Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2023-01-19 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Transportation Advisory Board Action Minutes November 29, 2022 Call to order: 7:00 PM Attendance: Members present: Chair Bill Jaursch; Vice Chair Amin Wahab; Kasey Adler; Theresa Bianco; Stephen Cohen; and Trevor Sleeman (joined at 7:04pm) Members Absent/Excused: Drew Hagedorn; and Peter Cory, Youth Member Council Liaison Present: Guest(s): Found below in the “Public Comment” section Staff: Will Farley, City Traffic Engineer; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager; and Chris Fairley, Administrative Support Consent Agenda • September 22, 2022 Meeting Minutes o Mr. Adler moved to approve the Minutes of September 22, 2022, as submitted. Seconded by Ms. Bianco and passed unanimously. Vice Chair Wahab commended staff for doing such a thorough job with the Minutes (catching all of the details); adding that it was much appreciated. Council Report • Councilor Rapf was not in attendance to present his report. Public Comment: • Nancy Sage, Traffic Coordinator for the Palisades Neighborhood Association (PNA), 2593 Greentree Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, reminded members that they heard from a citizen, Bill Connors, about his concerns regarding parking and traffic safety on his street (Tree Top Lane) and surrounding Lakeridge High School. She indicated that the issue was continuing on a larger scale, as evidenced by more neighbors (on Meadowlark and on Overlook) coming forward at a recent PNA meeting. She reported that the PNA has reached out to the Safety Officer of the Lake Oswego School District (LOSD) and to Dr. Jennifer Schiele, Superintendent of LOSD (who recommended posting "Limited/No Parking" signage on one side of the street), with no one being inclined to amend the parking arrangement currently in place at Lakeridge. She requested advice on how to solve for this. o Ms. Bianco asked if anyone spoke about making bus transportation more palatable, if "No Parking" signage were posted. Ms. Sage replied that Dr. Schiele informed her that the root cause of the problem was the fact that there were more drivers now than ever before; adding that she remembered the time when the school lots were always full because parking was on a first-come/first-serve basis (before the space permitting system). o Mr. Adler asked for confirmation from staff that Cloverleaf held "No Parking" signage. Mr. Farley confirmed that the south side of the street was marked as a designated fire lane and the north side was marked "No Parking during school days, from 9:00am- 3:00pm" (through an agreement with the neighborhood). Mr. Adler then asked if the neighborhoods would be the ones requesting the school day parking restriction. Mr. Farley replied that it would be an agreement by everyone living on the particular street, in the full zone, and that everyone would be ticketed for parking infractions, not just students; adding that the same requirement would apply to have the parking restriction put in place. He indicated that it would be better if there was a safety concern in the area as well (a blind intersection), and that there could be greater safety concerns with pushing parking further away (causing the need to walk longer distances). Ms. Sage asked if they could apply the parking restriction to just one side of the street. Mr. Farley agreed that it was possible to post signage on just one side; however, the same pedestrian versus auto safety concerns would be present. He stated that he preferred to have parking near the facility. Mr. Adler asked Ms. Sage if anyone had informally polled the neighbors to see if there was close to unanimous support for this type of measure. Ms. Sage replied that that would be the next step, after bringing the issue before TAB. Mr. Cohen stated that he agreed with Mr. Farley's opinion that there would still be safety and parking issues if parking had to be spread further away. Mr. Farley reminded members that the Rassekh Property and the Rec Center development projects were set to begin soon, and an agreement had been reached between the Parks Department and the School District to allow some student parking at Rassekh. Ms. Sage asked what next steps were needed by the PNA to proceed with the signage request. Mr. Farley responded that he would find out exactly what was needed and let her know. o Chair Jaursch asked Ms. Sage if she knew what percentage of the lot was paid parking, including family spaces. Ms. Sage replied that all students had to pay for a permit, but she did not know the percentage or going rate, as employees were not required to purchase a permit for a specific parking space; adding that only 15 spaces went to non- Seniors for the 2022-2023 school year and there were only a few family parking spaces. Ms. Sage pointed to the busses being underutilized since post-COVID-19 levels were normalizing. • Katherine Lupton, 4912 Lower Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, spoke again about Bryant Road (between Jean Road and Sunset Drive) and her concerns about pedestrian safety, given that this area was designated as a multi-use pathway (marked by a single white line) and was seeing heavier auto traffic. She requested that TAB prioritize the installation of a sidewalk along that stretch of Bryant Road in the updated Transportation System Plan (TSP). Next, she voiced her support for revising Waluga Drive's current pathway into a safer pedestrian pathway to access Waluga Park. She asked if any member used that section of Bryant Road to walk on. Mr. Farley informed Ms. Lupton that TAB had recommended Bryant Road as one of the top priorities in a previous Pathways Prioritization (to complete the gaps between Boones Ferry Road and Childs Road) but will need funding assistance to complete. Ms. Lupton restated her request for the installation of pedestrian cones along Bryant Road. Mr. Farley indicated that he would look into this. • Lindsey Boccia, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association (LFNA) Board Member, 5428 Royal Oaks Drive, Lake Oswego, OR, 97035, relayed that she started walking around neighborhood a few months ago, and that she and her husband chose to stop walking on Waluga Drive because the cars were too close to them. She then noted that she polled her neighbors for their thoughts on the safety of Waluga Drive, with 98% of 36 respondents feeling that Waluga Drive was unsafe to walk on, and 95% feeling that it was a potentially fatal pedestrian risk. She then shared some of the history from the initial West Waluga Park project (1986) and the liability issues found during its research phase. She informed members that the Parks Department originally agreed with the petition from neighborhood citizens to close Waluga Drive but this was lost as it went through further committees; leaving just a shoulder for pedestrians to use (extremely dangerous, in her opinion). She requested that Waluga Drive be added to the TSP, through an amendment process. o Chair Jaursch asked if there was a particular area/most dangerous area of Waluga Drive to focus on. Ms. Boccia replied that her video focused on the area from Royal Oaks to Oak Ridge; adding that there was an 8'-wide segment on the west side of the road that could be used as a pathway (now filled with blackberry bushes). She opined that it could be dealt with within City walls (no private homeowners to deal with), and that it was important to make pedestrians feel safe, so they would utilize the paths. o Ms. Bianco asked staff to speak about that subject section of Waluga Drive. Mr. Farley stated that part of the area was protected under the recently passed "Chapter 10" and that prohibited sidewalks within the park's boundaries; adding that there would be little space to include a pathway in the public right-of-way (ROW). He informed members that there had been no accidents involving vulnerable users (bicyclists or pedestrians) in the area, and that there was a pedestrian crossing between the 2 parks. Ms. Boccia pointed to the new State rule that cities will need to follow when preparing their next TSP (being unable to use car collision data to measure safety); opining that the Waluga project scored just as high as the other projects on the current TSP. Ms. Rooney explained the process involved in determining how the next TSP projects will be chosen and the history behind the City's original roadway infrastructure. Ms. Boccia stated that she would be willing to lead a private fundraiser to bring monies in for the pathways’ projects. Ms. Rooney acknowledged Ms. Boccia's offer; stating that Planning Department staff would be willing to meet with anyone who wished to discuss this option, as there will be less funding available in the next biennium budget. o Mr. Sleeman asked staff if there was a possibility for the LFNA to form a Local Improvement District (LID) in order to pay for this themselves. Ms. Rooney affirmed that LIDs were always an option (an assessment on adjoining properties). She cited back to Mr. Farley's earlier point about this area being bound by a park (now subject to Chapter 10 regulations), with a 40'-wide ROW (a sub-standard width, requiring more ROW). Ms. Boccia inquired whether the City would be amenable to installing a barrier between the roadway and the pedestrians. Ms. Rooney relayed that she would look into this further. Chair Jaursch asked if Ms. Boccia had discussed installing informal walkways on the edges of their properties, in the public ROW, with her neighbors. Ms. Boccia noted that she had not looked into that option; however, she relayed that she spoke with the Parks Department about laying down a trail in that area. Staff Reports 1. Middle Housing - HB 2001 (presented by Mr. Olson) • Background, State Rules and Guidelines o Passed in 2019, requiring cities over 25,000 population to allow “middle housing,” in addition to single-family homes in all residential zones, with zoning codes updated by June 30, 2022. o “Middle Housing” is a group of housing types that can blend with single-family housing but offering different housing options (accommodating higher density) / definitions of duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters described. o 3 goals with HB 2001: Options, Supply, and Diversity/Equity. o HB 2001 requirements are meant to apply to all of the City’s residential zones, with the exception of allowing Homeowners Associations (HOAs) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted prior to January 1, 2020 to remain valid. o State rules provide the City more control over the design of middle housing and less control over the location or density of middle housing. • Process and City Council Direction o A timeline progression graph was shown. o The Middle Housing Advisory Committee provided recommendations related to: preserving existing structures; the scale and character of new middle housing; runoff and stormwater impacts of middle housing; and the affordability and accessibility of middle housing. o The City did not request any special exemptions; however, they are meeting the State’s minimum requirements regarding housing types, minimum lot sizes, and parking (one off-street parking space per dwelling unit). • Adopted Proposal o Dimensional Standards: apply existing bulk and massing standards - setbacks, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, and maximum floor area. o Number of Driveways for Duplexes, Triplexes, and Quadplexes: allow only one driveway on lots with less than 75’ of frontage. o Number of Driveways for Townhouses: allow one driveway per unit. o Garage Design Standards: require garage recessing behind the main façade or behind a porch; and allow exceptions to increase the width of the garage to 75% only for lots that are narrower than 50’. o Cottage Cluster Housing: adopt the standards of the DLCD Model Code (minimum of 5 units, with a maximum average floor area of 1,000-square-feet in medium- and high-density zones and of 1,200-square-feet in low-density zones). o Review Procedures: classify the development of a single triplex, quadplex, townhouse project, and cottage cluster as a ministerial decision, in order to comply with Division 46. o SB 458 (Land Division Allowance for New Middle Housing): middle housing units may be sold/owned individually; must comply with all relevant development standards and building code requirements; require separate utilities and easements per unit; and allow for a maximum of one dwelling unit per lot or parcel (only applies to middle housing that meets BH 2001 code standards, and the City may not apply requirements beyond those allowed by HB 2001). • Ongoing Housing Work o Increasing affordability and accessibility through HB 2003, with the completion of a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) by December 31, 2023, and every 6 years after that. o Adopting a Housing Production Strategy (HPS) one year after the HNA is adopted and providing mid-term checkpoints every 3 years. • Q&A and Next Steps o Chair Jaursch inquired whether curbs/sidewalks could be required with new developments (as noted in the Zoom chat by Ms. Sage). Mr. Olson replied that this request was brought forward to the City Council after going through a Planning Commission hearing; adding that it was currently on hold, following concerns raised by City Council members over potential inequality (requiring more from a middle housing development than a single-family dwelling development, as the sidewalk would be paid for by the developer/property owner). He indicated that this could be researched further during the HPS creation phase. o Mr. Adler asked if staff had an idea of where middle housing developments may appear throughout the City. Mr. Olson responded that there were areas where they knew that middle housing would not be developed due to existing HOAs; opining that it would most likely be widespread but not developed at a rapid pace. o Vice Chair Wahab requested more information on the unannexed areas outside of the City limits. Mr. Olson replied that they would need to wait until the property was annexed to the City for those middle housing regulations to apply, as extensions for utilities requires annexation to the City. Vice Chair Wahab then asked about the potential impacts to middle housing, as Tri-Met was in the process of rerouting bus service within Lake Oswego. Mr. Olson relayed that it would be difficult to determine the full impact this may have; opining that they would see less middle housing in areas that are less walkable. o Addressing Ms. Sage's question in the chat, Mr. Olson restated that middle housing development projects must provide one off-street parking space per unit. o Chair Jaursch asked if they have seen any new middle housing developments. Mr. Olson replied in the negative; stating that they have heard of some interest, but no applications had yet been filed. 2. TAB 2022 Accomplishments & 2023 Goals (presented by Mr. Farley) • 2022 Accomplishments: Returned to in-person meetings; Welcomed Peter Cory to the Board; Recommended next set of pathways to the City Council; and Hosted presentations on the 2022 Pathways Projects and on HB 2001. • Previous 2022 Goals: Rail Quiet Zone; Speed-Zoning/Speed-20 Pilot; Stafford/McVey Corridor Vision Study; I-5/I-205 Tolling; and Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Criteria Update. • 2023 Goals: Stafford/McVey Corridor Vision Study update during the January 2023 meeting. • 2023 Goals for Consideration: Review process for updating the TSP; Implementation of Street Fee, if it passes; Evaluate climate change transportation impacts (coordinating with the Sustainability Advisory Board); Research funding to improve bike lane safety; Research "Tri-Met Forward Together" impacts (members discussed this topic in finer detail); and Update I-5/I-205 Tolling impacts. The next regular meeting date is January 19, 2023. Adjournment: 9:05 PM