Developers’ Suit Says City Stalling Project Former Mission Springs Group Cites ‘Footdragging’ In Permit Process
The developers of the former Mission Springs apartment project have filed a $7 million claim against the city, alleging officials once again are trying to block building permits for their west Spokane property.
While the Mission Springs proposal is dead, developers are planning to build a new, smaller project known as Canyon Bluffs. City officials aren’t cooperating, according to the claim filed May 15.
Instead, the claim states, the city has inversely condemned the developers’ west Spokane property by “footdragging on permit applications.” Basically, developers allege the city has taken their property by not allowing them to build on it.
“If there’s no compromise, and the city continues to not issue permits in a timely fashion,” the developers have no choice but to pursue the claim into court, said Frank Conklin, attorney for Mission Springs Inc. and Feature Realty Inc.
“It’s frightfully expensive for them to have a project of this size tied up.”
City officials deny any unusual permitting delays. “We’re not doing anything to hold it up,” said Pat Dalton, assistant city attorney.
Developers applied for the permits in December but can’t get them until several technical problems cited by city departments, such as water and fire, are resolved, said Dave Nakagawara of the Construction Services Department. Several months of submitting and resubmitting information is typical on large projects, he said.
The first phase of Canyon Bluffs includes 200 apartments.
Conklin said developers aren’t sure how big the final project will be, but it won’t be as big as the proposed Mission Springs project.
That project - billed as the city’s biggest with 790 apartments in four phases - died after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development withdrew its loan guarantee.
Last month, Mission Springs developers won a court battle over the city’s refusal to issue building permits for the complex.
The council and former City Manager Roger Crum’s actions in denying the permits in June 1995 were unlawful and violated constitutional guarantees, the state Supreme Court ruled. The court said the council exceeded its authority when it blocked a building permit for the project after approving a planned-unit development for the site.
Last week, developers decided to drop their pursuit of damages from individual council members involved in the permit dispute.
Conklin said his clients and the city are negotiating a settlement after the state Supreme Court decision. Developers want $3.2 million in damages, including lost revenues and increased costs.
“We’re trying to work out a comprehensive settlement,” Conklin said, adding that filing the $7 million claim puts city officials on notice there are other issues involved with the property.
The $7 million figure is what developers consider the property’s fair market value, Conklin said.