My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DA-15-00001 Palomino Fields Master File
>
Meetings
>
2016
>
05. May
>
2016-05-17 2:00 PM - 2:00pm Public Hearing
>
DA-15-00001 Palomino Fields Master File
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2018 9:15:14 AM
Creation date
4/7/2018 10:52:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
5/17/2016
Meeting title
2:00pm Public Hearing
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Alpha Order
a
Item
Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Development Agreement to Allow Preliminary Plat, Palomino Fields, to Receive Final Plat Review in Five Separate Phases.
Order
1
Placement
2:00pm Public Hearing
Row ID
29616
Type
Hold Public Hearing
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
�C"5`'`Df` TOT KITTITAS COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES <br />F 9'� 411 N. Ruby St., Suite 2, Ellensburg, WA 98926 <br />CDS@CO.KITTITAS. WA.US <br />Office (509) 962-7506 <br />"Building Partnerships — Building Communities" Fax (509) 962-7682 <br />KITHTAS Coil 7Rv <br />October 8, 2015 <br />Mr. Chad Bala <br />Terra Design <br />P.O. Box 686 <br />Cie Elum, WA 98922 <br />RE: Palomino Plat (P-07-31), Suggested Development Agreement <br />Dear Mr. Bala; <br />This letter is in response to your request to review the Development Agreement proposed for the <br />phasing of the Palomino Plat granted preliminary approval in 2008 and extended this summer on June <br />15, 2015. There are a number of issues that I have with the agreement proposal that need to be <br />addressed before I would propose this to the Commissioners for their approval, several of the issues <br />related to conditions under which the SEPA threshold determination was made, the Hearing Examiner <br />recommended approval, and the Commissioner approved through resolution. <br />Before I get these specific issues, I wish to address that this proposed agreement sets a situation that <br />is more similar to Planned Unit Development (PUD) which is not how this project was submitted, <br />reviewed or approved. Many of my comments are related to this. Because this was not approved as a <br />PUD, but rather as a subdivision, the phasing would have to be similar to that common of a subdivision, <br />preferably two phases, but four (4) phases at a maximum. I can agree, because the project is of <br />significant size, that the project can be completed over a period of time. However, completing this <br />development in seventeen (17) phases over twenty (20) years is unacceptable. While I understand that <br />your client intends to only build several units each year, the final would have to be completed in as few <br />phases and in as short a time as possible. Each phase will constitute a final plat, which will require <br />work of my staff, possibly without compensation, which I am not willing to spend from my budget. I will <br />investigate the possibility of purchase of final plat processing re -imbursement within the Development <br />Agreement, but I will request the lowest number of phases in the shortest time as possible. We can <br />discuss other phasing and period of completion options at another time for the development agreement. <br />I will concentrate on other particular items within the proposal at this time. <br />• Section 5 sets design standards for the project. Height and yard restrictions are those that <br />existed in the Code at the time of plat approval. Height of any structure shall not exceed thirty- <br />five feet and setbacks are 25 feet in the front and rear yards and 15 feet for the side yards. This <br />cannot be changed since there was no declaration or approval of height or setback restrictions <br />in the decision. <br />Section 8.1 indicates that the water will be provided through a Group B system in the first phase <br />and a Group A system for the rest of the project. The recommendation and final decision states <br />that "The applicant will develop a Group A Water System for the project... approved by the <br />Washington State Department of Health. Unless we receive something from State Health which <br />is also approved through our health department that a Group B system is acceptable within the <br />project, we will have to require the installation of a Group A system. As stated within the <br />condition of approval, the group A system can be done in phases, but it will have to be a Group <br />A system. <br />COMMUNITY PLANNING • BUILDING INSPECTION • PLAN REVIEW • ADMINISTRATION • PERMIT SERVICES • CODE ENFORCEMENT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.