HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Street Design Standards for Crest Drive
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Street Design Standards for the Crest Drive Neighborhood
Meeting Date: October 8, 2007 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Public Works Engineering Staff Contact: Mark Schoening
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5243
ISSUE STATEMENT
The purpose of this work session is to provide information on the City’s Design Standards and
Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways to aid the council in deciding
whether the design standard pertaining to minimum street width should be reduced from 20 feet to 18
feet in the Crest Drive Neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
City Council Action History
The City Council adopted the November 1999 Eugene Street Classification Map with the adoption of
Ordinance Number 20181 on November 22, 1999. The streets in the Crest Drive Neighborhood were
left unclassified pending a study to determine the appropriate classifications and design standards for the
neighborhood. Attachment A is a map of the Crest Drive Neighborhood.
The City Council adopted Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways
and Accessways (Arterial and Collector Street Plan and Local Street Plan) with the adoption of
Resolution Number 4608 on November 22, 1999. The minimum street width allowed under the design
standards for local streets and neighborhood collector streets is 20 feet.
The City Council directed the City Manager to implement the Crest Drive Neighborhood context
sensitive solutions (CSS) process on May 8, 2006. A General Fund appropriation of $240,000 was
approved as part of the FY07 budget to fund the CSS process. The definition of CSS follows:
Context Sensitive Solutions is a collaborative, interdisciplinary project development approach
that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting
while maintaining safety and mobility for all users, and reflecting community needs. The goal of
CSS is to create early, open, honest, and continuous communication and sharing of information
and knowledge throughout the design process.
The City Council appropriated an additional $58,000 as part of Supplemental Budget #1 of FY07 to
expand the scope of the CSS process to include Middle Crest.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071008\S071008B.doc
Context Sensitive Solutions Process History
After several months of work, the members of the Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT) approved its
group operating agreements for the CSS process for the Crest Drive neighborhood. There are 21
members of the CDCT including two City staff, Lisa Gardner, Planning Director and Mark Schoening,
City Engineer. The CDCT developed group agreements addressing decision-making, meetings,
communication and support. Each member of the CDCT signed the group agreements. The CDCT also
developed a mission statement that reads:
To recommend a street design for the identified sections of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and
Friendly Street using the context sensitive solutions process while taking into consideration the
entire neighborhood context.
To support the design efforts of the CDCT, the City conducted a topographic survey of all of the streets
under consideration, including all of the trees within the public right-of-way. The City’s survey crew
surveyed 15,846 data points including the existing edge of pavement, property corners, public and
private utilities, structures, and trees. All of this survey information was used to generate a set of maps
to aid in the street design process. The maps also included information on the existing pavement width
which is shown on Attachment B.
The design process involved City staff working with five separate street teams on five separate street
segments – Upper Crest, Middle Crest, Lower Crest, Storey and Friendly. Each street team presented its
conceptual design to the entire CDCT. As part of the design process each street team evaluated its
design using the Themes and Values (Attachment C) developed and approved by the CDCT.
Over the course of two CDCT meetings on June 28 and July 12, the CDCT reached consensus on the
conceptual design for all five street segments. However, the CDCT did not reach agreement on the
overall design concept because of an outstanding issue regarding the minimum street width. Through a
consensus based decision process, the CDCT has determined that there are compelling reasons to
support a minimum street width of 18 feet (two nine-foot travel lanes). Reasons supporting the
recommendation include the CDCT’s themes and values regarding preserved neighborhood livability,
reduction of traffic speeds, efficient use of urban land in a rural setting, increased safety for all modes of
use and focus on a footprint that fits the neighborhood’s character. As such, an 18-foot street width is
perceived to be more consistent with the CDCT’s adopted themes and values than a 20-foot street width.
Based on these collaboratively developed values, it is the consensus recommendation of the CDCT to
pursue a legislative change to the minimum street width (18 feet rather than the prescribed minimum of
20 feet) prior to making a decision on the overall design concept.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Transplan Goal #2: Transportation System Characteristics
Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area’s quality of life and economic opportunity by
providing a transportation system that is:
a.Balanced
b.Accessible
c.Efficient
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071008\S071008B.doc
d.Safe
e.Interconnected
f.Environmentally responsible
g.Supportive of responsible and sustainable development
h.Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts
i.Economically viable and financially stable.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may:
1.Direct the City Manager to hold a public hearing on October 15, 2007, on a resolution (Attachment
E) to amend the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and
Accessways to establish a design standard minimum travel lane width of nine feet for the Crest Drive
Neighborhood.
2.Confirm that the street design standards including the design standard minimum travel lane width of
ten feet in the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and
Accessways are appropriate for the Crest Drive Neighborhood.
3.Take no action.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council direct the City Manager to hold a public hearing on
October 15, 2007, on a resolution to amend the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets,
Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways to establish a design standard minimum travel lane width of nine
feet for the Crest Drive Neighborhood.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to direct the City Manager to hold a public hearing on October 15, 2007,on a resolution to amend
the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways to
establish a design standard minimum travel lane width of nine feet for the Crest Drive Neighborhood.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Map of the Crest Drive Neighborhood
B. Table Summary of Existing Pavement Width
C. Crest Drive Community Team Themes and Values
D. Memo from Kurt Corey, Public Works Director
E. Draft Resolution
F. Staff Presentation
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mark Schoening
Telephone: 682-5243
Staff E-Mail: mark.a.schoening@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071008\S071008B.doc
߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ ß
W 29TH AVE
W 30TH AVE
W 31ST AVE
W 34TH AVE
W 34TH AVE
COURTNEY
W 35TH AVE
HIONDA
W 35TH PL
W 36TH AVE
W 37TH AVE
W 37TH AVE
W 38TH AVE
W 38TH AVE
W 40TH AVE
CSS STREETS
CREST STUDY AREA
Attachment B
Crest Drive Street Sections Under 20 Feet
Street SectionRangeTotal FtTotal Ft < 20'% < 20'
Lower Crest18-2515501107.1%
Middle Crest18-26220042019.1%
Upper Crest20-2285000.0%
Storey18-27270537013.7%
Friendly17-34165073044.2%
Total17-348955163018.2%
߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ Ý
Crest Drive Community Team Themes and Values
ValuesPhysical Aspects
Protect existing trees, canopy, critical root
zone, biomass
Environmental and Ecological Value:
Enhance stream corridors, filter water using
Preserve natural character of neighborhood
Best Management Practices
Revegetate, prevent erosion
(Trees, vegetation, habitat, stream corridors, etc.) Build habitat
Invasive species removal and habitat
enhancement
Slow moving traffic
Balance of pavement and green structure
Aesthetic, Cultural and Historic Value:
Maintain rural views and relationship to natural
Preserve country feel in the city
contours
(Country lane feel, historic homes and land) Maintain views and context of historic homes,
parks and roadway
Minimize realignment of road horizontally
Slow traffic
Visibility
Functional Value:
Emergency access
Safety for all modes and all users
Safe alternative modes locations
Safe for people and the environment Stormwater management and street grading
(ice)
Utility placement
Traffic calming and slow speed street design
Appropriately scaled lighting, strategic
placement
Spiritual Value:
Thoughtful design for multiple modes – not
“Livability” in balance with “mobility”
just cars
Emphasize “people-centric” design for neighborhood
Maintain and enhance livability of adjacent
(as opposed to CAR – centric)
homes and properties
Ecology and environment are in balance with
presence of traffic in neighborhood
Transportation improvements appropriately
chosen and scaled to address project goals
Economic Value:
yet avoid unnecessary financial burden for
Balance of design features with financial expenditures
adjacent property owners.
and economic value to adjacent neighbors Transportation improvements considered in
balance with impacts to adjacent property
values.
ATTACHMENT D
Public Works
Administration
City of Eugene
858 Pearl Street
M
Eugene, Oregon 97401
EMORANDUM
(541) 682-5241
(541) 682-6826 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date: October 2, 2007 (revised)
To: Mayor Piercy and City Councilors
From: Kurt Corey, Public Works Director
Subject: Transportation Facility Design Standards
Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways
The minimum street width allowed in the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets,
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Accessways (Arterial and Collector Street Plan and Local Street Plan) is
20 feet (two ten-foot travel lanes). There is a set of criteria for exceptions to the minimum street
width. The criteria for exceptions include:
?
Topography or slope constraints;
?
Significant trees or vegetation;
?
Other natural resource constraints, including wetlands, wildlife habitat, etc.;
?
Historic resources
?
Insufficient right-of-way, and inability to obtain additional right-of-way at reasonable cost
and within a reasonable time frame for the project;
?
Adopted Council policies, including those found in neighborhood plans.
?
For a city-initiated project, the Council decides not to approve a proposed project
design that meets the standards of this chapter, but, after a design process that includes
input from affected property owners and interested persons, the Council approves a
design that the City Engineer determines is safe and functional. (This criterion was
adopted administratively after the Council directed staff to substantially modify the
design of the River Avenue improvement project. The project had been designed in
accordance with the design standards included in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan,
but was not acceptable to the majority of the property owners abutting River Avenue.)
It is staff’s determination that none of the criteria for exceptions that would warrant a minimum street
width of less than 20 feet are met for the streets included in the CSS process. This determination was
made in part by the comprehensive topographic survey conducted as part of the CSS process. The
topographic survey identified natural resources, trees, topographic constraints, public and private
utilities, existing pavement, and public right of way. Page two of this memo compares pavements of
20 feet and 18 feet using the exception criteria.
The Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Accessways were
adopted by Council resolution with a provision that the Design Standards and Guidelines could be
amended administratively. Because of the adverse impacts to safety and efficiency associated with a
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT D
minimum street width of 18 feet, it was the determination of City staff that it would be inappropriate
to pursue an administrative amendment to the Design Standards and Guidelines.
Exception Criteria 18’ Street Section Compared to 20’ Street
Section
Topography or slope constraints The topography and slope constraints are the
same for either street section.
Significant trees or other vegetation The impacts to trees are the same for either
street section.
Other natural resource constraints, including Neither street section affects any Goal 5
wetlands, wildlife habitat, etc. resources or wetlands. The impacts to wildlife
habitat would be the same.
Historic resources The two identified historic resources – Morse
Ranch and the cemetery are not affected by
either street section.
Insufficient right of way, and inability to obtain The right of way is generally 60 feet wide and
additional right of way at reasonable cost and either street section easily fits within the
within a reasonable time frame for the project existing right of way.
Adopted Council policies, including those Not applicable. The only policy regarding
found in neighborhood plans. street width is found within the
Arterial/Collector and Local Street Plans. The
only applicable neighborhood plan is the South
Hills Plan and it does not include anything on
street width.
For a city-initiated project, the Council decides Not applicable. The Council has not been
not to approve a proposed project design that requested to approve a proposed project design
meets the standards of this chapter, but, after a for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly
design process that includes input from Street
affected property owners and interested
persons, the Council approves a design that the
City Engineer determines is safe and
functional.
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING STREETS WIDTHS IN THE CREST
DRIVE AREA, AND AMENDING THE CITY’S DESIGN STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES FOR EUGENE STREETS SIDEWALKS, BIKEWAYS
AND ACCESSWAYS, THE EUGENE ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR
STREET PLAN, AND THE EUGENE LOCAL STREET PLAN.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
The City Council adopted the November 1999 Eugene Street Classification Map
by Ordinance No. 20181 on November 22, 1999, with the streets in the Crest Drive Area left
unclassified pending a study to determine the appropriate classifications and design standards for
the neighborhood.
B.
Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and
Accessways (Design Standards and Guidelines) were also adopted by the City Council on
November 22, 1999 by Resolution No. 4608. These Design Standards and Guidelines are also
set forth in the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan adopted as findings in support of
Ordinance No. 20181, and street width recommendations are reflected in the Eugene Local Street
Plan adopted as findings in support of Ordinance No. 20056. The minimum width allowed under
the design standards for local streets and neighborhood streets is 20 feet.
C.
The City Council directed the City Manager to implement the Crest Drive
Neighborhood context sensitive solutions (CSS) process on May 8, 2006, with CSS defined as:
Context sensitive solutions is a collaborative, interdisciplinary project
development approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation
facility that fits its physical setting while maintaining safety and mobility for all
users, and reflecting community needs. The goal of CSS is to create early, open,
honest, and continuous communication and sharing of information and knowledge
throughout the design process.
D.
The City conducted a topographic survey of all of the streets under consideration,
including all of the trees within the public right-of-way. The City’s survey crew surveyed over
15,000 data points including the existing edge of pavement, property corners, public and private
utilities, structures and trees. All of this survey information was used to generate a set of maps to
aid in the street design process.
E.
The design process involved City staff working with five separate street teams on
five separate street segments – Upper Crest, Middle Crest, Lower Crest, Storey and Friendly.
Each street team presented its conceptual design to the entire Crest Drive Community Team
(CDCT). As part of the design process, each street team evaluated its design using the Themes
and Values developed and approved by the CDCT.
F.
Over the course of two meetings on June 28 and July 13, the CDCT reached
consensus on the conceptual design for all five street segments. However, the CDCT did not
reach agreement on the overall design concept because of an outstanding issue regarding the
Resolution - 1
minimum street width. Through a consensus-based decision process, the CDCT determined
there were compelling reasons to support a minimum street width of 18 feet (two nine-foot travel
lanes). Reasons supporting the recommendation included the CDCT’s themes and values
regarding preserved neighborhood livability, reduction of traffic speeds, efficient use of urban
land in a rural setting, increased safety for all modes of use, and focus on a footprint that fits the
neighborhood’s character. As such, an 18-foot street width was perceived to be more consistent
with the CDCT’s adopted themes and values than a 20-foot street width. Based on those
collaboratively developed values, it was the consensus recommendation of the CDCT to pursue a
legislative change to the minimum street width (18 feet rather than the prescribed minimum of
20 feet) prior to making a decision on the overall design concept.
G.
Although Resolution No. 4608 adopting the Design Standards and Guidelines
contained a provision authorizing administrative amendments to the Design Standards and
Guidelines, because of the adverse impacts to safety and efficiency associated with a minimum
street width of 18 feet, City staff determined it would be inappropriate to pursue an
administrative amendment to the Design Standards and Guidelines and has referred the matter to
the City Council.
H.
The City Council held work sessions on the requested amendment to the street
width in the Crest Drive Neighborhood on September 19, 2007 and October 8, 2007,
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1.
The Design Standards and Guidelines for Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and
Accessways adopted by Resolution No. 4608 of the City Council is amended by adding the
following paragraph as subsection (3) to the Vehicle Travel Lane Width Design Standards
provision set forth on page 7, and as subsection (5) to paragraph A, the Vehicle Lanes provision
of the Local Street Design Standards set forth on page 36:
The minimum travel lane width on streets in the area identified as the Crest Drive
Area on the Eugene Street Classification Map is 9’.
Section 2.
The City Recorder is requested to append a copy of this Resolution to
Resolution No. 4608, Ordinance No. 20181 and Ordinance No. 20056. To the extent any of the
provisions contained therein conflict with the amendment set forth in Section 1 of this
Resolution, the amendment contained herein shall prevail.
Section 3.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____ day of October, 2007.
____________________________________
City Recorder
Resolution - 2
߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ Ú
Street Design Standards for
Street Design Standards for
the Crest Drive Neighborhood
the Crest Drive Neighborhood
September 19, 2007
September 19, 2007
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Presentation Overview
Presentation Overview
Purpose of Work Session
Purpose of Work Session
Crest Drive Community Team and
Crest Drive Community Team and
Context Sensitive Solutions Process
Context Sensitive Solutions Process
Design Standards & Guidelines
Design Standards & Guidelines
Street Width
Street Width
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Exception Criteria
Exception Criteria
Next Steps
Next Steps
Purpose of Work Session
Purpose of Work Session
To provide information to the City Council
To provide information to the City Council
to aid in their decision as to whether the
to aid in their decision as to whether the
design standard pertaining to minimum
design standard pertaining to minimum
street width should be reduced from 20
street width should be reduced from 20
feet to 18 feet in the Crest Drive
feet to 18 feet in the Crest Drive
Neighborhood.
Neighborhood.
1
Context Sensitive Solutions
Context Sensitive Solutions
Context sensitive solutions (CSS) is a
Context sensitive solutions (CSS) is a
collaborative, interdisciplinary project
collaborative, interdisciplinary project
developmentapproach that involves all
developmentapproach that involves all
stakeholders to develop a transportation facility
stakeholders to develop a transportation facility
that fits its physical settingwhile maintaining
that fits its physical settingwhile maintaining
safety and mobility for all users, and reflecting
safety and mobility for all users, and reflecting
community needs.The goal of CSS is to create
community needs.The goal of CSS is to create
early, open, honest, and continuous
early, open, honest, and continuous
communication and sharing of information and
communication and sharing of information and
knowledge throughout the design process.
knowledge throughout the design process.
Crest Drive Community Team
Crest Drive Community Team
Crest Drive Community Association
Crest Drive Community Association
appointed 22 members and 9
appointed 22 members and 9
alternates.
alternates.
Street Captains identified for each of
Street Captains identified for each of
the four initial street sections
the four initial street sections
Two City staff are members –Lisa
Two City staff are members –Lisa
Gardner, Planning Director and Mark
Gardner, Planning Director and Mark
Schoening, City Engineer
Schoening, City Engineer
CDCT Operating Agreements
CDCT Operating Agreements
Decision-making
Decision-making
Meetings
Meetings
Communication
Communication
Support
Support
2
Crest Drive Community Team
Crest Drive Community Team
Mission Statement
Mission Statement
To recommend a street design for
To recommend a street design for
the identified sections of Crest
the identified sections of Crest
Drive, Storey Boulevard, and
Drive, Storey Boulevard, and
Friendly Street using the context
Friendly Street using the context
sensitive solutions process while
sensitive solutions process while
taking into consideration the
taking into consideration the
entire neighborhood context.
entire neighborhood context.
CDCT Themes and Values
CDCT Themes and Values
Environmental and Ecological Value:
Environmental and Ecological Value:
Preserve natural character of neighborhood
Preserve natural character of neighborhood
Aesthetic, Cultural and Historic Value:
Aesthetic, Cultural and Historic Value:
Preserve country feel in the city
Preserve country feel in the city
Functional Value:
Functional Value:
Safety for all modes and all users
Safety for all modes and all users
Spiritual Value:
Spiritual Value:
Livability in balance with mobility
Livability in balance with mobility
Economic Value:
Economic Value:
Balance of design features with financial expenditures and economic
Balance of design features with financial expenditures and economic
value to adjacent neighbors
value to adjacent neighbors
3
CDCT Design Process
CDCT Design Process
Educational“101”Series
Educational“101”Series
Engineering
Engineering
Stormwater
Stormwater
Traffic Calming
Traffic Calming
Transportation Systems
Transportation Systems
Workshop
Workshop
Public Outreach
Public Outreach
Data Collection
Data Collection
Topographic Survey
Topographic Survey
Tree Inventory
Tree Inventory
Street Team Design
Street Team Design
Meetings
Meetings
CSS Project Status
CSS Project Status
Consensus reached on all 5 Street Segments at
Consensus reached on all 5 Street Segments at
June 28 and July 12 CDCT meetings
June 28 and July 12 CDCT meetings
Remaining unresolved issue of the minimum
Remaining unresolved issue of the minimum
allowable street width
allowable street width
Reconvene the CDCT following Council decision
Reconvene the CDCT following Council decision
to finalize recommended design
to finalize recommended design
Transplan Goal #2: Transportation
Transplan Goal #2: Transportation
System Characteristics
System Characteristics
Balanced
Balanced
Accessible
Accessible
Efficient
Efficient
Safe
Safe
Interconnected
Interconnected
Environmentally Responsible
Environmentally Responsible
Supportive of responsible and sustainable
Supportive of responsible and sustainable
development
development
Responsive to community needs and
Responsive to community needs and
neighborhood impacts
neighborhood impacts
Economically viable and financially stable
Economically viable and financially stable
4
Narrow/Skinny Streets
Narrow/Skinny Streets
Eugene Street
Eugene Street
Standards and Guidelines
Standards and Guidelines
Design Standards and Guidelines for
Design Standards and Guidelines for
Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and
Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and
Accessways
Accessways
Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP)
Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP)
Local Street Plan
Local Street Plan
Standards versus Guidelines
Standards versus Guidelines
Six Criteria for Exceptions to Standards
Six Criteria for Exceptions to Standards
Standards and Guidelines
Standards and Guidelines
Design Standard
Design Standard
The minimum acceptable standard for the
The minimum acceptable standard for the
elements of street design
elements of street design
Design Guideline
Design Guideline
Best design practices that should be
Best design practices that should be
considered or should influence street design
considered or should influence street design
5
Street Width Design
Street Width Design
Factors Considered in Designing Street
Factors Considered in Designing Street
Width
Width
Volume of Traffic
Volume of Traffic
Modes of Travel
Modes of Travel
Types of Vehicles
Types of Vehicles
Traffic Calming
Traffic Calming
Street Elements
Street Elements
Vertical and Horizontal Sight Distance
Vertical and Horizontal Sight Distance
Traffic Data
Traffic Data
Modes of Travel and
Modes of Travel and
Types of Vehicles
Types of Vehicles
6
Traffic Calming
Traffic Calming
Richard Drdul
Street Elements
Street Elements
Vertical and Horizontal
Vertical and Horizontal
Sight Distance
Sight Distance
7
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Topographic Survey and
Topographic Survey and
Tree Inventory
Tree Inventory
Existing Street Width Data
Existing Street Width Data
Street SectionRangeTotal FtTotal Ft < 20% < 20
Street SectionRangeTotal FtTotal Ft < 20% < 20
Lower Crest18-2515501107.0%
Lower Crest18-2515501107.0%
Middle Crest18-26220042019.0%
Middle Crest18-26220042019.0%
Upper Crest20-2285000.0%
Upper Crest20-2285000.0%
Storey Blvd18-27270537013.6%
Storey Blvd18-27270537013.6%
Friendly St17-34165073044.0%
Friendly St17-34165073044.0%
All Streets17-348985163018.2%
All Streets17-348985163018.2%
8
Criteria for Exceptions Comparison
Criteria for Exceptions Comparison
Exception Criteria 18’Street Section Compared to 20’
18’Street Section Compared to 20’
Exception Criteria
Street Section
Street Section
Topography or slope The topography and slope constraints are the
Topography or slope The topography and slope constraints are the
1
1
constraintssame for either street section.
constraintssame for either street section.
Significant trees or other The impacts to trees are the same for either
Significant trees or other The impacts to trees are the same for either
2
2
vegetationstreet section.
vegetationstreet section.
Other natural resource Neither street section affects any Goal 5
Neither street section affects any Goal 5
Other natural resource
3
3
resources or wetlands. The impacts to
constraints, including
constraints, including resources or wetlands. The impacts to
wetlands, wildlife habitat, etc wildlife habitat would be the same.
wetlands, wildlife habitat, etc wildlife habitat would be the same.
Criteria for Exceptions Comparison
Criteria for Exceptions Comparison
Exception Criteria 18’Street Section Compared
Exception Criteria 18’Street Section Compared
to 20’Street Section
to 20’Street Section
The two identified historic resources –
The two identified historic resources –
Morse Ranch and the property at the
Morse Ranch and the property at the
4Historic resourcessouthwest corner of Storey/Lorane
4Historic resources
southwest corner of Storey/Lorane
intersection are not affected by either
intersection are not affected by either
street section.
street section.
Insufficient right of way, and inability to
Insufficient right of way, and inability to
The right of way is generally 60 feet
The right of way is generally 60 feet
obtain additional right of way at
obtain additional right of way at
wide and either street section easily
5
5wide and either street section easily
reasonable cost and within a reasonable
reasonable cost and within a reasonable
fits within the existing right of way.
fits within the existing right of way.
time frame for the project
time frame for the project
The only policy regarding street width
The only policy regarding street width
is found within the Arterial/Collector
is found within the Arterial/Collector
Adopted Council policies, including those and Local Street Plans. The only
Adopted Council policies, including those and Local Street Plans. The only
6
6
found in neighborhood plans. applicable neighborhood plan is the
found in neighborhood plans. applicable neighborhood plan is the
South Hills Plan and it does not
South Hills Plan and it does not
include anything on street width.
include anything on street width.
Summary
Summary
Criteria for Exceptions not met
Criteria for Exceptions not met
Decision not to pursue administrative
Decision not to pursue administrative
change
change
Process for legislative change
Process for legislative change
Work session to inform Council
Work session to inform Council
Public hearing to solicit public input
Public hearing to solicit public input
Action
Action
9
Options to Council
Options to Council
Hold a public hearing on street design standards
Hold a public hearing on street design standards
for the Crest Drive Neighborhood on October 15,
for the Crest Drive Neighborhood on October 15,
2007
2007
Confirm that the street design standards in the
Confirm that the street design standards in the
Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene
Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene
Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways
Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways
are appropriate for the Crest Drive
are appropriate for the Crest Drive
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Take no action
Take no action
Next Steps
Next Steps
Following Council decision, CDCT will
Following Council decision, CDCT will
reconvene to finalize concept
reconvene to finalize concept
Future Council work session to present
Future Council work session to present
design recommendation and financing
design recommendation and financing
strategy
strategy
10