PORT AND HARBOR ADVISORY COMMISSION                                                                        UNAPPROVED                         

SPIT PARKING JOINT WORKSESSION                    

MAY 6, 2008

 

 

Session 08-05 A Special Joint Worksession of the Port and Harbor Advisory Commission was called to order at 6:00 pm on May 6, 2008 by Acting Chair Sharon Minsch at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

 

 

PRESENT:         SHARON MINSCH, PLANNING COMMISSION (PC); SEAN MARTIN, PORT & HARBOR COMMISSION (PH); JOHN VELSKO, PH & TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC); BRYAN ZAK, PC & TAC; BRUCE HESS, PC; KEVIN HOGAN, PH & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION (EDC); CATHERINE ULMER, PH; CAROLINE STORM, PC; LOU STEWART, PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION (PR); DENNIS NOVAK, FRANCIE ROBERTS, BARBARA HOWARD, CITY COUNCIL

           

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION:                  DAWN HANCOCK, RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION (AKDOT ROW)

                                                JUDY HARTLEY, RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION (AKDOT ROW)

 

STAFF:              WALT WREDE, CITY MANAGER

BRIAN HAWKINS, DEPUTY HARBORMASTER

BETH MCKIBBEN, CITY PLANNER

STACEY LUCK, HOMER POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

                                   

CALL TO ORDER

 

Sharon Minsch acting Chair for the Joint Worksession called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Introductions were initiated by City Planner Beth McKibben.

 

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 Spit Road, for the past 25 years, stated he understands that the strip of land they access for angled parking is State right of way property (ROW). He understands it to be quasi legal to park in the state right of way, so it cannot reach a point that it could be paid parking. What he doesn’t quite understand is the relationship between the ROW and the City usage or need out there, what that strip of land, which is a major parking area, what is the legal issue is as far as, will it stay there forever or morph into city parking.

 

Dawn Hancock, AKDOT ROW explained that the right of way really changes all along the roadway. The right of way can range from as little as 30 feet in width to as much as 110 feet in width. She does not foresee any changes being made unless a construction project comes up in the future. If it already is paved or has diagonal parking the State does not plan on any changes. However if the City would like to make changes they would be happy to help them.

 

Mr. John Velsko, PH & TAC stated that they have reviewed this many times and discussed many ways to mitigate the traffic on the Spit  in the central district where the speed limit comes down to 25 mph. The Commission has always been told by the City that they cannot institute any fee parking in this area where they get the most turnover. He questioned if there was some sort of formal mechanism with the State that the City, Planning and Port & Harbor Commissions could start working on to turn that parking area over to short term parking only, to alleviate people parking for more than a few hours or even days. This would assist in stopping customers from parking on the road shoulders. They would like to turn that into short term parking area with metered parking; they currently use iron rangers, which may not be the best route. If they installed metered parking then people could use the metered parking for the hour or two they will be on the Spit.

 

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-September 15, 2008. They will be supervised by regular Officers. The only powers they have are for parking enforcement from Coal Point to the Seafarers Memorial. This area is the biggest offender for parking infractions. They will be doing Beach Patrol also. They will be authorized to write parking tickets, impound vehicles as required, they will be issued radios and a company cell phone. They will start work at 10:00 am until 8:00 pm, the shifts will overlap so there is enforcement seven days a week.

 

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 Fishdock Road and Freightdock Road over 25 feet long.

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 Fish Dock Road to Freight Dock Road.

           

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 Anchorage would be very prohibitive. Ms. Minch asked for any additional safety concerns issues. Mr. Hogan recommended leaving the long term parking under item one to consider the resort parking across the bay. Ms. McKibben agreed.

 

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. Bryan Zak, PC & TAC, talking about the Comprehensive Plan, felt there was only one long term simple solution that would be effective. Establish a toll booth at the beginning of the Spit. Just like the National Parks do; a big question still unanswered is how many vehicles can the Spit support safety; he mentioned the evacuation plan that was created but how many people was that plan configured for? He suggested that this be part of the Comprehensive Plan. The ability to totally control the traffic on the Spit would be supported by a booth at the beginning of it.

 

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 Boat Harbor. Recommended language from City Planner – for the Homer Spit starting at where the posted speed limit drops to 25 mile per hour to the end.

 

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 May 2, 2008 and the DOT is working really hard to come up with the additional funds of $900,000.00 needed to complete the current bike/pedestrian path, spur trail to Coal Point. Mr. Stewart clarified that the trails and pathways should be considered in all sections since there are safety issues with those trail users.

 

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 Alaska DOT Right Away Manual                                 

 

 

 

ADJOURN

 

There being no further business Acting Chair Sharon Minsch adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.

 

 

                                                           

Renee Krause, Deputy City Clerk I

 

 

Approved: