My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-10-06-minutes-200pm-public-hearing
>
Meetings
>
2020
>
11. November
>
2020-11-17 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
2020-10-06-minutes-200pm-public-hearing
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2020 1:15:45 PM
Creation date
11/12/2020 1:15:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
11/17/2020
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Alpha Order
a
Item
Approve Minutes
Order
1
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
69003
Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10/06/2020 MINUTES 2 <br />illegal and should not be there. She said the last 10 years <br />residents of Easton have fought against the proposal for various <br />reasons and urged the Board to place a moratorium on the proposal. DUANA KOLOUSKOVA, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT said they supported <br />Staff’s recommendation and urged the Board to approve the request. JASON MOULTON said he owns the Moulton Lodge on Sparks Road and <br />although he is not against development in general, he does have <br />concerns with the proposal because there is not adequate egress in <br />the area. He questioned where the additional water would come from <br />and what the impacts would be to the School District due to the <br />influx of students who would be moving into the area. JENNIFER PHILLIPS expressed concerns relating to the proposal and impacts <br />from the increased amount of people in the area. JOHN JENSEN said he <br />was confused with the preliminary approval being subject to the <br />conditions of the Development Agreement because the developer has <br />failed to meet requirements which includes meeting with the Easton <br />School District and the Easton Fire Department Commissioners to <br />discuss mitigations. JOHN REEVES said due to the Coronavirus there <br />will be a lot more people tele-commuting and felt the estimated <br />increase in student population is very low. He expressed concerns <br />relating to the potential of lowering the reservoir by 80-100 more <br />feet which would affect the Easton water table. JUSTIN WEIS said <br />they’ve worked with Dean and Duana on mitigation issues over the <br />past 10 years and that if the Board had any questions, he’d be <br />available to answer them. JESSICA KARRAKER believed the <br />prediction/modeling with the School District is outdated especially <br />with COVID-19. She said there would be an influx of residents and <br />students that would be moving into the area due to the proposed <br />development. MIKE GERBER, EASTON WATER DISTRICT COMMISSIONER said <br />they submitted a significant amount of comments to County Staff and <br />those should have been forwarded to the Board. He said they were <br />committed to serving the area as it was annexed into the area. He <br />noted there has not been any contact from the Easton Ridge Land <br />Company since October when they were provided with documents. He <br />said speaking as a citizen who lives next to the area, he expressed <br />concerns relating to secondary/emergency access. NOLAN WEIS said he <br />would be available for questions if needed. He indicated they have <br />talked to different agencies in preparing their proposal. He thought <br />they might see less kids attending school due to online school <br />resulting from the Coronavirus pandemic. PATRICK DEHUFF, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE EASTON SCHOOL DISTRICT said OSPI has no idea <br />of their student population, and their School District could not <br />accommodate the number of students that would result from the <br />proposed development. He explained how the applicants presented the <br />District with a $500.00 mitigation fee, but with no rational behind <br />it as to why their impacts would be different from others. He said <br />the proposed development will push them into having single <br />classrooms versus their current multi-grade classrooms. He noted <br />they have made several calls to the County on the advice of their <br />legal counsel to discuss the future growth and they have never
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.