TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNAPPROVED
REGULAR MEETING
Session
08-02, a Regular Meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee was called to
order at
PRESENT: COMMITTEEMEMBERS MARQUARDT, SMITH, ZAK, CHESLEY
ABSENT: COMMITTEEMEMBER VELSKO
The
agenda was approved by consensus of the Committee.
Mr. Jack
Cushing, city resident was present to comment in terms of the “Road Geometry.”
He likes what the City is doing; he likes what they are thinking about doing.
He stated he had the opportunity to receive earlier feedback from the
Committee; he believes as a civil engineer it will be another great “tool in
the quiver of our design on behalf of the folks that are requesting our
services,”; to be used to help develop town and get into different areas,
especially in the steep hill areas with backslopes, fill slopes and different
requirements like those. There needs to be something in the books; he would like
to see safeguards to prevent abuse of the criterion. He spoke in objection to
smaller right of ways, the cut slopes and construction easements. He felt it
would offer the developer a chance to jamb in a lot more lots and stress out
the hillside even further. He spoke in favor of minimum lot sizes. Some
subdivisions developers are building in requirements such as open public areas
and stream easements, which could go along with the smaller right of way. As a
design engineer there is a great concern for safety and liability issues. He
would like to see the use of guardrails to protect drivers on some of the
steeper roads. He would like to see the same standards required for everyone.
This will alleviate potential problems. He believes there are tools such as
giving the Public Works Director the discretion to decide the best situations.
He commented about the changes to the backslopes recommending starting
conservatively at first. He believes that maintenance funds put in a reserve
account should be established to contend with possible future contentions
caused by problems with a 1.5 to 1 ratio on cut backslopes.
The
Committee responded to his concerns regarding the backslopes at 1.5 to 1;
Committeemember Smith stated that they were not wanting to change the
established 2 to 1 ration but they wanted to authorize the Public Works
Director the authority to use his discretion to change or use the 1.5 to 1
ratio if the soils permit that and the situation warrants.
Mr.
Cushing stated that his intent was to keep his comments generalized enough to
support future changes in the Design Criteria Manual. In reviewing the changes
he was in favor of smaller cul de sacs, but he was not driving the fire truck
or the road grader, but then again they do have reverse. He believes the
proposed template of 22 feet on sharp grades, turns, etc. would propose more
safety hazards.
In
response to Mr. Cushing’s comment Committeemember Smith felt that these
proposed changes would assist in hugging the terrain better.
Mr.
Cushing felt that the design speed would and should reflect the driving
conditions. People will normally travel 10 mph over the speed limit; depending
on the design speed of the road it will encourage faster speeds than posted. He
proceeded to give examples of the proposed design criteria changes that in the
beginning are great but the future may bring more problems.
Committeemember
Zak posed questions regarding the percentage of slope to the 2:1 ratio. Committeemember
Smith answered that for every two feet there is one foot of rise.
Committeemember
Zak then asked when a developer is able to develop because the distance to the
road was shortened, he would like to know what a realistic percentage would be
to hold the slopes around Homer. He then inquired if they should address the
storm, snow-melt, or rain runoff regarding under or adjacent road drainage
designs.
Mr.
Cushing related his observations on Baycrest Hill and that most of the
situations were ice dams in front of the drain structures. Committeemember
Smith agreed that it was more of a maintenance issue and if that could be
improved it might solve some problems. Mr. Cushing agreed and commented that
you could never have enough roadside ditches.
Further
discussion ensued regarding the ability of the private owner to go beyond the
recommended 2:1 ratio.
Mr. Roger
Imhoff, not a resident of the City but has been in the area quite awhile and
has taken part in the design processes. He stated that he had more questions
than comments. His first question was who would be responsible for the
maintenance issues that were sure to come up regarding the 1.5 to 1 ratio, the
design engineer or the City? He believes that it is just an excuse to develop
the hillsides, which he believes would deface the beauty of Homer. He stated
that development must be looked at in conjunction with a transportation plan
that serves more than one property owner. He noted that in the past few years’
properties have been proposed and developed and it seems to be the mind set of
the Planning Commission and Public Works that property owner A develops their
property and does not have to take into consideration property owners B and C.
There seems to be acceptance of several road systems running up the hillsides.
There should be a way to gather the property owners and the City to design a
responsible transportation plan for the steep slopes that would serve several
properties at the same time. This would cut back on the road and infrastructure
costs, environmental damage, and negative scenery aspects.
He did
not see anything wrong changing the cut slopes, he felt there may be some areas
where you could do ¾ to 1 ratio and some areas where you might put in retaining
walls. He was not agreeable to reducing the template, more and more people want
sidewalks. He approved of the changes to the grade percentages. He further
clarified the narrower roads were not appropriate for through roads or
collector roads.
Committeemember
Smith responded to some of the concerns brought up by Mr. Imhoff regarding the
proposed changes specifying that they would be applicable to rural roads. He
stated that the comments and concerns brought up really targeted the steep
slope development. His opinion was that no matter what occurs, these areas will
be developed and it seemed prudent to institute requirements for design and
development in the rural conditions. Developers look at the criteria and it
does not matter to them, they will build accordingly. It does not seem
responsible to have developers using an urban design criterion which leaves
such a massive footprint on the slopes. The Committee wanted to cut back on the
massive footprint that the urban design criterion requires, and the impact on
the environment. The Committee was not trying to facilitate the development of
the property.
Mr.
Imhoff stated that you need to look at the whole picture not just one part. He
believes that you need to establish requirements for steep slope development
along with the rural roads design criteria.
Committeemember
Chesley asked Mr. Imhoff if he would support off site subdivision improvements
and proceeded to give an example of what would be required. Mr. Imhoff stated
it would depend on the situation and gave an example using
Committeemember
Smith commented that it would depend which way you go, he agreed it depends on
the situation.
Mr.
Imhoff stated that he could see the possible need for a narrower road in some
areas but it is not necessary to have a cut back he would like to see retaining
walls used. He would not mind seeing narrower roads in the smoother topography and
bringing the buildings forward, use the space in the rear for bike paths and
trails.
The
Committeemembers thanked him for his input and time.
There
were no further public comments.
None.
None.
None.
None.
A.
Design
Criteria Manual
a.
Grades –
Intersections and Roads
Chair
Marquardt reviewed the Pending Item by title for the Committeemembers and asked
Committeemember Smith to proceed with the Intersection and Road Grades
discussion.
Committeemember
Smith used the chalkboard to draw out a visual aid to assist in describing the
proposed changes to the design criteria manual. He further illustrated that if
the edge of an existing road with a plus 4% grade and a 10% grade within a 50
feet span, then using the K = 20 the length of the vertical curve is driven by
the difference in the grade. This example is 6% difference, which then forces
the length of the vertical curve to 120 feet. If there is an 8% difference the
vertical curve would be 160 feet. There is parabolic curve and after
calculations, he discovered that starting at the edge of the pavement with a
side hill road intersecting it after extensive review and checking points at 20
feet then again at 40 feet, where 20 feet is about the length of a car you
would get 4.5% grade. If it was 12% it would still be at 4.5% the K factor
drives that designation.
The
maximum grade within 50 feet under the urban design standards is 4%. This standard
is very hard to achieve. In the rural standard the first part of the curve must
be no less than 4% with the K factor = 20 driving the length and you cannot exceed
4.5%. Committeemember Smith proceeded to diagram what the impact to a hill
would be compared to the standard design used now.
Mr.
Cushing commented on the proposed grade and formulas that Committeemember Smith
diagramed out for the Committee. He appeared to be in agreement with the
information presented. The Clerk was unable to hear his comments clearly.
The
Committee then reviewed the information and discussed the language to use in
the resolution.
CHESLEY/ZAK–
MOVED TO AMEND THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, FOURTH WHEREAS, FIFTH SENTENCE TO READ THE
GRADE OF
THE
VERTICAL CURVE TRANSITIONING INTO A CHANGING GRADE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM K FACTOR
OF TWENTY (K=20)
There was
no further discussion.
VOTE.
YES. NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
Chair
Marquardt departed the meeting at
Discussion
ensued regarding the merits of addressing changes regarding road grades.
Committeemember Smith clarified that these changes were to apply to rural roads
only. It was pointed out that many of the roads in Homer did not follow the
urban standards. It was reasoned that eight (8%) percent was not steep, as it
was eight feet for every one hundred feet. Committeemember Smith elaborated on
this using the K factor.
CHESLEY/ SMITH
- MOVED TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO STRIKE “INTERSECTION
There was
no discussion.
VOTE.
YES. NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
CHESLEY/SMITH
- MOVED TO INSERT THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:
THE
MAXIMUM GRADE ALLOWED FOR A RURAL
THE
MAXIMUM GRADE FOR A THROUGH
There was
no discussion.
VOTE.
YES. NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
Committeemember
Chesley wanted to consider whether they should address at this time the
concerns brought forward regarding the downhill side of a road where the grade
is a 1.5 to 1 ratio that guardrails are required. Committeemember Smith agreed
but he also felt that there should not be any 1.5 to 1 ratio fill slopes only
cut slopes. He stated a 1.5 to 1 ratio should be the absolute minimum
requirement for fill slopes for structural purposes only. Committeemember
Chesley pointed out that in the document authorizing the Public Works to use a
1.5 to 1 ration on backslopes that this did not cover fill slopes.
Committeemember Smith recommended inserting the word “cut” before backslopes
and that it was a good point and agreed with the recommendation.
CHESLEY/-
MOVED TO INSERT THE WORD “CUT” BEFORE THE WORD BACKSLOPES IN THE FOURTH
WHEREAS, LINE FOUR OF THE RESOLUTION.
Committeemember
Zak asked where they would address the guardrail requirement. Committeemember
Smith was of the opinion this was already a requirement in the manual. It could
be addressed at a later time if required. He commented that Mr. Cushing stated
it was not a requirement and the engineer makes a decision based on a case by
case scenario. Committeemember Zak suggested that they could address the issue
of stabilization on the uphill side. Committeemember Smith felt that they
authorized the Public Works Director to use the 1.5 to 1 ratio if the soils
permit and he did not feel that they should get into the criterion that specifies
whether those soils are acceptable; the decision would be up to the Public
Works Director and the engineers. If it is determined that there is a problem
there should be included in the specifications that the contractor is required
to use some form of stabilization. Committeemember Chesley used an example of
the culvert installed vertically on East Hill that is used as a retaining wall
so the Public Works Director inherently would have the authority to allow that
to be exceeded.
Committeemember
Chesley then brought up the pedestrian concerns brought forward regarding the
recommended narrower roads and being able to accommodate safe walk ways for
pedestrians. Committeemember Smith agreed it was a very important issue and was
of the opinion that the other issue, he thought there was a subdivision
ordinance that provided pedestrian access through a subdivision.
Committeemember Chesley did not feel that the City had code requirements
regarding sidewalks in residential neighborhoods. Committeemember Smith
remembered that it was in the trails and road plan. Committeemember Chesley
noted that just because it was in the plan does not mean it made it to code so
he will look into that issue. He then asked if the Committee wanted to submit
the resolution as is to Council or work on the sidewalk issues. Further
discussion covered the aspects of submitting as is and agreed that ultimately
it is a recommendation to the Council and if the Public Works Director submits
a memo on it the Council will weigh heavily on the information submitted by the
Public Works Director and the Committee. Committeemember Smith felt that if the
Council has an issue regarding the road prism they can deal with that portion
or kick it back for further reconsideration.
CHESLEY/ZAK
– MOVED TO FORWARD RESOLUTION 08-XX TO
There was
no discussion.
VOTE.
YES. NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
There was
a brief discussion regarding the possible scenarios when it comes before the
Council. That it will be difficult to get this passed since it will bring out
people who may not fully understand the purpose of making these changes. It was
recommended that it first be on the Committee of the Whole and that
Committeemember Smith be present to fully explain it and can address the
technical aspects and all questions from Council.
Committeemember
Smith commented that they would see more opposition because on the surface it
may appear that they want to make it easier on the developers to build on the
slopes. He elaborated a bit on the issue reiterating the purposes the Committee
wants to institute these changes in the design manual.
Committeemember
Chesley asked if Committeemember Smith would write a companion memorandum to
express those points.
CHESLEY/ZAK
- MOVED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AUTHORIZES COMMITTEEMEMBER
SMITH TO PREPARE A COMPANION MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE
There was
no discussion.
VOTE.
YES. NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion
carried.
The clerk
informed Committeemember Smith that this would be needed no later than
B. Draft Resolution Implementing the
Recommended Changes to the Design Criteria Manual
This was
included in the discussion above.
A.
Off-site
Subdivision Improvements
This item
was postponed to the
B.
2008
Future Agenda Items
This item
was postponed to the
None.
None.
None.
Councilmember
Chesley thanked the Committee and that it was fun working with them on this
resolution.
None.
COMMENTS
OF THE COMMITTEEMEMBERS
Committeemember Smith thanked the
Committee and will try to do them proud on the Resolution and get the memo
done.
Committeemember Zak had no
comments.
Renee
Krause, Deputy City Clerk I