North Greenacres Neighborhood

Survey Results - Given as Testimony Sept 8, 2005 Planning Comm

Survey Results Compiled

North Greenacres Neighborhood held a neighborhood meeting on August 29, 2005. The meeting focused on transportation and included the following survey questions. Approximately 85 people attended the meeting and of the surveys that were distributed 46 were returned by our cutoff date of
September 2, 2005. We have compiled the information to assist Spokane Valley in future planning.

Hot Topic : Impact Fees
Presently, the City Council is adverse to impact fees and is being strongly lobbied to not study and impose impact fees. This means shortfalls would have to be paid for in additional taxes. (Note: Typically, impact fees for low income housing are waived.)

#1 Should the City of Spokane Valley study and assess impact fees?

Yes_44____ No__2 ___ 98% in Favor
Comments: tired of paying more and more out of our pockets,
No new taxes
Need development fees
Beyond a doubt
Impact Fees are a necessity!
To miss this is ignorance…or worse…idiocy.
Local schools and roads are directly affected by new housing and Realtor’s and Home Builders need to share in these costs!!
The increase of residents needs immediate funding for infrastructure.
***********************************************************************

#2 If the City of Spokane Valley will not support and impose impact fees, would you support an initiative be placed on the ballot for the city to study and assess impact fees?

Yes____43___ No _2______ 96% in favor of an Initiative.
Comments: forget being a city and go back to being a county.
No new taxes!
Beyond a doubt.
Impact fees are a necessity – we have to have them!
If City of S.V. is non-supportive of impact fees they should be replaced with others who can understand the importance of impact fees.
If they don’t support, they need to be replaced.




Local Road Improvements
On the City of Spokane Valley’s 6-year Plan – Flora Rd will be improved, from the south, up to the Mission Ave. intersection. New developments north of Mission Ave. will improve Flora Rd. to within 500 feet of the intersection of Montgomery Ave. and Flora Rd.



#3 Should the City of Spokane Valley’s 6-year transportation plan extend the planned Flora Rd. improvements to Montgomery (up to the Centennial Trail trailhead) to improve the corner’s poor-visibility and related hazards?

Yes _29__ No_15 Undecided 2
Comments : Will cost the tax payers too much money – let these stupid developers pay for it – they’re the ones getting richer.
Not until we have a plan.
Depends on the impact to the people living there.
It seems a guessing game of hoping for more development to do the needed improvements – needs to be done.
Need to study more direct traffic flow measures.
Through traffic should be on Mission/Cataldo/Boone…
Through Traffic will be south of Montgomery. This is a “no parking” area and should not be a “trailhead.”
It’s OK now. There is no parking at this trailhead (that’s okay with me.)
Need to keep traffic down to local residents.
*************************************************************


The Department of Transportation’s next project is to plan freeway improvements from Sullivan to Barker.

#4 Considering the Flora Rd. overpass under snowy/icy conditions, do you think it is a priority for the Flora Rd. overpass grade to be improved?

Yes_16__No_29___Undecided 1
Comments:
A traffic light will also be needed at Flora and Broadway. A freeway exchange at flora will be needed to take flow away from Sullivan and Barker.
Yes, as well as a traffic signal at exchange at Flora and Broadway . Also a freeway, exchange at Flora will relieve traffic at Sullivan and Barker.
Safety is #1.
Whatever, not a priority to me.
A new road on Boone Ave. will result in a smooth flow of traffic from Sullivan to Barker, leaving Flora overpass adequate for local travel.
New road on Boone will eliminate 70% of traffic on overpass.
The grade has never been a problem.
Again, it will cost us more money – people should just start driving more careful.
I have not seen a problem yet.
I’ve never had a problem here. The hill (from Flora) on Mission causes many problems in the winter when it’s icy.









“Narrow Streets” are used as a road engineering tool in many areas of the US and Canada. Oregon defines narrow streets, as roads having a pavement cross-section of equal to or less than 28 feet. The City of Spokane Valley’s minimum roadway cross-section is 30 feet.

#5 Should North Greenacres Neighborhood continue to support the narrow streets concept?

Yes___44_________No__2______
Comments:
Roads should be of appropriate size to need and use.
Why do we need to have wide streets? Width is fine now.
28 ft. is enough.
We don’t need any wider roads just people who drive sensibly.
Widening roads would take away one of the reasons peple moved to this area. (large yards.)
Narrow roads with grass planted up to the pavement makes sense and handle runoff efficiently.
Narrow roads is the neighborhood
North Greenacres is a neighborhood and narrow streets are part of local neighborhoods.
Major influence on watershed health, traffic calming, and a sense of pedestrian scale, walkable communities. The necessity is for flexibility of walkway…no need for both sidewalks.
Yes, except on main arterials.

#6 Should the City of Spokane Valley’s Comprehensive Plan have a policy that allows City Engineers to adapt road design to local conditions and neighborhood character?

Yes__41_____No__3___Undecided 2
Comments
Not unless they pay for it instead of the homeowners. If these developers want to do all this stuff, let them pay for it. The homeowners don’t want to pay more and more and more taxes for this stuff.
Roads should be designed to keep the neighborhood character.
One size fits all does not work.

Road Connectivity – Commuter Roads
Please reference road diagrams provided.
Greenstone Corporation has applied for a downgrade of Mission Avenue from Harvard to Barker as an improved two-lane road with curbs and gutters. The development company is looking at improving Cataldo Rd. into a future five-lane arterial (4 lanes with a turn lane) from Harvard to Barker. Spokane Valley currently plans to improve Mission, west of Barker, to a three lane arterial (2 lanes with a turn lane).




Flora Barker

#7 Should Mission also be downgraded to a two lane between Barker & Flora to be consistent with Mission east of Barker?

Yes_34________No__12____Comments:
Again, it will only cost the homeowners more money instead of the developers who are getting richer and richer.
Will need three lanes.
Must be three lanes (two lanes with a turn)
Move the primary road to Boone.
Mission should remain a two lane road and Boone become a three lane road through from Sullivan to Barker.
No, should be a three lane all the way to Harvard.
Yes, less impact to neighborhood and control of traffic speed.
For safety, a three lane would be appropriate.
It makes reasonable sense for the road to be consistent.
With the school on Mission, it would be safer for traffic turning in and out of school to have a three lane road.
Indiana Ave., east of Sullivan is planned to intersect Flora at Mission Ave. It is aligned with the sewer trunk line for better utility access. In considering increased traffic on Mission, it is worth noting that a 650 student elementary school is planned on Mission, as well as a possible park.

There is discussion of realigning Cataldo (east of Barker) with Boone (west of Barker – through neighborhood to Flora). Presently Boone is an unimproved, dirt road with approximately 72 feet that includes unobstructed abandoned railroad easement.


#8 If Boone is improved to a three lane roadway, (two lanes with a turn lane), should Boone continue past Flora to connect with Indiana going West toward the Valley Mall?


Yes__39______No___7_______
Comments:
This is the good plan to have good access that affects the least number of people adversely.
This affects less homes.
This plan affects fewer homes and in fact improves their situation. The east right of way is huge and should be utilized (in fact the right of way all the way to Mission.)
Not necessarily and will cost the people more in taxes.
Having a straight shot makes much more sense.
Absolutely
Leave rural.
Provide access to shopping without having to use freeway.
This would be the most direct way of moving traffic.
Most logical.
Boone only needs to be two lanes.

#9 Would you consider improving both Mission and Boone Avenues, as east-west roads connecting to Sullivan Rd?





Yes__32_______No_14_________
Comments
The people are sick of paying more and more in taxes on your so called improvements while developers are getting richer.
Why encourage traffic through two neighborhood streets if Boone is to be improved.
This plan would give the best access - would be fair for homeowners on both roads and get the most people through without severe adverse affects.
Yes, if we can keep Mission safe for residents. Keep speed limit at 30 miles an hour.
Traffic impact – too many homes and children live on Mission.
Yes, only two lanes Mission and three lanes Boone.
The only thing I am concerned about is bringing all the road equipment down Greenacres Road or detouring traffic down this road – it can’t handle that kind of traffic both physically or in human terms. I agree we need better access to Sullivan Road without always taking the freeway due to the anticipated heavy truck and residential traffic now occurring. It’s a mess out there – something has to be done to pay for the new development, the loss of truck farming and the rural nature of the area

P.U.D. Ordinance is considered by Planning Commission 9-8-05

Presently, the P.U.D. ordinance will only allow the planned urban development to be built if it can exit onto an arterial or a collector. Mr. Crapo, a developer who purchased a property on 4th - near Barker - requested building a PUD and was denied because he cannot exit onto Barker and 4th street is not a collector or an arterial. Mr. Crapo has asked that the ordinance be changed and the city council directed the planning commission to review this part of the ordinance. 4th street is the road that leads to Greenacres Elementary and would pose serious problems with that much more traffic exiting on this busy unimiproved road. Meg Arpin - attorney for Mr. Crapo testified that 70 percent of the roads in the Valley are local access roads and bemoaned the fact that without changing this ordinance PUD's would not be able to meet the criteria in most of the valley.

Ms. Sukup, Community Development Director counseled the Planning commission to look at the building ordinance and see if it provided adequately for building. The city relaxes their very minimum requirements in order for a development to use some unique design or give other benefits to the community and are given bonus points for more houses for these features.

Unfortunately, most PUD's are not unique are squash as many houses as they can with token green space and nothing unique to qualify the rationale for PUD's in the first place. In the past, some of the private roads were so under standard that the city would have to take them out in order to provide adequate roads for the people living in these developments. This problems was addressed in last year's review of the PUD ordinance and there is a move now to insure that roads are mostly public and not private roads.

North greenacres testimony on the P.U.D. ordinance. - 9-08-05

North Greenacres Neighborhood Testimony
September 8, 2005
Mary Pollard
Chair of North Greenacres Neighborhood
17216 E. Baldwin Ave.
Greenacres, WA 99016


P. U.D.

We are recommending that there not be a change in the requirement that developments, PUD’s must access an arterial or a collector.
The comprehensive plan is not finished and this is too premature and smacks of catering to development pressure.

Spokane Valley has little money for road improvements. This could mean that large amounts of traffic could be spilling into a road that is not improved – such as on 4th just off of Barker – where large amounts of children and cars use this road to access Barker Elementary.

There is little protection for any neighborhood unless there is an ordinance that causes more scrutiny.

Also, there should not be any change in Phase 1 regulations that strictly enforced that U.R. 7* not have more than 6 homes per acre. By allowing bonus housing that would change the present Phase 1 regulations would allow increased housing on roads in this early stage that are only improved in front of the development. Also because the city has not assessed or imposed impact fees, every house puts the city at a deficit in providing services. Off site improvements to the community are not paid by development – we need two new schools in Central Valley School District, and the high schools are full. It is ludicrous to entice developers and reward developers to squeeze in a few more homes when the rest of the community is being penalized and the quality of our educational facilities is being sacrificed.

Street light in developments should be full cut off in order to reduce light trespass onto adjacent properties and beyond the roadways. Also, many people enjoy the night skies and we can achieve appropriate lighting without sacrificing our skies and intrude on neighbors who appreciate when night comes without needing blackout shades from street lights.