DA-19-00001 Marian Meadows Development Agreement BOCC Staff Report

Home Browse Search

IR 1 fire hazard designation of the subject property; Easton Water District, Easton Fire District, and Easton School District requirements were not adequately addressed; numerous engineering requirements; and water connection information needed. Building Division and Fire Marshal review comments were provided to the applicant on October 16, 2019. A revised submittal packet in response to the County's first request for additional information was received on December 4, 2019. After review of this revised information, county staff recognized that most of the issues in the first county review letter from September 3, 2019 and subsequent Fire Marshal and Building Official review letters from October 2019 were addressed. However, the following outstanding issues still existed: • The applicant is still proposing commercial retail uses not allowed by the zone; • Commercial Forest 200 -foot setback has not been added to the Community Standards and Guidelines document; • Outside fire pit language needs to be removed from the Fire Prevention Plan; • County code citations as they relate to the building code shall sate "subject to the requirements of the current County adopted building codes including the IBC, IRC, IFC and Washington State Amendments at the time of the building permit submittal."; • ROW width shall be of sufficient width for storage of snow within the space without impacting the travel lanes pursuant to Ordinance 2018-006 condition of approval #18; • Issue with tract of land for snow storage as it doesn't comport with the conditions of approval, as mentioned above, surrounding snow storage and ownership of said tract; • Public ROW width shall be 80 -feet to accommodate snow storage; • Stormwater facilities shall not be located within public ROWs; and • The depicted 20:1 approach surface of the Easton State Airport is not sufficiently detailed (dimensionally) for an exact analysis on the location of the proposed pool and sport court as shown in submittal documents. Additional information is necessary to ensure that these uses are not placed in an area where they are restricted pursuant to the FAA land uses within runway protection zones. This was outlined in a second request for additional information and corrections letter dated January 21, 2020. On February 5, 2020, CDS received a second set of updated information in response to the request for additional information sent on January 21, 2020. Staff determined that this packet of information satisfactorily addressed all issues to the point that a Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners could take place except for two items. The two items that staff and the applicant did not agree on were the commercial uses (RV services and retail) and snow storage: The applicant argues that a DA is an appropriate process to create uses that are not allowed by county code. Additionally, the applicant argues that because these commercial retail uses were mentioned in the preliminary documents and preliminary plat which were approved through Ordinance No. 2018-006 that they are vested and allowed to have these uses. Staff's position is that Kittitas County Code (KCC) Title 17 does not allow for this type of activity in the use tables for the Rural -5 zone (KCC 17.15.060) nor is it allowed in PUDs located outside of an Urban Growth Area (KCC 17.36.020). Further, there are no conditions of approval in Ordinance 2018-006 giving approval of these proposed uses. • The other issue as mentioned above was in relation to snow storage. The applicant argues that their one - acre tract of land is sufficient to accommodate all snow storage and that it was accepted by staff and approved through Ordinance No. 2018-006 as such because it was shown on the preliminary plat. Staff's position was that condition of approval #18 requires ROW with sufficient width to allow for the storage of snow within that space without impacting the travel lanes. Originally, staff determined through calculations that 80 feet of ROW was necessary to accommodate snow storage for an average snowfall in the area. The condition as listed does not allow for a tract of land for snow storage in lieu of provided