The meeting was called to order by Committee Member Mike Yourkowski on January 27, 2004, at 6:16 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 491 E Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
Present Members: Mike Yourkowski, Steve Smith, Lane Chesley
Absent Members: Kurt Marquardt
Present
Staff: Deputy City Clerk Benson, Public
Works Director Meyer
The agenda was approved by consensus.
SYNOPSIS APPROVAL
A. Synopsis of January 20, 2003
The synopsis was approved by consensus.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Soundview/Fairview Area Transportation -
Includes Discussion with Tony Neal, Land Owner/Developer
Public Works Director Meyer and Steve Smith discussed reasons for asking Mr. Neal to attend this meeting. Topics discussed were:
· Issues for Motorized Traffic regarding east/west arterials, i.e. Bypass and Pioneer will require relief
· Opportunity to show Mr. Neal what the current Transportation Plan shows
· Specifically looking at an arterial for thru-traffic from East Hill Road to West Hill Road, which would pass through Mr. Neal’s development
· Solicit plans and suggestions from Mr. Neal regarding motorized transportation through his development
· Explained to Mr. Neal the current east/west route the committee had in mind - Fairview Avenue extended to the High School; extension on west end of Fairview and ties into Soundview Avenue to West Homer Elementary School. (This would provide access to both schools without using the arterials). Then, extend Fairview Avenue to West Hill through the Hillside Acres Subdivision.
· The transportation plan modeled extension is to somehow hook up to East Hill, requiring access through Mr. Neal’s development.
· Existing plan is to extend Heath Street to west side of high school property, the curl over to East Hill. One issue is the poor site distance at the existing intersection.
· Shellfish - not developed but dedicated - seems most appropriate access with good site distance.
· Committee is seeking information from Mr. Neal on how he felt about this plan and how it affects his future plans.
· Concluded that the committee is looking for a win/win situation.
Tony Neal testified that he is generally interested in Homer development and, of course, personally interested because he has a big investment going on. He didn’t know this group existed until Mr. Meyer invited him to a meeting. After meeting with Mr. Meyer he had an idea of what the needs are. Mr. Neal advised that he supports the community need. In part, he agreed with the solution and in part, he disagreed. He purchased the Barnett property - 17 acres and the house - and has a development project in progress there. He has an option to purchase - which he advised he’s sure he would take - on 38 acres below that; this being the area the committee is looking at for a transportation corridor. Mr. Neal advised he had been working on preliminary plats for that area. He made some points:
· Does not want arterial streets - wants to have nice neighborhoods
· Natural cross-town arterial is Shellfish - straight, good view
· Coming around under Heimbuch’s property is invasive - like wrecking good land
· Does not want land or property value diminished by right-of-ways for streets
· Water crossing do-able, albeit difficult
· Recommended to connect Shellfish with Anderson, cut the road around the corner, do some excavation at Anderson/Shellfish (clarified that Anderson changes to Heath). Then, going west, Elderberry or Mountainview would be options.
· Recommended connecting the arterial above Heimbuch’s property.
· Across town access would then be Shellfish to Anderson, then south to Sterling Highway, then west.
During the discussion, Mr. Neal advised that he would have, in part, a cul-de-sac development. He would be connecting South Slope to Elderberry. Mr. Neal hung a map on the board showing his plans and reviewed it with the committee. It was noted that Shellfish is dedicated all the way through. Mr. Neal indicated a route he recommended calling it “circuitous” to cut down on the speeding traffic of an arterial. He indicated a cul-de-sac at the top of the map that he felt would get the best use of the property. Mr. Neal advised that he had plans for trails and would dedicate trails strictly for walking. Mr. Neal indicated on the map that he would be happy to have the traffic cross the north side of his property. He indicated a cul-de-sac commenting that he thought the city wanted the road to come down through there, however, he thought the best use for the land was to divide it for residents and make it a quiet neighborhood.
There were a few brief comments on wetlands, the challenges of crossing the drainage areas, and some options in overcoming the challenges.
Mr. Neal indicated the far left of his map saying some excavation would be needed because of the grade. The committee noted that the Anderson parcel (to the far left of the map) was undedicated.
It was noted that there are ˝ streets all over the City. Mr. Neal commented that he’d rather the City deal with the Andersons than run a highway through his property.
The committee commented on the advantages of this discussion and working together to plan as opposed to not having any basis to extend anything. Mr. Neal stated that he likes a plan because it makes it easier to get the plat approved. He advised that the preliminary plat he displayed is not his priority right now. He commented that he would like to work everything out to keep this all a win/win situation.
The committee discussed with Mr. Neal their original ideas, what the transportation plan currently suggests and their new ideas for some changes in the plan. Shellfish topography/terrain was discussed. Mr. Neal described the right-of-way as a side hill, gentle slope and easy construction until the water crossing; the water crossing is not a canyon - it’s spread out, a low spot, wet grass. He suggested that with a Corp. of Engineers permit the water could be channeled utilizing a culvert. He did not see that as a difficult crossing.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that the only other logical way is to swing Heath Street over and come up South Slope - that brings traffic into a T intersection. He advised he did not see any advantage of leaving in the Heath Street right-of-way and cutting across the property. Mr. Neal interjected that he agreed. Mr. Meyer acknowledged that there would be some work at the intersection of Shellfish and Anderson and that the slope of Heath Street would be marginal but it could be worked out with some planning.
Steve Smith voiced his support for Mr. Neal’s plan saying it makes sense to extend Heath Street all the way up to the center quarter corner; then take Shellfish across the top. He pointed out that this develops an entire neighborhood on the east side and it makes sense to have that as an arterial access. Mr. Meyer pointed out that a residential neighborhood could not access an arterial, and that an arterial would take a large swath of property out of the area. He added that although there are a couple of streams and some earth work required, it is a viable option. He didn’t see anything better at this point.
The need for traffic calming measures through the arterial was discussed including curves and intersections. Mr. Meyer commented on the dichotomy of arterials - the point is to move traffic across town with very little interference; then there’s always the feeling of creating a speedway and wanting to slow traffic down. He added that the advantage of going through developed property is the traffic calming curves.
Mr. Neal pointed out that at Shellfish and Anderson it might be more difficult than it’s worth to get extra right-of-way to make a bigger curve because Heimbuch’s would have to give up their property. Although it does get people across town faster - not that they have the right to go as fast as they can - he voiced his support for a T-intersection and a Stop sign.
Steve Gibson, a member of the audience, suggested that while going up the hill, keep the radius fairly tight on the curve to slow traffic; Anderson is a great place to stop traffic because it’s on the level.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that the details are not part of the transportation plan. Right now the committee is focused on suggesting corridors. Steve Smith advised that Alaska State DOT offered to do a traffic study that would include engineers recommendations on the details.
The committee thanked Mr. Neal for his time and information.
Steve Gibson advised that he is the owner of the “territory” just above Heimbuch’s property and asked to make a few comments. He expressed his opinion that from his standpoint Shellfish would not be a desirable arterial, however, he acknowledged that from the standpoint of the whole City and from Mr. Neal’s point of view it seemed like the right decision to have Shellfish as the arterial. He added that nobody wants an arterial in their back yard, however, when he bought the property he understood that this would come to pass someday. He voiced his opinion that using the habitat for an arterial would demean the neighborhood. He hoped the City would keep the speeds down. He advised further that he didn’t want to be responsible for the cost of participating in road improvements beyond the cost of a residential street.
Mr. Gibson asked the committee if the decision to route the water and sewer utilities had anything to do with the location of the roads. Public Works Director Meyer talked briefly about the Water System Study done in 1982. He added that normally the City tries to follow street rights-of-way and doesn’t like put utilities in easements; further, Shellfish is a logical alignment from East Hill to Mountainview.
Councilmember Stark commented that there is nothing wrong with putting sewer and water in a local road because it’s not like there will be 20,000 cars a day. It has nothing to do with the size of the road. It’s just using the right-of-way and after the utilities are in the ground nobody knows they’re there. He concluded that they could be put where they go best - in any local road or, if needed, in an easement.
Public Works Director Meyer commented on the advantages of planning ahead for utilities. He also commented on the problems with developments that have already been created that didn’t take into consideration gravity sewer, the need for easements or the cost of the infrastructure. He noted that in Mr. Neal’s case the City has an opportunity to work together to get roads, sewer, water, drainage, protection of wetlands and other issues dealt with upfront. Councilmember Stark added that another advantage would be the ability to construct the utilities prior to building the road.
Public Works Director Meyer offered to place the modeled extensions and the decisions/suggestions made by the committee on a map. He will show the decisions made on the Fairview section, the Heath Street section and the downtown area so they can see if it all works together. Next, the committee will review the Transportation plan in sections and get a handle on the goals and objectives.
Mr. Neal and Mr. Gibson left the meeting at 6:52 p.m. Everyone expressed their appreciation for all of the input.
The committee discussed their goals, their time line and what they wanted for the next meeting.
Meshing the trails plan with the transportation plan was discussed briefly. The conclusion was that the trails plan might be done in time to include it.
The committee requested copies of the maps of the proposed changes to the Bypass that went with the Statement of Services - Draft January 2004 that was distributed at the last meeting. The maps were copied and distributed to the committee by the clerk. Crosswalks were discussed. Mr. Meyer advised that in their plan the State recommends placing them on the Sterling Hwy at Pioneer Avenue, Main Street, Poopdeck, Heath Street and Lake Street. A lower speed recommendation was commented on briefly and compared with the Sterling Hwy that passes through Soldotna and Moose Pass. It was noted that Homer is different in that this is the end of the road; traffic ends up in the Central Business District - there is no place else to go from here. The committee discussed some details in the design of pedestrian crossings and the advantages of slowing the traffic in this area.
Public Works Director Meyer reiterated some of the reasons why a Transportation Plan is important for the growth of a community, therefore supporting the importance of the Road Standards Committee’s work.
Commissioner Chesley, “We can plan or be planned for.” He further commented on the number of important facets of what others are doing such as the Planning Commission, that are coming together to create a whole community plan.
Public Works Director Meyer commented on the extensive list of local projects in progress for 2004 -
The committee discussed at some length the current plans for and problems with prior construction of the Sterling Highway and some reasons why there are problems with some of the pavement “unraveling”.
B. Review Transportation Maps and Finalize Recommendations for Central Business District
The committee discussed a time for the next meeting and the items they wanted on the agenda. The conclusion was to have the map for review at the next meeting on Tuesday, February 3rd. The committee scheduled another meeting for Tuesday, February 24th.
Councilmember Mike Yourkowski commented that he would like to have some input on the Sterling Highway changes/plans. Public Works Director Meyer offered to bring the plans so the committee could look at the details.
The committee concluded that the next agenda is:
Presentation of the Revised Modeled Extension Map
Review and Discuss the DOT Striping Plan for the Sterling Hwy
Discuss the Goals and Objectives in the Transportation Plan
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. The next meeting is February 3rd, 2004, at 6 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
____________________________________
DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: ___________________________