Recap! Planning Commission Meeting 10.10.2019

I was a little late to this meeting but it seemed like we had a great turnout - about 30 people and 5 or 6 comments.  When public comment opened for the discussion of The Knolls development, Michael Ford, the property owner/developer and fellow South Weberite said he was happy to answer any questions and is really excited about this development.  Another comment urged the commission to make sure they were doing the due diligence when new properties come up, another mentioned concerns about the intersection of this development to SWD.  I asked about the contamination on this property and the recommendation from HAFB to put vapor removal systems in the residencies.  I wanted to see if there was a way to ensure that all future owners, regardless of if they are the first or the tenth will be aware of the contamination and the reasons for the vapor removal system before purchasing.  

•There was a lot of discussion and questions about the property from the commission to Nate Reeves, the developer's engineer and fellow South Weber Citizen.   Personally I felt all of it was relevant and interesting, but being I took 3 pages of notes I will try to size it down.  ☺️  Some of the top concerns and questions about this property related to the contamination, the intersection at SWD, the wetlands, the private road and drainage issues.    Commissioner Grubb motioned for approval of the plans pending some restrictions (is that the right word?).  1. Additional restrictions in the CC&R's as well as notes on the Platt map that will tell all future property owners about the contamination and vapor removal system. 2.  Get UDOT's requirements for sight distance for this intersection and it's safety. 3. Include neighboring property owners in the discussion for the possibility to stub in, 4. Require conservation easements on the currently proposed non-buildable acreage so that additional buildings will be prevented, 5. Ensure authorization from the Army Corp of Engineers about Wetlands and all other items included in the letter by Barry Burton and Brandon Jones in their 10.8.19 letters.  Commissioner Johnson was the only nay vote but only due to item number 3.  He was concerned about the fact there is no storm drainage for this road any additional roads will cause future problems.  Commissioner Taylor and Osborne voted in favor.  The motion passed.   **This means the developer will need to make adjustments to his CC&R's and do all the above and do and a bit more work with the Corp and UDOT.  When he has done the above requirements, he can come back to the commission with the changes.  They will then (most likely) recommend it to the council.  They will then be presented with the development for final approval.  

I have to say that I felt the commission was very thorough, particularly in addressing the comments that was presented by the public (at least the ones I heard).  I would like to thank them for their questions and thoughts.  At one point the developer mentioned that his lawyer said he wouldn't need to add the plumes to the final platt map because they are shrinking.  I was assured that the plumes will be on those final plans.   Concerns about escrow for future road improvements were brought up and hopefully a future discussion can take place to make sure escrow funds that are meant for specific reasons within a development are not used elsewhere.  

•Some other important items discussed was the 10/22 meeting.  Realizing this meeting is going to be long and cover way too many things for one night only, there was talk of prioritizing the most important things.  Senate Bill 34 and mixed use takes precedence because we need to let the state know our decision by 12/1/19.   Commissioner Walton suggested the next priorities should be the transportation maps and the land use zoning.  It appears it is possible this meeting will take place at Highmark to better accommodate everyone. 

•Commissioner Johnson said that we have a little bit of funding available to make improvements on our parks.  The Bonneville Shoreline Trail is on the Forest Service's website and the public is welcome to comment on it.  I will get that link soon to post it.  He thanked the citizens for coming out to the open house and enjoyed the discussions he had.  

•City Planner Barry Burton also felt the open houses were a success and felt the public was very civil and offered good solutions.  He feels we will see significant changes to our General Plan.  

I think that covers most of it.  If I got anything wrong, please let me know - I am happy to correct it.  The audio of this meeting should be up by Monday and the minutes a few days after that I believe.  

I hope you found this recap hopeful!  Have a good night South Weber.  Don't freeze tonight! (I know I will).  #SWmorethan20

Taking A Stab at Other Options

The South Weber united page received the following email from Mayor Jo:

Dear Members of SWCU, 9/20/19
It is clear there are many opinions about South Bench Drive and that is a healthy thing. I hope we can all be respectful of opinions that differ from our own. There are valid arguments for and against the construction of this road, but there is one thing we have in common: we all love our City. I truly hope we can work together to find a solution.
I have stated the reasons why I feel it is very important to have another ingress/egress to the City. According to our Transportation Capital Facilities Plan, by 2040, we will have a level of service at each end of the City of a D or lower: http://southwebercity.com/…/land-…/capital-facilities-plans/ 

Safety concerns are an issue now as well, but will continue to increase as our population increases (even if it is slowly). These are valid concerns, but I am not set on South Bench Drive as the final solution. There are a number of things I don’t like about the alignment either. It just seems to be the most logical solution anyone has been able to come up with. A number of engineers have taken a stab at solutions, but that does not mean we can’t come up with something better. The engineers involved aren’t invested in our City like you and I are. We love this place and we want it to continue to be a wonderful place for people to live and grow up in. 

I have served this City for 4 years now and have studied this particular issue extensively. Having done this, I don’t see that doing nothing is a viable option. It is certainly an option, but our City will become a very undesirable place to live in the not-so-distant future if we don’t take steps to plan and accommodate future growth.
I invite all of you to think outside the box and work to come to a better solution that we will all feel more comfortable with. Let’s take all of our energy and work toward this end.I look forward to your ideas.Sincerely,Mayor Jo

 Let's take a look at the Horrock's study first.  Here we see all our roads and their corresponding traffic count.  As of right now today, our numbers are all green (green is good). We are below the acceptable level on all our streets except that tiny strip near I-84.  It's important to remember this could definitely be in part from the impact of Staker Parson's trucks which may not always be a part of South Weber.   It is also important to note these traffic counts are per day, and per trips - not cars.  So my 5 Maverik runs every day added 10 counts to our South Weber Drive.  Sorry guys.

And here are those same streets if we do nothing with our roads and our projected growth by 2040.

So most of South Weber Drive gets bumped up to just a titch over capacity.  Poor 475 E is at an unacceptable level.  Our entrance on and off the freeway is also unacceptable.  

Horrock's is tasked with finding a solution. And here's what they suggest.  They connect many of our residential road and, of course, add South Bench Drive.  

Okay.  Let's take a look.  First off, 475 is really helped out a lot, at least the part that is south of South Bench Drive.  That is good.   Parts of South Weber Drive are helped a little bit...but not significantly.

 South Bench Drive from Layton to 475 is carrying 9,900 cars a day.  Keep in mind South Bench Drive also fronts a small residential neighborhood of 7 homes.  They will have 10,000 cares passing by every day.  Yikes.  Give this road another few hundred or thousand (depending on what part of SBD) and it would be bumped to unacceptable.  Which is interesting because if we connect to HAFB north gate we can easily expect 12,000+ cars a day according to other traffic reports.  Add our South Weber traffic back to it, and some other random cities traffic to it and.....hmmmm....I think South Bench Drive just went from a near capacity level to an unacceptable level.

Hold the phone.  Can someone look at 1900 E again?  So if we look at the map if we don't do anything by 2040, 1900 E with have less than 1,000 cars on it on the south end and just over 2,000 on the north end.  Here it is up close:

   

And in 2040 if we do build South Bench Drive, we bump it up to nearly 6,000 at the the south end, and 3,300 at the north end.  

Okay.

Okay so if we do NOTHING, South Weber Drive will have 9,876 cars on it from 1900 E to Highway 89.    

And if we do South Bench Drive, and add the 3,000 extra cars to 1900 E with it, we will have

9,900   

Listen folks, I'm not great at math, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  

Following me?  Here is the projection for South Weber Drive in 2040 *if we do nothing*

9,876.

And if we add South Bench Drive, and those additional 3-6,000 cars from 1900 E in 2040 we get how many cars on South Weber Drive?

9,900

It will add only 24 extra cars??  Where did those other 3,000 cars go?

I don't mean any disrespect, but this is the way I see it.  If someone is choosing to come from Layton to South Weber and wants to use 1900 E, they will more than likely be using it as a short cut to South Ogden, most probably coming from HAFB.  That is definitely going to be more than 24 cars.  South Weber Drive will then become a congested road, and our section near the overpass will become unbearably congested.  But the numbers don't reflect that.  Why not?  

Because studies tell us what we want them to tell us.  Simple as that. 

That was actually stated by some of our council members at our meeting just last Tuesday. 

So if we base of our decision of this one study, we are going to be really hurting in 20 years when we find out they got it wrong.  Let's not do that.

So...what do I propose?  Jo stated we can't just not do anything.  And I can appreciate that.  

So here is what I suggest.   Let's take our map again that Horrock's proposes we do.

   

What if we focus on CONNECTION, not CORRIDOR.  

What if we just keep it all as proposed except delete a couple of things?  

How about all this red? What if we don't do that part?

and this red too

Alright so let's look at the north side of South Weber Drive first.

We keep the route of South Bench Drive but downgrade it from an arterial 3 lane collector so a 2 lane residential.  And instead of it cutting through and meeting up on SWD on a completely blind corner we connect it to Old Fort Road like initially planned.  The section running parallel to 84 could even remain a wider road with no drive ways attached.  It could simply have feeder streets to subdivisions that all connect.  Those subdivisions would use South Bench Drive to exit the city through 84 and keep traffic off South Weber Drive.  All of the subdivisions north of South Weber Drive would use South Bench Drive instead of 475 and then onto South Weber Drive.  They could connect to South Weber Drive where DR Horton residents currently do so.  But it would be residential.  That would take a great deal of traffic off South Weber Drive and 475.  Further more, all the canyon drives could be connected as well, which this map isn't showing and I don't know why.  So basically any residents that live on the north end of South Weber Drive that currently enter the city through 84, would now do so through South Bench Drive.  With the Canyon Drives also connected that provides another east-west corridor for those residents on the north side of South Weber Drive. (it's a good thing we have mountains and we know our directions, am I right??)

And for the South side of South Weber Drive?

If we work on connecting our streets on the east side of the city and south of South Weber Drive, it allows more ingress and egress.   People are able to get to and from the school even if South Weber Drive is closed.  Residential areas can navigate through most of the city without touching South Weber Drive.  All the driving back and forth that occurs daily that right now is forced to use South Weber Drive can use back roads and other streets.  And seeing that there is such a public outcry about South Bench Drive, I doubt we will care they are residential. 

This will add THREE east-west corridors to South Weber.

And all of that without adding a lick of Layton traffic.  If we want to look into the future of someday maybe a LOCAL road to Layton, that can be considered and placed on the general plan for now if it must be so.  But our focus should not be on getting funding and grants and studies done for it.  Our focus should be on making connections throughout the city.  Which honestly should have already been done.  We've had the same city planner for 30 years.  Why aren't these roads connected?  

But as always, those are just my thoughts.  What are yours?

#SWMORETHAN20

Let's Talk: South Bench Drive; Part 1

South Bench Drive.  You've probably heard neighbors or friends talking about it.  Maybe you know a lot about.  Maybe you only know a little bit.  This week I will be doing a break down of South Bench Drive to bring you the facts.   I hope that you will find this informative and helpful.  I have done a lot of research on this road, and have learned a LOT.  

What is South Bench Drive?  South Bench Drive is a new minor arterial road. A minor arterial "facilities provide service primarily through-traffic movements. All traffic controls and the facility design are intended to provide efficient through movement.  There are limited access points to these facilities" (like driveways and cross roads).  South Bench Drive is being *proposed* in our 2019 General Plan.  South Bench Drive as proposed starts at 475 E and turns east down towards the posse grounds and will eventually connect to Layton.  The attached map below shows it's course with purple dots.  

South Bench Drive is proposed to be at least 78 feet including right of way  (sidewalks, bike lane/emergeny lane, curb and gutter).  There will be 2 or 3 lanes of traffic.  It will have a speed limit of between 40-50 mph.  

South Bench Drive is meant to alleviate traffic on South Weber Drive.  Currently, South Weber Drive received a 'C' grade.  Our current traffic counts are roughly 3,500 cars daily on South Weber Drive, which is considered average.  Once a road reaches over 10,000 cars, it is considered congested.  Our current population is approximately 7,300 with a roughly 13,000 proposed population bringing us to max buildout in roughly 20 years.  Our current city council, mayor, staff and planning commission are looking into working now to develop a plan for the upcoming traffic.  One of the things they would like to see is more ingress/egress to the city, a road to alleviate traffic from South Weber Drive, and a connection to Layton.    

Tune in tomorrow for how South Bench Drive came to be on our 2019 General Plan. 

 #swmorethan20