Laserfiche WebLink
19.8 Eugene Mansel. <br />19.9 Barbara Lowrey. <br />19.10 Jason B. Moulton. <br />19.11 Terri Campbell. <br />19 .12 Cynthia McLaughlin. <br />19 .13 Barbara Davidson. <br />20. The testimony from the pubic convincingly set forth facts that the ability to travel through East Sparks <br />Road in winter months, especially after heavy snowfall, is significantly impaired. This is especially true <br />when Interstate 90 is closed westbound from Easton. Vehicles exiting the highway, including semi-tractors <br />and trailers, mistakenly believe that the East Sparks Road provides a way to either return to the freeway <br />traveling eastbound or otherwise provided sufficient space for tractors and trailers to tum around. This is <br />an existing condition that is created by occasional and irregular events. The record contains evidence that <br />the existing situation would be exacerbated by the proposed development. Traffic Engineers Northwest, <br />page 11 of the "Traffic Impact Study EIS Consistency of Traffic Impacts -Marion Meadows", dated I 0- <br />31-16, under "Conclusions" states: "To mitigate for the unlikely potential of blockage of Sparks Road <br />west of County Road, the applicant should develop and submit an alternative site access plan of one or <br />more options for County review that could be utilized by residents in the event of blockage of the primary <br />site access road (namely Sparks Road)." <br />21. Staff indicated that the four large lots created by this plat are not eligible for future division (lots 1-4, <br />Exhibit 90). <br />22. The proposal is appropriate in design, character and appearance with the goals and policies for the land use <br />designation in which the proposed use is located. <br />23. The proposed use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that <br />cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval. <br />24. The proposal will be served by adequate facilities including access, fire protection, water, storm water <br />control, and sewage disposal facilities. <br />25. Any Conclusion of Law that is more correctly a Finding of Fact is hereby incorporated as such by this <br />reference. <br />26. The Kittitas County Board of Commissioners remanded the above referenced matter to the Hearing <br />Examiner to reopen the record in order to make additional Recommended Findings of Fact regarding <br />whether the project meets the criteria set forth in KCC 17 .36.045. <br />27. The Hearing Examiner reopened the record by Order dated January 9, 2018. <br />28. Although the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners remanded this matter to the Hearing Examiner to <br />make Recommended Findings of Facts specifically related to KCC 17.36.045, the Hearing Examiner notes <br />that according to the first criteria set forth in l 7.36.045(1)(a)(i) in the evaluation of the project, the <br />decision maker must determine whether or not the PUD complies with all of the amendment criteria in <br />KCC Chapter 17 .98. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner will first review the criteria set forth in KCC <br />17.98 and then will examine the criteria set forth in KCC l 7.36.045(l)(a) and (b). <br />17