Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B - Amend.Street Class.MapEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: An Ordinance Amending the November 1999 Street Classification Map Adopted by Ordinance No. 20181 to Designate Collector Streets in the Crest Drive Neighborhood Meeting Date: October 25, 2004 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Gary McNeel www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8451 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an opportunity for the council to review the recommendations from the Eugene Planning Commission and staff regarding street classification in the Crest Drive neighborhood and receive the staff report on additional interaction with the neighborhood. A public hearing on a proposed ordinance (Attachment A) to amend the Street Classification map (Exhibit A of Attachment A) to classify streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood is scheduled at 7:30 p.m. on October 25, 2004. BACKGROUND In November 1999, the council adopted, by Ordinance No. 20181, the "Street Classification Map, Figure 60" that depicts the classification of major streets within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary, consistent with TransPlan and the Metropolitan Plan. The 1999 Street Classification Map did not classify the streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. The criteria and methodology to classify streets were adopted by the City Council in 1999 as part of the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. The criteria are measurable and quantifiable and include average daily traffic, number of alternate modes, street length, street spacing and connectivity. The five criteria receive a numerical rating and a street classification matrix is used to determine the appropriate street classification. This method was used successfully to classify all of the currently classified streets within the city of Eugene. In February 2004, the Planning Commission recommended the classification of certain segments of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, Friendly Street and McLean Boulevard as neighborhood collectors and the use of Context Sensitive Design processes in any future street improvement projects. In April 2004, the council directed staff to perform additional and more inclusive public involvement with the neighborhood to inform interested parties of staff' s efforts and provide opportunity for input on street classification in this area. Several meetings with interested individuals were held throughout the summer and early fall. A public meeting was held at Morse Ranch on August 10, a design workshop was held at Crest Drive Elementary School on September 29, and three informal meetings with neighborhood representatives were held, L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041025\S041025B.doc including a review of the neighborhoods' independent traffic study. Information was supplied through a website, written materials distributed at the public meetings and written materials sent by mail to everyone on the City's interested parties list. At the public meeting on August 10, all comments and questions were recorded. A written response was prepared and mailed to the interested parties list prior to the design workshop. A summary of the public meeting and design workshop is included as Attachment B. The City received substantial public input on a wide variety of issues including designation of certain streets as neighborhood collectors, the cost of improvements and who pays, improvement and maintenance of streets, and safety. A staff report on neighborhood issues and common ground between the neighborhood and staff are included as attachments C and D. The neighborhood also conducted and submitted its own traffic study. While the public input was important and provided for a better understanding of the neighborhoods issues and concerns, only the neighborhood traffic study provided information specific to the criteria used in the Street Classification Matrix. City staff evaluated the neighborhood traffic study and determined that the study results did not change the outcome of the Street Classification Matrix. RELATED CITY POLICIES The Street Classification Map in the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP) is intended to clarify and implement policies set forth in the regional transportation system plan (TransPlan), the Growth Management Study, and other adopted plans. The 1991 Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Act (ISTEA) and Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule require the State and each county and municipality to functionally classify their public roads and streets. The proposed ordinance would complete this process for all streets within the city of Eugene.. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The council may approve the attached draft ordinance to amend the November 1999 Street Classification Map to designate certain segments of Crest, Storey, Friendly and McLean as Neighborhood Collectors in recognition of their current and planned function. 2. The council may direct the City Manager to amend the street classification criteria and methodology and return to the council an ordinance with the necessary changes to the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP) to allow the streets to be classified as local streets. 3. The council may decline to amend the November 1999 Street Classification Map, in which case all streets within the Crest Drive neighborhood would remain unclassified. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the council affirm the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt the proposed ordinance classifying these streets as neighborhood collectors. This designation recognizes the current and planned function of these streets. The City Manager also recommends that the council accept the staff report documenting the design workshop as an illustration of context sensitive design for streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041025\S041025B.doc SUGGESTED MOTION None; this is a work session only. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Ordinance Concerning Collector Streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. Exhibit A - Amended Street Classification Map as recommended by Eugene Planning Commission. Exhibit B - Crest Drive Area Transportation Study B. Staff report summarizing the Crest Drive Area Transportation Study and neighborhood meetings/workshops. C. Staff report summarizing neighborhood input and feedback received through the outreach effort. D. Staff summary of common ground identified through the public involvement process. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Gary McNeel Telephone: 682-8451 Staff E-Mail: gary.a.mcneel~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041025\S041025B.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NOVEMBER 1999 STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 20181 TO DESIGNATE COLLECTOR STREETS IN THE CREST DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The July 2002 TransPlan adopted by the City Council is the current long-range transportation plan for the Eugene-Springfield area and is the basis for the transportation elements in the adopted and acknowledged Metro Plan. B. In Eugene, as in other cities, a large portion of the public right-of-way is devoted to transportation facilities such as streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and access ways used by automobiles, trucks, transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. C. Included as a component of the November 1999 Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan is a map entitled "Street Classification Map - Figure 60" that depicts the classification of major streets within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary, that is consistent with TransPlan and the Metro Plan, and implements the goals and policies contained therein. The classification of streets into Major Arterials, Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, and Neighborhood Collectors represents a reasonable basis for classification, and the criteria to be used in determining the specific widths for right-of-way and paving, and provides reasonable guidance to the public, Council, and City administrative staff. On November, 22, 1999, the Street Classification Map was explicitly adopted by Ordinance No. 20181. D. The November 1999 Street Classification Map did not classify the streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. A note in the legend of the Street Classification Map states that the streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood will be classified after the adoption of a Crest Drive Transportation Study. E. City staff has completed the Crest Drive Area Transportation Study, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, hereto. F. Based on the Crest Drive Area Transportation Study, City staff recommend that the Crest Drive area streets be classified in the manner shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. Pursuant to EC 9.6850, amendments to the Street Classification Map must be made by ordinance. Thus, the November 1999 Street Classification Map should be amended in the manner shown in the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, Now, therefore, based on the above findings, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The 1999 Street Classification Map is hereby amended to classify the streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood in the manner shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Except as amended herein, the 1999 Street Classification Map, adopted by Ordinance No. 20181, Ordinance- 1 remains in full force and effect. To the extent any street classification contained in Exhibit A conflicts with a classification contained in any other ordinance, resolution, order or plan, except local streets in the Eugene Local Street Plan, the classification in Exhibit A controls. Section 2. The Crest Drive Area Transportation Study is hereby adopted as findings in support of the actions taken herein. Passed by the city Council this Approved by the Mayor this 24th day of November, 2004 24th day of November, 2004 CityRecorder Mayor Attachments Exhibit A - Street Classification Map Exhibit B - Crest Drive Area Transportation Study Ordinance - 2 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B Crest Drive Area Transportation Study City of Eugene Public Works September 2003 Background and History The Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP), adopted by the City Council in November of 1999 did not classify the streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. On page 5 of the document's preface, one of the answers to frequently asked questions speaks directly to this issue, stating: "The ~4CSP will have no effect on the Crest Drive neighborhood at the present time. The Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council that a separate transportation study be undertaken for the Crest Drive neighborhood to determine appropriate classifications and street design standards for that neighborhood. Until that study is completed, no classifications or standards are proposed for Crest Drive area streets, and no street reconstruction or street design projects will be initiated in this area." Many roadways in the Crest Drive area have pavement surfaces that are worn out and are deteriorating rapidly. Some street segments are experiencing rising traffic volumes due to infill development within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and continued growth in unincorporated areas of the County outside the UGB. There are two distinct street types found in the Crest Drive neighborhood, those with curbs and gutters, and others that are unimproved roadways with open ditches. The paved surfaces vary widely with many older roadways being oil mats or macadam surfaces over former gravel roadways, while newer streets have multi-layer asphaltic pavements applied over engineered aggregate bases. Most of this neighborhood was annexed to the City of Eugene after 1946, with annexations being documented by city ordinances in 1948, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1'962, 1964, 1967, and 1969. Smaller parcels have been annexed since that time and nearly all of the land inside the Urban Growth Boundary in this study area is currently within Eugene City limits. Study Objectives This study was initiated to develop appropriate roadway classifications within the study area bounded generally by Willamette Street on the east, West 28th and West 29th Avenues on the north, Chambers Street and a line extended along the Urban Growth Boundary to Blanton Road on the west, and West 40th and West 39th Avenues on the south (see Area map shown as Exhibit A in the Appendix). Staff expected to identify at least one significant east/west route and one central north/south route through the neighborhood to serve as collectors. To achieve an inclusive process with residents, we mailed 1,900 postcards to addresses in the Crest Drive neighborhood. An advisory committee of volunteer citizens from the neighborhood was assembled to involve citizens who are most familiar with the roadways being studied in the process. A series of five meetings were held at Morse Ranch and downtown city facilities to develop the framework for the study, and an open house conducted February 13, 2003. These efforts were to involve the committee in the development of staff recommendations contained in this report. A list of committee members is Exhibit B in the Appendix. The results of this study, in the form of an amendment to the Eugene Arterial & Collector Street Plan will be presented to the Eugene Planning Commission in September of 2003, and they are anticipated to forward their recommendations in the form of our final report to the City Council by the end of 2003. Staff is also evaluating the current design standards for major streets as indicated in the ACSP to determine the feasibility and applicability of those standards to the roadways in the Crest Drive neighborhood. The presence of significant natural features in this area suggests the difficulty in applying normal urban standards, which would typically included curbs and gutters, setback sidewalks with street trees and street lighting. A concept suggested by staff and endorsed by the committee is to apply "context sensitive design" criteria in future efforts to improve streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. Street Classification Nine streets, divided into fourteen segments, were evaluated using the matrix developed in the ACSP. A copy of the results is shown on Table 1 in Appendix A. The street segments that were initially determined to be appropriately considered for classification as neighborhood collectors included: )~ McLean Blvd. from 28th to Chambers )~ Friendly Street between 28th and Lorane Hwy. ~' Lorane Hwy. between 29th/Washington and Friendly/Storey ~' Crest Drive from Willamette to Crest Dr. and lower Crest Dr. from Crest to Storey )~ Storey Blvd. from Lorane Hwy. to Blanton ~' Crest Drive west of Blanton ~' Blanton Road between Storey and Sundial )~ Sundial and a future extension to 40th and >' 40th Avenue to Braeburn The criteria in the Matrix utilized to determine the appropriate roadway classification include the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) measured (or projected) on the roadway segment; the number of Alternative Modes using the segment; the length of the street segment; the spacing or distance to the nearest parallel street of similar or higher classification; and Connectivity, which indicates the degree to which the street carries traffic to and from other major streets. Points for each criterion were then summed to determine the total rating and suggested classification. Review of these results by the committee elicited a few comments regarding the indicated routes, including the following: >' The need for designating the lower segment of Lorane Highway between the Storey/ Friendly intersection and Washington Street at 29th Avenue and the segment of Friendly between the Storey/Lorane intersection and 28th Avenue. The need to identify the future 40th/Sundial connection as a neighborhood collector. The wisdom of connecting West 40th Avenue to Sundial/Blanton through an area several residents identify as having unstable slopes, significant natural resources and being a corridor for wildlife. Staff Response: Traffic counts and observations indicate travel behavior that clearly illustrates two routes to and from Storey Boulevard; one of which follows Friendly Street to or from 28th Avenue, the other which uses a short segment of Lorane Highway to Madison Street to 28th Avenue, or Washington Street at 29th Avenue, or to and from 29th Avenue east of Washington Street. Neighborhood Collectors in the City of Eugene are found only in residential neighborhoods and typically provide important links between two or more major streets (arterials or other collectors) while providing a high degree of access to individual properties. Examples of neighborhood collectors include Harris Street from 18th to 30th, Taney Street from Barger to Marshall, and Monroe Street from 8th to 13th. Many of the travelers that would potentially utilize the new connection of 40th with Sundial/Blanton would likely have a point of origin or destination on one or both sides of the new link (Brookside, Braebum, Crest Drive or Storey Blvd.). This new link could reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in this area by providing a more direct connection between westerly portions of the Southeast Neighbors and southerly portions of the Crest Drive neighborhoods. There is existing right-of-way (R/W) between the end of W. 40th Avenue and Sundial Road, south of Blanton Road. The connectivity standard established by ordinance in 1996 as a part of the Eugene Local Street Plan (LSP) will likely require this connection as a part of any proposed development of vacant or underutilized properties adjacent to this R/W. The LSP shows this connection and also a future roadway connecting the 40th/Sundial intersection with Sky Park Way. These new street segments could connect the Brookside and Braebum residents more directly to and from the Crest Drive/Lorane Highway area. The need for such a connection to be classified as a Neighborhood Collector is at the margin and following the public input process, the support for classifying such a furore connection as a Neighborhood Collector is clearly not available. Staff is therefore recommending that we drop the last three links from the list of segments being considered for such classification. Therefore, Blanton Road between Storey and Sundial, Sundial and a future extension of 40th and 40th Avenue to Braebum will remain local streets. Design Standards In addition to the classification issues noted above, substantial concerns have been voiced by several committee members regarding the feasibility of applying current standards to future improvement projects on these streets. As indicated in the Study objectives, city staff and the committee have been examining the current design standards for major streets, including a review of the design standards contained in the ACSP, which has 13 alternatives for the neighborhood collector classification. We also examined two design alternatives that were developed as a part of the Royal Nodal Development Plan that proposes utilizing bioswales with intermittent curbs rather than a more traditional piped stormwater collection and conveyance system. In addition to this example, we also discussed the recent reconstruction of Delta Highway, north of Green Acres Road that made use of an existing perforated pipe subsurface drainage swale that was functioning well by incorporating intermittent curbs along that frontage. Another design feature that the committee discussed at length was the sidewalk element of streets in the south hills. Currently the ACSP requires setback sidewalks on one or both sides of all neighborhood collector streets. While setback sidewalk could be constructed on at least one side of most roadways in the Crest Drive area, existing trees and the optional stormwater collection and conveyance techniques, as discussed above, some flexibility needs to be applied to the standards. We propose to permit meandering concrete sidewalk where trees, steep slopes or swales/drainage ditches would be impediments in compliance with ADA, or as close as practicable. We further propose and on the opposite side consideration could be given to constructing an alternative materials pedestrian path that could be surfaced with bark chips, crushed rock, asphalt or other suitable materials. The above drainage and walkway options are examples of Context Sensitive Design (CSD), an emerging roadway design technique that is flexible and sensitive to community values. CSD is a collaborative, interdisciplinary methodology that involves all stakeholders throughout the project development process to design a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. CSD is an approach that that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. CSD requires an early and continuous commitment to public involvement, flexibility in exploring new solutions, and an openness to new ideas. Community members play an important role in identifying local and regional concerns and solutions that may better meet and balance the needs of all stakeholders. Context Sensitive Design promotes six key principles, including: 1. Balance safety, mobility, community, and environmental goals in the project. 2. Involve the public and affected parties early and continuously. 3. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to each projects needs. 4. Address all modes of travel/transportation. 5. Apply flexibility inherent in design standards. 6. Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design. Conventional roadway design standards define features such as minimum lane widths, minimum degrees of horizontal and vertical curvature, design speed, and design vehicle. They often reflect the assumption that wider, straighter and flatter roadways are better, resulting in wider roadways and higher design speeds than what may be optimal in a given situation. When applied rigidly, conventional standards can actually hinder efforts to achieve various community objectives. Context Sensitive Design has been termed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, as "Thinking beyond the pavement". ATTACHMENT B ~ October 18, 2004 CITY OF EUGENE CREST DRIVE AREA STREET CLASSIFICATION PROCESS BACKGROUND The Assignment In April 2004 at a City Council Work Session on the subject effort, council directed Public Works staff to perform additional and more inclusive public involvement with the neighborhood to inform interested parties of our efforts and provide opportunity for input on street classification in the Crest Drive area. Staff Activities Public Works contracted with Sat-re Associates, P.C. to facilitate two formal neighborhood meetings, thc first of which was at Morse Ranch Park and the second which was at Crest Drive Elementary School. In addition to these large meetings, Rick Satre of Sat-re Associates and Gary McNccl, Public Works Engineering staff, met with a small group of neighbors known as the "Save our Streets" committee to gain an understanding of their issues with our effort. Rick and Gary also met with a small subcommittee of that group to review and accept their independent neighborhood traffic study. Rick and Gary subsequently participated in a walkabout on Storey, Crest and Friendly with a small group of neighbors to review the feasibility of potential future road improvements and discuss the City's vision and neighborhood perspective of future improvements. The meetings were scheduled and a variety of notices utilized, including postcards mailed to all addresses in the study area, large signs posted on Crest, Storey, and Friendly, newspaper advertisements in thc Register-Guard and general news releases. These were sent prior to each meeting to ensure adequate notification and an interested parties sign-up sheet collected at each meeting for mail-out of our responses to questions and comments received, an agenda for the upcoming meetings and materials requested by participants. The first formal meeting with thc neighbors was held August 10, 2004 in the outdoor picnic shelter at Morse Ranch Park at 595 Crest Drive from 7:00 to 9:00 pm. Thc meeting was well attended by approximately 200 participants including neighbors, Mayor Torrcy, Councilors Bettman and Taylor, City Manager Dennis Taylor, Public Works Director Kurt Corey, City Engineer Mark Schoening and Neighborhood Association Chair Paul Thompson. The format of this meeting was to gather concerns and comments verbally or in writing from interested parties about the City's street classification efforts. The second formal meeting with thc neighbors was conducted September 29, 2004 in the gymnasium at Crest Drive Elementary School at 1155 Crest Drive from 4:00 to 7:30 pm. The format of this session was an hour of self-directed review of several stations illustrating thc classification process, August 2004 public comments received, traffic studies conducted by staff and thc neighborhood, maps and photos, and Context Sensitive Design. The second portion of the meeting was a design workshop format where participants were provided several maps of specific areas of the neighborhood and asked to provide their ideas on future improvements to roadways (regardless of classification). Between the two formal meetings Rick Satre and Gary McNeel met with a smaller group of neighbors (the "Save our Streets" committee) at a private residence the evening of August 18, 2004 to have a more focused dialogue and gain a greater understanding of the neighbors specific concerns with the City's classification effort. The group was very candid with their concerns and asked Rick and Gary if they could be convinced that the City was taking the wrong approach and requested a meeting with a small traffic subcommittee and a potential walkabout with neighbors on the streets in question. Those commitments were made and led to a meeting to review and accept the neighbor's origin and destination traffic study August 24, 2004 and the subsequent walkabout the same afternoon for a first-hand look at conditions. Results The interaction of staff with interested parties has proven helpful and provided additional clarity on the issues and the perceptions of the neighborhood. However, the data provided by the neighborhood has served to substantiate the staff and Planning Commission recommendations, rather than compelling staff to change the direction of the street classification effort. The neighborhood produced an excellent origin/destination study and performed short-term (less than 24 hour) traffic counts at selected locations throughout the study area that confirms the segments of roadway in question are indeed functioning as neighborhood collectors. The methodology, data collection, analysis, virtually everything but the summary and concluSions and comparative travel times, result in a very concise and credible document. Many comments were received from the August 10, 2004 flip charts and comment cards, subsequent emails and letters sent by interested parties. The input was sorted thematically by concern, resulting in a sorted list of concerns regarding classification, maintenance/improvement, safety, cost/who pays, and others as our theme. Staff prepared responses to each theme, providing copies prior to the September 29th meeting to everyone who had signed up at the August meeting. ATTACHMENT C October 18, 2004 CITY OF EUGENE CREST DRIVE AREA STREET CLASSIFICATION PROCESS STAFF REPORT ON PUBLIC MEETING AND DESIGN WORKSHOP What follows is staff's understanding of the predominant message conveyed through the most recent public involvement activities related to the Crest Drive Street Classification process (the August 10 and September 29, 2004 public meetings and associated communication following each of the those two meetings). This understanding is not meant to convey consensus in public opinion, nor does it represent the position of any particular group or organization. It is, however, a summary of consistent public comment received during this process. While there may not be unanimity, there is a great deal of commonality in the voiced public opinion we have received. This predominant message is summed up in two points, with further detail regarding the second point. 1. If the streets must be classified, classify all streets in the Crest Drive area as Local Streets. 2. Continue to work with the City on developing a design solution for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street. a. The neighborhood recognizes that a Local Street designation means that alternative sources of revenues (such as SDCs and federal funds) would not be available, and that the assessment policies for a Local Street are different than the policies for a Neighborhood Collector. b. While there may be a certain amount of misunderstanding and disagreement regarding the nature and character of traffic in the neighborhood, the neighbors do not want another study conducted or want some other street or set of streets be classified as Neighborhood Collectors. c. The neighbors recognize and appreciate the recent efforts on the part of staff to reach out and communicate with the neighborhood. d. The first step in a design process has occurred (the September 29 meeting) and the neighbors want to continue the effort. e. A certain amount of trust and good will has begun to emerge and a continued collaborative effort can significantly improve the city/neighborhood relationship. f. The neighbors want to work with the city; they would much'rather there be a collaborative process rather than a contentious one. Yet, they have said that there can only be collaboration if the streets are classified Local. g. That said, the neighbors are motivated to meet city goals on traffic management, calming and safety, while addressing the unique nature and character of the neighborhood and its streets. h. In that regard, the neighborhood supports the philosophy of Context Sensitive Design (CSD), but recognizes that at this time it does not represent any adopted decision- making approach or design standard. Furthermore, they are not supportive of City of Eugene - Crest Drive Area Street Classification Process Page 2 Staff Understanding of Neighborhood Input October 18, 2004 proceeding with only a set of guidelines; fully developed and adopted CSD standards are preferred. i. The neighborhood is willing to work with staff on furthering the development and application of CSD standards, and might even be interested in having the first CSD project occur in the Crest Drive neighborhood. j. In developing CSD standards, and generating a design solution for Crest Drive streets, the neighbors would like to start with a focused, comprehensive review of street improvement requirements (minimums, maximums, required elements, under what conditions), traffic calming options (what is available, what is not), and alternative design ideas (including a review of advantages and disadvantages to help make design decisions). k. Regarding design solutions for Crest Drive, neighbors have expressed the following: 1) Rebuild existing streets; maintaining their unique, in some cases historical, character, including: Narrow width. Curving alignment. · Open drainage. · Rural, wooded, hillside setting. 2) Include traffic calming features where it makes sense, but not speed bumps (though speed tables, such as raised crosswalks or intersections may be acceptable in certain situations). 3) Look at alternatives to traditional curb and gutter. Flush curbs, rolled curbs, intermittent curbs. Look at non-traditional materials such as stone. Intersection of Storey and lower Crest Neighborhood Team Sketch September 29, 2004 Design Workshop City of Eugene - Crest Drive Area Street Classification Process Page 3 StaffUnderstanding of Neighborhood Input October 18, 2004 4) Provide a continuous pathway along one side of the main street network through the neighborhood (Crest, Storey, and Friendly). But think pathway, not sidewalk. Understand need for accessibility and accessibility requirements. But, here too, think outside the box. Think context sensitive. Think sto~v and its intersections with Crest, Lomne and Friendly historical, rural, wooded, Neighborhood Team Sketch hillside. Consider Sq, tember 29 Design Workshop variable width and alignment, as well as alternative materials such as crushed rock. If it must be concrete, do everything possible to avoid clean white concrete. Think color, texture, alternative surfacing treatments. 5) Keep open drainage where it exists and can remain. Neighbors like staff's suggestion that streets can drain to one side rather than crowned in the middle. 6) Understand that streets can be as narrow as two 1 O-foot travel lanes. That bikes would share the lane with cars. That we still need to accommodate emergency vehicles. Keep paved road width to 20 feet. 7) Driveways and on-street parking need to be carefully thought through. Driveways do not have to be the white concrete aprons we see everywhere. Parking can be in strategically located parking bays. But place bays only where there is already enough room. And make them soft-edged and informally shaped. 8) Several intersections really need help: Crest and Blanton, middle Crest and Storey, lower Crest and Storey, and the intersection at Storey, Lorane and Friendly. Think stop signs, "T" intersections, crosswalks. Anything that improves safety, and slows down vehicle speeds, while preserving neighborhood character. Friendly and its intersection with Lorane and Storey Neighborhood Team Sketch September 29 Design Workshop City of Eugene - Crest Drive Area Street Classification Process Page 4 Staff Understanding of Neighborhood Input October 18, 2004 9) Trees and topography. Streets were originally located and constructed to respond to the natural terrain. Keep it that way. The neighborhood contains many significant trees and healthy woodlands. It is important for the environment as well as for neighborhood livability. Design street improvements to avoid tree removal. 10) Not every street segment needs the same design solution. For example, upper Crest has a long sloping straightaway right in front of an elementary school. Storey and Friendly have significant grades, curves, hillsides and trees. Lower Crest, especially along Morse Park, is more open and plays a public role due to the park. Each condition warrants it own consideration. Crest Drive adjacent to Morse Ranch Neighborhood Team Sketch September 29 Design Workshop 11) Don't forget the ends of the study area. We should look at the 28th and Friendly intersection as well as the Crest and Chambers intersection. The September 29 design workshop resulted in a fair amount of consistent public input and supports both traffic management needs and context sensitive design. It has been a meaningful first step. Two ideas for the intersection of Crest and Blamon Neighborhood Team Sketch September 29 Design Workshop ATTACHMENT D October 18, 2004 CITY OF EUGENE CREST DRIVE AREA STREET CLASSIFICATION PROCESS COMMON GROUND Through the public involvement process regarding street classification in the Crest Drive neighborhood the following items have emerged as support, opinion or understanding held in common with both City of Eugene Public Works staff involved with the project and neighbors and community members involved with the project. 1. Support for the philosophy of Context Sensitive Design (CSD). 2. Support for the development of CSD Process and Standards. 3. Support for the adoption of CSD Process and Standards. 4. Opinion that a good use of CSD could be in the design of street improvements in the Crest Drive neighborhood. 5. Opinion that the neighborhood environment and character is important and should be protected in any street improvement project. That the forest, wildlife, topography, soils and drainage needs to be understood and incorporated into street design. That the rural country- in-the-city atmosphere could be a theme in street design in the neighborhood. 6. Understanding that a Local Street classification would eliminate certain revenue sources for street improvement projects and increase the competition for street improvement prioritization and scheduling. 7. Opinion that the recently begun street design conversation between staff and the neighborhood is a good thing and should continue. 8. Agree that there is a certain amount of disagreement and misunderstanding regarding the nature and character of traffic in the neighborhood and that, when taking into consideration all factors relating to transportation system and street improvement planning, the city and neighborhood should move on and continue to work together to develop a plan for streets in the Crest Drive area. 9. Support for addressing traffic management, traffic calming and pedestrian and vehicle safety, including looking at a full menu of requirements, options and ideas, identifying what on the menu is available and what is not, and discussing advantages and disadvantages for street design in the Crest Drive neighborhood.