SPIT PARKING JOINT WORKSESSION
Session 08-05 A Special Joint
Worksession of the Port and Harbor Advisory Commission was called to order at
PRESENT: SHARON MINSCH, PLANNING COMMISSION (PC); SEAN MARTIN,
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION: DAWN
HANCOCK, RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION (AKDOT
JUDY
HARTLEY, RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION (AKDOT
STAFF: WALT WREDE,
BRIAN HAWKINS, DEPUTY HARBORMASTER
BETH MCKIBBEN,
STACEY LUCK, HOMER POLICE DEPARTMENT
CALL TO ORDER
Sharon
Minsch acting Chair for the Joint Worksession called the meeting to order at
Mr. Walt
Wrede, City Manager, addressed the forum to discuss the purpose of the
worksession. There was concern that the focus for the meeting was actually
split between immediate safety concerns on the Spit, which Officer Luck will
address the safety issues and the hiring of two temporary police officers that
will control parking concerns on the Spit this summer. The next concern is the
broader issue of planning and zoning which parking falls under. Then the last
issue would be concerns regarding parking in the right of way.
STAFF
REPORT/COMMISSION REPORTS
a.
Planning Staff Report - Safety
Issues, Harbor Parking Needs Analysis, and Current work on the City Parking code
and Staff recommendations for a Comprehensive Spit Plan
Ms. McKibben explained that Ms.
Joselyn Biloon, DOT Planner and Alan Hartig, Right of Way Division will not be
present and have requested Ms. Hancock and Ms. Hartley to attend this meeting since
they were in the area. Ms. McKibben further explained that she was able to have
a brief conversation with Ms. Hancock who relayed that although not totally up
to speed with issues related to pedestrian crosswalks and speed limits she will
be more than happy to take those questions back to the office and get the
answers.
Ms. McKibben reviewed the three
main topics of the meeting. She stated that the Planning Department did not
have a good assessment on the current parking requirements in relation to the
Port & Harbor Commission concerns that they have been working on for the
past few years.
Mr. Wrede gave further
clarification on the Spit Parking Plan that was developed in 2004.
Ms. McKibben continued with a brief
summary of the parking code issues that the Planning Commission has been
working on and Planning Technician Julie Engebretsen was working on these changes
with the City Attorney.
Ms. McKibben further acknowledged
that the recent Comprehensive Plan did not include the Spit. The Spit in itself
is an entity on its own, and deserves individual focus instead of sharing with
the rest of the City. The Planning Commission in January put the Spit
Comprehensive Plan as one of their top ten actions to address. One of the
discussion items that the Planning Commissioners agreed on, but have not taken
action, and would like the support of the Port & Harbor Commissioners was a
request to the City Council to seek consultants to perform a Comprehensive Plan
for the Spit. She further elaborated that the Kenai Peninsula Borough has given
the City $50,000.00 as reimbursement for the Comprehensive Plan. These funds
were not earmarked and have been returned to the Planning Reserves. The
Planning Department recommendation is to request the Planning and Port &
Harbor Commission send a request for funding to City Council.
WORKSESSION ITEMS
A.
Vehicular, Cyclist and Pedestrian
Safety in the Core Business Areas, including Pedestrian Crossing Signage and
Right of Way Parking
Mr. Sean Martin,
a member of the Port & Harbor Commission and owner of a Charter business on
the Hillstrand Boardwalk which fronts the
Dawn
Hancock, AKDOT
Mr. John
Velsko, PH &
Ms. Hancock
explained that the State is not allowed to charge for parking in the right of
way, so as long as it is state owned it will not be allowed. She does know that
in the City of Anchorage there is metered parking and she is not aware of an
agreement or how they came up with that, however that does not state that there
is not an agreement in place.
Mr. Bruce
Hess, PC, felt that was an important point to clarify and pointed out that when
the Harbor was turned over to the City from the State he believed the actual
sections that form the ramp are still within the right of way and belong to the
State and if there is a situation that the City does not have an agreement with
the state or is not allowed to be charging and we already are; that it should
be looked into further.
Mr. Wrede
does recall that the City looked into putting meters in the right of way and it
was allowed with an agreement in place with the State. He is not sure why the
City never went through with that but he noted Mr. Hess’ comment was well founded
since they do have meters installed out there. He was not aware that the area
was still retained by the State though. He queried Mr. Hawkins if he was aware
of this allegation. Mr. Hawkins was not aware of this either.
Mr. Kevin
Hogan, PH & EDC, Spit Business owner requested information on any
restrictions or minimum requirements regarding visibility along the right of
way especially when you have pedestrians alongside the road and if it was
appropriate to limit the size of the vehicles allowed to park alongside the
roadway.
Ms.
Hancock responded that there are requirements, a sight triangle that can be
anywhere from 10 feet to 30 feet; a clear zone requirement to accommodate for
recovery of vehicles that may go off the road; it really depends on how fast
traffic is going, what does the AKDOT have, and how close is the right of way
to the road; she felt it would be a great idea to restrict the size of vehicles
but it would entail the City, Planning and Port & Harbor to work up a plan
to submit to the AKDOT and Traffic Safety. They must go through the processes
to issuing permits, and agreements for use of right of ways. The Right of Way
Department must approve the plan before being implemented.
Mr. Wrede
commented on the existing signage and Police Chief Robl is working with the
Port & Harbor to place additional signage along with new pedestrian cones.
Officer
Luck, HPD, described the signage and placement as similar to warning cones you
would find in a grocery stores warning of wet floors. These will be placed on
the white line of the pavement at the beginning of each pedestrian crossing
areas. They will be placed each morning and removed each night corresponding
with the Seasonal Officers schedule.
Ms.
Hancock stressed when anything is placed in the right of way there must be a
permit. To place this cone the City must apply for a traffic safety permit. The
existing signs that state “No Parking on Pavement” are illegal, there are no
permits for these signs, thus illegal encroachments and should be removed. If
she is not the person conducting the inspection those illegal encroachments
will disappear. The City would be able to retrieve them from the AKDOT after
paying a $50.00 fine for each sign. So she really emphasized obtaining this
traffic safety permit.
Mr. Velsko
remarked that he was told the crosswalks were not actually crosswalks. The
pedestrians cross wherever they want; he strongly believes that something else
needs to be done because putting more bells and whistles will not help.
Ms. Hancock
responded that she drove the Spit road back and forth a number of times today
and did not see any indication of a crosswalk and commented that frankly if she
was a pedestrian she would cross wherever she felt like it.
Ms. Cathy
Ulmer, PH, pointed out a portion of the state right of way using the photo in
the packet. She suggested having it posted as a no parking zone. The owners of
the businesses do not need to park in front of their shops; she can walk across
a parking lot, so can they. Why is parking allowed in the right of way, this is
a problem. She believes this causes serious obstructions and why it needs to be
discussed.
Ms.
Hancock explained that the right of way is for the general use of the public.
Parking, walking, even snowmachining; any use that is conducted in a safe
manner. That is where the question is if the activity is causing safety
hazards.
Mr. Wrede
commented that Officer Luck wanted to comment; but he responded to Ms. Ulmer’s
question that in conversation with Chief Robl the focus of the officers being
hired this summer is to prevent double parking, make sure one lane of parking
in the right of ways and maintain the line of sight from the right of way, plus
a few other concerns.
Ms. Ulmer
gave an example of an offense and that the area in question turns into a
pedestrian mall. Ms. Ulmer stated she did not understand why the business
owners would encourage long term parking in front of their businesses.
Mr. Martin
commented that you cannot police every car and on that particular boardwalk
there are four charter boat companies, unless you patrol the parking lot asking
those attempting to park there how long they will be, until metered parking is
installed there will always be a problem. He stated that the question as always
been can you meter parking in the right of way?
Chair
Sharon Minsch asked the City Manager if that was something the Port &
Harbor takes care of or if the City addresses the issue. Mr. Wrede stated they
can figure it out if the recommendation of this group is to put in metered
parking they will take it to the Council and figure what the costs and permits
required. Ms. Minsch stated the Port & Harbor Commission has already
recommended metered parking.
Mr. Martin
clarified further that the parking gets congested from commercial fisherman and
long term parking, sometimes the fisherman park there for two weeks.
Ms.
Francie Roberts, Councilperson, commented she would like to hear what Officer
Luck had to say regarding the summer plans for enforcement.
Officer
Luck stated that the two parking aides will be working May 15-
Mr. Dennis
Novak, Councilperson stated that he would like to see a recommendation from
this group regarding the installation of parking meters. This has been a
subject that has been reviewed, mentioned and looked at the whole time he has
been around and it’s time to do it. He doesn’t believe that the crosswalks do
any good, he would like to see the whole roadway from Coal Point to Seafarers
Memorials be striped for pedestrians. That way the whole are is a caution area.
He would also like to suggest eliminated parking on the east side of the
roadway. This would offer some break up of the congestion in that area and
alleviate parallel parking in that area.
Mr. Hess
stated that it all boils down to what the uses are and the requirements for
those uses. He believes that the information is needed on the parking needs for
the Spit. An assessment is needed to use as a basis for developing the parking
requirements.
Ms. Ulmer
stated she has not heard anything about shuttle service to the Spit. She
offered that it was the City’s liability.
Ms. Minch pointed out that was a topic more fitting under long term
fixes and that the discussion needed to stick to the immediate pedestrian
safety issues.
Mr. Hogan
offered the following points:
1. He agreed
with the point that Mr. Novak offered with the parallel parking.
2. He was not
sure about painting the whole road yellow and giving it over to the
pedestrians.
3. There is a
lot of parking available that is being taking up uses other than parking such
as motor homes avoiding the RV Parks or campgrounds. I the City lots he
surveyed for a two week period on average 34 motor homes each night in that
area.
4. Prohibit
vehicle parking between
5. Institute
a 3 hour parking limit in the right of way.
6. 12-24 hour
limit in the lots
7. Establish
a loading zone.
Ms. Minsch asked Mr. Wredes’ view
on how to proceed to submit these recommendations to City Council. Mr. Wrede
responded that it was very hard to account for individual preferences. He
commented that they needed a majority of those in attendance. A discussion
ensued on the best approach to obtain consensus of the group present. Mr. Novak
recommended that a formal motion be made with the list of recommendations from
this group. There was further discussion on whether this was the first step
that was needed. Mr. Velsko pointed out that an answer was needed from City
Council allowing the City to start the process to come to an agreement with the
State on allowing the City to create mitigation for parking in the right of
way.
1. Managing
parking in the right of way to clarify where, work on the permits.
a. Paid
parking
b. time
limits
c. limiting
parking to one side of the street
d. Designation
of long term parking areas.
There was consensus on this topic.
Ms. Minsch questioned whether they
wanted to address crosswalks and signage. They needed to find out where they
could have it. Mr. Wrede believed that the DOT signed off on the crosswalk locations
previously whether they are the correct locations could be in question. Ms.
McKibben commented they needed to be re-painted. Mr. Martin stated more
visibility was required for people to see the crosswalks, flashing lights are
needed; cones in the middle of the road; people are not looking at where they
are driving, they are looking at the eagles, the mountains the shops; you
cannot do enough to make people more aware of the pedestrians. It was mentioned
if they felt the speed limit needed to be lowered.
2. Improve
crosswalk signage
a. Signs in
or around the crosswalk areas.
b. More
painting
c. Cones or
markers in roadway.
d. More
locations.
e. Flashing
lights.
There was consensus on this topic.
It was noted that visibility was
being increased for whom; the drivers or the pedestrians? As it was, the
pedestrians were the ones out of control.
Mr. Novak wanted to know what the
AKDOT felt about creating a pedestrian safety zone; it was offered to impose double
traffic fines; fines for jay walking. Ms. Minsch stated it could be on the list
and the blanks could be filled in later.
3. Better Control over RV
Parking Locations
a. No camping
allowed in parking lots.
b. No parking
of RV’s
Mr. Martin recalled that there was
a standard or ordinance regarding the limitation of 27 feet in the diagonal
parking which brings them within 4 feet of the pavement. He would like to see
no RV or motor home parking allowed. Ms. Minch clarified that no RV or motor
home parking allowed within the pedestrian safety zone. Further discussion
encompassed where they could park, such as Ramp 4. Ms. Minsch listed the items
under this topic and recommend continuing this pedestrian safety zone
discussion.
4. Designated
Loading Zones
a. Scheduled
Delivery Times
Mr. Velsko wanted to add designated
loading areas and times. Timely delivery would eliminate parking in the road.
Mr. Martin pointed out that this wasn’t a big City with the deliveries from
local vendors; to put a designated time on truckers coming from
Mr. Hess brought up again the uses
and what people are realistically going to do regarding walking from where they
park, which adds to the pedestrian safety concerns.
Ms. Minsch asked for clarification
regarding the difference between consultants to analyze to Harbor uses versus a
Comprehensive Plan. She is seeing two different issues. Ms. McKibben agreed and
clarified that a Comprehensive Plan would cover land use, public facilities,
and transportation. It is different than a plan to analyze the parking needs of
the Harbor. She inquired if the group was ready to discuss that.
5. Increased enforcement.
B.
Commissioning a study by a
qualified land use/planning firm to study current summer parking uses/concerns
and suggest improvements-short and long term.
Ms. McKibben briefly outlined that
the City had put forth effort in 1986-1988 in regards to planning on the Spit. She
stated that very few of the issues described then have been resolved. That was
prior to the 1989 Comprehensive plan. In the 1999 plan it was only brought
forward. The most recent address to the plan the Spit was not even included.
She pointed out that the Spit has
become more of a tourism community. It is time to pull out those old studies as
they still contain some valuable information. She addressed some of the City
Codes that are contained in the packet. She stated it was important to keep
industrial uses for when those businesses come to the Spit. It was initially
believed to have no lodging on the Spit but times have changed. Those are just
some of the issues besides parking that really need to be addressed.
Mr. Velsko stated that at the last
meeting it was voted unanimously for City Council to approve a study regarding
the funding for a parking study. What we need is someone to look out there
right now and say you need paved parking here with meters and no parking here.
If you start focusing on how many sweater shops and restaurants then you are
getting bogged down again and not addressing the main reason for this meeting,
parking.
Discussion ensued regarding the
focus of the meeting and support request from Commission for funding and
approval. Elements of the discussion included the Comprehensive Plan including
the current Spit Parking Plan. Mr. Novak asked the group to turn to page 112 in
the packet which referred to Memorandum 04-57 http://clerk.ci.homer.ak.us/memo0457.htm . It was noted that this included most of what
this group has been discussing tonight and only one thing has been accomplished
and it is a little over four years later and they are discussing it again. He
then referred to item number seven he gave a suggestion of establishing a
controlled fee parking area. He felt it was a big area, he did not need paving
and it would be used. He did not feel parking rangers were adequate collection
devices, gates were better. It did not require additional personnel. Mr. Hawkins confirmed that the Seafarers
Memorial area was scheduled to be paved and make it similar to the Ramp 1-4
with the iron ranger for collection. Ms. Minsch noted that those
recommendations and comments will be included to the letter to Council.
Mr.
Ms. Minsch asked if there was
consensus on a toll booth for the spit. There was no audible response that the
Clerk could notate.
Mr. Hess commented on the
$50,000.00 that was refunded to be used to develop and implement the Spit
Parking Plan.
Ms. Minsch asked if there was
consensus on recommending support for the Port & Harbor on funding a study
to determine the current parking needs and supply on the Spit.
Discussion and clarification ensued
regarding the feasibility of spending the funds to perform a study when there
may be additional immediate solutions like buying shuttle buses. It was noted
that the Port & Harbor Commission agreed to request a study be performed.
Ms. Ulmer was disagreeing that it was not the best use of the money. The
majority of the present group did support the parking needs study.
Incorporating this study into the comprehensive plan is very important. It was
recommended to included Memorandum 04-57 be attached to what this group is
sending to Council. It was noted that this was sent back to Port & Harbor
and has since been revised and it would best to use current plans. Mr. Wrede
wanted to remind everyone that these things do take time. The changes are
implemented from the Port & Harbor Enterprise funds; the administration was
directed to proceed slowly by the Commission; making recommendation each year
as funds came available.
There was consensus for
recommending support of a parking study.
Ms. Minsch clarified for Ms. Ulmer
that there is a process for issuing a request for proposal. Mr. Wrede addressed
the suggestion of a shuttle system and to his knowledge a municipality always
funded in someway public transportation. The City has been approached by the
Chamber saying they have interested private business but cannot carry the whole
cost of the enterprise. Council at that time was not interested. Now may be the
time to submit the idea to City Council.
C. Homer
Spit Comprehensive Plan
Ms. McKibben wanted to address Mr.
Hess’ suggestion on incorporating the Spit Parking Plan. She gave a brief
summary of what the comprehensive plan for the Spit may include. She answered
questions related to possible long term parking recommendations. Ms. McKibben
responded that she was not sure if the study would incorporate public input.
The comprehensive plan would be a full blown deal with public input, meetings
and an advisory or steering committee. This would typically take a year to
complete. Mr. Velsko observed that there are immediate needs to address now,
not in a year. The Council can address the Code now along with the right away
issues. He gave an example of the current parking code where the Planning
Commission approved a 40 seat restaurant that did not require any parking. The
code can be changed without spending any funds.
Ms. McKibben replied that the planning
staff has been working with the City Attorney on code amendments. She noted
that she is leaving and the Attorney is retiring and the likelihood that it
will be before the Planning Commission or the public anytime soon has now
become a longer range product. She pointed out that the practicality of
providing onsite parking on the spit is encouraging more parking in the right
of way. It is really important to look at paid and public areas. She also noted
the parking requirements on mainland Homer.
Mr. Wrede offered that this is the
situation where the Comprehensive Plan may come in because it addresses land
use in regards to parking. He offered as an example the many businesses that
are on the Hillstrand property.
Ms. Minsch commented that the
Planning Commission cannot make rules in a vacuum. It is a huge issue, and work
has progressed but it is a slow process; with new members, getting a handle on
parking needs, a comprehensive plan done; and sorting through new ideas and
thoughts.
There was further discussion
regarding clarification of a request for a parking analysis; parking
requirements and codes; the comprehensive plan; shared parking on the Spit
compared to within the City and the uniqueness of the Spit.
There was consensus of the group
was that a Comprehensive Plan was needed after the Parking Needs Assessment.
There Clerk did not hear any vocal agreement from those present. It is assumed
that the agreement was by a show of hands or nods.
Ms. McKibben reviewed page 5 of the packet regarding topic #2 and
recommended the request extend beyond the
Mr. Velsko wanted assurance from Administration to work on getting the
agreement with the Alaska DOT for the parking in the right of way.
Mr. Wrede stated it was approved by Council before so there should not be
a problem getting something done right away regarding the right away agreement.
Mr. Lou Stewart, PR commented that the trails and pathways on the Spit
should be included in the plan. Mr. Wrede commented that they did receive some
funding from the State and just met with DOT on
Ms. Caroline Storm suggested shared parking that connects to the trail
system.
Mr. Velsko recommended putting this under the parking and comprehensive
plan. Mr. Martin reviewed how the Port & Harbor Commission did address the
safety issues of existing trails and pedestrian pathways.
Ms. Minsch stated that it could be an additional recommendation under
safety - Continue to work on Improved Safety and Trail Access on the Spit from
the Tip to the Toe.
There was consensus to add under the safety portion of the
recommendations.
INFORMATIONAL
MATERIALS
C.
Excerpts from Meetings Minutes 2004
to 2008 – Port & Harbor Commission
D.
Excerpts from Meeting Minutes 2004
to 2008 – City Council
E.
Spit Parking Plan 2004
F.
Excerpt from
There being no further business Acting
Chair Sharon Minsch adjourned the meeting at
Renee Krause, Deputy City Clerk I
Approved: