HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 08-005-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. � �� �OS^�-- CC
A Resolution Relating to Comprehensive Planning in Grant County in
Accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70 A) and amending the 2006 Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, in 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed
into law the Growth Management Act (GMA) as contained in SHB No 2929
(Washington Laws, 1990 lst Ex. Sess., Ch 17), which was subsequently codified as
among other chapters, Chapter 36.70 A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and
cities in the State to do sorne planning and the fastest growing counties and cities with
them, to plan extensiveiy in keeping with state goals and policies on: sprawl reduction,
affordable housing, economic development, open space and recreation, regional
transportation, environmental protection, property rights, natural resource industries,
historic lands and buildings, permit processing, public facilities and services, and early
and continuous public participation; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and
cities within the state to classify, designate, and conserve natural resource lands
(agricultural and mineral) and protect critical areas (wetlands, geologically hazardous
areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently
flooded areas); and
WHEREAS, Chapter 36,70 RCW required Grant County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan
that met specified GMA goals and addressed the mandated GMA elements; and
WHEREAS, after complete review and public record of the State Environmental Review
process, the Grant County Planning Commission issued a Final Environmental Impact
Statement on July, 2, 1999; and subsequent addendums through 2006 and;
WH�I2EAS, over the past years, the Comprehensive Plan's policies may have changed
to insure that the development patterns in the County remain consistent with the intent of
the communities' vision for the future and the Plan's goals and policies; and
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2007
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
1
WHEIZEAS, it is important that amendments to this plan retain the broad perspectives
articulated in tihe community vision statements, satis�es the goals and policies of this
Plan, and remain consistent with the intent of the GMA; and
WHEREAS, the Growtli 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 a�ply 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 ameiidments may be initiated by the County or by other entities,
organizations or individuals through petition; ar�d
WHEREAS, petitions wera received on forms provided by the Department, containing
appropriate maps showing the proposed change and addressing the policy or map
evaluation criteria as described in the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, On October 15, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners directed staff
initiate the SEPA review process and schedule each of the complete amendments
proposed, along with staif recommendations before the Planning Commission for public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted by the Plai�ning Commission on
Dercember 5, December 13, and December 19, 2007, to hear staff recommendations and
take public testimony on each of the proposed amendments to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan; making recommendations and listing Findings of Fact on each
amendrnent, and;
WHEREAS, the Planniilg 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.
Cr��ant County
Board of County Comm'rssioners
Resolution Adopting Amendmeuts for the Year 2007
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
2
WHEREAS, a non-project proposal to consider adoption of amendinents 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
George 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 Pacility
and service capabilities to serve such development and 2) in areas already characterized
by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public
facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are
provided by either public or private sources and; 3) in the remaining portions of the urban
growth areas.and;
WHEREAS, when considering inclusion of rural areas within urban growth boundaries,
attention was given to recognizing the high priority Grant County places on conseiving
and protecting both agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and those
lands characterized by rural development as well as changes that have occurred on the
perimeters of the City's Urban Growth Boundary. and;
WHEREAS, copies of this EIS Addendum were distributed to agencies, organizations
and individuals listed on the Planning Department distribution list and requesting that
comments be submitted in accordance with WAC 197-11-340 (2), and;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conducted an open-record public
hearing on Thursday, January 10, 2008 to consider the 2007 requests for amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation from the Planning Commission for
each of the proposed amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners
for Grant County adopts the attached Findings of Fact per Attachment "B" and the
attached record pertaining to the approval of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendinents;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board oi County Commissioners for Grant
County adopts Findings of Fact as per Attachment "A" in support of these actions.
PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata,
Washington, by the following vote, then signed by its membersh' and attested to by its
Clerlc in authorization of such passage this � day of
2008.
Grant County
Board of County Commissiouers
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2007
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
3
DATED this �,,;�—da of 2008.
Y ���u'�-�.� �
ATTEST:
Yea Nay
Ly1 ❑
�''� ❑
� ❑
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Abstain G T COUNTY, WASHINGTON
� Richard Stevens, Chair
a � _ i�/
� /i�
.-�• . , �� ,
\ I � \
� Cindy Ca er, Mem er
Gravt County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Year 2007
To tl�e Grant County Comprehensive Plan
4
ATTACHMENT ��A"
GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT 2007
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section I — General Findings
1.1 Grant County has experienced and will continue to experience population growth and
accompanying development, resulting in competing demands for public facilities,
services and land uses, and is required to prepare and adopt amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations pursuant to 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 talcings and substantive due process violations.
1,4 RCW 36.70A.020 sets for a list of 13 goals "to guide the development and adoption
of comprehensive plans and development regulations." In the amendment public
hearing process, and these findings of fact, the Planning Commission and Board of
County Commissioners considered the 13 Growth Management Goals, weighed them
as they apply to the subject matter of these findings, and has attempted to achieve a
reasoned balance among them.
Section 2 - Public Particip�tion
2.1 In July, 2007, the Grant County Planning Department solicited petitions for
amendments to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan.
2.2 Petitions received by the planning Department were reviewed by the Board of
County Commissioners, and the Board directed the Planning Department to proceed
with further review of the petitions and to prepare environmental documentation
consistent with the requirements of RCW 43.21C and Grant County Code Chapter
24.04 (SEPA).
Att�clunent °°A"
Grant County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2007
General Findings of ract.
2.3 In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the
Planning Commission held public hearings on December 5, 12, and 19 2007
at which time testimony was talcen from interested agencies, organizations,
and individual citizens, regarding the proposed amendments, as well as the 2006
Addendum to the original 1999 EIS and its subsequent addenda.
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 2007
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 a� a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner.
Section 3— Criteria for Amendment Approval
3.1 A petition for a site-specific land use redesignation was reviewed for conformance
with pertinent provisions of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Code.
3.2 In reviewing the amendments, the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners considered testimony provided at public hearings and
recommendations provided by staff and interested or affected agencies with
jurisdiction. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
approved, approved with conditions, or rejected an application for a change of
designation or density based on the fo�lowing criteria:
(a) The change would benefit the public health, safety, and/or welfare;
(b) The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need
for additional property in the proposed land-use designation.
(c) The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in
the Comprehensive Plan.
(d) The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity
of tha subject property.
Attachmentf°A"
Grant Cowrty Com�n�chensive Plnn
Amendment 2007
Geueral Pindings of Fact.
(e) The change has merit and value for the community as a whole
( fl The change, if granted, will not result in an enclave of property owners enj oying
greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners
in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties
themselves with different designations.
(g) The benefits of the change will outweigh any signi�cant 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.
Attacluneut "A"
Gr�nt Coimty Comprel�ensive Plnn
Amendment 2007
General Findings of Fact.
ATTACHMENT �B'
FINAL ACTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOIVERS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2007 AMENDMENTS
1 07-4874 Banlcs Lalce Residential
2 07-4873 Clint Brown
3 07-4915 Crop Duster, Inc,
4 07-4911 Michael Dietrich
5 07-4881 DAR Investments (Garrison and Gonzalez)
6 07-4906 George Landing LLC
7 07-4907 Eric Kissler
8 07-4863 Robert and Anita Nielsen
9 07-4859 Shelley Stavens
10 07-4886 Don Tucicer and David Plate
11 07-4884 ASPI Group, Inc,
12 07-4901 Jeroiny and Rosario McKean
13 07-4882 Grant County Public Worlcs Department
14 07-4913 Avila Land LLC
15 07-4912 Doug Lal�nan
16 07-4908 Willard and Sherry Lange
17 07-4910 Stahl Trust
18 07-4900 Bearing Sea 344
19 07-4899 Vic Jansen
File 07-4874 Banks Lake Residential
Land Use Designation change frorn Open Space (Urban) to Residential, Medium
Density.
LOCATION:
The subject site lies south of Electric City within the UGA on the west side of SR 155; and is in a
portion of S 20, T 28 N, R 30 E, WM, Crrant County, WA. (parcel # 18-2297-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant's have submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific
Land Use Re-designation from "Open Space (Urban)" to "Medium Density Residential". This
site was subject to a UGA and site-specific amendment application in 2006 (�le number 06-4563)
to include the site in the Electric City UGA. The Board of County Commissioners ultimately
approved the requested land use designation changes and the expansion of the Electric City UGA.
Upon completion of the 2006 application, the applicant identi�ed a problern with the designations
that were assigned to the various properties involved in the request. The applicant states that
quality mapping was not made available in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
application and the intent of Banlcs Lalce Residential LLC was that this 9-acre portion of parcel
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
1
18-2297-000 was to be designated as "Residential Medium Density", however, it was incorrectly
given a designation of "Open Space (Urban)".
In review of this proposal Staff has identified the following issues for consideration by the
Planning Coinmission: 1) lacic of need for additional residential lands within the Elec�ric City
UGA based on allocated population growth.
Lack of Need for Additional Residential Lands
In 2006, an additiona1237 acres of Residential, Medium Density land was added to the
Electric city UGA. At that tiine, staff was unable to support the inclusion of those properties
based on an analysis of the housing needs of the City and its associated UGA. Nonetheless, the
properties were included by the Board of County Commissioners.
Based on the population forecasts adopted as part of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan update,
there appears to be sufficient lands available within the UGA to accommodate the 1 percent
growth increase established for Electric City. The population forecast for Electric City and the
UGA indicate that the expected growth between the Census 2000 date and the project 2025
population is lilcely to result in a total increase of approximately 332 new residents to the area.
Whan coinparing this growth to the established number of parsons per household of 2,56
person/hh, a total of approximately 130 new residential housing units will be required to
accommodate the 2025 projected growth of 332 additional residents, In contrast, the 237 acres
included in the 2006 amendments can accommodate between 948 (4DU/AC) and 1,896
(8DU/AC) dwelling units. Pursuant to GCC 25.12.030(h)(2), the proposal does not appear to be
consistent with the criteria that "the change is warranted because of a changed circumstances or
because of a need for additional property in the proposed land-use designation". The amount of
land currently designated for Residential, Medium Density development within the UGA is
expected accommodate the expected growth of the Town of E1ect�ic City and its associated UGA.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on December 5, 2007
regarding this proposal. The Planning Commission did not discuss any significant issues at their
hearing regarding this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Cominission has forwarded this pxoposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of approximately 9-
acres from "Open Space (Urban)" to "Residential, Medium Density".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Redesignate the subject 9-acre portion of parcel parcel 18-2297-000 from Open Space
(Urban) to Residential, Medium Density.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Conunissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2
1. The change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
suUject property;
5. The change does merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will r�ot 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 beneiits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25,
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12
UDC;
File 07-4873 Clint Brown
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resoarce (Irrigated) to Rural
Residential l.
LOCATION:
The subject property lies 2.5 miles south of the City of Ephrata on the east side of Dodson Road;
and is a portion of S 15, T 20 N, R 26 E, WM, Crrant County, WA. (parcel # 13-0139-045)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of approximately
166-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1". The parcel was created by a
long subdivision utilizing the clustering provisions of the UDC, the subject site is lot 4 of the
C.B, Triangle Long Plat, and represents the dedicated open space for the cluster subdivision.
The applicant indicates that the site is no longer appropriately designated as Agriculture due to
the poor soils, and due to the increasing development of xural residential properties in the
immediate vicinity. The site is currently served by a water contract according to the applicant,
and the site is currently being farmed, The subject property is in the Current Use program given
the on-going agricultural activities at the site. Existing development on the subject parcel is
limited to an irrigation circle, Soils found on the site range from subclass N to VII and are not
considered Prime Farmlands by the Soil Survey of Grant County.
The surrounding properties to the north and west are designated Rura1 Residential 1 and the
properties to the south and east are designated Agriculture Resource. Based on Staff's review it
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
3
appears that a re-designation of the subject property would not create an incompatible use with
the surrounding lands.
The subject site is lot 4 of the C,B. Triangle Long Plat, which was approved under the clustering
provisions in GCC 23.12.075. The clustering provisions allow the creation of platted lots of less
than the minimum lot area for the particular zoning district, provided that at least 50 percent of
the site is dedicated to open space, Section 23,12.075 (e)(9) requires that the portion of the site
dedicated to open space shall not be further subdivided, nor shall a residential dwelling unit be
placed on it.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 5, 2007. The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed redesignation. The
Planning Commission expressed some concern with the future redevelopment of the site due to
the fact that the property being redesignated was originally established as open space pursuant to
the clustering provisions for the CB Triangle Subdivision. Now, with a redesignation, the open
space area will be further reduced.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 166-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation.
1) Redesignate parcel 13-0139-045 from Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The changa 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 wzll not be de�riinental to uses or property in the iminediate vicinity of
the subj ect 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 thexe is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse iinpacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board o� County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
4
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance.
11. The Board of County Commissioners does izot �nd that the property is or will be
primarily devotecl to agricultural production.
12. The Planning Commission does not find that the property has long-ter�n commercial
signi�cance because the land: (1) does not have productive growing capacity, (2) is
�iot productive, (3) does not have good soil composition for long-term commercial
production, (4) is located in close proximity to population areas, and (5) �Coes have
the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4915 Crop Duster, Inc.
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Dryland) to Rural
Residenti�l 1.
LOCATION:
The subject property lies approximately 1.5 rniles east of the Town of Coulee City on the north
side of RD 36 NE and is a portion of S 36, T 25 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #'s
17-1596-001, 17-1596-003)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-speeific land use re-designation of approximately
95.73-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1", The applicant has stated it is
his intention to establish a Planned Unit Development at the site that will incorporate the existing
air field into an air-parlc neighborhood.
The adjacent properties to the west are currently designated as Rural Residential 1, while the
surrounding properties in all other directions are zoned Agricultural Resource. The adjacent
agricultural properties are not within the boundaries of the Columbia Basin Project, and do not
appear to be part of the area for future expansion of that project, The soils found at the site
appear to range from Type III to Type IV (under irrigate conditions, which do not exist at this
site), and are not considered to be prime farmlands� Those portions of the site not dedicated to
the airfield or its associated uses are currently maintained as pasture lands. 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.
It is important to note that the airfield is not an ou�right allowed use in the Unified Development
Code for properties zoned RR1, in the event the applicant obtains this land use designation
change and the minor rezone to RR1, the airfield would be considered a pre-existing non-
conforming use. If the PUD is not established at this site, the airfield wi11 rernain a non-
confornzing use whicl� may have implications for the continued operation and maintenance
activities necessary to lceep the airfield in proper condition.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
5
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 Rural Residential 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 5, 2007. The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed redesignation. One member
of the public testified at the hearing neither in favor nor opposition to the project, but wanted to
inalce certain that the existing fertilizer facility located at the east end of the runway was
recogY�ized, and that future residential development is designed and located with sufficient buffer
provided to the facility.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-speeiFic land use redesignation of
approximately 96-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
DECISION:
The Board ot' County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Plamiing Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation.
1) Redesignate parcel 17-1596-001 and 17-1596-003 from Agricultural Resource to Rural
Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. Tha change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will �zot be de�rimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change rloes have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will �aot result in a group of property owners enj oying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity where there is not substantive dif�erence in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signi�cant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change rloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
l0. The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requireinents of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of F1ct
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
6
11
12.
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Coinmercial
Significance.
The Board of County Commissioners does �zot �nd that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land; (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term cominercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) rloes have the possiUility for more intense uses.
File 07-4911 Michael Dietrich
Land Use Designntion change from Agricultural Resoarce (Dryland) to Rural
Remote.
LOCATION:
The subject property lies approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Ephrata just past the
intersection of Johnson Road and Sagebrush Flats Road and is a portion of S 7, T 21 N, R 26 E,
WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 14-1347-500)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of approximately
43.87-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural remote". The applicant has stated that the
site is too small to be viable range land and due to the lacic of available water and the topography
of the site, the site is not able to be farmed,
The adjacent properties in all directions are designated Agricultural Resource. Although adjacent
properties axe currently utilized for dryland wheat production, the project site and the surrounding
areas are not within the boundaries of the Columbia Basin Projact service area, and are not
expected to receive irrigation watars, In addition, the topography of the subject site malces
farming impractical. The soils found at the site appear to range from Type N to Type VI, and are
not considered to be prime farmlands. The existing designation of Agriculture is not supported
by the requirements of designating agricultural lands pursuant to the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Managemezit Act.
Based on Staff's review and after balaneing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
Staff recoinmends approval of the Land Use Re-designation to Rural Remote.
PLANI�TING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 5, 2007. The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed redesignation. No
signi�cant issues were discussed by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIOI�T:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this pxoposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 43.87-acres from "AgY�icultural Resource" to "Rural Reinote".
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
7
DECISION:
The Boarci of County Coinmissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Redesignate parcel 14-1347-500 from Agricultural Resource to Rural Remote.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of I'act;
l. The change woultl benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations speciPied in the
Comprehensive Plan,
4. The change will hot be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subj ect 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 desigtiations;
7. The beneiits of the change wzll outweigh any significant adverse im�acts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change tloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10, The Board of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Cn�owth 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 Cominercial
Sigi�ificance.
11. The Board of County Commissioners rloes raot find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production,
12. The Board of County Commissioners �Coes not find that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does yiot have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does Yzot have good soil
composition for long-term cominercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioneis
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
8
File 07-4881 Dar Investments (Don Garrison and Anthony Gonzalez)
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irr�gated) to Residential,
Suburban and inclusion of the property in the City of George Urb�n Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is adjacent to the corporate limits of the City of George near the intersection of
Beverly-Burlce Road and Road 1 NW; and is in a portion of S 31, T 19 N, R 24 E, WM, Grant
County, WA. (parcel #15-1107-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant's have submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a UGA
boundary change to include one parcel totaling approximately 166-acres within the City of
George's Urban Growth Area Boundary (UGA) and a Site Speci�c Land Use Re-designation
from "Agriculture" "Residential, Suburban".
According to the Soi1 Survey of Grant County, the site contains soil subclasses of II through
VI under irrigated conditions. Roughly one half of the site appears to have soils that are
listed as Prime Farmland soils by the Soil Survey. Historically, the site has been used t'or
grazing purposes.
In review of this application, staff has identified the following issue(s):
Lacic of Need for Additional Residential Lands
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the size of an UGA will be
determined by demand established by a population foxecast, as determined by the WA Of�ce of
Financial Management, for the required twenty-year planning period. Also, puz�suant to GCC §
25.12.030(g)(2), petitions for UGA boundary changes shall: 1) be supported by and dependant on
criteria set forth in tha GMA such as population forecasts and allocated urban population
distributions, existing urban densities and intill opportunities, phasing and availability of
adequate public facility and service capacities to serve such developmant in an economical
manner, proxii�nity to desigl7ate natural resource lands, and the presence of critical areas; and 2)
demonstrate that a full range of urban public services and facilities, including water, sewer, storm
drainage, transportation, �re protection, and schools can be provided, is compatible with
contiguous development within the UGA and adjacent rural and resource lands, and development
in the amended area will occur at urban densities.
As presented the application material provides analysis in an attempt to support the expansion
of the UGA to include the proposed 166-acres of land for residential use. The application
materials indicate that this site should be included in the UGA to accommodate the anticipated
growth of the City of George over the next twenty years. The project growth rate for the City of
George is 2 percent. In the letter presented by the City of George, the 2006 population of George
is listed as 530, up from 528 in the 2000 Census, which is well below the expected 2 percent
growth rate (approximately 10.6 population increase based on a population of 530). In reviewing
the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Technical Appendices, it was determined that the City of George
had suf�cient vacant lands within the existing corporate limits to accommodate the expected
growth for a period of twenty years. As evidenced by the letter from the City, the residential
growth over the past seven years has consisted of seven new manufactured hozne placements
(which accomrnodated a population increase ot� approximately 19.53 assuming 2.79 people per
household), The realized and expected growth rates for the City of George have not exceeded
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
9
land capacity within the corporate limit boundaries of the City, or the available residential land
already within the UGA. An additional 12 acres of residential land was included in the UGA in
2006, that property has not yet developed, nor are there pending land use develo�ment
applications for the site. The potential for infill exists within the City, however, it is an
unfortunate fact presented by the City of George that the principal property owner of the vacant
lands within the City is not interested in developing their propertiies at this time. It is equally
unfortunate that the provisions of the Growth Management Act do not account for situations
similar to this and further do not provide possible remedies to allow a City to seelc to include
additional properties outside of the UGA that might be ready and available for development.
However, leapfi•ogging beyond the infill opportunities that exist within the corporate limits and
UGA is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, nor the Washington State
Growth Management Act.
Grant County Planning staff recognizes the needs of the City, and support the future growth of
the City, however, based on the requirements to expand Urban Growth Areas, cannot support the
inclusion of this site at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 5, 2007. The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed redesignation. At their
hearing the Planning Commission considered testimony from the applicant and the honorable
Mayor Kooy in regards to this proposal and concluded that the property should be included in the
UGA for George.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Comtnission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed UGA amendment and site-specific land use
redesignation of approximately 166-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Residential,
Suburban".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recomrnendation from
the Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Speci�c Land Use Re-
designation and inclusion of the site in the George Urban Growth Area:
1) Amend the City of George Urban Growth Area boundary to include parcel 15-1107-000.
2) Redesignate parcel 15-1107-000 from Agriculture to Residential, Suburban.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1, The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2, The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Coznprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subj ect property;
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
Attachment B
Decisions and P'indings of Fact
Board of County Commissioneis
2007 Cornprehensive Plan Amendments
10
6. The change, if granted, will saot 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 Board of County Commissioners does �nd 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 Cominercial
Significance.
11. The Board of County Commissioners �Coes not �nd that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Commissioners does not �nd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) �loes �zot have productive
growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil composition for
long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity to population
areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4906 George Y,anding LLC
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to
Commercial (Urban) and Residential, Medium Density; and inclusion of the
property in the City of George Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The suUject area is adjacent to the south boundary of the existing UGA and has frontage on Road
Q SW; and is in a portion of S 7, T 18 N, R 24 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #20-1600-000
and 20-1601-001), also lrnown as I'arm Unit 89, Blocic 77.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant's have submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a UGA
boundary change tio include two parcels totaling approximately 83.7-acres within the City of
George's Urban Growth Area Boundary (UGA) and a Site Speciiic Land Use Re-designation
from "Agriculture" to "Residential, Medium Density" for the northern portion of the site and
"Commercial (Urban)" for the southern portion of the site.
The subject property is lcnown as Farm Unit 89, Blocic 77 of the Columbia Basin Irrigation
project. According to the Soil Survey for Grant County, the site contains soils that range
from subclass II to N under in-igated conditions, a majority of the site is class IV. The site
was historically used as a cherry orchard. The site appears to have been correctly designated
as Agricultural Lands of long-term commercial significance, which pursuant to the Growth
Manageir�ent Act, should be preserved as such.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
11
In review of this application, staff has also identified the following issue(s):
Lack of Need for Additional Commercial Lands
The Washington State Crrowth Management Act conteinplates 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, Also, pursuant to GCC §
25.12,030(g)(2), petitions for UGA boundary changes shall: 1) be supported by and dependant on
criteria set forth in the GMA such as population forecasts and allocated urban population
distributions, existing urban densities and infill opportunities, phasing and availability of
adequate public facility and service capacities to serve such development in an economical
manner, proximity to designate natural resource lands, and the presence of critical areas; and 2)
demonstrate that a full range of urban public services and facilities, including watex, sewer, storm
drainage, transportation, �re protection, and schools can be provided, is compatible with
contiguous development within the UGA and adjacent rural and resource lands, and development
in the amended area will occur at urban densities.
At the time of adoption of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan, a Commercial Land Needs assessment
was conducted. The results of that assessment indicated that the City of George had
approximately 57 acres of land within the corporate limits. The 57 acres of commercial lands
results in a ratio of approximately 75.3 acres per 1000 population (based on actual 1998
population of 465), This far exceeds the accepted ratio of 12.4 acres of commercial lands per
1000 population utilized in the assessment.
In spite of the apparent excess of commercial lands within the corporate limits, the City and the
County concluded that additional commercial lands within the UGA could be included given the
City's proximity to the Gorge Ainphitheater and the need for larga tourist-related or ft•eeway-
related commercial uses near this prominent crossroads. Those properties remain vacant today
and represent significant opportunities for infill within the UGA rather than further expanding the
UGA at this time.
Lack of Need for Additional Residential Lands
As presented the application material provides analysis in an attempt to support the expansion
of the UGA to include approximately 42 acres of the site for residential use. The application
materials indicatie that this site should be included in the UGA to enhance the economic
development and provide stability to the City. The project growth rate for the City of George is 2
percent. In the letter presented by the City of Geoige, the 2006 population of George is listed as
530, up from 528 in the 2000 Census, which is well below the expectied 2 percent annual growth
rate (approximately 10.6 population increase based on a population of 530). In reviewing the
1999 Comprehensive Plan Technical Appendices, it was determined that the City of George had
sufficient vacant lands within the existing corporate limits to accommodate the expected growth
for a period of twenty years. As evidenced by the letter from the City, the residential growth over
the past seven years has consisted of seven new manufactured home placements (which would
accommodate a population increase of approximately 19.53 assuming 2.79 people per
household). The realized and expected growth rates for the City of George have not exceeded
land capacity within the corporate limit boundaries of the City, or the available residential land
already within the UGA. An additional 12 acres of residential land was included in the UGA in
2006, that property has not yet developed, nor are thexe pending land use development
applications for the site. The potential for in�ll exists within the City, however, it is an
unfortunate fact presented by the City of George that the principal property owner of the vacant
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
12
lands within the City is not interested in developing their properties at this time. It is equally
unfortunate that the provisions of the Growth Management Act do not account for situations
similar to this and further do not provide possible remedies to allow a City to seelc to include
additional properties outside of the UGA that might be ready and available for development.
Howaver, leapfrogging beyond the infill opportunities that exist within the corporate limits and
UGA is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or the Washington State Growth
Management Act.
Grant County Planning staff recognizes the needs of the City, and support the future growth of
the City, however, based on the requirements to expand Urban Growth Areas, cannot support the
inclusion of this site at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 5, 2007. The
Planning Coinmission voted to reeommend approval of the proposed redesignation. At their
hearing the Planning Commission considered testimony from the applicant and the honorable
Mayor Kooy in regards to this proposal and concluded that the property should be included in the
UGA for George.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed UGA amendment and site-specific land use
redesignation of approximately 83.7-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Residential, Medium
Density" and "Commercial (Ux�ban)",
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioneis voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and inclusion of tha site in the George Urban Growth Area:
1) Amend the City of George Urban Growth Area boundary to include parcels 20-1600-000;
20-1601-001.
2) Redesignate parce120-1600-000; 201601-001 from Agriculture to a mix of Urban
Commercial for the southern half of the site and Residential, Medium Density for the
northern half of the site.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need For
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will �zot Ue 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 Corrunissioners
2007 Compreheiisive Plan Amendments
13
6, The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The bene�ts of the change will outweigh 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 rloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners �loes �nd that pursuant to the requiremeiits 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 AgY�icultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance.
11. The Board of County Comnussioners does ttot find that the property is or will be
priinarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Commissioners rloes not �nd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does �aot have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) tloes have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4907 Eric Kissler
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to
Commercial (Urban) and inclusion of the property in the City of George Urban
Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is adjacent to the south boundary of the existing UGA along South Frontage
Road and Beverly-Burlce Road South; and is in a portion of S 7, T 18 N, R 24 E, WM, Grant
County, WA. (parcel #20-1596-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant's have submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a UGA
boundary change to include one parcel totaling approximately 12.5-acres within the City of
George's Urban Growth Area Boundary (UGA) and a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation
from "Agriculture" "Commercial (Urban)".
The subject property is known as Farm Unit 85, Blocic 77 of the Columbia Basin Irrigation
project. Soils on the subject parcel are listed as Prime Farmland soils in the Soil Survey of
Grant County. The site was historically farmed, The site appears to have been correctly
designated as Agricultural Lands of long-term commercial significance, which pursuant to
the Growth Management Act, should be preserved as such.
In review of this application, staff has identified the following issua(s):
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
14
Lack of Need for Additional Commercial Lands
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the size of an UGA will Ue
determined by demand estaUlished by a population forecast, as determined by the WA Office of
Financial Management, for the required twenty-year planning period, Also, pursuant to GCC §
25.12.030(g)(2), petitions for UGA boundary changes shall; 1) be supported by and dependant on
criteria set forth in the GMA such as population t'orecasts and allocated urban population
distributions, existing urban densities and infill opportunities, phasing and availability of
adequate public facility and service capacities to serve such development in an economical
manner, proximity to designate natural resource lands, and the presence of critical areas; and 2)
demonstrate that a full range of urban public services and facilities, including water, sewer, storm
drainage, transportation, fire protection, and schools can be providad, is compatible with
contiguous development within the UGA and adjacent rural and resource lands, and development
in the amended area will occur at urban densities.
At the time of adoption of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan, a Commercial Land Needs assessment
was conducted. The results of that assessment indicated that the City of George had
approximately 57 acres of land within the corporate limits. The 57 acres of commercial lands
results in a ratio of approximately 75.3 acres per 1000 population (Uased on actual 1998
population of 465). This far exceeds the accepted ratio of 12.4 acres of commercial lands per
1000 population utilized in the assessment.
In spite of the apparent excess of commerciallands within the corporate limits, the City and the
County concluded that additional commercial lands within the UGA could be included given the
City's proximity to the Gorge Amphitheater and the need for large tourist-related or freeway-
related commercial uses near this prominent crossroads, Those properties remain vacant today
and represent significant opportunities for in�ll within the UGA rather than further expanding the
UGA at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 5, 2007, The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed redesignation. At their
hearing the Planning Commission considered testimony from the applicant and the honoraUle
Mayor Kooy in regards to this proposal and concluded that the property should be included in the
UGA for George.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Cominissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed UGA amendment and site-speciiic land use
redesignation of approximately 12.5-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Urban Commercial".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the xecommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve this xequest for a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation and
inclusion of the site in the George Urban Growth Area:
1) Amend the City of George Urban Growth Area boundary to include parce120-1596-000.
2) Redesignate parce120-1596-000 from Agriculture Resource to Urban Commercial.
The Board of County Cammissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Pact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
15
l. The change wouCtl bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations 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 �loes have merit for the corrununity as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will `rot 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 Uenefits of the change will outweigh any signi�cant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requixements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25,
9. The change tloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners tloes find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance.
11. The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production,
12. The Board of County Cotnmissioners does not �nd that the property has long-term
cominercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) �loes not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) tloes have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4863 Robert and Anita Nielsen
Land Use Designation change from Agricultar�l Resource (Rangeland) to Rur�l
Residentiall.
LOCATION:
The subject property lies east of the historic settlement site of Adrian on the south side of RD 20-
NE; and is a portion of S 30, T 22 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA, (parcel # 17-1295-002)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer has suUmitted a request For a site-specific land usa re-designation of 20-acres fxom
"Agricultural Resource" (rangeland) to "Rural Residential 1", The developer has stated that the
basis for this request is that tha subject area is not suitable for Agricultural Production and has no
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
16
long-term commercial agricultural significance. The developer states that the subject has rocicy
terrain the land is unsuitable for agricultural production.
The surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are a11 designated Agricultural
Resource (Rangeland). Properties located approximately'/a miles west of the subject site are
designated Rural Residential 1. Redesignating this site and ultimately rezoning the site will result
in a spot rezone, which is to be prohibited pursuant to adopted goals and policies in the comp
plan. Adjacent properties range from approximately 20 acres to 640 acres in size.
According to the Soil Survey of Grant County the site contains soils that range fi�oin subclass IV
to subclass VII. The site is included in the Current Use program, but does not have water
available to it tluough the Columbia Basin Project. The site does not appear to have Ueen
designated Agricultural Resource correctly. The site may perhaps have been more appropriately
designated as Rural Remote given the remote nature of the site and lack of ability to be
designated as lands with long-term commercial signi�cance, however, redesignating the site as
Rural Residential 1 could result in an incompatiUility with surrounding development, and would
result in a spot rezone.
Based on Staff's review and after balancing the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
Staff cannot support the Land Use Re-designation to Rural Residential 1 for this site.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-xecord public hearing on Deceinber 5, 2007. The
Planning Commission considered the existing designation of the site as Agricultural Resource
(Rangeland) to be incorrect given the predominant parcel sizes in the area, the inability to sustain
rangeland activities on parcels in the area, and the relatively close proximity to Rural Residential
1 designations. The Planning Commission did not agree that the density allowed in the RR1
designation was consistent with the surrounding development pattern and directed the applicant to
enter into a concomitant agreement limiting the future development of the site to two 10 acres
lots, which is the applicant's desired result of the redesignation.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 20-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1" and require a
concomitant agreement to limit the maximum density of development on the subject site to 1
dwelling unit per 10 acres.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve with conditions this request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation.
1) Redesignate parcel 17-1295-002 from Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1) The applicant shall enter into a concomitant agreement with Gxant County in terms
acceptable to the County that will limit the development potential to a maximum density
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
17
of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres for a period of 5 years, After which, the subject properiy
could be further developed to the maximum extent allowable in the Rural Residential 1
district.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woul�l bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria fbr land ttse designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will �aot 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 �zot 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 wzll outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25,
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25,12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners does �nd that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Manageinent 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.
11. The Boaxd of County Commissioners does not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production,
12. The Board of County Commissioners tloes not �nd that the property has long-ter-m
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) �loes not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) �loes not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) �loes have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4859 Shelley Stevens
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Rural
Residentiall.
LOCATION:
The subject property is approximately 3 miles east of the Town of Soap Lalce on the north side of
RD 20-NE, with access from Road B.5 NE; and is a portion of S 22, T 22 N, R 27 E, WM, Grant
County, WA. (parcel #'s 16-1929-000, 16-1929-001, 16-1930-000)
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Corivnissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
18
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of approximately
60-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1". The sit� contains soils that
range in classification from IV to VII, with the predominant soil types being class VI and higher.
The site is not currently in agricultural production, nor does there appear to be water available to
the site through the Columbia Basin Project. The site is not in the "Current Use" tax program.
The surrounding propei-ties to the east and south are designated Agricultural Resource (irrigated)
and the properties to the north and west are designated Rural Residential 1.
The applicant has indicated that no part of the site has been deemed environmentally sensitive,
however, the applicant has previously applied for a I'lood Plain Hazard Peri�nit to locate one,
single-family residence on the site. This was necessary because a substantial part of the southern
portion of the site is encu�nbered by areas prone to flooding. This is impoxtant to note at this time
because if the site is redesignated and subsequently rezoned, the flood zone areas may have
negative impacts on the potential to locate access roads to the future lots as well as the ability to
locate lots and residential units in the portion of the site.
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 Rural Residential 1,
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 5, 2007. The
Planning Commission voted to approve the proposed redesignation, The Planning Commission
did not discuss any significant issues regarding this proposal, but did note tihat the site may
present some unique challenges when development plans are prepared for the site in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 60-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
DECISION:
The Board of County Cominissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation from
the Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Speci�c Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Redesignate parcel 16-1929-000, 16-1929-001, 16-1930-000 from Agricultural Resource
to Rural Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will �aot be detrimental to uses or property in the irmnediate vicinity of
the subj ect property;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of ract
Board of County Conunissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
19
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 enj oying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity where there is not substantiive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7, The bene�ts of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts oFthe
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requireinents of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change �loes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Boaxd of County Commissioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance.
11, The Board of County Commissioners rloes not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Coinmissioners does not �nd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) �'oes not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) �loes have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4886 Don Tucicer and David Plate
Land Use Designation change from Rural Residentiall to Residential, Low Density
and inclusion of the property in the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is located east of the intersection of Road 5 NE and Kopp Lane in a portion of
Section 6, Township 19 N., Range 28 E.W.M., (parcel # 12-1656-000) adjoining the current UGA
boundary for the City of Moses Lalce
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 10-acre pareel from "Rural Residential 1"
to "UrUan Residential, Low Dansity".
The subject site is adjacent to the existing UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lalce. Adjacent
properties within the UGA are designatecl Residential, Low Density, adjacent properties outside
the UGA are designated Rural Residential 1. Inclusion of this site into the UGA and
redesignation to Residential, Low Density would not create an incompatibility of land uses.
The subject property has frontage along Moses Lalce, which, in this location has a shoreline
designation of Rural.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Conunissiouers
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
20
Although no written comments were submitted, a number of surrounding property owners
inquired about the proposal and the road access to the site. Based on neighbor comments there
appear to be questions surrounding the legal access for this site, and those issues will be
addressed prior to or at the time a project application is submitted to the County for review.
In the 2007 amendment cycle, the County and City received a number of applications for
amendments to the UGA in the North Point area, many of those applications were not forwarded
to the Planning Commission for consideration at this time, however they are now pending
applications for the 2008 cycle. The City identified a significant number of lots available for infill
development within the corporate limits at their City Council hearing for the proposed
amendments. Although there are potential areas for in�ll within the current corporate limits and
development of these areas within the City is ongoing, the City must also consider areas for its
future growth. Recognizing the pattern of growth on the west side of Moses Lalce, the City
Council approved a nuinber of applications in the North Point area, the Tucicer application being
one of them.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on December 13, 2007
regarding this proposal. Neither the applicant nor an appointed representative was present at the
Planning Commission hearing, however, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval
of the proposed amendment. No significant issues were discussed by the Planning Commission
relative to this proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recoinmendation to approve the proposed Moses Lake UGA Amendment and Land Use
Re-designation of approximately 10.5-acres f�rom "Rural Residential 1" to "Residential, Low
Density".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve this request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-designation and
inclusion of the site in the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area.
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lalce to include parcel 12-1656-000.
2) Redesignate parcel 12-1656-000 from Rural Residential 1 to Residential, Low Density.
The Board of County Coinmissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woacl�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land usa designation;
3. The change zs 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 imrnediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change �loes have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, wzll �aot result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed Uy other property owners in the
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
21
vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signi�cant adverse iinpacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4884 ASPI Group, Inc.
Land Use Designation change from Rural Residential l to Residential, Low Density
and inclusion of the property in the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
LOCATION:
The subject area is located at the northwest intersection of Road 5 NE and Road E NE in a
portion of Section 2, Township 19 N., Range 27 E.W.M., (parcel # 16-1358-000, 16-1714-000).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation and a UGA boundary change to include approximately 320 acres of a 640
acre parcel fronl "Rural Residential 1" to "Urban Residential, Low Density",
The subject site is not adjacent to the existing UGA boundary for the City of Moses Lalce.
Adjacent properties within the UGA are designated Residential, Low Density, adjacent properties
outside the UGA are designated Rural Residential 1. As mentioned previously in this staff report,
there are a number of applications thati were deemed incomplete and thus not considered for the
2007 amendment cycle. The North Point application and the Schiffner 320 application are two of
the applications that were held over to the 2008 cycle, these two applications, if approved, would
or will create the requirement for adjacency for the ASPI application.
The subject property has frontage along Moses La1ce, which, in this location has a shoreline
designation of Rural pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program.
In the 2007 amendinent cycle, the County and City received a number of applications for
amendments to the UGA in the North Point area, many of those applications were not forwarded
to the Planning Commission for consideration at this time, however they are now pending
applications for the 2008 cycle, The City identified a significant number of lots available for infill
development within the corporate limits at tiheir City Council hearing for the proposed
amendments. Although there are potential areas for infill within the current corporate limits and
development of these areas withii� the City is ongoing, the City must also consider areas for its
futttre growth. Recognizing the pattern of growth on the west side of Moses Lalce, the City
Council approved a nuinber of applications in the North Point area, the ASPI application being
one of them.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
22
The Planning Commissiozi cond�.icted an open record public hearing on December 13, 2007
regarding this proposal, At their hearing, the Planning Commission considered the unique
circumstances sun�ounding the 2007 UGA amendments for the City of Moses Lalce and voted to
recommend approval of ASPI application contingent upon the approval North Pointe Holdings
LLC and Schiffner 320 applications in the 2008 cycle which are needed to establish the adjacency
to the UGA for the ASPT application. If the North Pointe Holdings LLC and Schiffner 320
application are denied the ASPI approval will be considered null and void.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recornmendation to approve the proposed Moses Lake UGA Amendment and Land Use
Re-designation of approximately 320-acres from "Rural Residential 1" to "Residential, Low
Density" with one condition of approval,
DECISION:
The Board of County Comrnissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve with conditions this request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation and inclusion of the site in the Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area:
1) Amend the UGA of Moses Lalce to include parcels 16-1358-000 and16-1714�000.
2) Redesignate parcels 16-1358-000 and 16-1714-000 from Rural Residential 1 to
Residential, Low Density.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Because the site is not adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area boundary for the
City of Moses Lalce, approval of the UGA amendment and site-speci�c redesignation
is contingent upon the inclusion of the North Pointe LLC (07-4894) and the Schiffner
320 (07-4892) sites in during the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment application
cycle. If during the 2008 cycle the North Pointe Holdings and Schiffner 320
applications are denied, then the ASPI site is removed from the UGA and reverts
bacic to its previous land use designation of Rural Residential 1.
The Board of County Coznmissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subj ect property;
5. The change does have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group ofproperty 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 wl�ich
justify different designations;
7. The bene�ts of the change will outweigh any signi�cant adverse impacts of the
change;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Cotmnissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amend�nents
23
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4901 Jeromy and Rosario McKean
Land Use Designation change from Residential, Low Density to Commercia�
(Urban) within the Moses Lake Urban Growth Area.
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 Ottmar Road NE and Valley Road NE,
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive P1an Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation of approximately 2,05 acres from "Residential Low Density" to "Urban
Commercial". The applicant has not identified a proposed use at the site; however, wish to
develop the property as a commercial development that will be consistent with nearby
commercial properties. The applicant believes that this site, as a commercial site, will support the
future urban growth of the area, specifically the Cascade Valley area.
Properties to the north and west are designated Residential, Low Density, properties to the south
(across Valley Road NE) are designated Residential, High Density, and the properties to the east
are designated Commercial,
This portion of Cascade Valley along Valley Road contains a number of commercial pxoperties
interspersed with the existing residential uses. In 2005, Grant County approved a similar
redesignation to the one proposed in this application for Steve Adair, just west of the subject site.
These commercial areas may provide for necessary neighborhood level commercial services to
the Cascade Valley community.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on December 13, 2007
regarding this proposal. The Planning Commission identified a nuinber of other similar requests
in the area that have been approved since 2000 and concluded that the application materials
supported the redesignation of the site to Urban Commercial.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed Land Use Re-designation of approximately 2,05-
acres from "Residential, Low Density" to "Urban Commercial",
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
24
1) Redesignate parcels 12-0585-000, 12-0589-000 from Residential, Low Density to Urban
Commercial.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change tivill 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 iznpacts 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 �loes comply with all other applicaUle criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4882 Grant County Public Works Department
Comprehensive Plan Text amendment to include new goals and policies to identify
and establish transportation corridors.
LOCATION:
The proposed text amendment would apply to the entire area of Grant County.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a Text Amendment to Grant County's
Coinprehensive Plan including, pages 5-28 of the Land Use Element and 8-34 of the
Transportation Elernent, The proposed policy additions will allow the County to identify
necessary transportation corridors and account for those corridors when malcing land use
decisions within the identi�ed corridor areas. Additional implementing language will need to be
included in the Unified Development Code as well. After discussing the amendment with Public
Worlcs, it has been determined that additional review of the UDC amendment is required in order
to malce certain the proposed text is adequate and is included in the appropriate portion of the
code.
The proposed amendrnent to Goal LU-3 should not be included in Policy LU-3.3 in staff's
opinion, as that policy relates to sub-area plans. The specific language proposed may instead
malce more sense to be included as a bullet itein in Policy LU-3.2, which addresses the County's
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
25
need to assess transportation needs in relation to the anticipated growth and in malcing land use
decisions. Also, the proposed amendment to Goal T-4 may be more appropriate to include as a
ne policy under Goal T-6,
Although no speci�c language relating to the Hiawatha route is proposed at this time, the
impetus behind this Comprehensive Plan amendment is the Hiawatha —SR-17 corridor, also
lrnown as the "Maewatha Road", identified in the application materials. This corridor represents
a joint transportation planning effort between Grant County, the City of Moses Lalce, and the
Quadco Regional Transportation Planning Organization. The project will lilcely require
Washington State involvement and funding given the scope of the project, and the intent that a
portion, if not all, of this corridor will become a State Highway in the future.
It should be made clear that the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to a11ow the County
to identify necessary road corridors and require the consideration of those corridors when malcing
land use decisions in the future, The aznendment will support code language to be draft in the
near future that will provide for specific requirements of any proposed development that may
have an impact on or be impacted by the proposed corridor.
Project-s�ecific impacts of the Maewatha Corridor will be assessed through the permitting
process to establish that corridor, which will include environmental review and additional
opportunities for public involvement.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on December 13, 2007
regarding this proposal, The Planning Commission did not discuss the proposed route of the
Maewatha corridor that was discussed in the application because the proposed goals and policies
will not establish the route, and the Planning Commission does not have any authority to approve
or deny a transportation corridor. The Maewatha route will need to be included in the 6-Year
Transportation Improvement Plan and adopted into the comprehensive plan when appropriate to
do so.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Comrnissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Comprehensive Plan text
amendinent.
1) Add new Policy LU 3.2 `Bstablish and pz�eserve future and planned transportation
corridors. Provisions should be made in future land use actions to achieve this goaL"
2) Add new Goal T-6 "The County should establish and preserve future and planned
transportation corridors. Provisions and requirements should be made in future land use
actions to achieve this goal by identifying the routes and establishing or acquiring rights-
of way."
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
26
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations 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 �loes have merit for the community as a whole;
6, The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change wzll 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 �loes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
File 07-4913 Avila Land LLC
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resoarce (Irrigated) to Rural
Residential l.
LOCATION:
The subject property is identified as Farm Unit 161 Blocic 40 and lies north of the City of Moses
Lalce on the east side of RD K NE, just north of Road 6 N�; and is a portion of S 36, T 20 N, R
28 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel #'s 19-0328-000)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-speciFic land use re-designation of approximately
163-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1". The applicant correctly
identifies that the criteria used for the designation of the site as Agricultural is the same criteria
required to consider its de-designation, however, it is also necessary to consider whether the
property is capable of being farmed, and in its current state, the site is used for agricultural
production. The subject site contains multiple soil classifications and types, and does include
areas of Prime Farmland pursuant to the Soil Survey of Grant County. The site is an irrigated
farm unit within th� Columbia Basin Project, and the site is included in the Current Use tax
program with the Grant County Assessor.
The adjacent properties to the north and east are designated Agricult�iral Resource and the
properties to the west and south, are dasignated Rural Residential2 and Rural Residential 1
respectively. It is important to note that the property to the north of the subject site is currently
utilized as a state fish hatcheiy, and the property to the east, although designated Agriculture is
not currently in agricultural production. The encroachment of rural development on this area
indicates that the "long term commercial significance" of the agricultural use at the site is
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
27
potentially limited, Surrounding rural development consists of single-fainily residential lots
ranging from 1 to 5 acres in size.
With the signi�cant number of residential uses around the site, redesignation to rural residential
would not lilcely result in incompatible land uses being established adjacent to one another.
PLANIVING CONIIVIISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 13, 2007. The
Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the proposed redesignation.
Planning Commisszon member and vice chairman of the Commission, Dale Wallcer voted in
opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Wallcer's concerns were based on the conversion of
agricultural lands and the encroachment of residential development into the agricultural areas of
the County
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Cominission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 163-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted uuanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation.
1) Redesignate parcel 19-0328-000 from Agricultural Resource to Rural Residential 1.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woul�l benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is wa�-anted 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 ar property in the iinmediate vicinity of
the suUject 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 signi�cant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change �loes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners does �nd that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classification and Designation Criteria for the
Attachment B
Declsions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Conunissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
28
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Tertn Comznercial
Significance,
11. The Board of County Coinmissioners rloes not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Cornmissioners does not find that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (A�) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) �loes have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4912 Doug Lalcman, et.al.
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Master
Planned Resort.
LOCATION:
Just south of the Potholes Reservoir across SR 262 from tihe Potholes State Parlc; and is a portion
of S 18, T 17 N, R 28 �, WM, Grant County, WA.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a request for a MPR land use designation and approval of the
associated Master Plan in 2006, which was approved by the Grant County Board of County
Commissioners. This amendment will include an additiona121 acres into the MPR for the
purposes of providing on-site sewer treatnnent for the MPR. The applicant proposes to establish a
driving range over the sewage treatment area as well as an outdoor storage area.
The County's Comprehensive Plan states that the intent of the MPR 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 talce
advantage of the area's scenic and natural amenities. Provisions will be made in the clevelopment
regulations of the County that provide for the review and approval with conditions of master
planned resorts." (1999 Comp. Plan pg. SRU-21), Also, 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 accorninodations
associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor reereational activities," (1999
Coinp. Plan pg. SRU-20)
The County's Comprehensive Plan contemplates the location of destination resorts in the
rural areas of the County on five (5) conditions: 1) The county's comprehensive plan identifies
policies to guide the development of master planned resorts; 2) The comprehensive plan and
development regulations include restrictions that preelude new urban or suburban land uses in the
vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas designated as UGAs; 3) The County includes
a finding in the plan approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term
importance, for the master planned resort than for commercial agricultural production, if the
resort is located on land designated as an agricultural resource; 4) Critical areas are protected; and
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
29
5) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are considered and mitigated. (1999 Comp. Plan, pg.
5-14) Also, the Comprehensive Plan specifies the allowance of MPR in the County as Goal, "It is
the policy of Grant County to allow the development of fully integrated destination resort at
appropriate locations within the County to promote tourism and talce advantage of the area's
scenic and natural amenities." (1999 Comp. Plan, pg. SRU-35)
I�i the Resource Lands Sub-Element of the County's 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 re-designation of approximately 21-acres of
Agricultural Resource Lands (Irrigated) to Master Planned Resort 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 use designations, and 4) availability of irrigation
water, A checldist specifying all the criteria used for the evaluation and which criteria were and
were not met can be found file #06-4580 (2006 amandment application).
In review of the Agricultural Resource Lands criteria it appears that in 1999 when Grant
County adopted its Comprehensive Plan that portion of the subject area designated Agricultural
Resource (Irrigated), 1) was in the Agricultural Current Use property tax classification, 2)
minimally 50% of the soils were Class IV soils, 3) did abut agricultural resource lands on at least
one side, and 4) the subject area was a portion Farm Unit designated for receiving water from the
Columbia Basin Irrigation Project; thus, the subject area did meet the criteria for designation as
Agricultural Resource Lands (Irrigated).
In review of the application material, the developer states that adjacent densities in areas
designated Rural Community and the presence of the Potholes State Parlc support the de-
designation of the Agricultural Resource Lands, Also, that the property was incorrectly
designated Agricultural Resource in 1999 because the land is "not productive farm land for
anything but range vegetation."
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Cominission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 13, 2007. No
signi�cant issues were discussed by the Planning Commission relating to this proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 21-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Master Planned Resort" with one
condition of approval.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recomrnendation of the
Planning Coinmission to approve with conditions the following request for a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation:
1) Redesignate a portion of parce121-0038-000 from Agricultural Resource to Master
Planned Resort.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1) The applicant shall purchase the property within one year of the date of this decision.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Conunissioneis
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
30
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change woulrl 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 wiCl not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change �loes have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater
privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties themselves which
justify different designations;
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signit"icant 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 applicaUle criteria and standards of Chapter
25,12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Coini�issioners does find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classi�cation and Designation Criteria for �he
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Tenn Commercial
Significance.
11, The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Commissioners �oes rzot �nd that the property has long-term
cominercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) tloes not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial production, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) �loes have the possibility for more intense uses.
13. The Board of County Commissioners does �nd that the Unified Development Code
requirements, including Right-to-Farm regulations and notifieation 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.
File 07-4908 Willard and Sherry Lange
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Rural
Remote.
LOCATION:
The subject property lies approximately 2 miles east of Dodson Road on South Frontage Road
West and is a portion of S 35, T 19 N, R 26 E, WM, Grant County, WA. (parcel # 16-0556-000,
16-0569-000, 16-0568-000)
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
31
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of approximately
210-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural remote". The applicant has indicated that due
to soil types and lacic of water, there is no potential for long-term commercially signiiicant
farming at this site.
The adjacent properties in all directions are designated Agricultural Resource. Surrounding
property sizes range froin approximately 2 acres to 640 acres, The subject site and the
surrounding areas are not farm units within the boundaries of the Columbia Basin Project service
area, rather are in the Blacic Sands Dis�rict, and are not expected to receive irrigation waters, The
subject property is not within the current use tax program. The soils found at the site are
classified as Type IV under irrigated conditions, and are not considered to be prime farmlands.
The adjacent properties to the south and east are federal or state lands with public hunting and
fishing access, and some agricultural production (parcel to the east). The existing designation of
Agriculture is not supported by the requirements of designating agricultural lands pursuant to the
Grant County Comprehensive Plan and the Crrowth Management Act.
Based on the surrounding development pattern and parcels sizes, development of this site at
densities allowed under the Rura1 Reinote designation are not anticipated to create an
incompatibility of uses in the area.
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 Rural Remote,
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record publie hearing on December 13, 2007. No
signi�cant issues were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has Forwarded this proposal to tha Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 210-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Remote",
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation:
1) Redesignate parcels 16-0556-000, 16-0569-000, 16-056$-000 from Agricultural
Resource to Rural Reinote.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Coinprehensive Plan.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendrrzents
32
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change rloes have merit for the community as a whole;
6. The change, if granted, will taot 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 �loes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioner does �nd 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.
11. The Board of County Commissioners does not �nd that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Commissioners does �zot �nd that the property has long-term
coznmercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does �ot have good soil
composition for long-term commercial produetion, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4910 Stahl Trust
Land Use Designation chance from Agricultural Resource (Irrig�ted) to Rural
Residential l.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located approximately 3 miles east of Dodson Road and is on the south
side of South Frontage Road West; and is a portion of S 31, T 19 N, R 27 E, WM, Grant County,
WA. (parcel #'s 16-1590-000, 16-1591-011, 16-1591-001)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of approximately
610-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1", The applicant has stated that
the basis for this request is that there is "an increased need of developable property within the
RR1 designation and to malce better use of the property".
The surrounding properties to the west, east, and south are all designated Agricultural Resource
and the properties to the north, across I-90, are designated Agricultural Resource, however,
properties adjacent to the northeast are designated Rural Residential 1. This area is characterized
by a mix of differing lot sizes ranging from approximately 2 acres to 640 acres.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
33
The subject site is included in the Current Use tax program, and a portion of the site (parcel 16-
1590-000) is or has been farmed in recent years. The site is not located within the Columbia
Basin Irrigation Project boundaries and does not appear to be eligible for Project water. Soils on
the site have been identifiecl as Class N soils under irrigated conditions.
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 Rural Residential 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing on December 13, 2007. The
Planning Commission voted 6 to 1(Dale Wallcer voted in opposition) to recommend approval of
the application with the conditions that; 1) Future development of the site must be clustered
pursuant to the Unified Development Code in order to preserve the existing irrigated agricultural
use of the site, and 2) The maximum allowable density of the site will be ldu/Sacres.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Coininission has forwarded this proposal to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation to approve the proposed site-specific land use redesignation of
approximately 610-acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural Residential 1".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimoasly to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve with conditions (as modified by the Board) the following
request for a Site Speciiic Land Use Re-designation.
1) Redesignate parcel 16-1590-000, 16-1591-001, 16-1591-001 from Agricultural Resource
to Rural Residential 1.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1) Future development of the suUject site shall Ue designed such that it is consistent with the
clustering requirements in the Grant County Unii"ied Development Code in effect at the
time the future subdivision application is submitted to Grant County for review and
subsequently deemed technically complete.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The clzange would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3, The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations 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;
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Coirunissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendtnents
34
7� The bene�ts of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change rloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards oF Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners rloes find that pursuant to the requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive P1an, an analysis has been
completed utilizing the required Classi�cation and Designation Criteria for the
identification of Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance.
11. The Board of County Commissioners �loes not �nd that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production,
12. The Board of County Commissioners rloes not �nd that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) �loes not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) �loes not have good soil
composition for long-term commercial produetion, (4) is located in close proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intense uses.
File 07-4900 Bearing Sea 344 (Vic Jansen)
Land Use Designation change from Rural Remote to Industrial (Rural).
LOCATION:
The subject area is located in a portion of S 30, T 20 N, R 28 E, WM, Grant County, WA., near
the southern-most inteisection of Neppel Road and Highway 17.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Sita Specific Land
Use Re-designation of approximately 200 acres from "Rural Remote" to "Rural Industrial".
Properties to the north, south and west are designatied "Rural Residential 1" and "Rural Remote";
properties to the east are within the UGA of Moses Lalce and are designated as "Port of Moses
Lake".
The applicant has identif"ied a potential tenant at the site that is dependant on the airport and the
infrastructizre supporting the airport. The applicant believes that this site is not appropriately
designated Rural Remote, a residential designation allowing 1DU/20AC, given its close
proximity to the airport, Staff's response is that because the site was not included in the UGA,
and the site is not agricultural land, the most appropriate designation available to the County at
this titne is Rural Remote, this designation will ensure that development in the area is limited to
development at rural scale, with limited residential capacity that will reduce the potential to
establish incompatible uses adjacent to one another, such as residential uses and an major airport.
When designating industrial lands within unincorporated areas of the county, and outside of an
Urban Growth Area, the County inust ensure that those developn�ents are either home-based or
small scale, cottage-industries and of appropriate intensity to be located in a rural area. The
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Coirunissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
35
subject site and list of potential uses allowed at the site if designated Rural Industrial would be
more appropriately located within the Urban Growth Area. Staff recornmends that the applicant
seelc inclusion into the City of Moses Lake's UGA.
PLANNING COM1dIISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing regarding this application on
December 19, 2007. In their deliberations, the Planning Comi�ission concluded that the site
warrants a redesignation, however, they also concluded that the site may more appropriately be
located in the UGA for Moses Lalce, and conditioned their approval as such,
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Coinmission recommends approval of the Land Use Re-designation to Rural
Industrial with one condition of approval:
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall seelc inclusion into the City of Moses Lalce Urban Growth Area in the
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle.
DECISION:
The Board of County Cominassioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve with conditions (as modified by the Board) the following
request for a Site Speci�c Land Use Re-designation;
1) Redesignate that portion of parcel 17-1024-000 that axists northeast oi State Route 17
from Rural Reznote to Rural Industrial.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1) The applicant sha11 seelc inclusion into the City of Moses Lake Urban Growth Area in the
future.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of I'act;
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 Uene�ts of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
Attaclunent B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
36
8. The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change does comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25,12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners finds that the extension of Neppel Road a�d the
creation of a new interchange with Highway 17 are important to public health and
safety.
File 07-4899 Vic Jansen
Land Use Designation change from Agricultural Resource (Irrigated) to Industrial
(Rural).
LOCATION:
The subject area is located near the Wheeler Rural Community east of the City of Moses Lalce in
a portion of S 16, T 19 N, R 29 E, WM, Grant County, WA.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a Site Specific Land
Use Re-designation of approximately 40 acres from "Agricultural Resource" to "Rural
Industrial". In the application materials presented by the proponent, the applicant states that the
portions of the site subject to this request were erroneously designated as Agricultural Resource.
Properties to the north and west are located within tha City of Moses Lalce and carry an indust�ial
designation, properties to the southeast are within the LAMIRD lcnown as Wheeler and are
designated Rural Community. Properties to the south (across Wheeler Road) consist of a mix of
sites that are within the Moses Lalce UGA and designated Urban Industrial and properties outside
the UGA that are designated Agricultural Resource.
A portion of the site subject to this redesignation request is a farm unit (FU 82 Blocic 41) in the
Columbia Basin Irrigation Project. The entire site contains soils that are listed in the Soil Survey
of Grant County as Prime Farmlands and range between Class 1 and Class II soils under irrigated
conditions. The site was historieally farmed, ineluding a short time in the recent past when an
irrigation circle on an adjoining site encroached (without permission according to the applicant)
on the subject property. All farming at the site has ceased. Given the encroaching urban
clevelopment around the site, the long-term commercial significance of the sita is in question even
though the site meets the criteria for designation as Agricultural Resource Lands.
At the time that Grant County adopted its GMA compliant comprehensive plan (1999), the
County attempted to designate a number of areas throughout the County as Rural Areas of More
Intensive Development (RAIDs) pursuant to the Growth Management Act. Upon adoption two
challenges were filled with the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(EWGMHB) regarding our designation of the RAID areas. The EWGMHB found the County's
designation of the RAIDs (subsequently renamed LAMIRDs) non-coanpliant and required the
County to revisit the areas designated and modify the boundaries ("Logical Outer Boundaries"
(LOB) pursuant to the GMA) such that they complied with the delineation standards found in
RCW 36.70A. Pursuant to that directive, the County assessed each LAMIR.D area and revised
the LOB such that the site complied with the GMA. This review process required consideration
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
37
of the Plamiing Commission to recommend the necessary amendments to the LAMIRD areas to
the Board of County Commissioners. In their review, the Planning Cominission utilized a
document titled "Grant County Planning Department Rural Areas of More Intensive
Development Boundary Analysis" in malcing their recommendation on the proposed amendments
to all of the RAIDs. In January 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
recommended changes to the LAMIRDs. After final consideration by the EWGMHB, the revised
LAMIRD boundaries were found to be compliant with the GMA.
In the process of amending the LAMIl2Ds, the subject properties were removed from the Wheeler
4 LAMIRD because the County could not support their inclusion. With the removal of the
properties from the LAMIRD, the site was unable to carry the rural indus�rial designation now
sought by the applicant and they reverted back to a land use designation of Agricultural Resource
by design.
When designating industY-ial lands within unincorporated areas of the county, and outside of a
designated Urban Growth Area, the County must ensure that those developments are either home-
Uased or sinall scale, cottage-indtistries and of appropriate intensity to be located in a xural area.
Further, the Comprehensive Plan, County-Wide Planning Policies, and the Growth Management
Act prohibit the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission conducted an open-record public hearing regarding this application on
December 19, 2007. I�i their deliberations, the Planning Comrnission revisited the LAMIRD
history relative to the site and concluded that the existence of the rail spur adjacent to the site
(that has existed since long before July 1, 1991 according to the Planning Commission)
establishes suf�cient evidence that the site should be included in the Wheeler 4 LAMIRD, and
warrants a redesignation to Rural Indust�ial.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATTON:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Re-designation to Rural
Industrial.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to approve the following request for a Site Specific Land Use Re-
designation.
1) Redesignate parcels 19-0471-000, 19-0473-000, and the west half of 19-0472-000 from
Agricultural Resource to Rural Industrial.
The Board of County Commissioners establishes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted Uecause of changed circumstances or because of a need for
additional property in the proposed land use designation;
3. The change is consistent with the eriteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
38
4. The change will �zot be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property;
5. The change �'oes 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 Uenefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change;
8. The change zs consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
the requirements of GCC 22, 23, 24 and 25.
9. The change rCoes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter
25.12 UDC;
10. The Board of County Commissioners does �nd that pursuant to the requireinents 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.
11, The Board of County Commissioners �oes not find that the property is or will be
primarily devoted to agricultural production.
12. The Board of County Commissioners does not find that the property has long-term
commercial (agricultural) significance because the land: (1) does not have
productive growing capacity, (2) is not productive, (3) does not have good soil
composition for long-term cominercial production, (4) zs located in closa proximity
to population areas, and (5) does have the possibility for more intensa uses.
13. The Board of County Commissioners �nd that the subject parcels met the criteria for
inclusion in the Wheeler LAMIRD because the built environment is characterized by
developed industrial infrastructure that was present on site prior to July, 1991 and
that the industrial use of this site is consistent with the surraunding industrial uses
and wi11 not result in sprawl. These facts were not brought to the County's attention
earlier when a decision was made to remove these properties from the Wheeler
LAMIRD.
Attachment B
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Coriunissioners
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
39