The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Marquardt on March 2, 2004, at 6:11 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 491 E Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
Members Present: Kurt Marquardt, Steve Smith, Mike Yourkowski
Members Absent: Lane Chesley
Staff Present: Deputy City Clerk Benson, City Planner McKibben, Public Works Director Meyer,
City Manager Wrede
The agenda was approved by consensus.
SYNOPSIS APPROVAL
A. Synopsis of February 3, 2004
The synopsis was approved by consensus.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Presentation of the Updated
Draft/Revised Transportation Map
Public Works Director Meyer didn’t have an updated version of the map. He stated he had questions about the topography in various locations and whether or not the recommendations were reasonable. He advised that he had the changes on the screen of the computer however didn’t get a chance to print them out. He voiced his opinion that what he saw was a good situation and pretty reasonable.
The committee discussed several upper hill connections and their alignments, grades, ravines and what it takes to place utilities in those locations.
The committee discussed weighing in on connections that haven’t been discussed but are platted and haven’t been developed. Chair Marquardt expressed his opinion that none of the right-of-ways be allowed to be vicariously eliminated through the planning process due to a neighbor’s whims or desires. He added that he wanted to see a recommendation coming from the Road Standards Committee stating strongly that right-of-ways be preserved.
City Planner McKibben stated that this could be placed in the transportation plan. She suggested wording along the lines that existing right-of-ways should not be vacated, however there would be times when it’s appropriate. She agreed to find the correct wording and insert it. Mr. Meyer suggested that realignments would be needed to increase access to lots and change the routes to connect dead end right-of-ways.
Public Works Director Meyer stated that he wanted to look at all of the dead end streets within the City and decide whether they should exist or not. Therefore by not showing a line on the transportation map it would indicate that it’s not a high priority connection and give more leeway to the developer. He went to the map on the board and indicated various locations he’d like to see changed. He located dead-end streets and made comments such as that Whispering Meadows dead end needs to tie into Fireweed; that Mission Road dead ends and doesn’t go anywhere; the Scenic Place dead end might tie into Cottonwood Lane however the topography is bad and it might be able to be a cul-de-sac; that Mary Ellen Avenue is a dead end but nothing to connect to due to the big ravine and there were other dead ends he did not name. The committee agreed that they still wanted to check out the topography however had moved on to the text of the document and began to make changes.
There was a brief discussion on whether or not the City’s input into the Borough roads plan would be appropriate or constructive. Mr. Meyer indicated that if the City had given more input into Borough lands, the annexed areas might have ended up different. He explained that the City ended up taking over roads that were not built to City standards and were not aligned the best possible way.
Chair Marquardt noted that the City Manager was in attendance.
Mr. Meyer
expressed staff’s concern regarding the time needing to be devoted to the
transportation plan. He offered that
the City Planner had volunteered to facilitate to keep things on track to move
through the goals and objections in the text.
Mr. Meyer suggested that the committee stay focused and finalize this in
the next month or two.
B. Discuss
the Goals and Objectives in the Transportation Plan
City Planner McKibben reviewed what the committee had accomplished last
meeting. The committee had worked
through Issues 1, 2, 3, 7, and talked about air transportation and the
multi-purpose dock and started on Goals.
The committee took up where they left off last week at Goal #4.
-
Goal #4 was
changed to “Homer’s Street System should be configured to encourage a
hierarchal progression for trips and minimize by-pass and cut-through trips on
residential streets”.
-
Goal #5 was
good - “The expansion of the transportation system should minimize impacts to
residential areas and parks.”
-
Goal #6 was good - “ The Trails and Path network
should provide alternative transportation modes and should enhance recreational
opportunities”. They would work with
the trails consultants to provide language to link the two plans together.
-
Goal #7 was
good -“The Trails and Path network should provide access to parks and other
center of recreation or cultural interest.”
-
Goal #8 - “Snow
storage sites should be developed in locations that will expedite operations
and minimize impacts.” - goal of the transportation plan to take a
look at costs and suggest locations for snow disposal sites. Previous snow
sites were a lot across from the entrance to the high school on East Road. The overflow snow disposal is at Mariner
Park. Hauling distance was an issue for
cost. Most snow comes from the CBD. Curb and gutter increases snow
maintenance. Water quality standards
requirements coming up in the future was briefly discussed. With a population of less than 10,000
people, the standards don’t apply. Snow
storage sites, if not handled property, can decimate water quality. A sedimentation basin would be required
along with skimming of floating debris and trash. It was suggested the City purchase property for snow removal
however funding is an issue and finding storage property in the CBD is an
issue. Soon the sand/storage pile would
need to be covered.
-
Goal #9 - “The
Transportation Plan shall include the needs and provisions for elderly and
disabled citizens.” Having a public
transit system as a goal assists in getting grants. Current crosswalks are inadequate. Pedestrian facilities, ie sidewalks, separated pathway, trails;
should be enhanced to include handicapped.
Goal #6 and Plan Objective #11 tie in with this.
No changes were made.
-
Need to add
Goal #10 - minimize conflict between commercial/industrial and recreational
traffic on the Spit.
The committee returned to Issue #1 regarding the City’s population and
economy forecast to grow at about 2% per year was discussed briefly. The committee decided to have staff do the
research and check those stats for accuracy prior to placing it in the
document. The committee noted that the
City’s population is not the only factor.
Other factors are traffic from outside the city and tourism. Staff advised that modeling numbers are
based upon actual traffic volumes that have been collected over the years. The committee discussed combining Issue 1
and Issue 2. They decided to delete
Issue 1 because it is a statement of fact, not an issue, and Issue 2 covers it.
The committee discussed Issue #5 and decided to make no changes.
Issue #8 regarding a shortage of parking in the CBD was discussed next. The committee questioned the validity of the “shortage”. Staff stated that zoning requirements assure parking in the CBD. The subject of on-street parking and central parking for pedestrians was brought up. Mr. Meyer reminded the committee that the transportation plan is more general and a traffic study gets more into the detail, ie. lane width, crosswalks, striping, etc.
The committee discussed pros and cons of on-street parking. Issues brought up and not necessarily agreed
upon were:
ü Is a subsidy of a business that should create
their own parking
ü Creates pedestrian safety issues
ü Is most convenient parking and enhances
pedestrian traffic
ü Centralized parking is an option versus
on-street parking
ü On-street parking reduces curb cuts, and;
ü Allows for more landscaping or larger buildings
on lots
Chair Marquardt asked to reserve this issue for another meeting.
The committee reviewed their work and took another look at Goal #6.
Goal #6 – Changed to “The Trails and Path network should provide
alternative transportation modes, connectivity throughout the community and
enhance recreational opportunities”.
Goal #8 - Changed to “Snow Storage sites should be developed in locations
that will expedite hauling operations and minimize water quality impacts and
conflicts with land uses”.
The committee moved on to the Objectives and noted that this plan will
reference the trails plan and will not cover trails to the extent that the
other plan did.
Plan Objective 1 - “This plan shall identify probable areas of
development. Criterion shall be completions of this analysis and identification
of likely areas.” Staff will look at
creating more plain language wording.
Plan Objective 2 - Changed
to “This plan should identify the
street network system to serve the existing and future areas of development
within Homer. Criterion shall be
evaluate, determine and apply the future network links to the system.” Levels of Service (LOS) on the arterials
during different seasons of the year and at intersections was discussed. The goals were to maintain the high levels
of services on the road and those intersections that are becoming low levels of
service need to be improved. There is a need to alleviate congestion on the
arterials - Pioneer Avenue and the Bypass.
Plan Objective 3 - “This plan shall evaluate the need for new corridors
around Homer. Criterion shall be the
evaluation and determination of feasible corridors. Feasibility should be determined with qualitative sub-criterion
that includes service to entire system, impacts to neighborhoods and
connectivity.” The definition of
“qualitative sub-criterion” was questioned. The committee agreed that this
needs some new wording.
Plan Objective 4 - “This plan shall evaluate new corridors based on
whether the community services are enhanced.”
No changes.
Plan Objective 5 - “This plan shall determine if there are traffic
benefits for corridors. Criterion shall be the percent volume reduced on other
roadways.” No changes.
Plan Objective 6 - “This plan shall identify possible areas for on-street
parking and/or a centrally located parking area.” No changes.
Plan Objective 7 - “For this planning horizon, the street system shall
have a Level of Service (LOS) “C” or better for all network facilities. Primary Criterion shall be a capacity
analysis stating LOS of key facilities, and overall capacity review of the
network. Sub-criterion shall include
planning level recommendations for improvements and the approximate time that
the improvement must be implemented to maintain a LOS “C”. Staff did not like the word ‘sub
criterion’. No changes decided on.
Plan Objective 8 - “The plan shall provide network links, or make
improvements so that local class neighborhood and commercial streets are not
used as thoroughfares or to avoid congestion or delays on the collector and
arterial streets. Criterion shall
include evaluation of current and probable local streets that are used as
cut-through links or thoroughfares.
Countermeasures, such as closures, operational changes or new routes
should be formulated.” There was a
brief discussion. Staff suggested
dividing this into two objectives. The
definition of ‘operational changes’ was discussed. The committee agreed that the language is not clear. Some of the committee members understood
this to say that if they were not going to do a cut-through link then Fairview
and Heath Street extensions go away.
Others understood it to mean that those streets not be used as
thoroughfares and designed to be narrower and the speed limit slower for the
residential area so people are discouraged from using this as a short-cut, but
are there for residents access. There
was a request that staff re-write these in plainer language and the committee
could then evaluate that production.
The committee agreed to give staff “artistic license” to re-word the
language.
Mr. Yourkowski asked that in the residential areas that the language
include “traffic calming techniques at a minimum and pedestrian safety”.
Plan Objective 9 - “Snow sites should be located in areas in which haul
distances are compatible with Homer’s snow removal equipment fleet. Criterion for this objective shall be the
evaluation of sites and determination of operational compatibility.” Staff recommended deleting the last sentence
and replacing it with the water quality and potential impacts to neighboring
land uses issues discussed earlier.
Plan Objective 10 - Not
discussed.
Plan Objective 11 - “Seniors and
people with disabilities need supportive roadside features, community support
of their efforts to secure vehicle funding and supportive building features to
access business, housing, etc.” The
committee agreed that language needed to be inserted to include those who can’t
or choose not to drive.
Added Plan Objective 12 - Suggested by Mr. Yourkowski. “At the time of
repaving to include a sidewalk at least on one side of the street.” The committee discussed this subject at
length. Mr. Yourkowski shared that he
observed a one-legged man walking down the middle of Ben Walters because he had
no place else to walk and added that there is enough money in the HARP fund to
develop sidewalks. Staff suggested that
roads in the CBD should have sidewalks on both sides. UR roads need to have sidewalk on one side that doesn’t have to
be concrete. There was discussion of
“ownership” of the streetscape and the lack of it in Homer. Staff pointed out that sidewalks create more
maintenance responsibilities. Comments
regarding the information gleaned from the Walkabilities Presentation by Dan
Burden were mentioned regarding ownership([1]). Staff voiced support for addressing
sidewalks in the transportation plan.
It was noted by the committee that if a curb and gutter with storm drains
were included with a concrete sidewalk it creates a huge impact that ricochets
around in the budget. For example on
Bartlett Street curb and gutters require catch basins, which require storm
drainage pipes, which require oil/water separators, which requires additional
snow removal, etcetera. Staff suggested
that it may in the best interest of the community to stay with strip paving
roadside ditches because it minimizes the cost of snow removal and doesn’t
require the water quality infrastructure.
Suggested wording was “Except in RR, pedestrian amenities shall be
included in road improvements and road construction projects”.
The committee reiterated that easements and right-of-ways should not be
vacated unless a long term compelling reason could be provided and that a
trails or transportation plan would show why the City would never vacate a
particular right-of-way. Staff advised
that right now the City doesn’t have the transportation plan resource to argue
against a vacation.
The committee noted the time was 7:40 p.m. and moved on to the next item
on the agenda.
C. Review/Discuss State DOT
Striping Plan for the Sterling Highway
Public Works Director Meyer advised that he had DOT’s standard pedestrian
crosswalk detail and not the Sterling Highway documentation.
It was noted that the information provided in the packet was the DOT plan
for Pioneer Avenue.
Mr. Marquardt firmly commented that he thought the recommendation should
state that nothing would happen with any repaving until the City gets it hashed
out. Mr. Yourkowski agreed with Mr.
Marquardt and added that he would like to see some changes in the plan. At this point Mr. Marquardt stated that
they were not ready to just start going in and repaving roads that look like
they need repaving. He added that it
might not happen this year with everything else going on and they needed to
come in with some recommendations. Mr.
Yourkowski advised that he would like to see some alternatives that include
costs and feasibilities. Public Works
Director Meyer interjected that if it isn’t done now it would cost more
later. He advised that they were trying
to catch this before the pavement fails entirely, which would change the
project completely. Further, he noted
that East End road construction would have the asphalt grinders and equipment
available this year and the City projects would be great fill-in projects for
the contractor. Mr. Meyer noted that
additional pedestrian facilities were not discussed as part of this, however he
would be supportive if the Council approved it.
The committee asked questions of staff and there was a discussion
regarding construction requirements and the details of widening a road by 3
feet. Points made were:
ü Most roads now are 22-24 ft with 2 ft
shoulder and another 6 ft 2:1 slope
ü Lanes are 11-12 feet
ü A lot of streets are not wide enough for
pedestrian facilities
ü Design streets for speed limit sought- ie.
Dan Burden Walkable Communities info. - 24 ft width road striped into 2 10’
lanes with bike trail/pedestrian on one side.
Cost is the paint only. 60 mph
requires a 12’ lane. By narrowing the lane people slow down. Signage not required, it just works.
ü Pioneer Avenue was discussed as an example of
what Mr. Burden would recommend:
Divide 40’ of Pioneer Avenue as follows - 2 10’ lanes; 10’ left turn
lane; 2, 5’lanes for biking or 10’ one side for on street parking. The side lanes would create a buffer for
pedestrians from the vehicles (no water splashing). This would create the speed wanted (25 mph) and make the sidewalks more walkable. It was noted that stripes could not be seen
in the winter. There were comments that
it’s worth a try because it only costs the paint.
Mr. Yourkowski advised that he’d like to see widening of the pavement a
little bit and striping the lanes narrower to make room for pedestrians.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that with striping the Sterling
Highway could become two lanes with bike paths and buffers to pedestrians in
two days. City Planner McKibben advised
that she would like to see a landscaped median down the CBD part of the
highway. There was further discussion
by the committee regarding various ways of changing the Sterling Highway.
Staff advised that there were a lot of demands on the HARP program and
may not allow the City to do all the things they’d like to do. This is one of the many issues the committee
could weigh in on in the future.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Councilmember Novak commented that the committee was on track in the last twenty minutes with the streets. He said he liked the ideas on the repaving alternatives and getting different prices. He added that Mr. Burden relayed that a high school kid was hired to run the 4 wheeler down the sidewalks first thing in the morning and cost very little for someone who enjoyed their job. He voiced his support for the ideas regarding putting in the sidewalks like on Ben Walters Lane. He further voiced support for the idea on striping Pioneer Avenue with 5/10/10/5 foot lanes that included a couple of bike paths and wanted to try that this summer to see how it works out.
Public Works Director Meyer added that he’d like to take it one step further. He’d like to use traffic cones to create the round-about circles and let people try them. A run-over traffic cone is no big deal. He said he thought that if people actually used a round-about and would cost nothing it would let them understand what a round-about is. Mr. Meyer advised that DOT is going to re-stripe Pioneer Avenue the way it is and that re-striping it the way they had just discussed would not cost any more or less.
Councilmember Novak stated that he would like to see an actual round-about put in as an example. He added that he liked the idea.
Kevin Walker, currently unemployed DOT designer and construction engineer, offered his assistance in any way he could. He advised that he knew Autocad and how to design. He advised that he had picked up the DOT plans and commented that there were some examples in there that were surprising. For instance, Lake Street is designed for 38 mph to East Hill, which is designed for 50 mph all the way to the top of the project. He commented that they are designing a racetrack and banking the curves on 5-degree turns. Mr. Walker noted that there was only one crosswalk on the whole project-- at the elementary school. He suggested that there needed to be public input before it gets to the construction stage. He advised that he has held public meetings in other locations and no one comes to them so DOT does what they want. Mr. Walker suggested that the City tell them what they want and he was willing to help.
Chair Marquardt noted that DOT has held the public meetings on these projects and this is the design they came up with based on those. He agreed with Mr. Walker that it’s over designed to allow cars to go too fast and there’s a lack of crosswalks. He pointed out that DOT is going to help the City build a park on the south side of East End Road on Williams Street. They have a separated bike trail on the north side with no crosswalk to connect the park to the kazillion dollar separated bike path.
Mr. Walker advised that he knew of a quarter million dollar change order on a job to add oil on a runway to keep the dust down. This wasn’t approved until the project was under construction. He added that sometimes changes have a cost savings and the money can’t be returned but it can work back and forth to get a cross walk.
Chair Marquardt asked that the DOT projects be placed on the next agenda so they could discuss some of the issues brought up at this meeting. Public Works Director suggested that the committee look at Bartlett Street, East End Road, Pioneer Avenue and Sterling Highway at the same time with the same idea that they want more walkability, narrower lanes, slower traffic, crosswalks, etc. Mr. Marquardt voiced his opinion that DOT needed to be brought into the loop on this sooner than later. City Planner McKibben advised that she wasn’t sure what the regulations for the on-street parking within the CBD were and asked that this be researched.
Mr. Walker reiterated his offer to assist and be some kind of liaison with State DOT.
The committee agreed to dedicate an extra meeting specifically for looking at the DOT plans. A time line was discussed and it was noted that in two months construction starts on East End Road and within 30 days they are going to bid the Bartlett Street project.
The committee discussed meeting dates and agreed on Tuesday, March 16th to deal with DOT plans only and Tuesday, March 23rd to get back to the Transportation Plan. City Planner McKibben agreed to try to have the changes that have been discussed made into a draft for the committee to look at.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. The next meeting is March 16, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Homer City Council Chambers.
____________________________________
DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: ____________________________