The meeting was called to order by Chair Marquardt on May 11, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 491 E Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
Members Present: Kurt Marquardt, Steve Smith, Mike Yourkowski,
Perspective Member: Fred Pfeil
Staff Present: Deputy City Clerk Benson, City Clerk Calhoun,
City
Planner McKibben, Public Works Director Meyer
SMITH/PFEIL - MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
There was no discussion
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
SYNOPSIS APPROVAL
SMITH/PFEIL - MOTION TO APPROVE THE SYNOPSIS.
Comments were that it was great, as usual.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution to Change the Name of the Road Standards Committee
SMITH/YOURKOWSKI - MOVE TO CHANGE ROAD STANDARDS COMMITTEE TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AS PER RESOLUTION.
Steve Smith and Kurt Marquardt voiced their support for the suggestion from Bill Smith last week to rename the Road Standards Committee to Transportation Committee as it more accurately reflects the tasks the committee was reviewing.
Mike Yourkowski voiced his support for the name change and added that it would be nice to have someone with more trails experience on the committee.
There was concern expressed for stepping on the trails committee, which is a sub committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission. A suggestion was made that a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission be on the Transportation Committee or that the Trails Committee be part of the review of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. The comment was made that in making trails issues a part of the Transportation Committee, it would up the level at which trails get discussed, ie. Parks and Recreation would be a higher level than a Committee.
The Committee discussed the fact that a Transportation Committee would go outside the subject of roads to include trails, sidewalks, marine transportation, airport, port/harbor, bike trails and crosswalks - a broad spectrum of issues that were all interconnected. Again support was voiced for the Parks and Recreation Commission to have a member on the Road Standards Committee much like the Planning Commission does.
The suggestion was made to remain The Road Committee and delete the Standards part of the name. There was no further discussion.
Chair Marquardt asked everyone to think about how much they wanted to take on. Steve Smith commented that he felt the Road Standards Committee was already taking it on. The Committee was originally designed around HARP to develop a standard template and its function has evolved.
The suggestion was made to start with a new mission statement versus a name change. The rebut was that the Committee keeps getting handed what their mission is just by the fact that they are reviewing transportation issues beyond road standards.
The Committee recognized the members of the Trails Committee as Carole Hamik, Mimi Tolva and Margaret Seelye and that they didn’t seem to be active at this point.
YOURKOWSKI/SMITH - MOTION TO AMEND TO ADD BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR APPOINT A NEW MEMBER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FAMILIAR WITH TRAILS ISSUES.
The committee discussed asking that when they are tasked with reviewing issues for the port/harbor or the airport that a staff member familiar with that issue attend the meeting(s) for assistance.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
There as no further discussion on the main motion.
VOTE: YES: (main amended motion) UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
B. Memorandum from Deputy City Clerk, Re: Annual Review - HARP (Homer Accelerated Roads Program) Criteria
The Committee asked Public Works Director Meyer if he had further information on the costs regarding the cost spreadsheet presented at the last meeting. He commented on the costs saying that if the Committee wanted to increase the costs it would have to be for the reasons that it was done on the Water and Sewer Local Improvement Districts (LID’s). He commented on how many LID’s had been formed and that the fund balance was going up, which doesn’t indicate it would run out of money. However, the HARP funds are being looked at for a lot more uses than in the past such as a trails plan that uses HARP funds and $600,000 worth of repaving authorized by the Council, which is 25% of the funds currently available.
Steve Smith commented that the figures on the spreadsheet and the discussion at the last meeting indicated that there needed to be a decrease in the assessment for the property owner. There was also discussion on changing the standards to a ditch template as opposed to a curb, gutter and sidewalk template and the possibility of the need to address the two of them separately. Mr. Smith voiced his opinion that in looking at the numbers, he noted that the portion the property was paying was disproportionately high in the spirit of the 75/25 split.
There was discussion regarding the property owner costs having to include intersections, exempt properties, etc. Mr. Meyer indicated that he was hesitant to draw conclusions from the numbers on the spreadsheet because they were “gross numbers”. Until each LID was reviewed it would be tough to determine what the percentages were.
The point was made that the Committee didn’t necessarily want to lower the costs, that they merely wanted to more accurately reflect the 25/75 split.
There was some discussion on asking the Public Works Department to put together clear cut numbers over the last 20 years for curb, gutter, sidewalk, a standard template and strip paving stand- alone. Mr. Meyer voiced some reluctance on whether the Public Works Department would have the time do the research and put that together within the next two weeks. Mr. Smith voiced his support for coming up with an over-all average cost to support the front footage assessments.
There was some discussion on figuring into the costs the corner lots and intersections so that the assessed amount, although it would be a set fee, would reflect approximately 25% of the cost of the project. The committee noted that they would have to figure in the entire cost of the project in order to accurately come up with the assessment figures.
Public Works Director Meyer pointed out that every project would be different. He used the example of the Spruceview Avenue Road LID in process saying that the Spruceview Avenue portion of the LID would pay for the crossing of Woodard Creek and would be very expensive. Then, when Noview Avenue connects those property owners wouldn’t have to pay for that and their split would be much less yet they would benefit from the Woodard Creek Crossing. He suggested that maybe the fees should be figured on a percentage, like the water and sewer program.
Steve Smith again reiterated his support for coming up with a city wide average figure. He added that this decision needed to be done thoughtfully and with some good information.
There was some further discussion on the spreadsheet, formulas for property owner costs and possible changes. A suggestion was made to approve the manual as is and come back to it later.
Public Works Director Meyer advised that he struggled with trying to get to the point where he could justify reducing the cost. He said he didn’t understand why a lot owner wouldn’t jump at the chance for a road with a culver in the driveway for $4700 financed over a 10-year period.
The Committee reviewed the issues they had already covered - the 10% match on a State project in a City right of way from HARP funds; the issue of using HARP funds for trails, repaving existing roads and parking lots.
Steve Smith had to leave the meeting due to prior commitments.
City Clerk Calhoun reminded Chair Marquardt of an addition to the Special Provisions on Page 36.
Chair Marquardt advised that there was a suggestion from the neighborhood committee that Item 7 be added to the Special Provisions that would require 10 foot wide traffic lanes to make room for a 4-foot pedestrian walkway. Public Works Director Meyer stated that it was his understanding that a 4-foot walkway was not wide enough, nor was having the walkway immediately adjacent to the road a good idea on new construction. He noted that on Spruceview Avenue the original template called for a 24 foot wide asphalt strip with a center line down the middle. Now the expectation seems to be to provide a wider asphalt strip to provide for a walkway along one side. Mr. Meyer suggested that on new construction the better-spent dollar would be a separated pathway in the first place. The Committee discussed the increased costs of a separated pathway. He suggested that construction or reconstruction should follow the trails plan. He added that he thought the HARP funds would be expected to pay for more and more, pedestrian facilities being one of them. Sooner or later people would expect a curb and gutter along one side or a sidewalk and then the drainage implications kick in and all of a sudden what used to be $200/lf becomes $400/lf to provide storm drainage pipe and oil/water separators and separated bide trails, etc.
The committee discussed providing extra wide asphalt on any new paving or existing streets to have a pathway for pedestrians. In addition, Mr. Meyer made a suggestion that maybe the policy should be that where the trails plan doesn’t show a trail, a little extra width would be provided for a walkway immediately adjacent to the traveled way; if the trails plan shows a trail, then there should be a separated trail. There was agreement to this statement expressed by the committee.
Mr. Meyer made a point that a separated trail makes no room for the ditches, which would then require a storm drain in which DEC requires a $100,000 oil/water separator and an appropriate outfall. Further, right-of-way acquisition was a big cost.
At the request of the committee, Public Works Director Meyer drew an illustration on the board and explained a 60’ right-of-way with 10-foot lanes, a ditching system on one side and a drainage system on the other.
City Clerk Calhoun suggested pirating Council words that “where ever feasible 10 foot lanes and a 7 foot pathway shall be considered on all accelerated road projects” as a possible addition to the special provisions.
There was a brief discussion regarding extra width via striping on any new paving and a possible addition adopting recommendations from the non-motorized transportation plan that any new road paving that occurred would required an additional width and striping for a pedestrian/bike path. The committee discussed the wording that would cover exactly what they wanted.
YOURKOWSKI/PFEIL - MOTION TO ADD ITEM 7 TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS STATING “PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN ALL NEW PROJECTS”.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
There was a comment that there were probably other things that needed to be reviewed and that the Committee could come back and consider further amendments over the course of the next year.
YOURKOWSKI/PFEIL - MOTION TO APPROVE THE HARP POLICY AS WRITTEN IN MEMORANDUM 90-175 AS AMENDED.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
C. Transportation Plan - Review Planning Dept/Public Works Recommendations
City Planner McKibben walked the Road Standards Committee through the changes she and Public Works Director Meyer made to the text in the Transportation Plan. Public Works Director Meyer explained that they had decided to retain the name of 2001 Transportation Plan and indicate the revision dates as it evolves. Over all, Ms. McKibben explained that the original plan was written more as a report and that the general style was frustrating. Therefore, some of her changes were geared to making this document more of a plan.
Ms. McKibben reviewed the changes to the draft Transportation Plan. There were no objections to staff recommendations. Points of discussion and suggestions for changes to the changes were:
ü There was an extended discussion on considering the recommendation of a third lane (“suicide lane”) to relieve traffic congestion.
ü Options that came up for relieving traffic issues were - round-about, turn-lanes, frontage roads, a mono-rail to the end of the spit( [1]), signalization, one-way streets, etc.
ü Page I-27 “Future Signalization Warrants” was discussed at length. It was the understanding of the committee to stay away from the use of the word “signals”. Agreed on inserting the words “round-about” or “other alternatives” in lieu of “signals”. The committee agreed to give staff authorization to change the name of the table so as not to suggest that signalization was not the only option created at an intersection. The committee suggested using the term “traffic control warrants”. The committee instructed staff to be sure to show that there were other options besides signalization.
ü Staff still needed to look at the economic stuff
The staff and the committee agreed that they were very close to a final document. A time line was discussed in getting the final recommendation completed two meetings hence and get it to the Planning Commission for further comment and review, a public hearing and to be considered as an element of the Comprehensive Plan.
City Planner McKibben went over the time line for the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan at this point in the meeting because she had to leave due to prior commitments. Her comments are under Item E in this synopsis.
D. Memorandum from
Deputy City Clerk, Re: Review Port/Harbor Commission Recommendations for
Crosswalks on the Spit
The committee was in agreement with the Port/Harbor Commissions recommendations. However, they wanted the Commission to be aware of the safety issue in providing a crosswalk at Mariner Park. They noted that the Spit Road has a dog-leg and limited site distance and a crosswalk at that location and would be “super dangerous”. Public Works Director Meyer advised that there was a project on the Capital Improvements Program List for an underground tunnel for pedestrians at that location. He explained that a boardwalk would come from Bishop’s Beach and tunnel under the Spit Road near Mariner Park to access the Spit Trail. The Committee noted the reduced speed of traffic at the crosswalks at the Ramps, and did not see a safety issue and voiced support for those.
YOURKOWSKI/PFEIL - MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PORT/HARBOR COMMISSION, RECOGNIZING THE PROBLEMATIC NATURE OF THE MARINER PARK CROSSWALK LOCATION.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
E. Memorandum
From Deputy City Clerk, Re: Review
Non-Motorized Transportation and Trail Plan
City Planner McKibben advised that the Non-Motorized Transportation and Trail Plan would have a Planning Commission hearing on May 19th in addition to a review in a work session on the 19th. She asked that the Road Standards Committee’s comments be directed to the Planning Commission so the City Council could receive a complete and comprehensive final package. The Planning Commission time line was to finish up at their June 2nd meeting. The final goal was to get the Plan done prior to the contract ending date of June 30th. Ms. McKibben added that all of the committees reviewing the plan would direct their comments through the Planning Commission for a final compilation of the information.
Chair Marquardt encouraged the members of the committee to review the Non-motorized Transportation and Trails Plan and forward their comments to him prior to the meeting of the Planning Commission on the 19th. Later, the Committee realized they were meeting on June 1st. Fred Pfeil agreed to pass on the Road Standards Committee recommendations to the Planning Commission at their meeting on June 2nd. The Committee acknowledged that they could provide additional comments to the City Council if necessary.
Chair Marquardt lauded Dowl Engineers for doing a great job on the Non-Motorized Transportation and Trails Plan. He recognized that their public meetings have been well attended and he felt that they were listening to the public comments. Public Works Director Meyer voiced his pleasant surprise at how well this project has gone. He stated that he had reservations on the program being coordinated through the Parks and Rec Manager Assistant, however it has gone well.
With the permission of the Committee, Mr. Meyer presented aerial photos of contours of the road extensions that there were questions on at previous meetings. He noted that the Highland Drive extension topography showed a drainage between the proposed connections but it was not significant. Mr. Meyer commented on the proposed Bell Avenue extension to Forest Glen Street saying that it just does not work. He acknowledged that Steve Smith was correct that it was too steep. He pointed out the alternative of making the Jeffery Street connection to Forrest Drive.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
INFORMATION
A. Memo to City Council, Re: Recommendations to DOT - Re-striping
B. Memo to City Council, Re: Recommendations to DOT - Traffic Study
Mike Yourkowski commented that the Council passed all of the recommendations in the memos. He advised that a resolution reducing the speed on the Sterling Highway was reconsidered by Councilmembers Ladd and Novak. He explained that the resolution was for 25 mph to McDonald’s and 30 mph from there to the base of the Spit. Mr. Yourkowski reported that he had heard from business owners on Ocean Drive who supported the reduced speed. He advised that he had made an amendment to the restriping memo by adding Kachemak Drive. Mr. Yourkowski expressed his appreciation for the Road Standards Committee’s input on this.
C. Information on State of Alaska Crosswalk/Pedestrian Traffic Law
The Committee thanked Officer Luck and Deputy City Clerk Benson for providing the crosswalk information. The committee commented that there needed to be an education process in Homer because along with the crosswalks there would need to be some responsibilities by the pedestrians.
It was noted that respecting pedestrian’s rights cuts both ways - pedestrians should be discouraged from jay-walking. Mr. Meyer commented that there would be signs stating that State Law requires that vehicles yield to pedestrians.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The next meeting of the Road Standards Committee is June 1st at 6:00 p.m.
___________________________________________
DEENA BENSON, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: __________________________________