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

 

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

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: ____________________________



[1] Adjoining property owner taking on maintenance.