Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kiewit Cup Parking Traffic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Kiewit parking plan but rejects proposed traffic routes
Summary
The Nome Planning Commission approved the developer's revised parking plan for a conditional-use permit but voted down the submitted construction traffic routing options after commissioners and residents raised safety concerns about blind corners, sledding hills and bus stops; staff will invite a revised routing plan.
The Nome Planning Commission on April 21 approved the parking plan Kiewit submitted as part of its conditional-use permit, but commissioners declined to accept any of the company’s proposed construction traffic routes, saying the routing options did not adequately protect pedestrians and nearby play areas.
The commission voted unanimously to accept condition 17 — the parking plan — after commissioners said the applicant had adjusted parking to reduce headlight and backing impacts on nearby houses. During the same meeting, commissioners debated three routing alternatives for construction traffic under condition 16 and rejected the options on successive roll-call votes.
Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the proposed routes would send dozens of heavy vehicles past informal sledding hills, bus stops and areas where children walk and bicycle, creating a safety risk during peak hours. The planning commission approved the parking layout but signaled it needs a clearer, more specific traffic plan before accepting any routing that would route construction traffic through residential or high‑pedestrian areas.
Resident Derek, who had inspected the site, urged using nearby city property to create a permanent parking area to remove roadside parking pressure and improve sight lines, saying, “You could develop this with tables, a pavilion... make something that's kind of nice, not just a parking lot.” Commissioners agreed a leveled city lot could reduce on‑road parking and mitigate some concerns.
Another participant, Kenny Hughes, noted separate state capital funding developments that could affect local traffic: “The Senate just passed... two specific projects that were named for Nome — $6,000,000 for paving Front Street and about $12,000,000 for the bridge,” and he warned that Stedman Avenue is scheduled for repaving beginning in June and running into mid‑August, which may complicate routing decisions during construction.
Commissioners pressed three substantive points during debate: the need for a routing plan that avoids blind corners and known sledding areas, mitigation of headlight shining into residences, and a clearer, diagrammed explanation of the routes rather than arrows on a map. One commissioner highlighted the safety concern in blunt terms, saying the submission illustrated “exactly why we’re talking about 60–80 vehicles” and why the proposed route was dangerous near bus stops and children’s play areas.
Votes at a glance: The commission approved the parking plan (condition 17) on a roll-call vote with affirmative votes from commissioners present. Separate motions to adopt routing Option A and Option B were taken to roll call and failed; the commission did not adopt any of the submitted routing alternatives.
What comes next: City staff invited commissioners to send written feedback to the staffer coordinating with the applicant so Kiewit can return with a more detailed, site‑specific routing plan. Commissioners also suggested the applicant consider upgrading nearby city land to provide off‑road parking and to revisit routing after Stedman Avenue repaving or when clearer operational details are available.
The commission paused further action on the conditional‑use routing until the applicant resubmits a more detailed plan; no new conditions were added at this meeting. The commission set its tentative next meeting for May 5 and said it could hold a special meeting if the applicant submits revised materials before then.
