Stevens County Planning Commission 9:00 a.m., Thursday, October 9, 2008 Stevens County Courthouse Room S. Oak Street Colville, Washington

Transcription

1 9:00 a.m., Thursday, Stevens County Courthouse Room S. Oak Street Colville, Washington The met Thursday, in Room 215 of the Stevens County Courthouse, 215 South Oak Street, in Colville, Washington. A record of this meeting is available from the Stevens County Planning Office. Chairman Simon Abeid called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Attendance was taken. Chairman Simon Abeid, Mr. Jeb Bowell, Mr. Arne Johnson, Mr. Pete Guglielmino, Mr. Arne Johnson, Mr. Thomas Todd, Ms. Lynn Wells and Mr. Angus Williams were present. Mr. Chuck Wilson and Mr. George Renner were excused. Mr. Clay White, Land Services Director and Ms. Sarah Steiner, Secretary were also present. Five members of the public were present. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA AND REZONE REZ Chairman Abeid opened the hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ He asked Mr. Clay White for the Staff Report. Mr. White summarized the Staff Report: The applicants, James and Sharon Guinn were requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map to extend the Clayton Urban Growth Area (UGA); to change the Land Use designation from Agriculture to Business; and a Rezone of one acre parcel from Agriculture to Business. Explained that the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year, with applications submitted by June 30. The Notice of Application and Opportunity to Comment was mailed on July 30, 2008; legal notice was published on August 7 and 14, 2008; the Notice of Application and Staff Report have been published on the Land Services website; the site was posted with a Notice of Land Use Action sign. The only comment received was from the PUD stating that it was willing to provide public water and sewer to the site. He had spoken to someone at Stevens PUD and had been told the agency could accommodate Sunshine Disposal offices locating on the property. Staff believes the proposal will maintain consistency with other Comprehensive Plan elements and development regulations. The application is supported by the policies contained in the General Planning Element, specifically GP 1 and GP 2. Read through the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. All applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed amendments. The same criteria used for designating property as Resource Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance should be used to de designate it. Read the criteria. The proposed amendment more closely meets the goals objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than any relevant existing plan or code provision. Staff believes that the property more closely meets the characteristics of a Business designation than the characteristics of Long Term Agricultural Land. The Countywide Planning Policies are not applicable to this application. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act. Although no new information has been presented the Comprehensive Plan has been in effect for only 2 years and it takes time to determine how the UGAs will function in terms of land required to accommodate uses. There is a lack of Business/Industrial Land in the southern part of the County. Explained the Planning Commission options and the suggested Findings of Fact. Mr. White stated that Sunshine Disposal wants to move their operation from the Arden area to Clayton and had approached the owner regarding buying the property. Mr. White stated that the biggest issue the Commission needed to consider is the criteria to back the property out of the Resource Lands designation. Page 1 of 14

2 Mr. White presented slides of the proposed area. Chairman Abeid asked if the members had questions. Mr. Tom Todd: Asked the designation of the lands to the west of the subject property. If there was leeway in the Comprehensive Plan to move blocks of land to another designation if it was justifiable. What the designation was for Clayton. Mr. White: The lands to the south and west, as well as the John s Auto Shop parcel were designated Agriculture. The record has to be developed to support and justify changing a Land Use designation. Clayton it is one of the 5 unincorporated areas of the County designated as a UGA. Chairman Abeid asked if members of the public wished to speak. Mr. James Guinn: Using Mr. White s slides pointed out the locations of the Fairgrounds and John s Auto Shop. Explained that a water line had been installed by PUD for his property, the fairgrounds and John s. Said he wanted his property to be included in the UGA with Commercial designation. Ms. Janice Purdy: Represented the Fair Board and owns a parcel south of the fairgrounds. Neither she, nor the Fair Board had any opposition to the proposal. The proposal would be a benefit to the community. Pointed out another nearby parcel that is zoned Commercial. Did have concerns about the easement from Wallbridge Road to Highway 395. Mr. Guinn stated that Sunshine Disposal had said they would maintain the driveway. Chairman Abeid asked if Mr. Guinn had a legal easement. Mr. Guinn stated it had been purchased with the property. Chairman Abeid asked if Sunshine Disposal had spoken to WSDOT. Mr. White explained that the driveway would go to a county road, and then onto the highway. He explained that if and when the new owner applies for permits the WSDOT would comment at that time. Chairman Abeid closed the public comment period. Chairman Abeid asked if members had any questions. He added that the proposal seemed a good reason for the change and the change would benefit the Clayton community and Stevens County. Mr. Angus Williams agreed. Ms. Lynn Wells moved that the Planning Commission approve CPA and re designate the parcel with the following General Findings 1 through 7 as printed on page 8 of the Staff Report. Mr. Arne Johnson seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion followed concerning how the motions should be presented. Mr. Pete Guglielmino made a motion to approve Rezone REZ Mr. Tom Todd seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Chair Abeid: Specific Findings of Fact for CPA : 1. The Planning Commission finds that CPA and REZ do meet requirements for Planning Commission review of Type 5 proposals as listed in SCC : Page 2 of 14

3 i. The proposed extension of the Clayton UGA, Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment does maintain consistency with other plan elements of development regulations; ii. All applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment; iii. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map more closely meets the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than any relevant existing plan or code provision; iv. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. v. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act; and vi. New information is available that was not considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan vii. was adopted that changes underlying assumptions and supports the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff findings in Section D of this report as Planning Commission findings. 2. The Planning Commission finds the additional land designated as Business is necessary in the Clayton UGA. 3. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 4. The Planning Commission recommends approval of CPA The property is located adjacent to the Clayton UGA along Hwy The Stevens PUD has indicated that they will provide future water and sewer service to the property for a future business use. 7. The Guinn property and other properties on the South side of the Highway currently have water and sewer service provided by the Stevens PUD. 8. The property is not located in the flood plain. 9. The property is not taxed as agricultural land or enrolled in an agricultural conservation program. 10. There are currently non agricultural uses located on the South side of the Highway including an automobile repair facility and the Clayton Fairgrounds. These uses border the Guinn property. Ms. Lynn Wells suggested that Stevens be added in front of PUD in numbers 6 and 7. Specific Findings for REZ : 1. The Planning Commission finds that this proposal does meet proposal requirements as listed in SCC The Planning Commission finds further that: i. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Sub area Plan where applicable; ii. Environmental impacts associated with the use can be adequately mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions; iii. Adequate services and facilities, including transportation facilities will be available to serve the range of uses in the proposed zoning classification; iv. The proposed reclassification is warranted because of a change in circumstances, or because of a demonstrated need for additional land within the proposed zoning classification, or because the proposed classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; v. The reclassification does not reflect special treatment of the subject property; and vi. The reclassification would promote the general health safety and welfare of the community. 2. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff finding in Section D of this report. 3. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 4. The Planning Commission recommends approval of REZ The approval of this rezone will ensure consistency between the Future Land Use Man and the Zoning Map. Mr. Tom Todd moved to include the General and Specific Findings for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and the Specific Findings for Rezone REZ as justification for approval of CPA and REZ Ms. Lynn Wells volunteered to send corrections of the typographical errors contained in the Staff Report to Mr. White. Chairman Abeid closed the Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ BREAK 10:10 TO 10:20 A.M. Page 3 of 14

4 Chairman Abeid called the meeting back to order at 10:20 a.m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA AND REZONE REZ Chairman Abeid opened the hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ He asked Mr. Clay White for a staff report Mr. White: The applicants, Colter Ridge Properties, Inc and Forest Capital Partners, LLC were requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map to change the Land Use designation from Forest to Rural; and a Rezone on parcel numbers and , totaling approximately 320 acres from Forest to Rural 5. Explained that the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year, with applications submitted by June 30. The Notice of Application and Opportunity to Comment was mailed on July 30, 2008; legal notice was published on August 7 and 14, 2008; the Notice of Application and Staff Report have been published on the Land Services website; the site was posted with a Notice of Land Use Action sign. No public comments were received. Staff believes the proposal will maintain consistency with other Comprehensive Plan elements and development regulations. Staff analysis in item 2 indicates that the parcel does not appear to meet all of the criteria for being designated as Forest Land of Long Term Commercial Significance. Read through the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. All applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed amendments. The same criteria used for designating property as Resource Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance should be used to de designate it. The applicant has provided a detailed analysis in their application. Read the criteria. The property is located near two high density lake areas and a highly used county road and state highway. The property is not small, does not have jagged or confusing boundaries, and the parcels are not split. The proposed amendment more closely meets the goals objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than any relevant existing plan or code provision. Staff believes that the property more closely meets the characteristics for a Rural designation than the characteristics of Long Term Forest Land. The Countywide Planning Policies are not applicable to this application. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act. The application provides new, detailed information about the ability to use the property as Long Term Forest Land. Detailed information was not provided for this specific site or was not available during the Comprehensive Plan process. Explained the Planning Commission options and the suggested Findings of Fact. Mr. White used slides to show the location of the properties and surrounding area. Members: Asked what was between the subject property and Highway 395. Pointed out that the application referred to a 50 year estimate before the site could be harvested, and stated that most areas look at an 80 to 100 year turnaround. Asked how many 5 acre parcels in that area that were not built on, and if there was really a need for more 5 acre parcels. Mr. Pete Guglielmino pointed out that the market would answer whether more 5 acre parcels were needed, but there seemed to be more demand for 5 acre parcels than for Forest Land. Discussed the need for the word all under 1(ii) in the Specific Findings for CAP Asked if on site septic and wells would be used if the area were developed into 5 acre parcels. Mr. White: Stated that there were 5 acre parcels to the South and 20 acre parcels along Grouse Creek Road. Stated that the rezone would only allow the applicants to apply for a subdivision, it did not guarantee any subdivision approval. Said the language was taken directly from the code. Said the lots would be served by on site septic and wells. Chairman Abeid asked if the proponents wished to address the Commission. Page 4 of 14

5 Mr. Bill Grimes, Studio Cascade: Is a Consultant for Colter Ridge Properties Colter Ridge and Forest Capital acquired the property in Forest Capital has done intensive analysis on the parcel. The area in question is a very populated area, and it makes sense to change the designation to RA 5. Mr. Bob Anderson, Forest Capital: The land was acquired from Boise Cascade. Boise harvested the timber 15 to 20 years ago. Using Mr. White s slides, pointed out areas on the parcel where trespassing has taken place. Stated that out of 270,000 acres, this parcel was the only one thus far identified as an area good for re designation to RA 5. Members: Had questions concerning the ownership and possible development of areas around Kettle Falls that were once owned by Boise Cascade. Asked who owned the parcels to the north of the subject parcel Asked whose idea it was for the parcel to be put into RA 5 Pointed out that there were larger parcels on the other 2 sides of the property. Asked if the Planning Commission could recommend R 10 Mr. Anderson: Said the area around the Kettle Falls dump was owned by Boise Cascade. Replied that the area north of the parcel was the beginning of the Buck Creek drainage, and it was patrolled by the DNR. Stated that the decision to rezone to RA 5 was because there were 5 acre parcels on 2 sides. Mr. Clay White: Stated the area contained a variety of rural zones. Said the proponents would have to meet the criteria before the property could be divided into 5 acre parcels. Said a recommendation for a RA 10 zoning designation would be discussed with legal counsel, and all the information would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) before they held their hearing. Chairman Abeid asked if there were any other public comment. He closed the public comment period. Chairman Abeid asked if members had any comments. Members: Stated that because the parcel sets next to 5 acre parcels the change seemed reasonable. The designation does not guarantee that the proponents will be allowed to subdivide into 5 acre parcels. Said the decision to divide into 5 acre parcels would be market driven. Had concerns that changing this designation would set a precedent; the Planning Commission would be almost obligated to change similar properties. If the State sells the neighboring property, there would be no reason to deny any new owner a request to rezone. Other members expressed that this application presents unique circumstances and any future application would be based upon its own merits. Had concerns about the hydrology criteria. Asked if there was any information from previous studies. Asked if there was any information on the flow of underground water. Stated that making this would be a big change for the area s zoning map. Stated that one of the criteria for designating the Resource Lands was the tax designation at the time the Comprehensive Plan was written. The reason for zoning in Stevens County was to get the County into compliance with the Growth Management Act. There will be many situations such as this Asked how many acres Colter Ridge owned. Page 5 of 14

6 Asked if this parcel was the only land they were going to rezone. Mr. Clay White: Stated that the availability of water might be a bigger issue in a different area Said that a subdivision application would address water availability. Ms. Wells asked if the Planning Commission would grant every rezone request. Mr. Bowell pointed out that the Commission would look at each on an individual basis. Mr. Bob Anderson: Stated the company owned 270,000 acres in northeast Washington. The bulk of the property is on mountaintops. He has tried to identify lands that were not good for timber. This parcel is the only one they have identified at this time that should be re designated, but there may be more in future. Gave examples of parcels that have been sold to neighbors. Stated that the goal of Colter Ridge is to have a long term tree farm. Chairman Abeid asked if members had any other questions or comments. There were none. Mr. Tom Todd made a motion that the Planning Commission approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ and incorporate the General Findings from the Staff Report. Mr. Pete Guglielmino seconded. Motion passed 6 yes, one abstention (Mr. Johnson). Chairman Abeid read through the Specific Findings for CPA and REZ Specific Findings for CPA The Planning Commission finds that CPA does meet requirements for Planning Commission review of Type 5 proposals as listed in SCC : i. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment does maintain consistency with other plan elements or development regulations. ii. Applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment; iii. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map more closely meets the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than any relevant existing plan or code provision; iv. The County wide Planning Policies are not applicable to this application. v. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act; and vi. New information is available that was not considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted that changes underlying assumptions and supports the proposed amendment. vii. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff findings in Section D of this report as Planning Commission findings. 2. The property is near the Loon Lake LAMIRD. 3. The property is located near two highly populated recreational lakes, Deer and Loon Lake. 4. The property is located adjacent to North Deer Lake Road, Grouse Creek Road, and Agar Roads, highly traveled County Roads. 5. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 6. The Planning Commission recommends approval of CPA Specific Findings for REZ : 1. The Planning Commission finds that this proposal does meet proposal requirements as listed in SCC The Planning Commission finds further that: i. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Sub area Plan where applicable; ii. Environmental impacts associated with the use can be adequately mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions; iii. Adequate services and facilities, including transportation facilities will be available to serve the range of uses in the proposed zoning classification; Page 6 of 14

7 iv. The proposed reclassification is warranted because of a change in circumstances, or because of a demonstrated need for additional land within the proposed zoning classification, or because the proposed classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; v. The reclassification does not reflect special treatment of the subject property; and vi. The reclassification would promote the general health safety and welfare of the community. 2. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff finding in Section D of this report. 3. The approval of this rezone will ensure consistency between the Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. 4. Rural 5 zoning is consistent with policy RU 11 and SCC (B)(1)(a) for inclusion into the Rural 5 Zone. 5. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 6. The Planning Commission recommends approval of REZ Mr. Arne Johnson: Said the word all in 1(ii) in the Specific Finding for CPA bothered him. Mr. White explained that the all covered any element, such as the Natural Resource or Rural element that might apply to the application. Members stated they did not believe it was necessary and asked that All be removed so 1(ii) begins with the word Applicable. Members discussed number 1(iii) under Specific Findings for REZ Mr. Arne Johnson recommended that number 4 under the Specific Findings for CPA include Grouse Creek Road and Agar Road. Number 4 will read: The property is located adjacent to North Deer Lake Road, Grouse Creek Road and Agar Road, highly traveled County roads. Mr. Tom Todd made a motion to include the Specific Findings for CPA and REZ in the Planning Commission s Findings of Fact for approval of CPA and REZ Ms. Lynn Wells seconded. Mr. Pete Guglielmino called for the question. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Abeid closed the hearing on CPA and REZ He adjourned the meeting for lunch. 11:40 12:30 LUNCH BREAK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA AND REZONE REZ Chairman Abeid called the meeting back to order at 12:30 p.m. He opened the hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ He asked Mr. White for the Staff Report. Mr. White: The applicants, Peter and Donna Glanville filed for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change the Land Use designation of 20.4 acres from Forest to Rural. The applicants applied for a rezone application to change the zoning of the property from Forest to Rural 5. The property is located on the east side of State highway 25 north, and south of Clugston Onion Creek Road in Section 28, Township 39 North, Range 39 East, W.M. Explained that the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year, with applications submitted by June 30. The Notice of Application and Opportunity to Comment was mailed on July 30, 2008; legal notice was published on August 7 and 14, 2008; the Notice of Application and Staff Report have been published on the Land Services website. One comment letter was received from Carlos Weber objecting to the further subdivision of the property, and advising that the property posting had fallen down. The Land Services office contacted the applicants and the sign was re posted. Page 7 of 14

8 Staff believes the proposal will maintain consistency with other Comprehensive Plan elements and development regulations. Staff analysis in item 2 indicates that the parcel does not appear to meet all of the criteria for being designated as Forest Land of Long Term Commercial Significance. Read through the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. All applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed amendments. The same criteria used for designating property as Resource Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance should be used to de designate it. The applicant has provided a detailed analysis in their application. Read the criteria. Staff believes that the property more closely meets the characteristics of a Rural Area designation than the characteristics of Long Term Agricultural Land. The Countywide Planning Policies are not applicable to this application. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act. The applicant has provided new information that was not considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Staff believed that the information clearly demonstrates this land should be designated Rural. Explained the Planning Commission options and the suggested Findings of Fact. Showed slides depicting the property. Chairman Abeid asked if members had any questions. Mr. Tom Todd stated that the properties to the north and south of the parcel could not be sold separately. He said he did not believe the property should have been zoned Forest Land. Ms. Lynn Wells asked if there were any houses on the adjoining property. Chairman Abeid asked for public comment. Mrs. Donna Glanville stated that there was one house across the road. Chairman Abeid asked if there was any further public comment. There was none. He closed the public comment period. Chairman Abeid asked if members had any further questions or comments. There were none. Mr. Pete Guglielmino moved that the Planning Commission approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ and include the General Findings of the Staff Report in the Planning Commission s Findings of Fact. Ms. Lynn Wells seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Abeid read the Specific Findings for CPA and REZ Specific Findings for CPA The Planning Commission finds that CPA does meet requirements for Planning Commission review of Type 5 proposals as listed in SCC : i. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment does maintain consistency with other plan elements or development regulations. ii. Applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment; iii. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map more closely meets the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than any relevant existing plan or code provision; iv. The Countywide Planning Policies are not applicable to this application.. v. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act; and vi. New information is available that was not considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted that changes underlying assumptions and supports the proposed amendment. vii. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff findings in Section D of this report as Planning Commission findings. 2. The DNR land grade and operability class are Grad 6, Operability 2 and Grade 7, Operability 2, which are not optimal for Forest Land of Long Term Commercial Significance. 3. The property is near the Marble LAMIRD which could impinge or detract from use of the property a Forest Land. Page 8 of 14

9 4. The property is approximately 20 acres and has two homes currently located on it. As described in the application, it is used as a home site for the Glanville family and various farming activities. 5. The property is not taxed as forest land or timber land. 6. The property is not being used as Forest Land. The property has very few trees on it. 7. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 8. The Planning Commission recommends approval of CPA Specific Findings for REZ The Planning Commission finds that this proposal does meet proposal requirements as listed in SCC The Planning Commission finds further that: i. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Sub area Plan where applicable; ii. Environmental impacts associated with the use can be adequately mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions; iii. Adequate services and facilities, including transportation facilities will be available to serve the range of uses in the proposed zoning classification; iv. The proposed reclassification is warranted because of a change in circumstances, or because of a demonstrated need for additional land within the proposed zoning classification, or because the proposed classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; v. The reclassification does not reflect special treatment of the subject property; and vi. The reclassification would promote the general health safety and welfare of the community. 2. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff finding in Section D of this report. 3. Rural 5 Zoning is consistent with policy RU011 and SCC (B)(1)(a) for inclusion into the Rural 5 zone. 4. The approval of this rezone will ensure consistency between the Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. 5. Rural 5 zoning is consistent with policy RU 11 and SCC (B)(1)(a) for inclusion into the Rural 5 Zone. 6. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 7. The Planning Commission recommends approval of REZ Ms. Lynn Wells asked that the word All in 1(ii) on page 7, be removed. Other members agreed. Chairman Abeid asked if there were other comments or questions. Mr. Tom Todd made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the General Findings as well as the Specific Findings for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and the Specific Findings for Rezone REZ and incorporate them into the Findings of Fact for approval of CPA and REZ Mr. Pete Guglielmino seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Abeid closed the Hearing. Discussion followed concerning the taxation of parcels being removed from Forest and Agricultural Lands. Mr. White stated that the representatives from the City of Colville were not yet present to discuss the next item on the agenda. Chairman Abeid tabled Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA Chairman Abeid opened the hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA He asked Mr. White for the Staff Report. Mr. White: Explained that for consistency purposes Stevens County was proposing a number of text and policy changes to the Stevens County Comprehensive Plan Read through the proposed changes on pages 1, 2 and 3 of the staff report. o Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan the County has adopted Fire Mitigation and Multi Hazard Mitigation Plans. o Adding policies to support those plans will aid the County in getting pre and post disaster monies. o WRIA information can be used to assist the County when writing regulations Page 9 of 14

10 o The County is assisting the Stevens PUD in planning sewer systems in the UGAs to plan for the required urban government services. o The County is proposing Administrative changes to the Comprehensive Plan to clean up the tables. The Notice of Application and Opportunity to Comment was mailed on July 30, 2008; legal notice was published on August 7 and 14, 2008; the Notice of Application and Staff Report have been published on the Land Services website. The only public comment has been from CTED acknowledging receipt of the application. The proposed amendment and any related proposals maintain consistency with other plan elements or development regulations. All applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed amendments; The proposed amendments are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act New information is available that was not considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted that changes underlying assumptions and supports the proposed amendment. He explained the Planning Commission Options. Members had questions concerning the time line for adding a sewer system to the Lake Spokane UGA. Mr. White stated it takes a long time to do a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Mr. Bowell: Asked what Lake Spokane would be designated if it lost the UGA designation. Asked when the designations would be reassessed. Mr. White: Stated that Lake Spokane would be designated as a LAMIRD. The land uses would be reassessed the next time the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Chairman Abeid asked if there were any public comment. Mr. Wes McCart: WRIA 59 board member Consultant for water storage to WRIA 54. Spoke in favor of the changes to include all of the WRIAs. Chairman Abeid asked if there were any more public comments. There were none. He asked if members had any questions or comments. Ms. Lynn Wells said she supported Mr. McCart s comments. Ms. Wells moved to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Arne Johnson seconded. Motion passed; 6 ayes, 1 no (Mr. Angus Williams). Chairman Abeid read the Suggested Findings of Fact for CPA : 1. Stevens County submitted a complete application to the Stevens County Land Services, Planning Division for CPA on June 24, A Notice of Complete Application and Opportunity to Comment was mailed on July 30, 2008 to required agencies, interested parties and service providers. The comment period extended from July 30 th to the close of the open record hearing on. 3. Legal notice for the Notice of Application was published in the Chewelah Independent on August 7 and 14, An Open Record Hearing was held by the Planning Commission on to consider this matter. Testimony was taken from those persons present who wished to be heard. The Planning Commission also finds that due notice of this public hearing has been given as required by law, and the necessary inquiry has been made into the public interest. 5. The Planning Commission considered all written and oral comments received on this application in making their recommendation on this application. 6. The land Services Department has complied with SCC3.30 and regarding the GMA public participation process for Type 5 proposals. Page 10 of 14

11 7. The Planning Commission finds that this proposal does meet requirements for Planning Commission Review of Type 5 proposals as listed in SCC The Planning Commission finds further that: i. The proposed Comprehensive Plan text and policy amendment do maintain consistency with other plan elements or development regulations; ii. Applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed amendments. iii. The proposed amendments more closely meets the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than any relevant existing plan or code provision; iv. The proposed amendment is consistent with the countywide Planning Policies; v. The proposed amendment complies wit the Growth Management Act; vi. New information is available that was not considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted that changes underlying assumptions and supports the proposed amendment. vii. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff findings in Section D of this report as Planning Commission findings; 8. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 9. The Planning Commission recommends approval of CPA Mr. Arne Johnson moved that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as stated in support of adoption of CPA Ms. Lynn Wells seconded. Motion passed 6 yes, 1 no (Mr. Angus Williams.) Chairman Simon Abeid closed the hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA Break 1:35 1:45 p.m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA AND REZONE REZ Chairman Simon Abeid opened the hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ He asked Mr. White for the staff report. Mr. White: The City of Colville filed for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to include 1.84 acres of a acre parcel with the Colville Urban Growth Area (UGA) and to change the Land Use designation of the property from Agricultural to Business. The City of Colville also applied for a rezone application to change the zoning of the property from Agricultural to Business. The property is located west of State Highway 395 in the NE1/4 of the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 16, Township 35 North, Range 39 East, W.M. The proposals were received by Stevens County on June 30, 2008 and met the docketing deadline for the 2008 review. A Notice of Application and Opportunity to Comment was mailed on July 30, 2008 to required agencies, interested parties and service providers. Legal notice was published in the Chewelah Independent August 7 and 14, Comments for Planning Commission consideration will be accepted until the Planning Commission closes the open record hearing on October 9. Public Comments will be accepted until the close of the BOCC hearing. The Notice of Application and Staff Report have been posted on the Land Services website. The site was posted with a Notice of Land Use Action sign. A SEPA Review will be completed after the Planning Commission Hearing, but before the BOCC takes action. One comment has been received from Mr. Dan Hopp, stating that he had no objection to the proposal. Read and summarized pages 2 and 3 of the Staff Report. The Land Services Department has recommended approval of both applications. Showed slides of the parcel and surrounding area. Chairman Abeid opened the hearing for public comments. Mr. Jim Lipensky, Director of City of Colville Building and Planning Department: The City picked the least environmentally sensitive area of the parcel. The proposal complies with the city s Comprehensive Plan and Policies. Page 11 of 14

12 Mr. Jeff McClenanan, representative of the Big R Store: The property will be used for displaying cattle and fencing supplies. Members: Will access to the property be from the highway? Will an existing access be used? Have any applications been sent to WSDOT? Will the City have to change its Comprehensive Plan? Mr. McClenanan responded: The access is still to be determined. The contact with WSDOT has been verbal only. Mr. Lipensky stated that the City would update its Comprehensive Plan and include this parcel once it passes. Mr. White stated that if the proposal is approved, the City could do a 20 acre exemption and then Big R could do a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA). Mr. Tom Todd: Asked if it was possible to annex only a portion of the parcel. Asked if a one acre parcel could be created without addressing utilities. Asked if the property would go on the tax rolls once it is annexed and sold. Mr. Lipensky: Given the options, it would be possible to make a 1.84 acre parcel saleable. The purpose of changing the designation is so the parcel can be annexed. Mr. White stated that once the Segregation and BLA are completed, the parcel could be sold, and would then be separately saleable. It could also be annexed at that time. In answer to a question Mr. Lipensky stated that the rest of the parcel is leased for grazing and used for storm water drainage. He added that if the truck route is extended the parcel would be needed. Mr. White stated that because this proposal needed to be done quickly, it was decided that this option created the least risk. He said that the Critical Areas puts constraints on the whole 60 acre parcel, but it would be possible to do a Boundary Line Adjustment for the 1.84 acres and that area contains few environmental concerns.. Mr. Todd asked if there would be a problem with having split zoning on the parcel. Mr. White stated that split zoning is never optimal, but if necessary, it can be done. Chairman Abeid asked if there were any more questions or comments. There were none. Mr. Tom Todd made a motion to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA and Rezone REZ Ms. Lynn Wells seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Abeid read the General Findings and the Specific Findings for CPA and REZ Specific Findings for CPA The Planning Commission finds that CPA does meet requirements for Planning Commission review of Type 5 proposals as listed in SCC : i. The proposed extension of the Colville UGA, Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment does maintain consistency with other plan elements of development regulations; ii. Applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment; iii. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map more closely meets the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than any relevant existing plan or code provision; iv. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. Page 12 of 14

13 v. The proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Act; and vi. New information is available that was not considered at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted that changes underlying assumptions and supports the proposed amendment. vii. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff findings in Section D of this report as Planning Commission findings. 2. The property is currently not being used for agricultural purposes. The property in question does not contain Class 1, 2 or 3 soils. 3. The property is adjacent to the City of Colville. The area around this property is characterized by Urban Growth. 4. The inclusion of the property into the Colville UGA would support an existing business in the City of Colville. 5. The property is not taxed as agricultural land or enrolled in an agricultural conservation program. 6. The proposed use of the property is supported by adequate public facilities and services as provided for by the City of Colville. 7. Any future development of the property will have to comply with the Stevens County Critical Areas Ordinance and/or the City of Colville s Critical Areas Ordinance in addition to other local, state or federal regulations. 8. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 9. The Planning Commission recommends approval of CPA Specific Findings for REZ The Planning Commission finds that this proposal does meet proposal requirements as listed in SCC The Planning Commission finds further that: i. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Sub area Plan where applicable; ii. Environmental impacts associated with the use can be adequately mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions; iii. Adequate services and facilities, including transportation facilities will be available to serve the range of uses in the proposed zoning classification; iv. The proposed reclassification is warranted because of a change in circumstances, or because of a demonstrated need for additional land within the proposed zoning classification, or because the proposed classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; v. The reclassification does not reflect special treatment of the subject property; and vi. The reclassification would promote the general health safety and welfare of the community. vii. The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the Land Services staff finding in Section D of this report. 2. Business zoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the definition of Business Zone as contained in SCC (D)(1). 3. The approval of this rezone will ensure consistency between the Future Land Use Man and the Zoning Map 4. The Planning Commission finds that additional conditions are not necessary to protect the public s interest. 5. The Planning Commission recommends approval of REZ Ms. Lynn Wells moved to approve the General Findings and The Specific Findings of CPA and REZ Mr. Todd seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Abeid closed the hearing. Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m... Page 13 of 14

14 . Page 14 of 14