Key Pad Polling Results. Goals and Strategies Open House February 3, 2011

Transcription

1 Key Pad Polling Results Goals and Strategies Open House February 3, 2011

2 1. What is your age 1. Under years years years 5. Over 65 years 49% 11% 1% 11% 27% Under years years years Over 65 years

3 3. How did you learn out about this event? 1. Flyer 2. Newspaper 49% 3. Radio 4. Word of mouth 28% 5. County website 15% 6. 2% 0% 5% Flyer Newspaper Radio Word of mouth County website

4 Where do you live? 31% 1. Spanish Valley Grand County 1% 2. Spanish Valley San Juan County 58% 3. In the City of Moab 6% 4. Castle Valley 0% 5. Colorado River 0% 6. Cisco/Westwater 2% 7. La Sals 0% 8. Thompson Springs 1% 9. I 70 0% 10. US 191 North

5 Top 2 favorite kinds of music 26% 1. Country western 58% 2. Rock 19% 3. Bluegrass 3% 4. Religious/faith 24% 5. Folk 9% 6. Punk 10% 7. Jazz 12% 8. Pop/top 40 12% 9. Hip hop 18% 10. Classical

6 Open Space Types 1. Geological Hazards 2. Steep Slopes 3. Ridgelines 4. Riparian Areas 5. Historic Sites 6. Agricultural Lands

7 Top 2 Open Space Priorities 1. Geologic Hazards 2. Steep slopes 3. Ridgelines 4. Riparian Areas 1. Geological Hazards 2. Steep Slopes 3. Ridgelines 5. Historic Sites 6. Agricultural Land 17% 13% 57% 37% 25% 40% 4. Riparian Areas 5. Historic Sites Geologic Hazards Steep slopes Ridgelines Riparian Areas Historic Sites Agricultural Land 6. Agricultural Lands

8 Open Space Set aside 1. Open Space dedication 2. Continuous Open Space throughout County with fee

9 Which voluntary open space program is better? 47% 1. Open space set aside for density bonus 53% 2. Fee in lieu of open space for buying public open space 1. Open Space within a development 2. Open Space throughout County with fee

10

11 Rural Center

12 Do you think rural centers are a good 3% 1. Yes, anywhere idea for this plan? 60% 10% 28% 2. Yes, in the appropriate locations 3. I could live with it 4. I would not like to see them happen

13 Complete Streets Safe Routes to School

14

15 Complete Streets Which is more pedestrian friendly?

16 Should some county roads offer 84% 1. Yes pedestrian/bicycle access? 16% 2. No

17 Complete Streets Bike Lanes Bike Lane vs Trail Detached, parallel multi modal trail Bike Lane along road Curb, gutter, sidewalk No pedestrian/bike

18 Pedestrian and bike options 1. Detached Multimodal Trail 3. Bike lane along road 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 4. No pedestrian/bike

19 Preference for the north south collector roads (Spanish Valley Drive, Mill Creek Drive) 1. Detached Multimodal Trail 3. Bike lane along road 45% 1. Detached Multimodal 11% 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 36% 3. Bike lane along the road 9% 4. No pedestrian/bike Curb, gutter, sidewalk Curb, gutter, sidewalk 4. No pedestrian/bike

20 Preference for the East West Roads: Spanish 1. Trail Road, Mill Creek Drive, San Jose Road, Sage Detached Multimodal Avenue, Trail Resource Road, Beeman 3. Road Bike lane along 30% 1. Detached Multimodal road 9% 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 54% 3. Bike lane along the road 7% 4. No pedestrian/bike Curb, gutter, sidewalk Curb, gutter, sidewalk 4. No pedestrian/bike

21 1. Detached Multimodal Trail 3. Bike lane along road Curb, gutter, sidewalk Curb, gutter, sidewalk Preference for US 191 South 76% 1. Detached Multimodal 1% 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 11% 3. Bike lane along the road 11% 4. No pedestrian/bike 4. No pedestrian/bike

22 1. Detached Multimodal Trail 3. Bike lane along road Curb, gutter, sidewalk Curb, gutter, sidewalk Preference for US 191 North 87% 1. Detached Multimodal 0% 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 4% 3. Bike lane along the road 9% 4. No pedestrian/bike 4. No pedestrian/bike

23 1. Detached Preference for Hwy 128 Multimodal Trail 3. Bike lane along road 53% 1. Detached Multimodal 1% 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 30% 3. Bike lane along the road 16% 4. No pedestrian/bike Curb, gutter, sidewalk Curb, gutter, sidewalk 4. No pedestrian/bike

24 1. Detached Preference for Hwy 279 Multimodal Trail 3. Bike lane along road 31% 1. Detached Multimodal 0% 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 57% 3. Bike lane along the road 12% 4. No pedestrian/bike Curb, gutter, sidewalk Curb, gutter, sidewalk 4. No pedestrian/bike

25 1 US 191 Corridor No frontage road or buffer

26 2 US 191 Corridor Parallel frontage road with detached trail

27 3 US 191 Corridor Alternate frontage road alignment with detached trail

28 Preferences for US 191 South 1. No frontage road or buffer 2. Parallel frontage road with detached trail 3. Alternate frontage alignment with detached trail No frontage road or b... 31% Parallel frontage road... 28% 41% Alternate frontage al...

29 Design for Pedestrian Access

30 In what locations (if any) do you think commercial land uses should design for 1. US 191 South commercial areas 2. US 191 North commercial areas 3. All commercial areas 4. No pedestrian access design needed pedestrian access? US 191 South comme... 0% US 191 North comme... 9% 61% All commercial areas No pedestrian acces... 29%

31 Transportation Inside of a Development 1. No curb and gutter, detached trail system 2. Curb and gutter and walk

32 Which is most appropriate for residential development 34% 1. No curb and gutter and detached trails 11% 32% 23% 2. Curb, gutter, sidewalk 3. Depends on the location 4. Depends on the density

33 Connectivity

34 Connectivity

35 Rate the importance of connectivity in the unincorporated county 35% 1. Very important 43% 22% 2. Somewhat important 3. Not important

36 Visual Impact Mitigation 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning / Ridgeline Protection 3. Architectural Design (color and materials) 4. No Visual Impact Mitigation

37 Visual Impact Mitigation for US 191 North 6% 52% 27% 15% 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline Protection 3. Architectural: color and materials 4. No visual impact mitigation 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline 3. Architectural Design (color and materials) 4. No Visual Impact Mitigation

38 Visual Impact Mitigation for US 191 South (along the highway) 11% 42% 32% 15% 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline Protection 3. Architectural: color and materials 4. No visual impact mitigation 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline 3. Architectural Design (color and materials) 4. No Visual Impact Mitigation

39 14% 40% 31% 15% Visual Impact Mitigation for the Spanish Valley (mostly residential areas) 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline Protection 3. Architectural: color and materials 4. No visual impact mitigation 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline 3. Architectural Design (color and materials) 4. No Visual Impact Mitigation

40 Visual Impact Mitigation for the Colorado River Corridor 9% 55% 28% 8% 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline Protection 3. Architectural: color and materials 4. No visual impact mitigation 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline 3. Architectural Design (color and materials) 4. No Visual Impact Mitigation

41 Visual Impact Mitigation for Thompson Springs 6% 33% 20% 40% 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline Protection 3. Architectural: color and materials 4. No visual impact mitigation 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline 3. Architectural Design (color and materials) 4. No Visual Impact Mitigation

42 Visual Impact Mitigation for Cisco Westwater I70 3% 29% 16% 52% 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline Protection 3. Architectural: color and materials 4. No visual impact mitigation 1. Buffering 2. Site Planning/Ridgeline 3. Architectural Design (color and materials) 4. No Visual Impact Mitigation

43 Commercial/Non Residential Lighting Plan view of a light 1. Full cut off 2. No light trespass across a property line 3. Light level limits

44 Preference for commercial/non residential lighting 33% 1. Full cut off requirements 27% 22% 18% 2. Light trespass restriction 3. Foot candle limits 4. No lighting standards/limits 1. Full cut off 2. No light trespass 3. Foot Candle limits

45 Stormwater Management Residential

46 Stormwater Management Commercial

47 Stormwater Management Concept 1. Conventional Piped approach 2. Stormwater Quality Treatment

48 Preferences for storm water management 1. Conventional piped approach 2. Storm water quality treatment 85% 15% Conventional piped... Storm water quality...

49 Solar Access 1. Design Review prior to Building Permit Solar fences Building design Height

50 Solar Access New development layouts 2. Layout is key to solar access in new development. Street orientation Lot and street dimensions Open space configuration Relationship to topography

51 Preference for solar access: 1. Design review prior to building permit 2. New development layout 3. No solar access protection 54% 24% 22% Design review prior t... New development la... No solar access prot

52 Solar Access Remove barriers for individual use

53 Remove barriers for individual solar 59% 1. I support this energy systems 22% 19% 2. I can live with it 3. I don t support this

54 Solar Farms

55 Would you like to see commercialscale solar power in the county? 9% 1. Yes, anywhere 70% 9% 13% 2. Yes, in the appropriate location 3. I could live with it 4. I would not like to see it here

56 Wind Power Wind Map of Utah

57 Wind Power

58 Would you like to see commercialscale wind power in the county? 10% 1. Yes, anywhere 70% 8% 12% 2. Yes, in the appropriate location 3. I could live with it 4. I would not like to see it here

59 Environmentally Friendly Design Energy savings Water efficiency CO2 emissions reduction Improve indoor air quality Water quality treatment Sensitivity to Building impacts

60 Do you think an incentive based energy conservation building code is 78% 1. Yes worth pursuing? 22% 2. No