4) parcels totaling —8 93 -acres within the Town
of Soap Lake UGA and re -designating them from "Rural Residential I" to "Suburban Residential"
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the size of an UGA will be determined
by demand established by a population forecast, as determined by the WA Office of Financial
Management, for the required twenty-year planning period As adopted in 1999 and based on a Land
Supply and Land Demand Model (See Grant Comity UGA Anal sis, 1999), Grant County's Comprehensive
Plan states the unincorporated Soap Lake UGA has an excess of 25 5 -acres of residential land and that no
additional land is needed to accommodate the projected population
The applicant is requesting a Suburban Residential land use designation, which allows 1-2 units per 2 acres.
At this density if approved, the proposed re -designation would potentially allow an additional nine (9)
residential units within the Soap Lake UGA.
Although, the housing analysis shows that no additional lands are needed within the Soap Lake UGA, Staff
does not believe the acreage contemplated in this proposed re -designation is significant and the potential
exists to approve the proposed amendment based on its proximity to the Soap Lake town bouts and the
availability of water and sewer services The proposed parcels are adjacent to the town limits and it
appears could be easily served by water and sewer services Although Staff does not know exactly how far
water and sewer services are from the subject parcels
Staff would like to note that the text in the application material is not consistent with the mapping provided.
The mapping identifies Tract A of the Soap Lake Terrace Plat to be included within the proposed
amendment However, the text indicates only four parcels are to be included in the proposed amendments.
Staff contacted the Assessor's office and found that Tract A is omitted parcel that has not been taxed and
does not have its own parcel number The Assessor's office will be correcting this error and a new tax
parcel number will be provided for Tract A It appears that the same individual, Mr Hancock Slough,
owns the parcels included in the proposed amendment as well as Tract A of the Soap Lake Terrace Plat
Staff would like the applicant to clarify this discrepancy prior to a decision being made Also, for your
consideration the Soap Lake Terrace Plat restricts Tract A by having the following Development Note
recorded on the Plat "Note A TRACT A IS UNBILDABLE DUE TO LOT SIZE, CRITICAL AREA
HABITAT AND SHORELINE CONCERNS NO STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND SHALL BE
PERMITTED ON TRACT A "
Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff
recommends approval of the UGA Expansion and Land Use Re -designation to Suburban Residential.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The discussions for this project centered on three primary topics 1) the creation history of this subject area,
2) the creation of an island of non-UGA land surrounded by the Soap Lake Town limns and UGA land, and
3) the Town of Soap Lake's position or knowledge of the proposed UGA expansion.
Discussion on the creation history of the subject area was centered on whether Tract A of the Soap Lake
Terrace Plat was in fact an individual parcel or was a portion of Lot 1 Staff affirmed that Tract A was its
own parcel even though it does not have an individual tax parcel number at this time
The discussion about creating an island of non-UGA land was initiated by Planning Staff in order to bring
the issue to attention The issue was that if Tract A was included in the proposal an island of non-UGA
land owned by Las Brisas would be created Staff recommended against the creation of the island As a
result of this discussion the Planning Commission included in their recommendation the removal of Tract A
Attachment "B"
Uwsions and Findings of Pact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
27
from the request The agent for the applicant was present at the public hearing and was not opposed to the
removal of Tract A.
Finally, the Planning Commission discussed the Town of Soap Lake's involvement in the proposed re-
designation and UGA expansion Staff explained that the SEPA determination was sent to the Town of
Soap Lake for review and comment, and as of the date of the hearing no comment had been received
Planning Commission members discussed their concern with a approving an UGA expansion without the
jurisdictional town or city being involved or aware of the proposal Based on this discussion the Planning
Commission placed a contingency on their recommendation that the Town of Soap Lake provide comment
acknowledging the UGA change, and if their comment were to be against the proposal the Planning
Commission's recommendation would change from approval to denial No other issues were discussed
during the planning commission hearing
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the enclosed Findings of Fact the Planning Commission for Grant County has forwarded this
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use
Re -designation of —9 -acres, excluding Tract A of the Soap Lake Terrace Plat, from "Rural Residential 1" to
"Suburban Residential" and expansion of the Town of Soap Lake's UGA The recommendation of
approval is contingent on receiving a comment from the Town of Soap Lake confirming they are aware of
the proposed expansion of the UGA, and that their comment not be in opposition to the expansion.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact in making its decision to recommend
approval, as amended, of this Comprehensive Plan Land Use Re -designation and Urban Growth Area
Boundary change:
1 The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property.
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations.
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and change the Land Lse Designation from "Rural Residential 1" to
"Suburban Residential" for and expand the Ephrata Urban Growth Area Boundary to include
parcel Ws 08-1633-201,08-1633-215,08-1633-216, and 08-1633-217, excluding Tract A of the Soap
Lake Terrace Plat, for the Slough Investment Co. based on the following Findings of Fact:
1 The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensne Plan
2005 Amendments
28
3 The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole
6. The change will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25 12
UDC.
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan
2005 Amendments
29