North Greenacres Neighborhood

Public Hearing - Feb 8, 2007 Valley Coach Estates

Public Notice Requirements RCW 58:17 - Were not followed by city

RCW 58.17.090
Notice of public hearing.


(1) Upon receipt of an application for preliminary plat approval the administrative officer charged by ordinance with responsibility for administration of regulations pertaining to platting and subdivisions shall provide public notice and set a date for a public hearing. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.110, at a minimum, notice of the hearing shall be given in the following manner:

(a) Notice shall be published not less than ten days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the county and a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the real property which is proposed to be subdivided is located; and

(b) Special notice of the hearing shall be given to adjacent landowners by any other reasonable method local authorities deem necessary. Adjacent landowners are the owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county assessor, located within three hundred feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed subdivision. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real property proposed to be subdivided, notice under this subsection (1)(b) shall be given to owners of real property located within three hundred feet of any portion of the boundaries of such adjacently located parcels of real property owned by the owner of the real property proposed to be subdivided.

(2) All hearings shall be public. All hearing notices shall include a description of the location of the proposed subdivision. The description may be in the form of either a vicinity location sketch or a written description other than a legal description.

[1995 c 347 § 426; 1981 c 293 § 5; 1974 ex.s. c 134 § 4; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 9.]

Notes:

Emails of Continuance by Hearing Examiner to Feb 8, 2007

Dear Mr. Buster:

I regret that this matter cannot be heard tomorrow. However, I believe
Section 14.A of the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure compels me to
continue this matter, regardless of who is at fault for your late
revision to the preliminary plat, and regardless of the request for
delay coming from the City Planning Division.

Thank you for your efforts regarding the modification to the posted
sign.

Sincerely,

Mike Dempsey
City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Buster [mailto:pbuster@windermere.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:09 PM
To: Dempsey, Mike
Subject: Re: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates); Order of
Continuance

Mr. Dempsey,
I will change the date on the notice tomarrow as soon as I get new
decals from the print shop. Our plans were submitted to the city
planning dept. on Sept. 14th 2006, we heard back from the planning dept.
on Jan 19th that changes had to be made. I feel strongly that the delay
you have requested is do due the planning dept delay in looking over our
orginal submittal and the root cause of us having to wait is in the
planning dept.
Sincerely, Pete Buster
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dempsey, Mike"
To: "Pete Buster"
Cc: "Micki Harnois" ; "JAMES F POLLARD"
; "Karen Kendall" ;
"Greg McCormick"
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:31 PM
Subject: RE: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates); Order of
Continuance


Dear Mr. Buster:

Thank you for your prompt response. I'm glad that you made the effort
to securely affix the posted sign when it was initially installed.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that a notice of hearing sign
has been taken down by 3rd persons, or blown down by the strong winds we
get in the Valley area.

I would like you to put a revised hearing date on the sign, which should
be for (Thursday)February 8, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. While Micki's email
indicates that there is another hearing scheduled for the same time, the
hearing examiner schedule I just received from Karen Kendall indicates
no Valley hearings on that date.

Thank you for your assistance. As I stated in my previous email, I will
go on the record tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. to formally continue the hearing
until February 8, 2007.

If you or others reply to this email, please use the "reply all" format,
since any communication I have with the parties to this matter outside
the hearing must be made known to other parties.

Sincerely,

Mike Dempsey
City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Buster [mailto:pbuster@windermere.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:16 PM
To: Dempsey, Mike
Subject: Re: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates); Order of
Continuance

Mike Dempsey,
The posted sign was securily afixed to 4x4 posts with large nails. This
sign has been removed from its post by vandals, I will have the sign
remounted today.
Sincerely, Pete Buster
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dempsey, Mike"
To: "Micki Harnois" ; "Pete Buster"

Cc: "JAMES F POLLARD" ; "Greg McCormick"
; "Busch, Leslie A."

Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates); Order of
Continuance


Dear Parties of Record:

Based on the information provided to me by Micki Harnois, I have decided
that the above matter cannot be heard tomorrow as scheduled and must be
continued to a later date.

Section 14.A of the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure provides that if
a land use application is changed but not substantially, the Hearing
Examiner shall not take action on the application until all reviewing
agencies have been given an opportunity to review the changes and make
recommendations deemed to be necessary under applicable rules and
regulations.

Pete Buster, the applicant herein, submitted a revised preliminary plat
map on January 22, 2007, which changed the access for the preliminary
plat to provide a connecition to recently constructed Sinto Avenue in
the final plat lying west of the site. The revision would allow traffic
to access Flora Road via Sinto Avenue, including traffic from Maxwell
Avenue located east of the site. The email below from Micki Harnois
indicates that the City will not be able to obtain comments from
pertinent public agencies regarding the revision to the preliminary plat
until a week from tomorrow. Under Section 14A of the Hearing Examiner
Rules of Procedure, I cannot hear the preliminary plat until these
comments are received.

Under Section 10.35.120 of the City Municipal Code, the City Planning
Division is required to file a staff report regarding a land use matter
with the Hearing Examiner, and make the report available to the public,
at least five (5) days before the scheduled hearing. In the event that
information provided by the applicant or other parties outside of City
control has not been provided if sufficient time for the staff report to
be filed timely in advance of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner may
reschedule the hearing. The staff report has not been submitted yet,
and will likely not be received until at least next Wednesday. This is
another strong basis for continuing the hearing.

I went out to the site this morning and found the posted notice of
hearing sign lying flat on the ground along the frontage of the site
with Boone Avenue. Micki Harnois advised me that she went out to the
site yesterday and found the sign propped up against a post, but not
affixed to the ground. While I accept Mr. Buster's statement that he
initially posted the sign in a timely manner, it appears he did not
securely affix the sign to the ground as required, and it has been blown
down and re-erected at least once during the posting period. This
explains why Mary Pollard did not see the sign on January 19. This is
another reason to continue the matter, to require that the sign be
modified to show a revised hearing date and posted securely on the site
until the continued hearing is held.

I agree with Mr. Buster and Micki Harnois that there is no requirement
that the notice of hearing sign be posted along Flora Road, since the
City's project processing rules require the sign to be posted adjacent
to the site along the most heavily traveled road, i.e. Boone Avenue.

I agree there is some ambiguity regarding the location of the proposal
as described on the mailed and published notice of hearing, since
neither parcel making up the site is located at 17222 East Mission.
However, County Assessor parcel information lists this address for
parcel 55182.0712 making up the site, even though 17222 E. Mission is
the mailing address for Janice Austin, who owns two parcel lying
directly north of the site, and this address is also the site address
for one of Janice Austin's parcel. I also note from my site visit that
there is a mailbox located along the north side of Boone Avenue a short
distance east of where the posted sign lay on the ground that is labeled
with an address of "17222".

Because the mailed and published notices of hearing list the correct
parcel numbers for the site, and the correct address for Parcel
55182.1148 (17303 E. Boone Road) that has nearly all the frontage of the
site along Boone Avenue, I do not find the ambiguity in the location of
one of the parcels making up the site that is stated on the notices to
be sufficient to require new mailed and published notification. An
interested person could contact the City Planning Division and easily
resolve the ambiguity.

Section 13.A authorizes the Hearing Examiner to continue a hearing for
good cause. For all the above reasons, I find that such cause exists.

I will go on the record tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. to formally continue the
matter until a date certain, which will be at least two (2) weeks from
Tuesday, January 25, 2006. I will require the applicant to promptly
revise the posted notice for the new hearing date, and securely affix
the posted sign along Boone Avenue adjacent to the site.

Sincerely,

Mike Dempsey
City Hearing Examiner


-----Original Message-----
From: Micki Harnois [mailto:mharnois@spokanevalley.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:45 PM
To: Dempsey, Mike; Pete Buster
Cc: JAMES F POLLARD; Greg McCormick
Subject: RE: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates)

Mike,

The revised preliminary plat for Valley Coach Estates was received
yesterday and will require another review by the different utilities,
the water district and the Fire Department. I will send it out tomorrow
for a week's review and then will amend my draft staff report to reflect
any additional conditions. The Spokane Valley Public Works Department
gave me their comments this afternoon. If there is a comment deadline of
January 31st for the agencies and department, then I think a new hearing
date of February 8th should be sufficient. It will give ample time for
you to receive and review the staff report with all attachments as well
as do a site visit.
The Hearing Examiner schedule shows that there is one other item to be
heard on February 8th.
Micki

-----Original Message-----
From: Dempsey, Mike [mailto:MDempsey@spokanecounty.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:43 AM
To: Pete Buster; Micki Harnois
Cc: JAMES F POLLARD
Subject: RE: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates)

Dear Parties of Record:

Micki Harnois contacted me a few minutes ago and provided me with some
additional information regarding notice for the hearing scheduled for
Thursday and the revision to the preliminary plat. I intend to formally
address the notice and continuance issues this afternoon by email.

Sincerely,

Mike Dempsey
City Hearing Examiner

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Buster [mailto:pbuster@windermere.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:14 AM
To: Micki Harnois
Cc: Dempsey, Mike
Subject: Re: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates)

Micki,
We do not feel that a continuance is necessary. Several people have set
Thursday aside for this meeting. The letter from Mary Pollard should
have no effect on this. None of her "points" are correct or valid. The
issues withing the planning department are not of our doing and can be
resolved after the public hearing. A sign was posted and I have
pictures to prove it if necessary.
See you on Thursday as planned and if possible Mr. Edmonds and I would
appreciate a quick meeting today at any time.
Sincerely, Pete Buster
----- Original Message -----
From: "Micki Harnois"
To:
Cc: "Nelson Ogren"
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: FW: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates)


Pete,
Nelson brought the revised plans in today for Valley Coach Estates. The
lot frontage measurements were changed as well as an extension of
Maxwell Avenue from the adjacent Flora Estates plat. I will be routing
the plat out today for review by the affected agencies. Since the public
hearing for this project is scheduled for this Thursday (in 3 days), I
think it appropriate to request a continuance to allow a thorough review
by agencies so there won't be any hang-ups later.
It is not a requirement to include a map with notices. The Spokane
County Assessor's records show that Parcel# 55182.0712 has an address of
17222 E Mission Avenue. The Spokane Valley Planning Division does not
have time or staff to check addresses for every project we work on. That
is why we rely heavily on parcel numbers and property owner information.
The posting notices you have given me stated that you put all signs at
the address of 17303 E Boone Ave. I suggested that "ideally" it would be
better to post them at the intersection of Boone Avenue and Flora Road
but it was not stated as a requirement to do so.
I am suggesting that we ask for a continuance of the Public Hearing
until February 8th. This will give the affected agencies 1-1/2 to 2
weeks to review the revisions.
Please let me know what you want to do. Due to the submittal I received
today, it is inevitable that we have to have a continuance.
Micki

-----Original Message-----
From: Dempsey, Mike [mailto:MDempsey@spokanecounty.org]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:34 AM
To: Micki Harnois
Cc: JAMES F POLLARD; Busch, Leslie A.
Subject: FW: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates)

Dear Ms. Harnois:

The email from Mary Pollard below, regarding the above matter, requests
a continuance of the public hearing scheduled for this Thursday, January
25, 2007; based on alleged irregularities in the notice provided for
such hearing.

Please forward this email to the applicant as soon as possible. I would
request that you and the applicant respond to the request for
continuance in writing as soon as possible, which can be by email. I
will then rule on the request prior to the hearing, if possible.

Please fax me a copy of the mailed and posted notice of hearing for this
item when you respond.

Sincerely,

Mike Dempsey
City Hearing Examiner Pro Tem

-----Original Message-----
From: JAMES F POLLARD [mailto:marjam17216@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Dempsey, Mike
Subject: Valley Coach Estates

Dear Mr. Dempsey,
I am requesting that the public hearing for Valley Coach Estates be
continued at a later date due to three things.
1. Public Notice to those within 400 ft. of the project did not receive
a map with the notice regarding the Hearing on January 25th.

2. The county has mistakenly attached 17222 E. Mission as the address
of the parcel thatis included in this development. Valley Coach Estates
Parcels should not have any address numbers since there are no homes on
these parcels. 17222 belongs to Ms. Jan Austin and she is distressed
that her neighbor would assume that she is having this done on her
property that front Mission.

3. A sign of public notice was recommended to be placed in a visible
location preferrably on the corner of Boone and Flora as suggested in
the file at Spokane Valley Planning for Valley Coach Estates. We drove
twice on Friday by the property and also checked on Boone and Flora and
there was not any sign posted for the community on the corner or at the
site. Saturday there still was not any sign during the day. This does
not meet any of the criteria for public notice.

Please readvertise since this project has been consolidated and changed
since initial application and neighbors need to receive proper notice
and full information.

Thank you,

Mary Pollard
17216 E. Baldwin Ave.
Greenacres, WA 99016

Letters of Concern Submitted to City by Adjacent Property Owner

E. 17222 Mission Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
9 Nov. 2006
509-926-8140



Micki Harnois, Associate Planner
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
509-688-0048 Fax 509-688-0037
email: mharnois@spokanevalley.org

RE: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 (Valley Coach Estates) – REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION

To Planning,

We received findings issued August 16, 2006 on the initial rezone request for 20 divided duplex lots on 4.11 acres located at 17303 E. Boone Avenue (Parcel #55182.1148) only. Now we are being presented an entirely different thing, more than twice the land size, under the same umbrella and calling it a “revision” of the original plat.

The notification that went out to property owners within 400 feet ought to be accurate as to what is being proposed and by whom. This Revised Notice of Application correctly gives Parcel #55182.1148 (aka 17303 E. Boone Ave.) but incorrectly gives Parcel #55182.1012 (an inactive, now non-existant parcel only 1.46 A in size) as site address. There is no 17222 E. Boone Ave. (If you look carefully at the map provided, it does have the correct parcel #'s for the 2 now-combined properties.)

Regarding Parcel #55182.0712: This is a property sold from the property directly north on the map (Lot 7, Bacon's Add. To Greenacres). There were some conditions written into that sale which have not been fulfilled. I have not been advised of any sale of that property since I sold, and I want it to be known that this could present a problem to the developers, whoever they might be, if not addressed first.

According to your department's requirements, applicant is required to give a detailed explanation for requesting a change in status of their proposal, answering all questions provided in the form.
1. I haven't had opportunity to examine their documents from previous hearing, but wonder if they had checked box/explained any plans for future additions, expansions or further activity re. the proposal? (The notices we received referred to it as a Consolidated application, yet the only map that was included and the only descriptions that were given pertained only to parcel #55182.1148).
2. I am totally unaware of any changed conditions of the area (since Aug. 2006) which they feel make this proposal warranted!
3. UR-7* zone change is totally unwarranted in an area which has been designated as a buffer zone from higher density housing. Particularly in a land size this large, this almost constitutes a blanket rezone. As there is no main collector road adjacent, one wonders what the “need” is for this high density housing in this particular area? Particularly since almost all the remaining large parcels in the Flora-Barker portion of North Greenacres Neighborhood have been bought up by developers already who are infilling to the max. with (supposedly) “affordable housing”.

As to the proposed (revised) preliminary plat:
1. They are asking that 18 duplex lots be situated on dead-ending roads with one only ingress/egress road with Maxwell Ave. as its only egress. This cannot possibly meet the fire department requirements, can it?
2. This would be 18 x 2.5 cars (ave.)/family x 11+ estimated trips/day (DOT figures) going through neighborhood streets. As yet, Boone Ave. is not considered a collector. Is this even rational?
3. What are the figures to demonstrate the “need” for this density of housing and of this particular type in this area, even under the guise of “mixed use” being “encouraged” (not mandated) by GMA?
4. Are you aware that the southern end of parcel 55182.0712 (that portion along the diagonal) is a gully, with quite a steep bank along the western portion. They are showing this portion to be under the south end of Bell Street and future Sharp Ave. extension. This means that that gully will have to be filled and some sort of special drainage mitigation and perhaps retaining wall will have to be built between this parcel and the parcel adjacent on the south. Is this problem explained and addressed completely in the application? It certainly isn't made apparent to anyone who may have received this notice and is unfamiliar with the lay of that parcel, as it cannot be seen from the road.
5. Why is the sewer line not shown on these maps? We were told that the sewer is gravity fed going south from Mission.

I have many more concerns about the appropriateness of this density housing, most of which have been covered in my previous written comments on previous applications filed under this proposal. Please consider them to be repeated once again as they apply to this “revised” consolidated proposal.

Thank you.


Janice Austin

Micki Harnois, Associate Planner Community Dev. Dept., Planning Div.
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
688-0048
FAX 688-0037
mharnois@spokanevalley.org

RE: REZ-16-06/SUB-03-06 VALLEY COACH ESTATES Preliminary Plat

To Whom it May Concern:

Many things about this plat are troubling. First off, this is a Consolidated project. Does this term just refer to combining the request for zone change with the request for prelim. Plat approval? Or are there other party or parties or plats cooperating with it ? (This is the only notice of platting I've received, and one could hardly make an assessment of a “consolidated project” without looking at the entire project. )

The “Coach” in Valley Coach Estates makes me wonder if these are duplexes he's applying for or are they lots for mobile homes? Is this a mobile home park? The lot dimensions and orientation certainly give that impression. Are the two uses interchangeable as per overlying zoning or are there different requirements for a mobile home park? Or, if not an actual mobile home Park, is he creating lots to sell for mobile home sites, rather than renting lots as in a Park?

There's no need for this increased density. The only UR-7* plats that have been allowed in this neighborhood were granted for PUD's only. Otherwise, the North Greenacres Neighborhood has fought to regain/retain the UR 3.5 zoning that still gives people some space “to remain human” and allow some individuality. Apparently there is not a minimal frontage requirement in the current regulations, but we're all told you supposedly want “nothing less than 10,000 sq. ' (or 4 houses/A in a 3.5 zone), but UR-7* allows a density of 6 houses/A. I believe there's a minimal lot size in UR-7, with bonuses for green space, etc. One of these lots shows @ 6053 sq. ' with 31.35 frontage feet. Wow! So much for quality of life that this area used to hold dear! What a price to pay just to cram in 2 more houses/units per acre! The land rush/developers are now finding themselves selling many of their “new starter homes” out here to speculators who have them up for rent, rather than local homeowners (who the market is purportedly for). When some have bought homes and then seen for rent signs up, they've been appalled that they had ever bought there. Are we looking to create acres of empty houses? Why not stick with the current zoning, which preserves a sense of space (therefore sanity) and build something of the quality that will entice the level of buyers he is looking for to justify his financial investment?

The map shows the south boundary set bac kan unspecified distance from Boone Ave., out of line with the adjacent properties along the Boone Ave. frontage. Up until last November, I owned the land adjoining on the west of this parcel, which had a 16.5' lane opening onto Boone. Written into my Title was a special notation “It appears that approximately 10' is being used for Boone Ave.” I find it impossible to believe that only my 16.5' frontage foot piece would be affected by that usurping of land for public use. Before any plat can be approved, it is imperative that the actual road right of way location be definitively established, as all required development setbacks need to be calculated from there, making the basis for working land for the development itself. Starting with a clean slate like this, there is really no excuse for allowing variances for this and that from Step 1. (Apparently the map you provided has some explanation of what dotted line and broken lines indicate per sidewalks, etc. but your copier effectively cut them off so they are relatively uninformative.) Apparently there are sidewalks (?) along the fronts of lots adjacent to Arc but none shown along the Boone frontage of Parcel 12. I have yet to see any other development being not required to put improvements along road frontage. Why is there special privilege here?

I've lived on the property that adjoins both the parcel undergoing this hearing as well as the entire Kricken Addition, which is partially shown to the North on the plat map being presented.* I was here when they were putting that addition in during the '80's, so I was aware of quite a bit of what was going on. At that time, the developer was required to lay in dry lines for the sewer, even though no sewer was planned out here until after 2010. I would question the accuracy of the map they are presenting here as to availability of sewer and water from the north to the property undergoing hearing. They are showing an existing 6” water main running S. all the way to the common border, yet show that no sewer line extends to it. I find that pretty difficult to believe, especially as they (without my permission) came well into my property from Kricken's to lay the sewer line, and I'm sure they encroached on the owner's property to the East unless he was more aggressively protective than I. They did the same trespass with the utilities on my property. Since they were required to run the road south from the intersection for the time that Arc became a through street south, at the time, why would Planners omit the sewer line? The sewer line they show (8”) supposedly ends in Maxwell-Arc intersection and runs only E. and W. from there. Most everyone along this section are long-term owners with acreages and no desire to sell so “Maxwell” had nothing to connect to, period! The Kricken development was totally out of place at the time, and the road setup was truly “visionary” in that all 3 dead ends there were Roads to Nowhere ...until now, apparently. But then, I suppose the barricades he was required to put in at the dead-ends were “temporary barriers” on his permit, too. (20+ years = a “temporary” condition?!? Or a ruse to get your way by technically “following the letter of the law”?)

Something isn't right here even if the sewer line down Arc doesn't extend to this parcel's North boundary. Last summer our adjacent property was for sale and this plat's present owner was interested in buying it, which was the portion I was wanting to sell. But he came back and “needed” an easement or to buy a small extra portion to give him access to Maxwell on the West, so that he'd have access to Maxwell's sewer connection off Arc's line. We weren't willing to plat it off that way. We needed to sell a portion, because of getting taxed out, after living here and loving this place for over 40 yrs. I finally located a buyer but the City Planners gave him all kinds of grief—no cul-de-sacs allowed (since changed their minds, apparently), had to be T-ends, but primarily he could NOT connect to the existing sewer lines laid in Maxwell unless he could connect them to sewer line on Flora Road, because the sewer is gravity feed south from Mission. We ended up selling far more than we'd wanted to because of all the stipulations he was having to contend with to, supposedly, make it feasible. Yet here's a plat you would consider approving simply because he can fill out a form where he can check off that it's in the 6 yr. Sewer Capital Improvement Program and just has to lay in drylines---no actual connection to any current active sewer line necessary after all, nor access to main road which appears to have at least 157' property frontage, therefore developer not obliged to lay in sewer line and improve road to his project, whereas all other developers must do so (or at least they've had to do so in this neighborhood)?! This is, at the very least, showing great inconsistency in information given out by the city. Even if it's “mandated in the regulations”, to be adding a development of this size on septics is reprehensible and irresponsible when the hue-and-cry (and taxation) is to protect the Aquifer and hook everyone up to the sewer by 2010...and the facilities are currently at capacity, with hundreds of houses already in and going in just in this neighborhood.

If you'll look closely at his map, you'll see he shows Arc. as being “existing 50' row” (I assume this is meant to be road), which seems to continue seamlessly into the applicant's plat. Yet the applicant's plat shows a “38' Row”. At minimal averages of over 10 trips/day x 2 vehicles/duplex side x 20 duplex sides (very conservative figures!!!) = 400 trips all going one-way in and out, passing through the formerly “private” 11 existing houses facing Arc, with their same averages/house...all trying to get safely onto Mission Ave. which has now become the only E-W route out of the neighborhood north of the freeway and west of Barker.

Boone is an unpaved washboard, gritty, dust-billowing, shockbuster of an unimproved road that property owners have had to take upon themselves to have oiled, at their own expense. It was only treated in some way late this Spring by the City or County because people were forced to use it when all E-W access roads other than Mission were cut off during the Barker Road widening project. Before anything is done, this road has to be taken care of! It's unconscionable to have a gravel road in an arid, heavily populated town with inherent air quality issues due to PM10's and PM2.5's. No development along this street should be allowed until that is taken care of!

I see developers literally eating up the remains of our beloved neighborhood and every one of them has had to improve the adjacent road and provide direct access to sewer, even if this means they have to run said line from a great distance away, plus improve all the overlying road to boot. Yet this plat shows Arc being continued to Boone but access blocked by a “temporary” barricade set in 14.17'. What kind of a deceptive ploy is this? How long is “temporary?” And why is it “temporary”? Why is it there at all??? The only place a temporary barricade is appropriate is when a road abuts another property that doesn't yet have a road serving it; not the case here! Furthermore, an allowance for something as vaguely defined as “temporary” has no place in a Plat approval.

He's showing a short little “temporary” turn-around between lots 10 and 11 only which appears just long enough to pull in with a car and back out and head the other direction to get out of the development. Dimensions are not specified and it could in no way meet the requirements of Fire and other emergency vehicles. Again, why the “temporary” designation in a Plat approval? Either Arc connects to Boone or it doesn't!

Are Tract A and Tract B his “green space?”

Greatly appreciate your looking at these issues.



Janice Austin
E 17222 Mission Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
9 August 2006 8:00 AM

Email us
marjam17216@msn.com