PD-17-00001 Marian Meadows Full Record with Index (2)

Home Browse Search

Marian Meadows Rezone and Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 Alternatives 2 would result in no lots being located completely or partially in the outer safety zone. Up to 27 lots would be located partially in the inner turning zone; however, building areas would be entirely outside of the ASZs. With subdivision restrictions on building within the safety zones, there would be no increase in exposure to hazards from airplane collisions with the ground within the safety zones. Alternatives 3A and 3B would result in seven lots being located completely or partially within the outer safety zone and nine lots located completely or partially within the inner turning zone. Of these 15 lots (some lots are in both zones), seven would have building areas outside the safety zones, resulting in a net increase of eight lots with future residents exposed to the higher risk from aviation accidents represented by the safety zones. The location of fewer lots in ASZ 4 and the lower density results in a much lower exposure to risk compared to Alternatives 1 or 2. Alternative 3C with 3-acre lots has fewer overall lots, at 33, in all ASZs with nine in ASZ 4 and 24 in ASZ 6. Fewer lots results in substantially lower exposure than under Alternatives 3A or 3B. Alternative 3D with 5-acre lots in all ASZs has a lower risk because of the lower number of lots, the potential building areas in ASZs 3 and 4 and the lower density. Alternatives 4 and 5, mitigation alternatives with about 147 and up to 113 lots, respectively, have a building area for all lots entirely outside of ASZs 3 and 4, which have the highest risk of accidents. The clustering of development in ASZ 5 substantially reduces the risk exposure as compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. The larger number of lots in ASZ 6 and smaller lots, however, result in a greater exposure than Alternatives 3A and 3B, which have a substantial component of their lots outside of the ASZs. With subdivision restrictions on building within the safety zones, there would be no increase in exposure to hazards from aviation accidents within the safety zones. For all the alternatives, there still remains the potential for aviation accidents outside the safety zones. Parks and Recreation Alternatives 1 and 2 recreation demand based on National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines would depend on population and would be between 8.5 and 14.3 acres of parkland for the tenure scenario with largely full-time population, and between 4.8 and 8.0 acres for the tenure scenario with 50 percent seasonal population. The proposed provision of 1.88 acres of park at three locations would not meet Kittitas County standards or NRPA guidelines. Other Alternatives would have correspondingly less demand for park acreage, depending on the number of future lots and resulting future population. For all alternatives, the lack of provision for recreation likely would result in either greater use of off-site facilities or a lack of recreational opportunities for residents. The population likely served the least would be the demand for youth sports.