|
SUBMITTED VIA ONLINE COMMENT FORM 3/1/2026 Comment #005
<br /> AVAILABLE ON THE PROJECT WEBSITE
<br /> Part Two: (KittitasCounty2026.com)
<br /> 7. USE THE RIGHT PROCESS FOR THE RIGHT PROPOSAL
<br /> The subarea plan should make clear that a variance is not the appropriate mechanism for approving development that exceeds Type
<br /> 3 LAMIRD dimensional standards. A variance addresses minor deviations in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. It
<br /> is not a tool for authorizing development at a fundamentally different scale or intensity than what the zoning allows.
<br /> Recommended subarea plan language: "Any proposed development that exceeds the dimensional standards established in KCC
<br /> 17.15.070 for rural General Commercial zoning shall not be processed as a variance. Proposals that would fundamentally alter the
<br /> character, scale, or intensity of land use shall be evaluated as a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone, subject to full public
<br /> participation, environmental review, and policy analysis as required by the Growth Management Act."
<br /> 8. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED SUBAREA PLAN ADDITIONS
<br /> I respectfully request that the Easton Subarea Plan be updated to include the following provisions:
<br /> 4.Restate the binding dimensional limits from KCC 17.15.070 (30,000 sq ft total area,4,000 sq ft retail, 33% impervious surface) as
<br /> hard caps that cannot be exceeded through variance.
<br /> 5.Require documented proof of prior commercial occupancy through historical aerial photography and county records before any
<br /> Type 3 LAMIRD development is approved.
<br /> 6.Mandate verified critical areas review cross-referenced against County CARA maps and Group A Wellhead Protection Area maps
<br /> for every development application.
<br /> 7.Require mitigation sequencing and Best Available Science for all proposals within or within 200 feet of a Critical Aquifer Recharge
<br /> Area.
<br /> 8.Require compatibility review for proposals adjacent to DNR resource lands and the Easton State Airport, consistent with
<br /> Comprehensive Plan Policies T-P44 and RR-P2.
<br /> 9.Prohibit strip commercial development patterns along highway corridors, consistent with GMA and Comprehensive Plan policy.
<br /> 10.Direct over-scale proposals to the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone process, not variance,to ensure adequate public
<br /> participation and environmental review.
<br /> 9. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE EASTON SUBAREA PLAN
<br /> In addition to the Type 3 LAMIRD development standards addressed above, I am submitting the following comments on other
<br /> sections of the Easton Subarea Plan. These comments address gaps in the plan's treatment of housing, economic development,
<br /> wastewater infrastructure, and wildfire mitigation, areas where the plan needs stronger, more actionable language to serve this
<br /> community.
<br /> 9.1 Housing:The Plan Must Be Specific About Affordable and Workforce Housing
<br /> The Housing section of the Subarea Plan (Section 3) acknowledges that Easton's population is aging,that renter-occupied units
<br /> have declined by 55%, and that the community has expressed strong interest in affordable housing for young families and first-time
<br /> buyers. However,the plan's goals and policies remain too general to produce results. The plan references"affordable housing
<br /> options" and"property improvements"without defining what affordable means in the Easton context,without identifying specific
<br /> housing types, and without committing to measurable targets.
<br /> The community's own comments are specific:they want starter homes, affordable single-family homes for first-time buyers, ADUs on
<br /> R-5 lots, and protections against outside investment driving up prices. The plan should match that specificity. I recommend the
<br /> following additions:
<br /> a. Define"affordable housing" in the plan using a standard benchmark: housing that costs no more than 30%of the area median
<br /> household income.The plan should state this threshold explicitly so that future policy decisions can be measured against it.
<br /> b. Include workforce housing as a distinct category. Workforce housing serves the people who work in the community, teachers,fire
<br /> district staff, service workers, school employees but cannot afford to live here. The plan should explicitly commit to creating housing
<br /> options for households earning between 60%and 120% of area median income.
<br /> c. Set a measurable housing target. Based on the plan's own data showing 408 residents and an aging population, the community
<br /> should set a goal of 20-40 new affordable and workforce housing units within ten years within the Type 1 LAMIRD, tied to
<br /> wastewater infrastructure capacity (see Section 9.3 below).
<br /> d. Add short-term rental protections. Community members specifically raised concerns about outside investors driving up prices and
<br /> short-term rentals overtaking housing stock.The plan should include policy language directing the county to regulate or limit
<br /> short-term rentals within the LAMIRD to protect the community's housing supply for full-time residents.
<br /> e. Identify specific grant programs for affordable housing development in the recommended actions, including the Washington
<br /> Housing Trust Fund, USDA Multi-Family Housing Direct Loans (up to$50M for rural communities under 35,000 population), and
<br /> HUD Community Development Block Grants through Washington Commerce.
<br /> 9.2 Economic Development:The Plan Needs a Market Analysis and Actionable Strategy
<br /> The Economic Development section (Section 4) identifies community desire for revitalization of Railroad Street and small local
<br /> businesses. It proposes walking tours,vision boards, and consulting with railroad operators as recommended actions. While
<br /> community engagement is valuable,these actions alone will not generate jobs, attract businesses, or close the service gaps
<br /> residents have identified. Walking tours and vision boards are process steps, not economic development outcomes.
<br /> The plan contains no market analysis. There is no assessment of what types of businesses are financially viable in a community of
<br /> 408 residents with seasonal recreational traffic.There is no estimate of consumer demand,visitor spending capture, or revenue
<br /> potential for the types of businesses residents want (coffee shops, restaurants,gear rental, small retail). Without this analysis, the
<br /> plan is asking the community to pursue economic development without knowing what the market will support.
<br /> I recommend the following additions to the Economic Development section:
<br />
|