The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Marquardt on February 3, 2004, at 6:15 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 491 E Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska. 

Present members: Kurt Marquardt, Steve Smith, Lane Chesley,

Absent members: Mike Yourkowski

Present staff:            Deputy City Clerk Benson, City Planner McKibben, Public Works Director Meyer

 

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

The agenda was approved by consensus.

 

SYNOPSIS APPROVAL

 

A.            Synopsis of January 27, 2004

 

The synopsis was approved by consensus.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

A.           Presentation of the Draft/Revised Transportation Map

 

Public Works Director Meyer presented a large map on the board showing the results of the discussions by the Road Standards Committee so far and smaller individual maps for notes. The map showed property lines and indicated in red the modeled extensions of the Transportation Plan City-wide.  Mr. Meyer reminded all that this map is not the final product.  He described how the maps are created and explained how easily they can be changed electronically.  He offered that a topographical map would also be available.

 

Mr. Meyer indicated on the map there was a difference between this and the “old” version regarding the Fairview Avenue extension.  He pointed out that the new version follows the easements recently obtained by the City for utilities and takes into consideration the already platted Fairview Avenue to West Hill.  On the map, part of Fairview Avenue is called Wolf Way, however has been platted as Fairview Avenue and the 30’ on the north side of the section line has been dedicated.  He indicated on the map that it takes into consideration a plat that has been approved and relayed his discussions with John Hansen, who has submitted a preliminary plat for his development but didn’t follow through and it became null and void.  There was a consideration of going around Hansen’s property however the topography was too steep.

 

Another area Mr. Meyer concentrated on was the Heath Street/Shellfish connection on the east side.

He said he thought Nelson Avenue was on the old plan and ran below Mr. Neal’s property, however, it didn’t match up with the preliminary design Mr. Neal provided.  He went over the route Mr. Neal had suggested.  Mr. Smith advised that he’d surveyed in that area and felt that topographically there was “no way” to build a road there because it was too steep.  Mr. Meyer expressed concern regarding the big cul-de-sac below Nelson and was interested in encouraging a connection there so that area would have a couple of different ways out.  They committee noted that there were several cul-de-sacs in Mr. Neal’s plan.  Mr. Meyer stated that a road through there would be great and would not add significantly to the traffic circulation.  The committee discussed the property behind the Martin Zeller/Kenton Bloom business development.  Mr. Meyer pointed out that a utility easement would be going up through that property and would probably open it up to more traffic. There was a brief discussion regarding Bruce Petska’s plans in this area also.

 

Public Works Director Meyer indicated that he took out the extension across the moose habitat.  He commented that the Fireweed connection was a little bit steep; it’s there; it’s not improved; there is no dedicated right-of-way and doesn’t meet standards.

 

Bell Avenue extension was discussed.  The reason it’s never been developed or built is the 7-foot deep gully it has to cross.  The Highland Drive extension has a similar situation on the far west.  The current development of Highland Drive was discussed briefly stating it doesn’t go all the way through.  Mr. Meyer offered that a contour map and GIS, in addition to the aerial photography, would be available soon and would probably answer a lot of questions regarding what’s buildable.  He advised that right now the contours show 2’ variations, which would probably be too much; he suggested 10’ increments.  He added that he was looking into sectioning the map into 4 quadrants. 

 

Yule’s Perch area at Baycrest just below Roger’s Loop was discussed briefly.  The question was whether this area has had some plat work done - no one present knew the answer.  The committee brought up complaints that a route through this area was being used as a shortcut to the dump.  Another access would cut down on the volume of people going through, and may not be a solution, but could be more considerate of the neighborhood and would be a reason for including the road extension on the map. 

 

The committee discussed the Fireweed extension.  They acknowledged that it would create a lot of traffic through that area.  They talked about encouraging developers in that area to create multiple ways to access East End Road and Kachemak Drive.   There was further discussion on topography and the fact that it is almost all wetlands in the area of Aspen Lane and the Ballpark area - below East End Road.

 

The committee acknowledged that there are narratives in the plan to match the modeled extensions on the map.  The committee was going about looking at the plan backwards - it would have been better to start with the narrative, then create the map.  They would need to establish goals and objectives to explain why the extensions they have chosen are important.  Mr. Meyer suggested the committee move on to the text and come back to the map. 

 

B.            Review/Discuss State DOT Striping Plan for the Sterling Highway

 

This item was not discussed.

 

C.            Discuss the Goals and Objectives in the Transportation Plan

 

Mr. Smith said he thought that the Transportation Plan as written was conflicting with what the committee was trying to accomplish.  He referred to Goal #4 - “Homer’s Street System should be configured to encourage a hierarchical progression for trips, and discourage by-pass and cut-through trips on residential streets” and Goal #5 - “The expansion of the transportation system should minimize impacts to residential areas and parks”, saying that the extensions the committee has talked about in the Central Business District are crucial to alleviating the stress on the arterials and unfortunately they would encourage a by-pass through residential areas.   Mr. Smith went on to explain that the current goal is to relieve peak traffic on the arterials and yet not bypass through neighborhoods.  He stated that the City couldn’t have it both ways.  City Planner McKibben described the streets being proposed as being “minor collectors” rather than “residential streets” therefore this may boil down to semantics.  There was a brief discussion regarding the wording.

 

The committee discussed the extension of Fairview Avenue at length.  Comments and points of the committee and Councilmember Stark follow:

-         There has been three designs that were paid for by the City of Homer that have died; 

o       1. Standard 24’ wide with a 2:1 slope and a 2:1 back-slope

o       2. Plan including curb and gutter and sidewalk and street lighting

o       3. Then, a plan that went back to the old ditching program

-         There has been too much opposition to opening up the residential area

-         This extension between the High School and West Hill - past the elementary school - is one of the three most important extensions shown on the map

-         Fairview extension is the most effective at relieving traffic on Pioneer Avenue

-         There will be opposition; political will is needed to make it happen

-         No one wants their street to become an arterial; a good reason why planning is important

-         Fairview extension is critical to alleviating traffic on Pioneer Avenue from 3:30 to 5:30

-         The majority of the people using the Fairview extension would be the people living there and adjacent to it.  There would be no encouragement for others to use it.

-         Great idea to be able to get to both schools (West Elementary and High School) without having to hit the Bypass and/or Pioneer Avenue - very important goal for the committee.

-         Planning wasn’t a tool available when this situation was created - the committee now is tasked with making a decision based on the best interest of the community, not individual property owners.  The silver lining would be that this wouldn’t happen anymore...

-         An option to not making Fairview a collector is to make Pioneer Avenue a 4-lane street.

-         Fairview is topographically sound and extends perfectly from East Hill to West Hill Road.

 

A discussion regarding making Pioneer Avenue a 4-lane street ensued.  The committee discussed the following points -

-         Pioneer Avenue has a 60’ right-of-way

-         There is 3’ from the back of the sidewalk to the edge of the right-of-way

-         To add a lane would eliminate the sidewalks

-         The right-of-way would allow one sidewalk

-         The center lane is 1.5 lanes right now and it is possible to squeeze in another lane

-         Everyone goes to Pioneer Avenue to get anywhere - four lanes would not reduce the traffic

-         Does not meet the Comprehensive Plan - the plan is to make it a pedestrian-friendly shopping district by reducing it to a 2-lane and creating on-street parking

 

The committee reviewed the pros and cons of putting traffic on Fairview versus expanding Pioneer Avenue.  The thought was that people coming from West Hill and/or East Hill probably would not choose to go through a neighborhood over taking an arterial to the schools or to get downtown, especially if there is no congestion on the arterial.  A statement was made that when dealing with modeled extensions to alleviate city-wide traffic congestion issue:

-         They should be pursued as if they were a high funding priority for the city and we were asking the State to alleviate a major congestion problem

-         Not burden property owners with the cost

-         Ask the State as a highest priority traffic alleviation project

Further discussion suggested that the days of getting funding from the State are over.  The STIP program was reviewed as an example for thinking that DOT may not do anymore work in Homer at all.  The money is just not there.

 

The committee looked at other options to meeting the traffic needs without State funds.  Two options were mentioned - General Fund money or Homer Accelerated Roads Program (HARP) money.  The process for using these funds was discussed briefly.  There is no precedent for using the General Fund for constructing roads and the HARP money requires property owner’s cooperation and financial support.  Bond issues - General Obligation and Revenue - were discussed as another option. 

The possibility of prioritizing the modeled extensions when presented to the Council was brought up. The committee thought this was doable.

 

At this point the committee returned to specific goals in the Transportation Plan.  Goal 5 was discussed and a suggestion was made that making Fairview Avenue a thru-street would not violate the wording.  Goal 3 - is what the committee is currently addressing.  Goal 4 - the committee reviewed the wording  “discourage bypass and cut through trips on residential streets”.  They looked at examples, i.e. traffic from East End Road will not cut through Fairview; traffic from West Hill Road will not cut through; Mountainview will probably take Fairview but they are part of the neighborhood.  The committee noted that opening Fairview and building sidewalks would probably allow children to walk to school. 

 

City Planner McKibben asked the committee to look at the issues; the goals are created to address the issues.  The committee went back to the issues and looked for issues that still exist and how to address them in the goals.  Goal 4 was a focus at this time; how does it rectify the issues?  Goals 1 - 3 address the issues, however, the committee looked at rewording Goal 4.  A suggestion was made to add “ ... from outlaying areas”.   Another suggestion was to delete “and discourage by-pass and cut-through trips on residential streets”.  Another suggestion was to replace “discourage” with “minimize”.  The traffic growth was reviewed; the current model says population and economical growth is 2%; there are other issues that effect traffic other than population growth such as tourism, and seasonal traffic such as construction.  It was suggested to add another issue point that Homer does not have a traffic problem in the winter and that traffic volume doubles in the summer time.  This would be justification for moving local traffic off of prime arterials.

 

Public Works Director Meyer pointed out that the City of Homer City Council has not adopted definitions of what the types of streets mean.  This document would be the first time a resident of Homer has been formally told what type of street they live on, i.e. residential, collector, etc.  

 

Commissioner Chesley suggested a new issue between Issues 1 and 2.  He basically wanted to add that the City’s traffic volume is growing at a rate exceeding the modeled rate of 2%.  City Planner McKibben discussed the increase in vehicle trips as growing at a much higher rate than the population and economical rate of 2%.  Mr. Marquardt pointed out that the 2% does not include the outlaying area surrounding Homer, which is growing at a much greater level.  Mr. Smith took issue with the 2% noting that it would take 30+ years at this rate for the population to double; he thought the rate was much higher. 

 

Mr. Smith suggested that an issue that needs to be addressed is that large blocks of residential areas are forced to use arterials to access the schools.

 

Issue #4 was discussed regarding pedestrian and bicycle trails needing to be worded as an issue.  City Planner McKibben pointed out the current #4 does not contain an issue; it’s a statement. 

 

The committee discussed the possibility of including the statement that there is a lack of trail connections and no requirement for one.  The advantage of including this gives the Planning Commission the power to take this link in the Transportation Plan to require subdivisions to include easements for trails, improvements for sidewalks or whatever.  A recent example cited was a subdivision that came before the Planning Commission that had no provisions for pedestrians to the school nor was it planned as a walkable community.  The Commission could only suggest changes.  A trails plan approved by the City Council would change that.  The Borough would have to acknowledge it also. 

 

Commissioner Chesley brought up Issue 7 regarding the elderly population.  He noted that there is no sidewalk link between the Senior Housing and Pioneer Avenue.  Ms. KcKibben pointed out that the majority of the residents at the Kenai Peninsula Housing Initiative complex would probably not be drivers and would need pedestrian access.  Mr. Chesley advised that a photo was taken of a senior in a wheel chair driving down the street by the bookstore in the middle of the road due to the gravel on the shoulder.  She was a third of the way in the traffic lane as she was trying to go down the street.  He suggested that Issue 7 be restated as more of an issue. 

 

City Planner McKibben commented on the fact that there is no public transportation in the community.  While looking into the future, there is a population that requires it.  Public Works Director Meyer advised that this issue is addressed in the report and documented the need for more vans and drivers.  Ms. McKibben interjected that if that were in the Plan it can be used to get grant money.

 

The committee discussed at length the importance of looking at other issues besides motorized transportation.  Mr. Meyer noted that Issues 1-3 were in a separate category than the rest of the issues.  The committee agreed to focus on the motorized portion of the plan and make a placeholder for trails and other issues.  There were supporting statements that creating sidewalks for pedestrian traffic is part of planning for roads.

 

Mr. Chesley noted that there is no issue in the current plan for Air Transportation.  Mr. Meyer advised that an Airport Master Plan is in the works at this time.  There was a brief discussion regarding increased traffic caused by the multi-purpose dock.  There was support for changing Issue 5 to read “...generate industrial/commercial traffic.”  After some discussion it was concluded that   the normal generation of traffic is a separate issue than the conflicts with the recreational traffic.  A change in wording in Issue 5 was suggested to expand the multi-purpose dock to include the deep water dock and use the word “harbor” or “port” and add wording to deal with the recreational traffic. The committee discussed options of traffic flow on the Spit.  It was noted on page I-27 of the report that two-lane roads with speeds of 40-45 mph can accommodate volumes of around 10,000 vehicles per day and added that current studies show there are volumes of 12,000 vehicles per day right now.  The concept of reducing speed limits was discussed.  Not everyone agreed that traffic flow was increased by slowing down traffic. For instance, that concept would not work on the Sterling Highway between Homer and Soldotna; but would impact traffic flow on the Sterling Highway/Bypass section.  There was agreement that traffic entering and exiting the flow is improved by slowing the speed limit and alleviates congestion on the inlets.     

 

The time was noted and the committee discussed their homework.  They are to look at the issues and goals.  Next meeting the committee will finish the issues and get into the goals.  Mr. Meyer will look at the topography of a couple of the extensions and eliminate them if they don’t make sense and get closer to finalizing the map.  City Planner McKibben and Mr. Meyer will come back with the proposed changes.  The next agenda will include what the committee didn’t get to in this meeting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

There were no public comments.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Due to the late hour the committee decided to adjourn at 8:07 p.m. and take up the uncompleted portion of this agenda, with updates, at the next scheduled meeting for February 24, 2004, at 6 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.([1])

 

 

______________________________________

DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: _____________________________



[1] The next meeting has been rescheduled  to March 2nd 6 p.m. Council Chambers