BOONES FERRY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 1

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BOONES FERRY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 1"

Adela Patterson
5 years ago
Views:

1 BOONES FERRY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Lake Oswego City Hall Council Chambers August 16, :00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. PAC Members in Attendance: Bruce Goldson, Mike Buck, Carolyn Krebs, Debbie Siegel, Cheryl Uchida, Trudy Corrigan, Riccardo Spaccarelli City & Consultant Staff: Brant Williams, Sid Sin, Stacy Bluhm, Terry Song (WHPacific), Ben Ngan and Jason Hirst (Nevue Ngan), Vaughn Brown (JLA), Ralph Trahan (Trahan Architecture, LLC), Brian Copeland (DKS Engineers) Audience: Betsy Jenike, Tom Jenike, Mark Williams Meeting began at 9:05 am 1. Welcome Mike and Carolyn welcomed the group. 2. Project Updates Terry indicated the team has completed the archeological report and has submitted it to ODOT and the Warm Springs Tribe for review. Also completed is the signal pole foundation analysis and design and the infiltration tests. Thus far the tests show some low and some high areas of infiltration, but generally speaking infiltration is doable. The right-of-way work is completed and under review with ODOT. The team is finishing up the field survey on Lanewood St, refining the roadway alignment, the preliminary staging plans, and preparing for neighborhood traffic management meetings. All of this work will contribute towards getting to 60% plans by the end of September. 3. Quarry Road Design Terry reviewed the two revised Quarry Road/Boones Ferry Rd (BFR) intersection options (see illustrations in meeting materials.) He explained the goal was to provide safety and comfort for the pedestrian crossing by reducing the approach angle to the intersection. During the discussion, it was noted that the neighborhood association valued the island because it was a good location for the neighborhood association sign, it provided landscaping and a pedestrian refuge while crossing the street. Both designs will continue to accommodate emergency vehicles and school buses because the island will have a mountable curb (as it does now) and the corner on the north (Banner Bank corner) will have a rolled curb.

2 Page 2 of 5 Stacy explained the differences and benefits between the existing and proposed alternatives using additional illustrations (see illustration at end of the meeting summary). Page 1, A Existing Conditions: Pink line shows the existing curb. Current stop bar on Quarry Rd has a 113.5⁰ viewing angle as drivers look to their left before pulling out onto BFR. The alternatives look to improve this angle. Page 2, B Alternative 1: Island with slight nudge out for bike lane and narrows width to keep cars in alignment. This option improves the angle by 10 degrees if stopped behind the stop bar to 103.5⁰. Page 3, C Alternative 2: No island also with bike lane nudge out and 10-foot wide turn lane. Reduces angle to 102⁰, an 11.5⁰ degree improvement. Page 4, D: Island with no nudge out for bike lane on Quarry resulted in 108⁰, resulting in a 5.5⁰ improvement. During the PAC discussion, it was noted that there are no bike lanes further north on Quarry Rd and that the bike lane is not striped through the crosswalk at Quarry Rd. There was concern that larger 18-wheel trucks could not make this turn if they wanted to head back up north for another deliver, but a member said that this concern was raised when the refinement plan was being developed the solution was to have trucks go down to Willow Lane (in the southwest industrial area) and turn around. Another concern raised was how to ensure that vehicles yielded to pedestrians so they could safely use the crosswalk. It was explained that this type of off-angle intersection was very common throughout the region and that this would not warrant a flasher. The best options to increase safety for pedestrians is to square up the intersection as best as possible, stripe the crossing, provide adequate lighting and having a gateway with landscaping and signage helps. Additionally, a PAC member noted that with all of the improvements on BFR we re trying create a culture that will yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians will also need to use good judgement. The PAC preferred Alternative 1 (Quarry Road intersection with island). 4. Streetscape Materials Ben indicated that PAC members will be asked to vote on design options throughout the presentation. This direction will inform the team as they develop the 60% plans scheduled to be completed by the end of September. In addition, it will set the standard for the rest of the district and other development under way such as the Springs Living development (Kruse Way and BFR). The decision on style/type/manufacturer on most streetscape elements does not need to be made at this meeting. Those decisions will occur between October and spring 2017, the exception being for street lights and standard sidewalk detailing so that this process can inform what is done at the Springs Living development. The topic areas for discussion include: a) Street Light/Signal Pole/Pedestrian Push Button select type and brand b) Sidewalk - materials and scoring patterns for 9-foot sidewalk c) Expanded Sidewalk Area materials and patterns d) Streetscape Elements placement of benches, trash cans, drinking fountains, etc. e) Intersection/Crosswalk continue discussion on choices a) Street Lights, Signal Poles & Pedestrian Crosswalk Buttons (refer to display board 12.1 Light Poles) Jason reviewed display boards 8.2 and 12.1 and explained the main differences between the lights (cost, look, accessories, functionality, etc.). There may be between poles in the streetscape. The proposed lights were inspired from combinations that the subcommittee liked, including the Ketchum light pole, Aspen Grove hanger and Prague fixture. The Holophone "Sitelink" pole is a name brand and overall a good product, but there are lots of other high-quality poles that will look the same and won't be as expensive as the

3 Page 3 of 5 Holophone "Sitelink" pole. The team can come up with the brand of pole that meets the aesthetic requirements, but is cost-effective for the project. Pole attachment hardware will be built into pole drawings/details with no need to use stainless steel straps for pole amenities (banners, etc). For consistency and ease of replacement, the team recommended going with specific name products for poles and luminaires. PAC Discussion/Direction: Pole Shape: PAC decision round, overall better shape, no need to align perpendicular to roadway. Pedestrian lighting/bracket PAC decision Prague fixture with Ketchum bracket (and consider flipping the bracket upside down) Base: PAC decision round, simple, minimal. Finial: PAC decision - simple, ball (is there a way to keep birds off of them?) Signal Pole Base: exposed bolts or simple cover (round or square base)? PAC decision simple cover, no ornamental base like Kruse way, but no exposed bolts. Pedestrian Push Button Poles: A simple and short, 4 diameter pole example was shown (bottom of display board 12.1). Display Board 12.3 shows examples of where poles would be located. The team noted that the poles need to be place at the back edge of the curb ramp for accessibility. Two are required and they need to be separated by at least 10 feet. They must also have an audible walk indication. ODOT requires the poles to be breakaway style. PAC decision keep it simple, small footprint, and compatible with other design decisions. b) Sidewalk - refer to display board Ben described the sidewalk options and the sidewalk scoring option board. In general, there is a 9-foot wide sidewalk that includes a 5-6 foot wide sidewalk through zone and 3-foot planter. He mentioned that the materials subcommittee liked the design on board 12.2, which includes a score line that demarcates the furnishing zone and sidewalk edge. It also includes rounded steel edges at the ends of the landscape strips and pavers instead of concrete sidewalk next to trees. A PAC member wanted to ensure there would be some type of scoring at the driveways to prevent cracking (or provide for a controlled crack). This would also help delineate the driveway. The PAC liked the sidewalk design on display board 12.2 and directed the team to move forward with that design concept. c) Expanded Sidewalk Area (ESA) The design team is proposing three types of paving for the ESA areas (illustrated on boards 12.3 and 12.4). The material options include: Special embellished concrete with metal insets or colored. Brick paver (sand set), example includes a paver made by Endicott which has sparkly iron oxide brick in the brick, almost pottery like. Architectural slabs, these are larger dimensional pavers that come in different shapes and sizes. Questions for the PAC: Should all ESAs have the same paving material to create unity or should they have different materials to create variety? Should the paver material extend from the back of the sidewalk curb to the ESA or should the sidewalk be continuous along the street frontage? Should there be a strategy so that pairing of ESAs are emphasized?

4 Page 4 of 5 There was a mix of responses from PAC members. Some liked the same materials in the ESAs, but with some subtle differences, others indicated they liked a difference in materials. There should be something a little unexpected with a common theme, but unique. It was mentioned that they liked the mixture of honoring the pairing with similar materials, especially at the unsignalized pedestrian crossings and at the intersections. The PAC would like to see sample materials. An audience member mentioned they would like to see something that is easy to maintain. d) Streetscape Elements Ralph identified and describes areas for streetscape elements (refer to map.) He noted that that the Fitkin property on the east side of Boones Ferry Road south and north of the Madrona St intersection is in the West Lake Grove Design District and would need to meet those design standards. He also clarified that art bases would be flush with the sidewalk/pavers, they would not be elevated based like some found in the east end downtown area. PAC members commented that the downside wall (wall on the east side of BFR) creates opportunities for art on top of the retaining wall. It was mentioned that there would be no shelters at the bus stops and no newspaper boxes (because it creates clutter). There will also be a large planter area or potentially paver areas for the iconic trees. Lastly there will be opportunities for bike corals (areas of for multiple bike storage) and bike racks (storage for 2-4 bikes). The project has budgeted for 24 bike racks either in furnishing zone areas or at locations that might warrant a greater number of bike racks. It was also noted that the City would be responsible for picking up the trash from trash cans at public locations. The PAC supported the direction of the of the streetscape elements on the map. e) Intersection Treatments (refer to board 12.6) Ben discussed the different intersection treatments including: All asphalt with some striping to Concrete crosswalk with asphalt roadway All concrete intersection and crosswalks It was also noted that since 2009, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires, either white stripes or stop bars to delineate the pedestrian crossings and therefore will need to have these. During the PAC discussion, the team suggested not having cobbles due to cost and maintenance concerns, even if they were minimally used to delineate the pedestrian crossing. PAC members agreed that the all crosswalks at the signalized intersections should be concrete, but the question was raised if the intersection needed to be all concrete or if asphalt was acceptable. Members were split on this design issue. A member noted that since there was not a lot of art at the Bryant intersection, it was a good place for full concrete, however, since there was a lot of art and other streetscape elements at the McDonald s/jenike intersection, it was a good place to only have concrete crosswalks. Intersections under consideration for full concrete included: Madrona St., Bryant Rd., Reese Rd., and McDonald s/jenike. Lanewood St. would be all asphalt because it is an interim improvement until the next phase of the project. It was noted that the rough cost for the signalized intersection for concrete crosswalks is $125,000 and to do the entire intersection in concrete is $250,000. Whatever design is chosen, we should try to minimize impacts to entrances of businesses. Several members left the meeting before they could provide input and since it takes 2/3 majority to have agreement, the PAC agreed to show all concrete (crosswalk and intersections) for now as we move forward and pull back as needed. It was agreed that all PAC members should be present and participate in this discussion at the next meeting. The team also clarified that the illustration on board 12.6 showing four rows of striping was over exaggerated. The team advised that there should be striping at some of the intersections. The proposal is to

5 Page 5 of 5 have two rows of striping at the Bryant Rd intersection and one row on Reese Road. The striping would be reflective to help during night driving and would help drivers stay aligned in the long skewed intersection. 5. Neighborhood Traffic Meeting Update Brian indicated that there was concern about possible traffic impacts from this project on abutting neighborhoods. The goal of the neighborhood traffic meetings is to identify and address specific impacts that this project could have on the neighborhoods, but it is not intended to address the overall comprehensive impacts that may be caused by traffic outside of this project. The team met with the Lake Grove, Lake Forest and Waluga neighborhood associations to discuss the approach and scope the meetings. Vaughn will put together a newsletters with general and specific information to mail out to all residences and businesses. It will also announce the date, time and locations of the neighborhood traffic meetings. 6. Public Comments There were no public comments. Meeting adjourned at 11:30. NEXT MEETING Next meeting to be held Tuesday, September 20 th, at 9:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall (380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego).

4 GENERIC COST ESTIMATING TOOL

4 GENERIC COST ESTIMATING TOOL Table 4-1 presents a generic cost estimating tools that can serve as a conceptual planning tool for local jurisdictions to estimate the costs of pedestrian improvements.