Laserfiche WebLink
(Public hearing record) <br />19. The Kittitas County Community Development Services recommended approval of <br />this permit(s), subject to the recommended conditions of approval. (Public hearing <br />record) <br />20. Public hearing after due legal notice was held on September 23, 2010. Appearing and <br />testifying on behalf of the applicant was Chad Bela. Mr. Bela indicated that the <br />applicant objected to proposed Condition of Approval No. 33 as not conforming to <br />the requirements of the International Fire Code. Specifically, the applicant referred to <br />Section D104.3 as being in conflict with proposed Condition of Approval No. 33. <br />The Hearing Examiner would note that on Exhibit 27, Section D104 specifically <br />relates to "Commercial and Industrial Developments." (Open record public hearing <br />testimony) <br />21. The applicant also indicated that proposed Condition of Approval No. 33 was in <br />conflict with Section D107 of the International Fire Code, specifically indicating that <br />there is an exception to approved fire apparatus roads in the event that all dwelling <br />units are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system. (Public hearing <br />record) <br />22. The Hearing Examiner finds that Section D104 does not apply to this project and that <br />Section D107 may apply, depending upon whether the dwelling units do have <br />approved automatic sprinkler systems. This will have to be left to the final plat <br />approval after specifics of the project are formalized. (Public hearing record) <br />23. The applicant also provided additional testimony regarding the proposed commercial <br />use on the subject property. That commercial use is going to be restricted to the <br />existing historic barn as identified on the vicinity map and other documents supplied <br />by the applicant. The applicant states that this barn will have internal structural <br />improvements and that the barn will be utilized in the same fashion as the Teanaway <br />Grange. During the course of the hearing it was also stated by the applicant that there <br />would not be a restaurant or cafe on the property. It would be essentially utilized for <br />ag-tourism. No new commercial buildings are proposed. (Open record public <br />hearing testimony) <br />24. The Hearing Examiner indicated a concern that the potentially affected school district <br />had not been contacted to provide its comments in the event the full build -out of 65 <br />homes with the potential of school-age children residing in some or all of these <br />homes. It was agreed that the affected school district would be allowed to submit <br />additional comments, including measures to mitigate the impacts of this project on <br />Z-07-08 and LL -08-02 <br />Dunford PUD Rezone and <br />Preliminary Large Lot Subdivision <br />Page 4 of 28 <br />