Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Crest Dr.Street DesignEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Context-Sensitive Design Process for Crest Drive Neighborhood Streets Meeting Date: June 29, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Mark Schoening www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5243 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an opportunity for the council to review the staff proposal for developing a context-sensitive design process for the Crest Drive neighborhood streets (Attachment A). No action is being requested of the council at this time. 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. At that time, staff was directed to conduct a separate transportation study to determine the appropriate classifications and street design standards for the neighborhood. The Crest Drive Area Transportation Study was completed in September 2003. 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. On April 28, 2004, at a City Council work session, staff was directed to perform additional and more inclusive public involvement with the neighborhood to inform interested parties of its efforts and provide opportunity for input on street classification in this area. An extensive public outreach effort occurred during the summer of 2004. On October 25, 2004, the City Council held a work session to review the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the classification of streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood and to receive a staff report on the public outreach efforts since April 2004. Although the council did not take any action, it was clear that a majority of the council was not supportive of the Planning Commission recommendation to classify segments of Friendly, Storey, Crest and McLean as neighborhood collectors. Also, on October 25, 2004, the City Council held a public hearing on the classification of streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. Over 30 people provided testimony at the public hearing and nearly all were opposed to the classification of any streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood as neighborhood collectors. Many of those opposed to the classification expressed concern about the design options available for neighborhood collectors that would protect the character of their neighborhoods roadways. The council L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050629\S050629B.doc did not take any action at the public hearing. After the public hearing, it appeared that the majority of the council favored addressing the issue of street design in advance of classification. On January 24, 2005, the City Council held a work session to review and discuss the principles of context-sensitive design and options for moving forward with the design of street improvements for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street in the Crest Drive Neighborhood in advance of assigning a functional classification to any streets in the neighborhood. At the work session there was general agreement that doing nothing was not a viable option and that the issues around street design should be addressed before the issue of street classification. There were also four questions from the City Council that are addressed in Attachment B. 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. COUNCIL OPTIONS Not applicable. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager will direct staff to work with the Crest Drive neighborhood to develop a context- sensitive design process for those sections of Crest, Storey and Friendly identified on Attachment A. The elements of the process will include identifying objectives and goals, establishing a decision- making model, developing a public involvement and outreach strategy, identifying interested parties and stakeholder groups and developing a schedule. The City Manager will present the completed context- sensitive design process to the council later this year with a recommendation to appropriate funds to implement the process for streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. SUGGESTED MOTION Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS A. Map of the Crest Drive Neighborhood B. Questions and Answers from the January 24, 2005, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mark Schoening Telephone: 682-5243 Staff E-Mail: mark. a. schoening~ci, eugene, or. us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050629\S050629B.doc Crest Drive,-,r aA -- W28TH AVE W 29TH AVE AVE CREST DR MAR~ :='~ CREST DR W 36TH AVE ~ J 38TH AVE DEL[ W 37TH AVE == W 38TH AVE POTENTIAL CREST STUDY AREA * recommended by Eugene Planning Commission 8/04 ATTACHMENT B QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE JANUARY 24, 2005 COUNCIL WORK SESSION 1. How did the City fund the Garden Way, Delta Highway and Ayres Road design processes? The design processes were funded with transportation system development charges (SDCs). The design costs were carried forward into the local improvement district formed for each project. The chronology of Council actions for the Garden Way improvement project as excerpted from the agenda item summary on the final assessment is as follows: · The Garden Way improvement project was identified in the FY98-FY03 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by the Council February 26, 1997, and in the FY98 Capital Budget adopted June 23, 1997. · On November 5, 1998, an informational meeting was conducted to provide property owners and interested parties with information regarding the proposed Garden Way improvement project. On November 12, 1998 a public hearing was held with a hearings official regarding initiation of design of the project, and to give property owners the opportunity to provide input to the City Council on needs and issues associated with the project. · On December 7, 1998, the City Council adopted a motion to authorize the design phase only of the Garden Way Street project and consider a City Council public hearing regarding the project. · On September 11, 2002 a work session was held by the City Council and on September 18, 2002 a public hearing was held by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. At these meetings, the Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations of approving the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan which included the proposed design of Garden Way. The Council held a work session on October 28, 2002 to discuss testimony and questions raised during the September 18, 2002 joint public hearing. · On November 12, 2002, the Council passed a motion to approve the proposed design, right of way acquisition and bidding to improve Garden Way. · On September 8, 2003, the Council adopted a resolution authorizing acquisition of needed right of way through the eminent domain process for the Garden Way project. · On April 12, 2004 the Eugene City Council formed the local improvement district. 2. If the City funded the design costs prior to the initiation of a local improvement district could the costs be included in a local improvement district if a decision was later made to form a local improvement district? L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050629\S050629B-attB.doc The Eugene Code allows the City to pay the design costs up from and then, if the improvements are built through a local improvement district to include those costs in the assessments to the benefiting properties. 3. What are the boundaries (minimum design standards) for the context sensitive design process? Exhibit A shows three design alternatives. Alternative 1 is the current minimum design for a neighborhood collector in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. Alternative 2 is a modification of the current minimum design for a curb and gutter street. Alternative 3 is the minimum design for a curbless street design. The minimum designs shown in Alternatives 2 and 3 may require changes to the design standards in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. The minimum standards would be the same for either a neighborhood collector or local street. The basis for the minimum standards for the individual components of a street are discussed below: a. Pavement Width - The minimum pavement width would be 20 feet based upon two 10-foot travel lanes. The minimum travel lane width of 10 feet is based upon the urban service providers dependent on the street system including emergency responders, public transit, and garbage and recycling services. Many of the vehicles providing these services measure 9-1/2 feet from mirror to mirror. b. Sidewalk - The minimum standard is a sidewalk on at least one side of every new or reconstructed street as required by the State Transportation Planning Rule. The sidewalk would be hard stable surface, physically separated from the travel lane. This is consistent with the standards of the Access Board, a federal agency with the authority and responsibility to develop accessibility standards under the American with Disabilities Act. The minimum unobstructed width of a sidewalk is five feet. This provides sufficient room for two pedestrian to walk side by side or to pass one another. This is one foot wider than the minimum of four feet established by the Access Board. c. Traffic Calming - Crest, Storey and Friendly are the primary routes for emergency responders. Therefore, the traffic calming options for the three streets include: Roundabouts Traffic Circles Raised Crosswalks Curb Extensions Parking Bays Chicanes Raised Medians Pavement Surface Angled Slow Point Modification with Median Landscaped Midblock Neckdown Speed Tables Roadway d. Curbless Street - Although fairly simple in design, a curb provides multiple functions for a street including conveyance of drainage, stability to the edge of pavement, physical barrier separating the street from sidewalk and a vertical surface necessary for a street sweeper to be effective. In developing a curbless design, these multiple functions are addressed by numerous design elements including a drainage swale with L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050629\S050629B-attB.doc an underlying perforated pipe, a flush concrete edge, and a setback sidewalk. The effectiveness of a street sweeper cannot be addressed by an additional design feature in a curbless street design. 4. How did the staff arrive at the cost estimate of $240,000 for the context sensitive design process? The cost estimate includes the following three elements: · Surveying $40,000 · Design $115,000 · Public Outreach $85,000 The preliminary design would include the details of the proposed street from one end to the other and for each individual property. The sections of Crest, Storey and Friendly to be part of the preliminary design total approximately 6,880 feet in length. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050629\S050629B-attB.doc