TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNAPPROVED
REGULAR MEETING
Session 08-01, a Regular Meeting
of the Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at
PRESENT: COMMITTEEMEMBERS MARQUARDT, SMITH, VELSKO, ZAK,
COUNCILMEMBER CHESLEY
Councilmember Chesley recommended removal of Item A. under
Section 11, Informational Materials regarding the Capital Improvement Plan.
There was no further discussion.
The agenda was approved as amended by consensus of the
Committee.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
A.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Carey Meyer
Re: Road LID Costs Assessment Methodology
Chair Marquardt reviewed the Memorandum by title for the Committeemembers.
Committeemember Smith inquired about the percentages used in the LID process.
He was curious why there were different percentages than the 75/25%. He stated
that the Committee had reviewed in the last few years different scenarios. None
ever indicated a ratio change. Councilmember Chesley stated he has not heard of
any proposed changes so far during his tenure on Council.
Committeemember Smith recommended postponing this
discussion until the Public Works Director would be available for questions and
his input.
SMITH/VELSKO – MOVED TO POSTPONE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM
UNTIL PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CAN BE AVAILABLE TO OFFER INFORMATION.
There was no discussion.
VOTE. YES. NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
B.
2008 Meeting Schedule
Committeemembers reviewed the 2008 Meeting schedule with no
objections.
C.
Design Criteria Manual
a.
Prism or template width – Discussed at the August
meeting.
b.
Backslopes – discussed at the October meeting.
c.
Grades – intersections and roads.
d.
Cul de Sac Radius – discussed at the October
meeting.
e.
Design Speeds for Vertical Curves – discussed at the
August meeting.
Chair Marquardt asked if Committeemember Smith would review
what had been previously discussed and decided by the Committee.
Committeemember Smith stated he brought this issue forward
to the Committee because he felt that the Road Design Criteria Manual should be
revised to accommodate the increased building being done in the bluff areas.
These were typically rural roads and ending in a cul de sac. He proceeded to
give the existing requirements for building roads. Mr. Smith described the
problems associated with building the roads following these guidelines. He
stated that it has not stopped development. It dictates that the developers
must follow the established design criteria. This has resulted in problems for the
utility companies, safety, and maintenance; the footprint of a road project
makes access difficult to some lots because of vertical curve issues, grade
issues, and design speed issues; and causes huge cuts and fills; a smaller
template would avoid these problems. He continued by explaining that under the
current criteria maintenance issues were minor, but he felt that this Committee
could review and agree on recommending some changes that would be to everyone’s
benefit. The Committee agreed to look at only five separate areas for possible
revisions at this time. Here are the five categories and the Committee
recommendations for criteria modifications:
Prism Width or Template Width –
a.
Change 26 feet template to 22-foot template for road
widths.
b.
Change 36 inch depth of gravel at the shoulders to
30 inch depth of gravel.
c.
Crowned at 3% if it is gravel and 2% if it is paved
with minimum 2.5-3 feet of shoulder.
d.
Flat subgrade instead of crowned.
Backslopes – Give Public Works authority to authorize 1.5:1
backslopes (30 degrees) if it is determined that soils would permit.
Grades – Intersection and Roads – Current 10% maximum.
Recommend 4% vertical curve to begin at edge of pavement. Use k factor = 20
mph. 12% maximum. To be discussed further at February’s meeting.
Cul de Sac Radius – Change radius from 38 feet to 30 feet
radius. (Bob Painter was consulted on the fire equipment requirements.)
Vertical Curve Design Speeds – Recommended speeds of 20 mph
for rural roads in Homer were the same as required in the manual. There was no
need for any changes.
Councilmember Chesley stated that a suite of options should
be established to address a variety of situations that maintain the level of
safety, reduce the footprint and offers the design community more tools
enabling more affordable development. Councilmember Chesley offered his support
of these changes and bringing that forward to the City Council. His opinion was
that the current City Council would find favor with these changes. He related
to the Committee that this subject had been broached during his tenure on the
Planning Commission.
Discussion by the Committeemembers included the pros and
cons of enlarging right of way requirements from 50 feet to 60 feet; the
support received from Public Works Director Meyer on these changes to the
design criteria manual; what requirements the Alaska Department of
Transportation (AKDOT), and the Borough uses for rural roads; schedule to
include in Council packet, public hearings and final approval for application
during the upcoming construction season.
Councilmember Chesley commented that a memorandum from
Public Works Director Meyer supporting the changes to the Design Criteria
Manual would be very helpful in getting this approved by Council.
Committeemember Velsko wanted to discuss more on the grades
for roads and intersections. He pointed out that there should be different
standards for rural and urban. Councilmember Chesley commented that the AKDOT
classifies the roads differently than the City does, the City is more
stringent.
Councilmember Smith pointed out that there are many roads
that do not meet the City standards, such as
The Committee discussed if there would ever be a situation
where the prism or template would ever be reduced to twenty feet; complying to
the State adopted requirements regarding access for fire equipment; what point
does the City require a road to be built to limit the number of driveway
accesses being granted; enforcements standards for maintenance and safety, the
Committee determined it was more of a Planning issue than Design; design
standards require consideration for 10-20 years into the future; putting these
changes into Ordinance amendment or Resolution form.
Councilmember Chesley requested to have on a future agenda
the issue of vacating a cul de sac; his research did not reveal any criteria
regarding this issue.
There was a brief discussion among the Committeemembers
regarding cul de sacs in general and existing requirements by the Borough.
Councilmember Chesley did not want to spend time now on this issue but felt
that it would be appropriate for the
Committeemember Smith brought the discussion back to Grades
– Intersections and Roads. He then proceeded to draw a diagram on the
blackboard to express the current requirement maximum versus the maximum that
he would like to propose.
The existing requirement distance is 50 feet or 4%, he
proposes that you could make it 20 feet like a landing width before starting
the vertical curve or move the vertical curve back using the 4% and use the 20
mph design speed. The steeper the terrain the longer the vertical curve using
the formula k factor= 20mph.
Discussion ensued regarding different scenarios such as
weather, traffic loads, roads leading into local parks; grades can also be
accommodated using this formula; rural designation; future development of the
area.
Councilmember Chesley requested confirmation by the Clerk
regarding that changes to the Design Criteria Manual are done by resolution
which would make this a quicker process. Committeemember Smith offered to
supply graph presentations for the next meeting; the Committee requested a
draft resolution will be prepared to include in the packet so a final review
and vote can be done at the February meeting.
Resolution should state changes are being made to rural
classification only.
None.
A.
Memorandum from Deputy City Clerk Krause to City
Council Re: Capital Improvement Recommendations for 2008
Struck from agenda by consensus
of the Committee.
None.
None.
Councilmember Chesley asked what the future agendas have
lined up. He suggested that they discuss off site subdivision improvements as a
future agenda item. He requested to put this as a new business item at the next
meeting. He will bring at least one development as an example. Thanked everyone
for their hard work and efforts with the design criteria manual.
He wanted to make sure Beth and Planning Commission know
that this resolution is coming down the line and may be in front of them at the
March 5th meeting. It was agreed that a copy of the Resolution would
be given to Planning. Further confirmation of the earliest adoption possibility
was discussed with participation of all members and the Clerk.
Chair Marquardt suggested each member work or create a list
of items that they would like to see worked on this year and then they could
have some focus during the year also. Thanked everyone for their work also and
following up on this.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMITTEEMEMBERS
Committeemember
Smith appreciates their efforts in moving this forward.
Committeemember
Velsko and Zak had no comments.
Renee Krause, Deputy City Clerk I