Vince Auriemma, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director

Transcription

1 Council Memorandum To: From: Through: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Vince Auriemma, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director Dan Hartman, Public Works Director Michael C. Bestor, City Manager Date: September 17, 2014 Re: Revised Traffic Calming Ordinance Purpose of Agenda Item: Per City Council s request at its September 11, 2014 meeting, staff is providing a revised traffic calming ordinance for Council s consideration. Background: There are two issues for Council to consider: 1. Revisions to the current traffic calming ordinance. 2. The disposition of street segments which qualify for calming under the current traffic calming ordinance. Revisions to Current Traffic Calming Ordinance City Council adopted our current traffic calming ordinance (#1879) in August, This ordinance included several features that the previous ordinance did not include: To qualify for traffic calming, the measured 85 th percentile speeds must be more than 5mph over the posted speed limit (previous threshold was 10mph or more over the limit). The ordinance defined affected residents to include those residents who must travel through the street section proposed for calming to access their residences. (previous ordinance did not have this requirement). The ordinance required a resident petition process which included approval of at least 60% of the affected residents before continuing through the process (previous ordinance did not have this requirement). The ordinance included a point system to help prioritize calming projects for funding (previous ordinance did not have this requirement.) The Eagle Ridge Drive traffic calming project was the first to proceed through the petition process described in Ordinance This project illustrated that the 2010 ordinance contains some good features, namely, the point system to help prioritize funding and the requirement for a public meeting prior to moving forward. However, the Eagle Ridge project also illustrated some features of the 2010 ordinance that did not appear to work as

2 anticipated in meeting community goals. One is the definition of affected residents, which includes drive-through residents who in this case had a much larger voice than those residents directly affected by traffic speeds. The other feature is the petition process, which in this case seemed to inhibit the City s ability to rectify a known problem, and which turned out to be a daunting task for the project proponents. Based upon Council input and the comments gathered during the public process on the Eagle Ridge Drive project, the attached ordinance for Council s consideration includes the following revisions: 1. Section a---Redefining the affected residents drive-through residents would no longer be included. 2. Section raising the minimum speed to qualify for calming from 5mph to 10mph or more over the posted speed limit. It was 10mph over the limit before the ordinance was revised in 2010, and the Police usually don t write tickets until a vehicle is near 10 over the limit, so 10mph seems a more reasonable threshold. 3. Section a---Removing the requirement for petitions signed by at least 60% of affected residents. There would still be a public meeting, and Council would take public comment before considering a calming project, but the Eagle Ridge petition problem would be eliminated. 4. Section deleting the entire section providing for private funding of calming improvements. We had one attempt at this by Salvia Street residents since the ordinance was adopted in 2010 and it failed for lack of interest. The strikethrough version of the existing ordinance showing the above revisions, and a clean copy incorporating the above revisions are attached for reference. Disposition of Streets Which Qualify for Calming Under Current Ordinance At the time the 2010 ordinance was passed, Council grandfathered and prioritized four streets that previously qualified for calming which are shown below with their current status: th Street at Smith Road (in design-taking public comment) 2. Salvia Street north of W. 44 th Ave. (completed) 3. Eagle Ridge Drive between Entrada and Somerset (construction Fall 2014) 4. 8 th Street west of Illinois St. (complete except islands east of community center) After Council prioritized these four grandfathered streets in 2010, it adopted the current point-based traffic calming ordinance. The remaining streets on the previous list were then ranked by the newly-established point system, and they are shown below: STREET Points Measured 85 th % speed Date studied N. Ford St. north of Iowa mph 7/21/ th Street east of Rubey Dr mph 9/6/2013 Iowa St. east of Washington Ave mph 3/19/2008 Lookout Mtn Rd. south of Goldenvue mph 7/18/2009 Illinois St north of 23 rd St mph 9/8/2011 Orchard St. south of W. 3 rd Ave mph 1/9/ rd St. east of Arapahoe mph 9/30/2010 Golden Hills Rd west of Secrest St mph 6/8/2008 Page 2

3 There are a few alternatives for consideration regarding these streets: 1. Consider them grandfathered as calming candidates and prioritize them for future funding as part of the revised ordinance. 2. Eliminate them from the list of candidates and start fresh with the new ordinance, because none of them meet the proposed requirement of speeds exceeding 10mph or more over the posted speed limit. Fiscal Impact: The 2014 budget includes $100,000 for traffic calming, which will be used to build the Eagle Ridge Drive project. The current budget proposal for shows no traffic calming funds. Alternatives: Several alternatives for Council s consideration include: 1. Council could decide not to revise the existing ordinance. 2. Council could revise the existing ordinance, and change the speed threshold to qualify for calming to a speed of more than 5mph but less than 10mph or more over the posted speed limit. 3. Council could revise the existing ordinance and grandfather those street segments which qualified for calming under Ordinance Council could revise the ordinance and not grandfather those segments which qualified for calming under Ordinance 1879, choosing to start fresh with the revised ordinance. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as revised, which will allow us to meet community goals, to tackle a speeding problem when we know one exists, and to not allow the motorists causing the problem to weigh in and prohibit us from enacting a workable solution. In addition, the street segments that qualified for funding under Ordinance 1879, which would not qualify under the revised ordinance (and which would not have qualified under the pre-2010 ordinance) show 85 th percentile speeds which are very close to 30mph. Council may wish to reserve limited traffic calming funds to address more egregious violations of the posted speed limit than those around 5mph over the limit. The Police do not issue tickets until speeds approach 10mph over the posted speed limit. For these reasons, staff recommends that these segments be eliminated from the list of calming candidates, and that we start fresh with the proposed revised ordinance. Page 3

4 Strike through version ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER OF THE GOLDEN MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TRAFFIC CALMING REGULATIONS AND DISCRETIONARY STREET IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City is concerned with the safety of all streets and is committed to keeping neighborhoods quiet, safe and comfortable places to live; and WHEREAS, City Council has considered and studied the problems traffic can create in neighborhoods and has found excessive speed to be a major factor in reducing the quality of life and overall safety; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed numerous methods to control vehicle speed; and WHEREAS, City Council has found structural calming measures to be effective in controlling traffic speed and well accepted by residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to establish minimum criteria that must be met in order for a street to qualify for traffic calming measures; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to provide citizens and neighborhoods that do not meet the minimum criteria for calming an avenue to invest in the non-traveled portion of the city Right of Way to make their neighborhoods more livable; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to establish a prioritization system to rank those projects which meet minimum criteria to qualify for traffic calming. THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Chapter ( Traffic Controls ) of the Golden Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: Definitions. a. Affected Residents, means those residents who reside on properties that are immediately adjacent to the portion of the street that is proposed for street improvements or traffic calming measures, as well as those residents who must rely on the portion of the street of the proposed improvement/traffic calming measures for reasonable access to their residences and those residents who would be significantly affected by diverted traffic, as determined by the City Engineer. b. Traffic calming, means the use of roadway design measures and roadway improvements for the purpose of controlling vehicular speed or other similar traffic problems on the city streets. Traffic calming measures and improvements include by illustration the following: 1. Narrowing of street widths to 20 to 22 feet in areas where parking is not permitted.

5 Page Resident Petitions. 2. Installation of landscaped medians including trees for the purpose of removing long sight lines. 3. Traffic lane widths on either side of the landscaped medians being reduced to no less than 10 feet as measured between curb flow lines. 4. The installation of traffic circles, or roundabouts, at intersections. Upon submittal to the City Engineer of a statement signed by residents of at least five (5) properties who are immediately adjacent to a section of a public street where vehicular speed is perceived as a problem that can be mitigated by traffic calming, the City Engineer will conduct a traffic engineering study, including traffic and pedestrian counts, to analyze the potential use of traffic calming measures pursuant to Sections and City Funded Traffic Calming/Criteria/Priority. a. Resident-initiated traffic calming measures will be considered for funding, construction and installation by the City in areas where all of the following criteria are met: 1. The average daily volume of traffic must exceed 500 vehicles per day. 2. The 85th percentile speed, as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is greater than 5 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, or more than 2% of the total daily traffic exceeds the posted speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour. 3. The grade of the street is 8% or less. b. If the minimum criteria described above is met, the City Engineer will assign points to the street section under consideration in accordance with the following: 1. SPEED: A number of points equal to the square of the difference between the posted speed limit and the 85 th percentile speed. 2. VOLUME: 1 point for every 100 average daily vehicles up to 1000 vehicles, 2 points for every 1000 average daily vehicles over 1000 vehicles. 3. SIDEWALKS: i. 0 points if detached sidewalk exists. ii. 1 point if attached sidewalk is more than 3 feet wide. iii. 3 points if attached sidewalk is 3 feet wide or less. iv. 5 points if sidewalk is absent on one side of street. v. 8 points if sidewalk is absent on both sides of street. 4. PEDESTRIAN GENERATOR: i. 3 points if street segment is within 500 feet of a pedestrian generator, which includes transit centers, community centers, senior citizen housing, libraries, post offices, and parks. ii. 5 points if segment is on school walking route or within 500 feet of school property.

6 Page 3 iii. 10 points if segment contains a marked and signed school crossing. iv. Additional points will be included for pedestrians counted during the daily peak vehicular traffic period as follows: (a) 1 to 10 pedestrians 3 points (b) pedestrians 5 points (c) pedestrians 15 points (d) Greater than 40 pedestrians ½ point for each pedestrian c. The City Engineer will maintain a list of street sections that meet the criteria described above, and will rank the streets in order of points assigned City Funded Traffic Calming/Installation. a. Subject to available funding and budgetary considerations, and prior to moving forward with resident-petitioned and city-funded traffic calming measures, the City will host a public neighborhood meeting where the calming measures and alternatives will be presented. Affected Residents will be invited to the meeting to review plans and alternatives. After the public meeting a petition signed by at least 60% of the Affected Residents approving the installation of the calming measures must be submitted before moving forward. b. For a resident-petitioned traffic calming project that meet the criteria of Section (a), but which is low on the priority list, or if City funding is not available in a time frame that is desirable to the petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) may propose a self-funding mechanism for the project to achieve a faster completion. Any proposed self funding of a project shall address ongoing and future maintenance expenses as well as initial installation and construction costs. c. City Council will review the design, petition and traffic data and will take final public comments prior to consideration of a resolution approving the installation Private Funded Street Improvements. a. For streets that do not meet the minimum criteria of Section (a), where neighbors are interested in improvements in the right of way that mitigate adverse vehicle or traffic concerns, the City will work with the neighbors to design street improvements and modifications that are intended to advance that purpose. Such improvements may include things like narrowing crossings at street intersections, adding planters in locations where neighbors agree to remove parking and widening of sidewalks. These improvements must be designed and approved by the City Engineer. Because these improvements are not designed to specifically affect driver behavior, they cannot have delaying affects on emergency services, and may not significantly affect snow removal. b. Any proposal for street improvements pursuant to this Section shall include provisions to fully fund the design, construction, installation, ongoing maintenance, and potential removal of such improvements by means other than the use of City funds. The source funding mechanism may, but need not, include the formation of an

7 Page 4 association of property owners for such purpose in a manner approved by the City Attorney. c. Any resident wishing to proceed or propose street improvements under this Section must provide a non-refundable deposit of $200 to the City to cover the preliminary design and cost estimates associated with the initial engineering environment process. d. City Council will review the proposed street improvements and will take public comments prior to consideration of a resolution approving the installation of such street improvements Funding/Health and Safety. Any other provision of this Chapter notwithstanding, no traffic calming project or other improvement to the streets as contemplated by this Chapter shall proceed unless the City has available funds; nor shall it proceed if the City Engineer determines that the implementation of traffic calming measures will endanger the public health and safety City-Initiated Projects. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall preclude the City from installing or construction street improvements, including traffic calming measures, in those instances where the City Engineer determines that such construction and/or installation is necessary or advisable for the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City. The procedures of this Chapter shall not apply to traffic improvements or traffic-calming measures initiated and completed by the City. Section 2. If any article, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each part or parts hereof irrespective of the fact that any one part or parts be declared unconstitutional or invalid. Section 3. All other ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this ordinance or any portion hereof is hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 4. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Municipal Code of the City of Golden by this ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision. Each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings and prosecutions for enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree or order which can or may be rendered, entered or made in such actions, suits, proceedings or prosecutions. Section 5. This ordinance is deemed necessary for the protection of health, welfare and safety of the community. Section 6. Violations of this ordinance shall be punishable as set forth in Section of the Golden Municipal Code. Introduced, read, passed and ordered published the 12th day of August, 2010.

8 Page 5 Passed and adopted upon second reading and ordered published this 26 th day of August, ATTEST: Jacob Smith Mayor Susan Brooks City Clerk, MMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: David S. Williamson City Attorney I, Susan M. Brooks, City Clerk of the City of Golden, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced on first reading and read at a regular business meeting of the City Council of said city, held on the 12th day of August, 2010, and was published as a proposed ordinance in the Golden Transcript, legal newspaper, as the law directs seven days or more prior to its passage. A public hearing was held on the 26th day of August, 2010, and the said proposed ordinance was read on second reading. The ordinance was passed by the City Council and ordered published in the aforesaid newspaper, as the law directs on the 26th day of August, Witness my hand and official seal of the City of Golden, Colorado, this 27th day of August, (SEAL) ATTEST: Susan M. Brooks, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Golden, Colorado

9 Clean version of revised ordinance ORDINANCE NO. NNNN AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER OF THE GOLDEN MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TRAFFIC CALMING REGULATIONS AND DISCRETIONARY STREET IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City is concerned with the safety of all streets and is committed to keeping neighborhoods quiet, safe and comfortable places to live; and WHEREAS, City Council has considered and studied the problems traffic can create in neighborhoods and has found excessive speed to be a major factor in reducing the quality of life and overall safety; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed numerous methods to control vehicle speed; and WHEREAS, City Council has found structural calming measures to be effective in controlling traffic speed and well accepted by residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to establish minimum criteria that must be met in order for a street to qualify for traffic calming measures; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to establish a prioritization system to rank those projects which meet minimum criteria to qualify for traffic calming. THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Chapter ( Traffic Controls ) of the Golden Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: Definitions. a. Affected Residents, means those residents who reside on properties that are immediately adjacent to the portion of the street that is proposed for street improvements or traffic calming measures and those residents who would be significantly affected by diverted traffic, as determined by the City Engineer. b. Traffic calming, means the use of roadway design measures and roadway improvements for the purpose of controlling vehicular speed or other similar traffic problems on the city streets. Traffic calming measures and improvements include by illustration the following: 1. Narrowing of street widths to 20 to 22 feet in areas where parking is not permitted. 2. Installation of landscaped medians including trees for the purpose of removing long sight lines. 3. Traffic lane widths on either side of the landscaped medians being reduced to no less than 10 feet as measured between curb flow lines. 4. The installation of traffic circles, or roundabouts, at intersections.

10 Page Resident Petitions. Upon submittal to the City Engineer of a statement signed by residents of at least five (5) properties who are immediately adjacent to a section of a public street where vehicular speed is perceived as a problem that can be mitigated by traffic calming, the City Engineer will conduct a traffic engineering study, including traffic and pedestrian counts, to analyze the potential use of traffic calming measures pursuant to Sections and City Funded Traffic Calming/Criteria/Priority. a. Resident-initiated traffic calming measures will be considered for funding, construction and installation by the City in areas where all of the following criteria are met: 1. The average daily volume of traffic must exceed 500 vehicles per day. 2. The 85th percentile speed, as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is greater than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, or more than 2% of the total daily traffic exceeds the posted speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour. 3. The grade of the street is 8% or less. b. If the minimum criteria described above is met, the City Engineer will assign points to the street section under consideration in accordance with the following: 1. SPEED: A number of points equal to the square of the difference between the posted speed limit and the 85 th percentile speed. 2. VOLUME: 1 point for every 100 average daily vehicles up to 1000 vehicles, 2 points for every 1000 average daily vehicles over 1000 vehicles. 3. SIDEWALKS: i. 0 points if detached sidewalk exists. ii. 1 point if attached sidewalk is more than 3 feet wide. iii. 3 points if attached sidewalk is 3 feet wide or less. iv. 5 points if sidewalk is absent on one side of street. v. 8 points if sidewalk is absent on both sides of street. 4. PEDESTRIAN GENERATOR: i. 3 points if street segment is within 500 feet of a pedestrian generator, which includes transit centers, community centers, senior citizen housing, libraries, post offices, and parks. ii. 5 points if segment is on school walking route or within 500 feet of school property. iii. 10 points if segment contains a marked and signed school crossing. iv. Additional points will be included for pedestrians counted during the daily peak vehicular traffic period as follows: (a) 1 to 10 pedestrians 3 points (b) pedestrians 5 points (c) pedestrians 15 points

11 Page 3 (d) Greater than 40 pedestrians ½ point for each pedestrian c. The City Engineer will maintain a list of street sections that meet the criteria described above, and will rank the streets in order of points assigned City Funded Traffic Calming/Installation. a. Subject to available funding and budgetary considerations, and prior to moving forward with resident-initiated and city-funded traffic calming measures, the City will host a public neighborhood meeting where the calming measures and alternatives will be presented. Affected Residents will be invited to the meeting to review plans and alternatives. b. For a resident-initiated traffic calming project that meet the criteria of Section (a), but which is low on the priority list, or if City funding is not available in a time frame that is desirable to the petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) may propose a self-funding mechanism for the project to achieve a faster completion. Any proposed self funding of a project shall address ongoing and future maintenance expenses as well as initial installation and construction costs. c. City Council will review the design and traffic data and will take final public comments prior to consideration of a resolution approving the installation Funding/Health and Safety. Any other provision of this Chapter notwithstanding, no traffic calming project or other improvement to the streets as contemplated by this Chapter shall proceed unless the City has available funds; nor shall it proceed if the City Engineer determines that the implementation of traffic calming measures will endanger the public health and safety City-Initiated Projects. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall preclude the City from installing or construction street improvements, including traffic calming measures, in those instances where the City Engineer determines that such construction and/or installation is necessary or advisable for the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City. The procedures of this Chapter shall not apply to traffic improvements or traffic-calming measures initiated and completed by the City. Section 2. If any article, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each part or parts hereof irrespective of the fact that any one part or parts be declared unconstitutional or invalid. Section 3. All other ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this ordinance or any portion hereof is hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 4. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Municipal Code of the City of

12 Page 4 Golden by this ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision. Each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings and prosecutions for enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree or order which can or may be rendered, entered or made in such actions, suits, proceedings or prosecutions. Section 5. This ordinance is deemed necessary for the protection of health, welfare and safety of the community. Section 6. Violations of this ordinance shall be punishable as set forth in Section of the Golden Municipal Code. Introduced, read, passed and ordered published the 25th day of September, Passed and adopted upon second reading and ordered published this 9 th day of October, ATTEST: Marjorie N. Sloan Mayor Susan Brooks, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: David S. Williamson City Attorney I, Susan M. Brooks, City Clerk of the City of Golden, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced on first reading and read at a regular business meeting of the City Council of said city, held on the 12th day of August, 2010, and was published as a proposed ordinance in the Golden Transcript, legal newspaper, as the law directs seven days or more prior to its passage. A public hearing was held on the 26th day of August, 2010, and the said proposed ordinance was read on second reading. The ordinance was passed by the City Council and ordered published in the aforesaid newspaper, as the law directs on the 26th day of August, Witness my hand and official seal of the City of Golden, Colorado, this 27th day of August, (SEAL)

13 Page 5 ATTEST: Susan M. Brooks, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Golden, Colorado