Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Marian Meadows Rezone and Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 <br />residents making trips to the larger commercial center of Ellensburg approximately 30 miles to the east. <br />In order for a local grocery store to be practical, it would need to serve the larger areas of Snoqualmie <br />Pass to Cle Elum, as well as the smaller towns such as Roslyn and resort developments such as Suncadia. <br />It is unlikely that this location could compete with alternative sites in Cle Elum or Roslyn’s Suncadia, <br />given the latter location is near a larger population and resort center. <br />If commercial development occurred in the immediate vicinity, it is more likely to be oriented to the high <br />volumes of traffic passing by on I-90 or provide the types of items found in a convenience store. <br />12. What are the likely cumulative impacts with development of nearby land at densities <br />similar to the proposal? <br />If Alternatives 1 or 2 PUD were approved for this property, it could provide the precedent for similar <br />development of other properties in the vicinity. The potential for subdivision of existing lots based on the <br />average of one unit per acre was analyzed based on existing lot sizes according to Kittitas County <br />Assessor’s records as shown in Figure 3-7. If properties in the vicinity were developed at the same <br />intensity as the applicant’s PUD proposal, an additional 546 lots could be developed (this includes <br />80 existing developed and vacant lots). Cumulative development impacts are briefly outlined below. <br /> Alternatives 1 and 2 PUDs would result in a total of about 990 single-family lots in the area <br />(including the 443 lots included in PUD alternatives). The majority of the area would be in lot sizes <br />of 1 acre or more, but the largest number of lots would be smaller than 1 acre with the Marian <br />Meadows development contributing about 45 percent of the total lots. The lots within the <br />development would be smaller than the average in the area and Alternative 2 would contain the only <br />multi-family development in the area. <br />Other alternatives would not be at the bonus density at up to 3 times the base density allowed by PUD <br />provisions and would not provide the precedent for similar development of other properties at densities <br />higher than one unit per 3 acres in in the vicinity. The potential number of lots and population is provided <br />in Table 3-3 for comparison only. <br />Depending on the proportion of full-time versus part-time residences and the proportion of retirees, a FTE <br />population was calculated with an average household size of 3.25 for full-time seasonal occupancy and a <br />household size of 2.1 for retired residents. Seasonal FTE population was based on occupancy of units <br />about a quarter of the time as outlined above. Under the various tenure scenarios the project vicinity <br />could vary in FTE population from 2,630 to about 1,200. During peak weekend periods, the maximum <br />population could be occasionally expected, regardless of the mix of full-time and seasonal occupants.