HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 12-046-CCBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. % c� �- � ``� � '" ��
A Resolution Relating to Comprehensive Planning in Grant County in
Accordance with the Washington State Growth Managernent Act (RCW
36.70 A) and amending the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and Zone Changes.
WHEREAS, in 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed
into law the Growth Management Act (GMA) as contained in SHB No 2929
(Washington Laws, 19901st Ex. Sess., Ch 17), which was subsequently codified as
among other chapters, Chapter 36.70 A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and
cities in the State to do some planning and the fastest growing counties and cities with
them, to plan extensively in keeping with state goals and policies on: sprawl reduction,
affordable housing, economic development, open space and recreation, r•egional
transportation, environmental protection, property rights, natural resource industries,
historic lands and buildings, permit processing, public facilities and services, and early
and continuous public pai�ticipation; 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, Grant County issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on July, 2, 1999;
and subsequent amendments through 2012 and;
WHEREAS, over the past years, the Comprehensive Plan's policies may have changed
to insure that the development patterns in the County remain consistent with the intent of
the communities' vision for the future and the Plan's goals and policies; and
dVHEREAS, it is important that amendments to this plan retain the broad perspectives
articulated in the community vision statements, satis�es the goals and policies of this
Plan, and remain consistent with the intent of the GMA; and
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for the Xear 2012
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
1
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes procedures for the review
and amendment of Comprehensive Plans governing counties and cities planning under
the Act; and
WHEREAS, the county has established a public participation program identifying
procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the Comprehensive Plan are
considered by the governing body of the County no more frequently than once every
year; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan fall into several major categories
or types and different review application and review criteria apply to each. The kinds of
amendments identified herein include:
• Urban Growth Area Boundary Changes;
• Plan policy or text changes;
• Plan Map changes;
• Supporting document changes; emergency amendments; and
• Site�speci�c amendments; and
WHEREAS, policy amendments may be initiated by the County or by other entities,
organizations or individuals through petition; and
WHEREAS, petitions were received on forms provided by the Department, containing
appropriate maps showing the proposed change and addressing the policy or map
evaluation criteria as described in the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, On April 17, 2012 the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to
initiate the SEPA review process and schedule each of the complete amendments
proposed, along with staff recommendations before the Planning Commission for public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted by the Planning Commission on June 27,
2012, to hear staff recommendations and take public testimony on each of the proposed
amendments to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and proposed Zone Changes;
making recommandations and listing Findings of Fact on each amendment and zone
change, and;
WI3EREAS, the Planning Commission staff reports and recommendations are made a
part of the record of this public hearing as it relates to SEPA and the attached
amendments and zone changes.
�VHEREAS, a non-project proposal to consider adoption of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, including site-specific land use designation changes and changes to
Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map, were considered, and;
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolutiov Adopting Amendments for the Year 2012
To the Graut County Comprehensive Plan
2
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 Tuesday, July 17, 2012 that was continued on the record to Monday, July 23,
2012 to consider the 2012 requests for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the
recommendation from the Planning Commission for each of the proposed amendments
and zone changes;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a closed-record public
hearing on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 that was continued on the record to Monday, July 23,
2012 to consider the 2012 requests for zone changes, and the recommendation from the
Planning Commission for each of the proposed amendments and zone changes;
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 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendments
and Zone Changes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners for Grant
County adopts Findings of Fact as per Attachment "A" in support of these actions.
PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata,
Washington, by the following vote, then signed by its membershi nd attested to by its
Clerlc in authorization of such passage this ' % day of
2012.
DATED this � day of , 2012.
Yea Nay
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Abstain GRANT COUNTY,
L�' ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
/r� INGTON
� -�---
�
Richard Stevens, Chair
Cindy Ca er, Vice Chair
(������✓2��� G'G���
� � � Carolann Swartz, Member
�
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolution Adopting Amendments for t3�e Year 2012
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plau
3
Grant County
Board of County Commissioners
Resolutiou Adopting Amendments for the Year 2012
To the Grant County Comprehensive Plan
ATTACHMENT 6LA"
GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN
AMENDMENT 2012
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section I — General Findings
l.l 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 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendment process responds to the environmental
concerns raised during the public hearing process, whole protecting property owners
from unconstitutional takings and substantive due process violations.
1.4 RCW 36.70A.020 sets for a list of 13 goals "to guide the development and adoption
of comprehensive plans and development regulations." In the amendment public
hearing process, and these findings of fact, the Planning Commission and Board of
County Commissioners considered the 13 Growth Management Goals, weighed them
as they apply to the subject matter of these findings, and has attempted to achieve a
reasoned balance among them,
Section 2 - Public Participation
2.1 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).
2.2 In accordance with Grant County Code Chapter 25.12 — Legislative Actions, the
Planning Commission held public hearings on June 27, 2012 at which time testimony
Attachment °fA"
Grant County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2012
General Findings of Fact.
was taken from interested agencies, organizations, and individual citizens, regarding
the proposed amendments and zone changes.
2.3 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 2012 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.
2.4 The existing enhanced public participation policies within Grant County ensure that
the public had an opportunity to provide meaningful comments on the proposed
amendments.
2.5 The appeal mechanisms contained within Grant County ordinances provide sufficient
due process to allow interested parties an opportunity to respond at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner.
Section 3— Criteria for Amendment Approval
3.1 A petition for a site-specific land use redesignation was reviewed for conformance
with pei�tinent provisions of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Code.
3.2In 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 rej ected an application for a change of
designation or density based on the following criteria:
(a) The change would bene�t the public health, safety, and/or welfare;
(b) The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need
for additional property in the proposed land-use designation.
(c) The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in
the Comprehensive Plan.
(d) The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity
of the subj ect property.
(e) The change has merit and value for the community as a whole
(� The change, if granted, will not result in an enclave of property owners enjoying
greater privileges and opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners
Attachment "A"
Grant County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2012
General Findings of I'act.
in the vicinity where there is not substantive difference in the properties
themselves with different designations.
(g) The benefits of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the
change
(h) The change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and the requirement s of Grant County Code Titles 22, 23, 24, and 25; and
(i) The change complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of GCC
Chapter 25.12
Section 4— Board of County Commissioners Final Recommendations
And/or Actions
4. 1 Recorded motions by the Board of County Commissioners for each proposed
amendment and Findings of Fact are listed in Attachment "B"
4.2 Recorded motions by the Board of County Commissioners for each pz'oposed zone
change and Findings of Fact are listed in Attachment "B"
4.3 Supporting Findings of Fact for each decision were identified under Section 3 as
detailed above, unless otherwise noted in the record of the Board o� County
Commissioners.
4.4 Detailed applications along with supporting documentation and staff reports are
rnade a part of this recommendation.
Attachment `�A"
Grant Coimty Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2012
General Tindings of Fact.
ATTACHMENT `B'
FINAL ACTION AlVD FIleiDINGS OF FACT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS�IONERS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
2012 AlVIENDMENTS
1) 11-5562 — Port of Royal Slope
2) 12-5668 — Port of Mattawa
3) 12-5669 — Marlc Gregson
#1. FILE NO. 11-5562
PORT OF ROYAL SLOPE
iJRBAN GROWTH BOUNARY CHANGE;
SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE
LOCATION:
The subject area is generally located approximately 1'/2 to 3 miles south of Hwy 26 between
Road E SW and F SW and adjacent to existing Port of Royal Slope property. The parcels are
located in Sections 18 & 19, Township 16 N., Range 26 E.W.M., (parcels # 16-0134-001, 16-
0131-000 & 16-0131-001)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant's have submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting a UGA boundary change
to include three parcels totaling approximately 416.22-acres within the Royal City's Urban Growth Area
Boundary (UGA) and a Site Speci�c Land Use Re-designation from "Rural Remote" to "Urban
Industrial" along with a Re-Zone changing the zoning from "Rural Remote" to "Urban Heavy Industrial".
In review of this application, staff has identified the following:
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the size of an UGA will be
determined by demand established by a population forecast, as determined by the WA Office of Financial
Management, for the required twenty-year planning period. 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 water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation, iire protection, and schools can be provided, is
compatible with contiguous development within the UGA and adjacent ru�'al and resource lands, and
development in the amended area will occur at urban densities.
As presented the application material provides analysis from Royal City supporting the expansion of
the UGA to include the proposed 416.22 acres of land for Industrial uses. The application materials
indicate that this site should be included in the UGA to accommodate the anticipaied growth of the Royal
City over the next twenty years. In considering the population projections for Royal City's UGA, the
population projections adopted during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan update indicates a 3 percent annual
increase in population during the next 20 year planning horizon. Currently the population of Roya1 City
Attachrnent "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioneis
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
1
according to the 2010 census is 2,150, Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan the population of
Royal City has grown at the rate of .35%. Currently there are no undeveloped Industrial lands within
Royal City.
Upon adoption of the Royal City UGA in 2000 there has been a decrease of industrial lands. In 2003 a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment re-designated a 66.3 acres parcel fi•om Industrial to Residential.
Currently within the UGA there exists approximately 780 acres of Industrial lands of which
approximately only 195 acres are undeveloped. The majority of the undeveloped lands are owned by the
Port of Royal Slope. The available parcels range in size from 3 to 23 acres. Also, within the submitted
application pacicage is a letter from the Grant County Economic Development outlining the tremendous
industrial growth Grant County has experiences in the last 5 years. In most of the nine depicted
companies, the primary requirement was for a large tract of land for the proposed project. The acres
required ranged from 30 acres to 130 acres. As the Royal City UGA has no large tracts of land available
they have been passed over by many companies that would otherwise consider it as a potential location.
Pursuant to the criteria for approval of a UGA amendment, urban services should be provided
within the UGA, The Port of Royal Slope has received funding of $1,400,000 from the US Dept
of Commerce — Economic Development Administration and $200,000 from Grant County to
drill a second well, thus being able to supply water. The Port also has recaived funding from the
WA State Dept. of Transportation budget to restore rail service to the Royal City area, which is
proposed to be operational by this fall. Royal City has passed an ordinance stating they have
sufficient capacity to serve the needs of the proposed UGA expansion.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RE-
DESIGNATIOleT:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on June 27, 2012. At
their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of Urban Growth Boundary
Change of Royal City, Site Speci�c re-designation from Rural Remote to Urban Heavy Industrial.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners votad unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve the following request for a Site Speciiic Land Use Re-designation.
1) The re-designation of approximately 416-acres (Parcel #16-0134-001, 16-0131-000 and 16-
0131-001) to Urban Industrial.
2) Inclusion of the parcels within the Royal City Urban Growth Area.
The Board of County Commissioners established the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional
property in the proposed land use designation.
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property.
5. The change cloes h�ve merit for the community as a whole.
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
2
6. The change, if granted, will not result in a group of property owners enjoying greater privileges and
opportunities than those enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity where there is not
substantive difference in the properties themselves which justify different designations.
7. The benefits of the change will outweigh any signi�cant adverse impacts of the change.
8. The change !s 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,
ZONE CHANGE
PLANll�ING COMMISSION SUMMAI�Y AND RECOMMENDATIOI�T
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on June 27, 2012. At
the hearing Cathy Potter, Executive Director of the Port and Port Commissioner Mianecki spoke in favor
for this proposal, The Planning Commission made a unanimous recommendation to approve the
proposed zone change from "Rural Reinote" to "Urban Heavy Industrial".
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approve.
1) A Re-zone of parcel # 16-0134-OUl, 16-0131-000 and 16-0131-001 from Rural Remote to
Urban Heavy Indusirial.
The Board of County Commissioners established the following Findings of Fact:
1) The proposed rezone will not be contrary to the intent or purposes and regulations of the Grant County
Code or the Comprehensive Plan;
2) The property in question is suitable for uses allowed under the proposed zoning district;
3) Uses allowed under the proposed zone change �rre compatible with neighboring land uses;
4) The proposed rezone can be seived by adequate facilities including access, fire protection, water,
storm-water control, and sewage disposal facilities;
5) Substantial changes tlo eacist to warrant an amendment to the current zoning district;
6) A public need cloes eacist for the proposed rezone, Public need shall mean that a valid public purpose,
for which the comprehensive plan and this chapter have been adopted, is served by the proposed
rezone.
7) The proposed rezone will not result in signiiicant adverse impacts on the human or natural
environments that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval;
8) The cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions (the total of the rezones over time or
space) will not produce signi�cant adverse effects to the environment that cannot be mitigated by
conditions of approval;
9) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the rezone will not be hazardous to existuig and
anticipated t�•affic in the neighborhood; and
10)The proposed zoning district does not include any allowable use or activity that would result in the
location of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield (RCW 36.70).
#2. File No. 12-5668
PORT DISTRICT #3 (PORT OF MATTAWA)
SITE SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board oi County Commissioners
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
3
LOCATION:
The subject area is the located just west of the City of Mattawa, parcel #s 02-1854-000 and 02-1855-000.
The parcel is bordered on the north by Rd. 24 SW and on the east by Patchee Dr. SW. Parcels are located
in a portion of S. 03, T. 14 N., R. 23E., W.M., Grant County, WA.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation consisting of two parcels.
Parce102-1854-000 is 10.92 acres and Parce102-1855-000 is 10.20 acres in size. The proposed change is
from Residential — Medium Density to Commercial. Both parcels are currently vacant and un-developed.
Based on GIS analysis, staff has determined that within the Urban Growth Area of Mattawa there are
approximately 548 acres designated as Commercial (Urban). Of those acres designated, approximately
474 acres (or 86%) are developed in some manner (in Agricultural production, "brick and mortar"
development, etc.). This leaves only 74 acres of available commercially designated land for future
development within the UGA.
The above analysis of commercial lands within the UGA shows that there is a need for additional
commercially designated lands in order to continue economic growth in the Mattawa area. Approval of
this proposal would allow the Port to continue to market Mattawa as a potential location for future
commercial development.
PLANNING COMMISSION I2ECOMMENDATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE I'LAN RE-
DESIGNATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing for this application on June 27, 2012.
At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this land use re-
designation application from Residential, Medium Density to Commercial, Urban.
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) Re-designate parcel #s 02-1854-000 �i 02-1855-000 from Residential,lVIedium Density to
Commercial, Urban.
The Board of County Commissioners established the following Findings of Fact:
1. The change would benefit the public health, safety, and or welfare;
2. The change is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional
property in the proposed land use designation.
3. The change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The change will not be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property.
5. The change does hrzve 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 oppartunities 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 signiiicant 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 cloes comply with all other applicable criteria and standards of Chapter 25.12 UDC.
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
4
ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY ANI) RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on June 27, 2012. At
the hearing no members from the public spoke for or against this proposal. Planning Commission made a
unanimous recommendation to approve the proposed Re-zone fi•om Urban Residential - 2 to Urban
Commercial -2.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approve.
1) A Re-zone of parcel #s 02-1854-000 & 02-1855-000 from Urban Residential2 to Urban
Commercial - 2
The Board of County Commissioners established the following Findings of Fact:
1) The proposed rezone will not be contrary to the intent or purposes and regulations of the Grant County
Code or the Comprehensive Plan;
2) The property in question is suitable for uses allowed under the proposed zoning district;
3) Uses allowed under the proposed zone change �zre coinpatible with neighboring land uses;
4) The proposed rezone can be served by adequate facilities including access, %re protection, water,
storm-water control, and sewage disposal facilities;
5) Substantial changes do exist to warrant an amendment to the current zoning district;
6) A public need doe�s exist for the proposed rezone. Public need shall mean that a valid public purpose,
for which the comprehensive plan and this chapter have been adopted, is served by the proposed
rezone,
7) The proposed rezone will not result in significant adverse impacts on the human or natural
environments that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval;
8) The cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions (the total of the rezones over time or
space) will not produce significant adverse effects to the environment that cannot be mitigated by
conditions of approval;
9) The pedest�•ian and vehicular traffic associated with the rezone will not be hazardous to existing and
anticipated traffic in the neighborhood; and
10)The proposed zoning district does not include any allowable use or activity that would result in the
location of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield (RCW 36.70).
#3. FILE NO. 12-5669
MARK GREGSON & VITONE TRUST
SITE SPECIFIC LAND USE REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE
LOCATION:
The proposal site is a portion of parcel #17-1406-000. The parcel is located east of Coulee City and is
just south of Rd. 36 NE and is located in a portion of S. 02, T. 24 N, R 28 E. W.M., Grant County,
Washington.
ST�iFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a request for a site-specific land use re-designation of 160 � acres from
Agricultural (Rangeland) to Rural Residential — 1. The parcel is bordered on the north by lands
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
5
designated as Rural Residential -1. Lands to the immediate west and south are designated Agriculture
(Rangeland) and lands to the east are designation Agriculture (Dryland).
This parcel is not located in an irrigated farm unit associated with the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project.
The soils on site are Strat cobbly loam and Strat stony loam, which according to the Soil Survey of Grant
County are both suitable for rangeland agricultural use.
Grant County Department of Community Development Staff inet with representatives of Mr. Gregson on
May 23, 2012. At that time Mr. Gregson's Application included all 366.5 acres of Parcel #17-1406-000.
During the May 23`d meeting Staff expressed concerns with the amount of property the application was
proposing to change from Agriculture (Rangeland) to Rural Residential — 1, the amount of undeveloped
Rural Residential — 1 land in the area, as well as the potential negative impact to agricultural practices in
the area, At that time Staff suggested that perhaps reducing the application to just include the west'/2 of
the northeast'/a of Section 02, Township 24 North, Range 28 East, W.M., approximately 80 f acres,
might be a more appropriate request. This 80 acre area is not in Agricultural production and would not
have been located directly across Rd. 36 NE fi•om the gun club. Staff feels that allocating a large amount
of residential density across from an active gun range would result in the siting of incompatible adjacent
uses, which should be avoided.
On June 18, 2012, revised application materials were submitted by Mr. Gregson's representatives
reducing the application to include just the northeast'/a of Section 2, approximately 160 t acres. Staff
feels that this reduction is not enough to avoid negative impacts to the surrounding agricultural
community, adjoining property owners, and Grant County as a whole.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RE-
DESIGNATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on June 27, 2012.
During the hearing, the applicant further reduced the application to only include 80 acres. Grant County
Planning Staff was supportive of this reduction. At their hearing the Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of this application, as was amended during the hearing.
DECISION:
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Plaruiing
Commission to approve the following request for a Site Speciiic Land Use Re-designation:
1) Re-designate an 80 acre portion of parcel #17-1406-000 from Agriculture (Rangeland) to
Rural Residential —1.
The Board of County Commissioners established 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 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 Commissioners
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
6
7. The benefits of the change widl 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.
ZONE CHANGE
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted an open record hearing for this application on June 27, 2012. At
the hearing no members of the public spolce for or against the proposaL The Planning Commission made
a unanimous recommendation to approve the proposed zone change from Agriculture (Rangeland) to
Rural Residential - 1.
DECISIOI�T:
The Board of Couuty Commissioners voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approve:
1) A Re-zone of an 80 acre portion of parcel #17-1406-000 from Agraculture to Rural
Residential - 1.
The Board of County Commissioners established the following Findings of Fact:
1) The proposed rezone will not be contrary to the intent or purposes and regulations of the Grant County
Code or the Comprehensive Plan;
2) The property in question is suitable for uses allowed under the proposed zoning district;
3) Uses allowed under the proposed zone change �cre compatible with neighboring land uses;
4) The proposed rezone can be served by adequate facilities including access, fire proiection, water,
storm-water control, and sewage disposal facilities;
5) Substantial changes do exist to warrant an amendment to the current zoning district;
6) A public need does e.xist for the proposed rezone. Public need shall mean that a valid public purpose,
for which the comprehensive plan and this chapter have been adopted, is served by the proposed
rezone.
7) The proposed rezone wall not result in significant adverse impacts on the human or natural
environments that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval;
8) The cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions (the total of the rezones over time or
space) will not produce significant adverse effects to the environment that cannot be mitigated by
conditions of approval;
9) The pedestrian and vehicular t�•affic associated with the rezone will not be hazardous to existing and
anticipated traffic in the neighborhood; and
10)The proposed zoning district does not include any allowable use or activity that would result in the
location of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield (RCW 36.70).
Attachment "B"
Decisions and Findings of Fact
Board of County Commissioners
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
7