HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 07-149-CC,
��
BOA.RD O�' C�UNTY COMMISSI�NEI�S
GRANT �OUNTY, WASIIINGTON
A �2.ES(JLUTION APPR�'VING AN
AM�NDNIENT TO THE PUD �SI'I`.�
ia.i� �i.v�I�u'+wl�` i TviASi. i,i� ri��i�T j and
DRAFT ENVII�ONMENTAAI.., IlVJCPACT
STATEMENT FOR llUUN� LA�t'ES Il'�
A PORTION OF SEC�`I�:►NS 3, 4, 9
AND 10, TOWNSITYtP 18 N., RANGE 28
E.W.M.,
RESOLUTI�N
NO �% � ��%-/ _" �C;C
JA.i� JACOBSEN
DUNE ZAT�S, L.I..C.
W�E]LZ�AS, the Grant County Board of County Commissioner� have been
advis�d tlaat an open record public hearing was C�I1�1?Cted �ef�rP �hP (�`,r�nt CC��1nty
Planning Commission on August l, 2007 in the matter of a request to change the
Conceptual Overall Mastex Plan for Development and to further elaborate on the genexal
use r�f the area fuz-ther identifying the nurnber and type of housing units .and ameniti�s in
an area not pzeviously identified in �k�e ariginal Master Develapment Plan approved by
boih tlae Planni;ng Commission and Board of County Comxnissioners in 1990 under �he
original z�ame of "Moses Lake Estates" located in portioz�s of Sactions 3, A, 9, and 10, of
Township 18 N., Range 28 E.W.M., sr�uth oiPelican Point and west of Potato HiII Ro.ad,
near Mases La�Ce, Washington, and;
WB[EItEAS, a draft Environm.�ntal Ixr�pact Statement has also bee� submitt�d
far the :remainder of ��e Flazaned Unit Developnnent which address�s the PLTD
comprehensively rath�r than zn phases, thereby eliminating the s�eed £ox an EIS far each
individual phase of the PUD. Suppl�mental environmental inf�armation may be
adequately addressed v,�i�h an Environmental Chec�lisr �or each projeCfi specific �hase oi
the PUD development at �:he discretion af the jurisdictzonal SEPA Respn�sible Official,
and;
WHE�2.EAS, the Board of County Comxnissioners did unaxumously approve this
Master Developm�nt Plan for development of Dune Lakes, formerly Mos�s Lake Estates
by Resolution Na. 2000-160-CC on December 18, 1990, a�d;
WHEREAS, the Grant County Board of Commissioners held a closed record
public hearing on /�/a�/p ? ; and,
Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, have reviewed the application
f�le, staffr�po�t and Planning Commission rscommendation; and,
WHEREAS, the Board o� County Cor�nmissioners have %und that the proposal
will nQt advexsely effect the k�ealth, sa£ety, and general welfare of the public in the
vicinity of the propnsal; and,
WHER�AS, the Board of Caunty Commissioners k�ave faund that the praposal is
consistent with the Grant County Camprehensive Plan, the Unii"ied Development Co�le,
other land use rsgul�tions, and SEPA; a�d,
WHER.EAS, the Boaxd of County Cammissianers has fout�d that the public use
and intexest wil� apparently be served by the amendrnez�t to the P[.JD (Conceptual Site
Developm�nt Mast�r Plan Revisian); and, .
R'HEREAS, the proposed PTJU revision (Co�ceptual Site Developmeztt Master.
Plan) does include divisions or sales of land within the approved PUD and .therefore
when submitted will require recoxding of a plat; and .
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD revisian to the (Conceptual Site Development
Ii�iaster I'lan) meets the applicabie appravat criteria af Uniiied L7evelopmen� Code,
Chapter 23.04.80Q "Planned Unit Developments" subsection (h); and,
l�Tt�`i�i', ��RE�O[t�, B� 1T H�R�13Y 1ZLS(�LVLD, �.YAi' th.e Boarc� of
Cou�ty Commissioners far Grant County, Washingt�an appraves by this l�.esolution, a
Planned Unit D�velopment Revision to the Canceptual Site Aevelapment Master Plan af
Dune Lalces, located in a portion of Section 3, 4, 9, and 1Q, Township 18 N., Range 28
E.W.M,, Grant County, Washingtan.
C�NDITIONS OF AYPROVAL
1. The Proposal shall be in compliaz�ce with, th� VVashington State Enviranmental
Policy Act, the Crrant Countq Unified Development Cade and all applicable federat,
state, and lpcal regulations, rulings or requirements.
2. Propasal shall comply with all requirements deemed necessary by the Grant County
He�lth District.
Proposal shall comply with all requiremen�s deemed necessary by the Washington
State Aepartnnent of Health, and the Washington State Department of Ecology
regarding domestic water supply, sewage systems and storm water control and
treatment including, but nat limited to; RCW 90.48.080 Dischar�� of Palluting Water
Prohibited; WAC 173�201, Surface Water Standards; WAC 173-201.A,, Ground Water
Quality Standards; and, WAC 246-272, On-Site Sewage Systems. Letter from the
Department of Heal�h dated July 1 l, 2007, states the following:
The Departme�tt of Health (DOH} approved the Pelican Point YDrater System fpr
375 connections. According to our records, the existing nurraber of connections served by
Page 2 af 7
thrs system is 301. That means that currently the system can only ac�d 74 water service
conn�ctions. Thzs is conside�ably less than the 900 plus connections rn the Durte Lakes,
LLC proposal.
If the Durre Lakes, LLC Planned Unrt Development (PUD) rntends ta have
domestic water provided by the Peliean Paint Water System, then Pelican Point must
submit a new Water Systern Plan (WSP) showing how the system wtll provide wczter to the
PUD. The WSP currently approved for the Pelican Point Water System identi�es a
service area that includes the Dune Lakes PZID. However, chan�es to the pro,posed
phased development will require a new WSP due to the stgn�cant d�erenc� in the two .
proposals and Zac1i of ,spec�city rn the existrng plan. Pelrcarn Point �teeds to schedule a
meetrng with DOH to address the appropriate level of plannzng necessar� rn order to
incorparate the addition of the Dun'e Lcrkes FU.D intn its water system. �
As a�proprrate, any water right issues wzll need to be addressed by the
,Depart�tment of Ecolvgy. -
S/b Christine Collins, Regional Planner
O, f, f'ice of Drinking Water
Drvrsion of Environmental Health
Lette�° from the Denar�tment o,�Eeolo,�y. SUokane, states the fallowin,�:
T�Tlater Qua�rty Program. -
a) Fro,�er erosion and sediment control practices must be used on the
Construction site ar�td adjacent areas to prevent uplarrd sedzments from
entering surface water. Local stormwater ordznances will provide speci�c
requirements. Also refer to the Stormwater Management Manual for Easte�n
Washington.
b) All new dry wells and ather injection wells must be registered with the
Underground Injectfan Cantrol Program (UIC) at Depcn^tment of Ecolagy
prior ta use and the discharge from the well(s) must comply tivith the ground
water qualzty requirement (non-endangerment stcrndard) at ihe tnp of the
ground wat.er table.
c) A Stormwater Follution Prevent�on Plan, f'or the projeet site may be requit�ed
And should be de��elaped by a qualzfied person(s). Erosion and sediment
control measures rn the plan must be rmplemented priar to crny clearing,
,grading, ar construction. These eontrol measures must be effective to prevent
sail from berng carried into surface ivater by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt,
artd sozl can damage aquatic habitat and are considered pallutants. The plan
must be upgraded as necessary during the construction periad.
d) Proper disposal of constructzon debris must be rn such a manner that debris
Cannot enter the natur�al stormwater draznage system or cause water �uality
degradation of surface waters, Durnpsters and refuse collection containers
shall be durable, eorrosion resistcznt, nonabsarbent, nonleaking, cmd have
close fztting covers. If spillage or leakage does occur, the waste shall be
picked up immediately and refurned to the container and the area pro,�erly
cleaned.
Page 3 of 7
e) The operator of a constructian site that disturbs one acre or more of total land
and whzch has or will have a dischar�e of stormwater ta a surface water or to
a storm sewer, must apply for coverage under Dept. of Ecology's Baseline
General Permzi for Stormwater Dis�harges Associated wzth Cartstructzon
activities.
,f� (hvners of sztes where less than one acre of total land area wzll be disturbed
must also apply zf the constr�uction acttvity is paNt of a larger plan of
devGlapment or sale i�t whrch more than one acre will eventuall.y be dzsturbed.
Discharge af stormwa%r from such sites rvithout a permit is zllegal and
su7�ject to enforcement action by the Depar�rnent of Ecalt�,�y.
g� RCW 90. ��4, 080 prohibzts the discharge of polluting matter to waters of the
State of Washing,ton Any discharge of sedrment lczden runoff or other
pallutants �o.waters af the State without a permit is in violation o, f Chapters
90. q8 of the Rerised Code of Washin�C;ton (RCI�T�), Water Podlution Control;
and 173-2OIA of the Washington Administraiive Code (WAC) YYater Qualrty
Standards for Surf'ace T�aters of the staie of Washrn�;ton and is subject to
en, f'orcement action. Even on projects that do not require a permit, the
dtschar�-e of pollutin� matter to waters of the state of Washington zs
prohibited and adequate erosion and sediment control measures should be
utilized.
Ecalogy's comments are based upon the information pravided with the SEPA
documertts. As such, t�iey do not constitute an-exhaustive list of the various
auttio�izations that must be obtained or �egal requirements that must be
, fu�lled in arder to carry out the proposed action.
Slby Terri Costello
SEPA Caordznator
Department of Ecology, Eastern Regtonal O�ce
A�. Pxapasal shall comply with all requirements of the Grant County Fire Marshal and
shall comply with the Grant County Fire Flow Guidelines, th� Uniform Building
Cade, Uni�orm Fire Code and all other a�plicable requirements �or fire prot�ctian and
life safety.
I:f any Native Am�rican Crrave site(s) ar archaeological/cultural resources (lndian
Artifacts) are disturbed by �roposed construction all construction activity shall stop
and the owne�r/concessionaire shall imrm�dzai�ly notify th� Grant County Planning
Department, the Colville Confederated Tribes, and the Wa.shington �tate Office oi
Archaeolog� and Historic Prsservation, who issues the followxng requirements:
a) We have reviewed the 1990 archaealogical repart. Because the archaeologica�
work is 17 years old, it does nat rneet current professianal standards. Tn addition,
we do not know the current status af the archaeological sites, and will need some
additianal infarrnation in order ta determi�ne if an archaealogical excavation
permit will be required per RCW 27.53 an.d WAC 25-48.
b) It is unclear wh�ther or nat there is or will be a federal permit required af this
pxoject whieh will require revi�ew per Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. If sa, the lead federal ag;ency will need to initiate consultation
with this ofiice and the affected Tribes.
Page 4 of 7
c) We do require an updated sit� candition report and site forms. These were never
comple�ted after excavations in 1990. These documants shauld be prepared by a
pro%ssional archaeologist and include field documentation af'the current status oi
th� sites, if there is fill present, their precise �ocation within th� �aatp�int oithe
proj�ct area, and an evaluation of whether or not the previously establisY�ed
protective buffer was utilized, and ii th�re have been any impacts to the site5 over
the years, Th� report should also make recommendations far current pratectiv�
and/or mitigaiion measur�s if the previous measuxes wure not adeyuat�.
d) It appears that the faunal analysis was never completed, ar, we do not have the
final version in our r.e�ords. �'he �eport and analysis shauld be campl�i;ed and the
final versio�n sent to DA�II'
e) The �rsportlsite fprm updates should specify where tlae artiiact callectian is
cuxr�ntly haused, and what the permanent curation �lar�s are.
These comments are based on the information available at the time oithis review �nd o�
behalf oithe State Historic Preservation Officer. Should add�tional inf-ormatian become
available, our. assessment may be revised. Thank you for the ppportunity ta comment on
this project and we �ook �orwaard to receiving the survey r�port.
S/b Stepheni� ]Kramer
Assistant State Archaeologist
6. The proposed Amendment to the Master Site Plan for Dune Lakes must camply with
the requirements of the Port of Moses Lake, including, but nat limited to:
a) Subject property is loGated w�thin t�e Aazport FAA Part 77 A.irspace, and
therefore requires an Avigatian Easem�nt under GCUDC, Section 23.0�.645.
Signed Easements should be returned t�a the Part for proG�ssing and recording.
7. The proposed Amendment to the Master Plan for Dune Lakes Planned Unit
De�elapment must comply with the requirements af the Grant County Public Warks
Department including, but not limited to:
a) The informatipn provided canstitutes a significant altera,tinn to the plan originally
submitted. At th�s time, Public Warl�s has na comme�ts on tlae a�nen.dr��nt itsel£
Howevear, future comments will be made as the developmez�t applicatia�as are
submitted.
The praposed amendment to the Master Plan for Dune Lakes Planned LTnit
Development must comply with the requirernents af the Washington State
Departm�nt of Txansportation.
a) Washir�gton State ]7epartment has no issues with the proposal or concerns
regarding trai�'xc impacts.
S/by Cynthia Mc Glathern
TranspartatiAz� Planner, North Central Regian
Washington State Department of Txans�ortatio�
The praposed amendment to the Overall Master P�an �or the Dune Lakes Planned
Unit T�evelopment must meet the requirements of the U.S. Bureau oiReclamatian,
includinga but not limited to:
a) Tk�e Bureau of Reclamation passes irrigatian w�ter through Moses Lake as part
Page 5 of 7
the Columbia Basin Project. This water helps dilute phosphorus leve�s in the
lak�. Urban developmer�t around the lake is suspected af de�radi�g water yuality
through tk�e introduction o� high levels of phosphorus in wastewater. Large scale
developments such as the one proposed shauld be required to connect to �
�ublicly-owned wastewater tareatment plant to assure pro�er treatment of waste.
In 2QQ4 the Washingtan State Department of Ecolo�y listed Mo�es Lake on the
303(d) list as a Categary 5 impaired water far phosphorus. The Draft
Enviranmerntal Impact Statement prepared far Dune Lal�es 1'lann�d Unit
Development states on page 24 that t�ae lake was listed in 1996 but nat in 1998.
We recommend that current data b� used %r the analysis whi�h may change the
prpposed mitigation measures for groundwater and surface water.
b) In camparisan to the expected dischar�;e at fixll development, th� Larsan
Wastewater Treatmen� Plant discharges approxima�ely 300,000 gallons of treat�d .
waste per day. The DEI� states tha,t at full development waste discharge per day
will be 3$8,000 gallons. We recbmmend that the proponent seek to obtain
information fram the City of Mases Lake �on groundwater manitoring w�lls
around th� Treatment Plant tc� determine the fate of phosphorus and its impacts on
�he upper lalce as an indicator of the potential impacts to the lower lake frqm the .
proposed devslopment. �
10. Proposed amendment to the Gvexall N1ast�r I)evelopment �Plan for T)une I.,akes shall
meet all requirements af the Grant County planning Department including, but not
limited to:
a) Comply witih all requirements listed in UDC Chapter 22.04 Articre V Final
Subdivisions and Short S�bdivisions.
b) Comply with all requirements listed in UDC C�apter 23.04 Zoning Districts,
Chapter 23.08, PerFormance and Use-Speci�c Sta�ndards, and Ck�apter 23.1�
Develapment Standards.
FiNDINGS OJC �'.A�T;
1) Does meet the applicable �requirements of UDC Chapter 23.04 "Zoning";
2) Does Gam��y with the Comprehensive Plan, the Shoreline Master Progr�m,
the zoning code and ather land use r�gulations, and SEPA;
3) Do�s comply with health requiz�ements far sewa,ge dispasal and patable water
supply;
4j Does camply with Grant �ounty and State Department of Transportation
regulations pertaining to roads, utilities, drainage, access for �mer�ency
vehicles, and ather infrastructure improvem�nts;
5) Daes function as a single site witln respect to, but not limited to, access,
interior circulation, open space, laz�dscaping, dra�n�ge fiacilities, facility
maintenance and parking;
6) Ts consistent in design, character and appearance with the gaals and policies
for the zoning district in which the proposed PLTT) is locatied;
7) The characteristics af the amendment to the PUD wi�l be reasanably
compatible with the types o£uses pexmitted in surrounding areas;
8) The proposed PUD Amendment will not create undue z�nise, adar, heat,
vibration, air or water pollution impacts on surrounding existing or potential
dwelling units;
Page 6 of 7
9) The proposed PUD Amendment will not materxally endanger the health,
saf�ty and w���axe o� the co�nmunity;
10) The proposed PLJD Amendment is such that pedestr�an and vehicular trai�'�c
assoazated with the us� will not bc h�zardous ox conflict with �xistin�g and
anticipated traffic in the local area;
1�) The applicat�on doe� includ� evidence af availability of adequate public
serv�ces and facilities, including access, fire protectian, water, storm water
contro�, and sewage disposal facxlities;
12) Th� loGatian, size and height oibuildin�s, structures, walls and fences and
scre�z�in� vegeiatior� far the pxopas�d PtJD s�all not hinder or discourage the
appropriate d�velopment or use af neighbarin� properties;
13) mhe impaGts an the longaterm �atural resource mana,�ement af adjacent lands
zaned as Agriculture and Residentxal wi�l �not be minim�zed;
14) The �irropased�PUU .Amendment daes idsntiiy and protect critical areas,
archaeolagical and historic resources; and visual and aestihetic resouxces, and
�nviranmental ca�nsidera�io�s ar� emplayed in the design, placement and �
, screening,of facilities and amenities;
] 5).:The proposed PUD Amendment wall �ot cause significant adverse impacts on
the human or natural environments �hat cannot be mitigated by conditions of
approval; and
16) The proposed land uses, activities, and structures do comply with applicabl�
deve�apmant standards o£ GCC § 23.12 and pezformance standards specified
in GCC § 23.Q8, and with any required mitigation measures.
E � +ECT�VE AATE: Upon signaiure,
DATEl� this �U da� o� � 2007.
ATTEST:
Clexk o the oa d
Yea Nay
� ❑
L�' ❑
L✓f ❑
BQATtID 4F CCIUNTY
CUMMISSIONEI2S
Abstain GRANT Ct)UNTY, WASHING7CON
� „
❑ '
Le y lison, Ch i'°
� Cindy C ex, Member
---__
� Richard Stevens, Member
Page 7 of 7