Subject 1:
I understand that there is a proposal by a developer (Webb) on the west side of the City shed property on NW Spring St.
Is this true? If you recall, NW Spring St. is a steep and busy collector street with poor visibility and is not up to state fire code. This has got to be a concern to citizens, especially in the light of cumulative effects of the developers (Melby's) alleged plans to develop on the north side of the street as well.
Subject 2:
Where is the Comprehensive Plans??
According to RCW 36.70A.130 subsection 4(d), Klickitat County and all the cities in Klickitat County are required to complete a review and evaluation of their comprehensive plan and development regulations no later than December 1, 2007 and every 7 years thereafter. Only those counties and cities complying with RCW 36.70A.130 will be able to receive grants, loans, pledges, or financial guarantees.
Thanks,
Squeaky
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Developer Proposal for West Side of City Shed Property on NW Spring St.?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Squeaky,
1. The WS Council agenda shows an application with an 'intent to annex', not a request to subdivide. In fact, the property is already divided into 4 one-acre or more lots.
2. The Dec. 2007 date applies to those counties that participate in the state's Growth Management Act planning - Klickitat County is one of ten that does not.
Okay, so Mike Wellman says there is a shortage of water. Yet, the White Salmon City Council is considering an application by Webb to annex into the city so that he can then put as many townhomes on those lots as possible. Added traffic to NW Spring St where two cars can barely pass as it is. Those lots were divided into 1 acre parcels over 5 years ago, so they can now be subdivided again into the smallest lots the zoning will allow. And, if that zoning is 6,000 sq ft R2, you have more townhomes than you have water hookups. Just where are those water hookups coming from anyway?
Unless meters were placed on each of the (current) four lots proposed for annexation prior to the moratorium, any request for water hook-ups would require someone to put their name on the waiting list just like everyone else. Annexing property carries no guarantee of water availability.
Have the residents of Spring St. approached the County about their concerns about the street's condition? It's still a county road.
Please note from the 10/17 City Council minutes that a stipulation in considering annexing this property includes:
"The owners of the subject parcels shall be required to enter into a development agreement that specifically identifies planned development and all utility facilities and other infrastructure
necessary to serve planned development. The purpose of the agreement would be to clarify responsibility for design, installation/construction, and maintenance of facilities and to confirm
service capacity or any need for petitioner to participate in the expansion of capacity as necessary to adequately serve planned development."
Have the people of NW Spring St approached the county and city regarding the widening of NW Spring St? Absolutely Yes. The county put it far down on their 6-year plan because they don't want to fix it and then have the city annex all the properties around it and take over the fixed street. Of course, the city doesn't want the responsibility of fixing it, they only want to annex the properties for the tax money. This has been discussed in letters to the editor at the Enterprise as well as with the county and at many city council meetings. End result? It will never happen. The city will continue to annex properties without bringing the road up to code. And, the county won't fix it either.
Hi, well be sensible, well-all described
Post a Comment