City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, August 19, 2015 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, with the Ogden City Planning Commission, held on August 19, 2015 at 5:34 p.m., in the Council Work Room on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Richard A. Hyer Vice Chair Marcia L. White (via telephone) Council members Bart E. Blair Neil K. Garner Caitlin K. Gochnour Doug Stephens Amy L. Wicks (arrived at 5:40 p.m.) Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Planning Commissioners: Lillie Holman Mark Orton Bryan Schade Ross Patterson Cathy Blaisdell Janith Wright Robert Herman Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Public Services Director Jay Lowder Planning Manager Greg Montgomery City Engineer Justin Anderson Principle Engineer Taylor Nielsen Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson The purpose of the joint work session is to conduct land use training and discuss Council business. Complete Streets Policy Analyst Symes gave a brief overview of the issue. He stated that with the Transit Study in the last phase and Bicycle Master Plan also nearing completion, the Planning Commission and the Council will be instrumental in reviewing and approving changes that result from the implementation of these items. The City has been working with Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) to develop a complete streets policy for the City and he introduced Greg Scott of Wasatch Front Regional Council, who has come to give a presentation on the subject. Mr. Scott gave the following presentation:  Complete Streets is insuring that community goals are considered with each and every street decision o Financing o Engineering o Planning o Utility work o Repaving o Plowing o Reconstruction o Restriping o Sweeping o Crosswalk timing o New streets  Why complete streets? o Streets are a huge public asset; they comprise about 30% of our urban spaces and a tax expenditure of near $1,000 per person in 2014 o Complete streets policies will help you leverage these assets in achieving your economic and livability  goals  Common objective: o Consider all users with every street decision  75% of street costs are paid for by general taxes rather than user fees  All pay for streets so all should benefit: all modes, all ages, all abilities o Consider neighborhood needs and impacts  Streets are about 30% of our urban area and the vast majority of our public spaces  Streets can bring communities together or be barriers  What other goals do you have? o Crash reduction? o Neighborhood preservation? o Reduced speeds (traffic calming)? o Cut crime? o Beautification? o Economic development? o Street and utility cost savings? o Others?  Each street is tailored to achieve the communities’ goals for that specific area o Because each street is tailored to its circumstances, complete streets take a great many forms o The benefits from complete streets to a community can be many: empowering, safe, healthy, prosperous, beautiful  Complete streets are not a mandate to construct accommodations for all users, but only to systematically consider accommodations for all users  Complete streets= o Lives saved  Sidewalks – 88% reduction  Bike lanes – 50% reduction  Medians – 40% reduction  40 mph to 30 mph – 50% reduction  Pedestrian injury is a leading cause of death for children o More value for families  Home values grow by $700 to $3,000 for each 1% increase in walk score  Communities with a high quality of life attract clean, high paying companies  Average Weber County family works until March 24th to pay for transportation  Each car eliminated saves a family $10,000 on average o More cost effective city services  Comprehensive planning creates cost efficiencies  Longer lasting roads  Smoother pavement  Better transit sooner  Faster emergency services  More bike lanes  Information economy  More sidewalks  Less expensive construction  Tailored planning and design can reduce unneeded pavement o Active and involved communities  About half of Utahan’s do not own a car  31% are under 18  15% are disabled  13% (and growing) are seniors  13% are in poverty o Greater well-being  Walking or biking 30 minutes a day lowers cancer, heart disease, and diabetes risks  Every $1 spent on bike and pedestrian facilities yields $3 to $5 in direct medical benefits  17% of kids and teens are obese  Spaces for bicycling and walking help kids be active and gain independence o Air quality improvements  25% to 41% of vehicle emissions are unrelated to distance traveled  Imaging cutting emissions by up to 12 percent   Much of suburban congestion is related to short trips – especially at intersections  Nearly 1/3 of all trips are 1 mile or less o Attractive neighborhoods  Trees improve perception of safety by about 20 percent  Design is more important than neighborhood income to attractiveness  Street furniture, lighting, wayfinding signs, pavement types, medians  Complete streets includes the entire public space  Complete Streets Workshop Process – the Big Picture o Visioning with Administration and Council representation  Complete Streets 101 & Ten Elements of a Policy  Facilitate Vision & Applications (Elements 1-4)  Identify Implementation Working Group o Implementation Working Group  Assess current policies, procedures  Assess current documents  Explore Implementation Approaches (Elements 5-10) o Council Sessions  Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting  Work session  Joint resolution Commissioner Blaisdell asked how should completing sidewalks be addressed in complete streets. Chair Hyer commented it is not always a matter of even having a sidewalk in some cases. Commissioner Blaisdell stated in her neighborhood there should be sidewalks because there needs to be wheelchair and stroller access. Mr. Scott responded those issues need to be taken into consideration when putting together a transportation master plan for the City and those involved in planning the policy. Chair Hyer pointed out property values go up with walkability and said that if a community understood then maybe some areas would consider a special improvement district. Council member Garner indicated that some streets have many components of complete streets along the entire length of the street: roundabouts, businesses, residences. It can be planned to work to each advantage. Commissioner Schade inquired about the next step after the policy. Mr. Scott responded the implementation plan would be next, with typologies and standards established. Mr. Symes added those would include changes to development standards in engineering, zoning, community plans, etc. Commissioner Herman asked who pays the costs of complete streets. Mr. Scott answered there are a variety of sources and a city should leverage what it has and what it can get. For instance, it could be new development, a redevelopment, or outside agencies – the Utah Department of Transportation has been known to help if a city is really prepared. A city that knows what it wants is more likely to get it. Council member Gochnour indicated the Harrison Boulevard project is a great example of taking everything into consideration and making a complete street. Commissioner Herman asked if sidewalks are always mandatory. Mr. Scott said it is tailored to the neighborhood and vision of the city. Commissioner Herman asked about housing needs with regard to complete streets. Mr. Scott responded it might be a balance or a slight increase – cities must look at affordability of housing and transportation, not just housing. The meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m. ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ RICHARD A. HYER, CHAIR APPROVED: October 6, 2015