Discovery Session Report

1

A SUMMARY OF THE

WOODSTOCK UNIMPROVED STREETS

DISCOVERY SESSIONHELD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2010

LARKE PLANNINGLeah HymanAl KleinRani BoyleKatie LyndEmily Lieb

Portland State UniveristyNohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning

[email protected]

contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .4 Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Project Overview & Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7 Unimproved Streets FAQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11 Street Inventory & Photo Tour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12-15

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Destinations & Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Undesirable Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Desirable Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Ideas for Repurposing & Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

------

APPenDIX A. Meeting Poster and Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24-25

APPenDIX B: comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26-28

APPenDIX c: small Group Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29-33

4 DISCOVERY SESSION REPORT ~ ROADWAY NOT IMPROVED ~ APRIL 2010

On February 27th, 2010, LARKE Planning hosted a Discovery Session at the Woodstock Community Center. The purpose of this meeting was to facilitate a two-way flow of information between LARKE and Woodstock community members.

During the first half of the session, LARKE presented information about the project, a review of frequently asked policy questions and the results of LARKE’s Woodstock street inventory. The second half of the meeting was devoted to small group discussions and a collective debrief about opinions, perceptions, visions and concerns regarding unimproved streets.

Attendance

Forty-two adults and five children attended the Discovery Session. As the participants entered the Woodstock Community Center, they were asked to provide their name, email address, and how they heard about the session on a sign-in sheet. Most residents heard about the meeting either through word-of-mouth, LARKE announcements at Woodstock events (community center potluck, neighborhood association meetings), an article in their neighborhood paper (The Bee) or by fliers attached to the doorknobs of houses along unimproved streets a week prior to the meeting. Upon entry, attendees were also asked to place a star by their home on a large map of

IntroDuctIon

the neighborhood. As shown in Figure 1, the majority of participants live on or adjacent to unimproved streets, with the most heavy concentration of participants in the area south of Woodstock Boulevard, which is home to the highest concentration of unimproved streets in the neighborhood. After residents settled into the main meeting room of the community center, LARKE member Katie Lynd opened the meeting by asking attendees how long they have lived in the neighborhood and whether or not they live or adjacent to an unimproved street. Participants represented a balance of new residents and some who had lived in Woodstock for several decades, as shown in Table 1. The majority of audience members indicated that they lived on or adjacent to unimproved streets.

DISCOVERY SESSION REPORT ~ ROADWAY NOT IMPROVED ~ APRIL 20105

<1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 20-50 years >50 years5 12 2 6 10 3 4

Table 1. How long Ds attendees have lived in the Woodstock neighborhood

Figure 1. Where Ds Attendees live in Woodstock


PresentAtIonsDuring the first half of the session, LARKE team members gave three brief presentations:

Project Overview and Timeline (Emily Lieb)•Unimproved Streets FAQ (Leah Hyman)•LARKE Woodstock Street Inventory Results •and Photo Tour (Al Klein, Rani Boyle)

Project Overview & Timeline

Roadway Not Improved is a partnership between the Woodstock Neighborhood Association and five Portland State University Master of Urban and Regional Planning students. Through conversations with WNA and inquiries into City of Portland policies, LARKE identified a disconnect between what Woodstock residents want for unimproved streets and the formal tools offered by the City. This disconnect created an opportunity to explore two things:

alternative, community-based improvement 1.options and temporary uses for unimproved rights-of-way (ROW)

alternative city policy options that would 2.allow for more flexibility, both in terms of mechanisms for improving streets, alternative design options that are more sensitive to context

The project will be carried out in three basic phases.

Phase 1: Information Gathering (January-March)LARKE conducted several primary and secondary research efforts, including an inventory of Woodstock Streets, background research on city policy and Woodstock demographics, informational interviews, an online survey and the Discovery Session.

Phase 2: Alternatives (March-May)LARKE is researching alternative street designs, funding strategies, models for maintenance agreements and alternative policy approaches. These concepts will be refined based on feedback from an Advisory Committee consisting of city planners, engineers, and policymakers. Alternatives will be presented to the Woodstock community for feedback at an open house on April 24.

Phase 3: Final Products (May-June)LARKE will develop two final products: a toolkit of design options and implementation strategies for community-based ROW projects; and a final report containing a more detailed analysis and recommendations for city policy.


Figure 2. roadway not Improved Project timeline


Unimproved Streets FAQ

The FAQ presentation served to clarify the rules, regulations, rights and responsibilities relevant to unimproved rights-of-way (ROW). DS participants were provided with an FAQ handout and given time to ask questions and make comments following the presentation. Below is the material provided during the session, as well as questions and comments from residents.

What is a street and what is the right-of-way (roW)?The city of Portland defines a street “to be any street as defined in the City Charter, including all area between property lines, and area dedicated to street use.” This is not a very clear definition but it is the one offered by the city charter.

The right-of-way (ROW) refers to the legal access easement which exists over all public streets and includes all space entitled to public use. An access easement allows the City of Portland to require some maintenance obligations from the property owners adjacent to the street while still allowing for public use of the street and sidewalk. The full ROW may include the sidewalk, planter strip, curb, gutter, parking lanes and travel lanes within the street. If these elements don’t currently exist, it still doesn’t preclude the space from being within the ROW.

What is an unimproved street?The Portland charter offers no clear definition of unimproved streets. For the purposes of this project, LARKE Planning considers any street which is not maintained by the Portland Bureau of Transportation as unimproved. Typically, unimproved streets are lacking some combination of a paved surface, curbs, and sidewalks.

Why are so many streets unimproved?There is no exact answer for this question. It is likely that when the Woodstock neighborhood was annexed into the city limits, existing unimproved streets were unfinished at the time of annexation, like many outer SE neighborhoods. Through many different administrations during the last century, the City has never made paving these streets a priority. In the current economic climate, the City does not have the financial means to dedicate toward finishing unimproved streets.

What city agencies might be involved in street improvements and maintenance?The City is lots of bureaus which maintain the infrastructure and development of the city of Portland. These are some of the bureaus that regularly work on projects within the street:

Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT): For the most part, PBOT maintains roadways and transportation systems throughout the city. According to their website, the bureau’s work is to “plan, build, manage and maintain an effective and safe transportation system that provides people and businesses access and mobility.” PBOT has several different programs which deal with construction and maintenance of streets, including their Expanded Maintenance Options, Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) and the Transportation System Plan, which is the long-range plan to guide transportation investments in Portland.

Bureau of Development Services (BDS): BDS administers the building and development codes of the city, issues building permits and facilitates entitlement for new developments on private properties. BDS moniters and regulates work on private property ensuring that such work does not create problems within the ROW. If you want to build anything new on your property, you generally are required to check with BDS first.


Bureau of Environmental Services (BES): BES provides Portland residents with water quality protection, watershed planning, wastewater collection and treatment, sewer installation and stormwater management. BES activities in the ROW deal with managing sewer and stormwater treatment with street, parking strip and pedestrian zones of the ROW.

Who is responsible for maintaining unimproved streets?Property owners on unimproved streets are responsible for maintenance of the ROW. According to the city charter, as the property owner, you have both the right and the obligation to maintain your section of unimproved street maintenance up to the center line of the street. In Title 17.42 of the city charter it states:

“Until a street improvement has been constructed to City standards and the City has expressly assumed responsibility for street maintenance, it is the exclusive duty of the abutting property owners to construct, reconstruct, repair and maintain the unimproved street in a condition reasonably safe for the uses that are made of the street and adjoining properties. Streets that have not been improved to City standards are not and will not be maintained or improved at City expense, except at the discretion of the City and as provided in this Code and the City Charter.”

Comment: If there is an empty lot on an unimproved street is any build-out required?

LARKE: PBOT requires a ½-street improvement or a waiver if the cost is not feasible at that time.

Comment: A resident commented that they built out on their lot and there was no requirement for or mention of street improvements, even in the permitting process.

How flexible is the City with regard to how adjacent property owners use and maintain unimproved roWs?While the city requires unimproved streets to be maintained by adjacent property owners, only certain types of work can be done without a permit obtained from the city. Under the Expanded Maintenance Options, the City allows some flexibility in maintenance performed by property owners. As long as the following parameters are met, owner maintenance of unimproved streets is allowed without a permit:

travel lane width on the unimproved street •remains the samethere is no change in existing drainage •patterns outside the right-of-way and drainage ways within the right-of-way are not altered to impact water flowmaterials used in street maintenance are •equivalent to the existing street materialsno asphalt, concrete or other man-made •material is applied to existing dirt or gravel surfaceany new maintenance does not adversely •affect neighboring propertiesno trees are removed from the right-of-way•no speed bumps or other traffic calming •devices are constructed.

Essentially, as a property owner you may maintain the adjacent unimproved right-of-way up to the quality it currently is or was in the past. If you can prove that the street was once in better condition, for example there was gravel in the street at one point, you can lay down new gravel without a permit. All maintenance performed in the ROW using larger tools and vehicles and without a permit falls under the PBOTs Expanded Maintenance Options.


Comment: Can I define the boundaries of my yard with materials such as railroad ties to keep people from driving on my grass?

LARKE: Yes, this is allowed and is affordable!------Comment: When discussing various repurposing options, is there any consideration for what streets have utilities underneath them?

LARKE: You should always call for utility locations if you are doing any excavation on your property.

Who is responsible when problems occur in unimproved streets?Property owners along unimproved streets are liable for any problems which occur as a result of defective conditions of streets. (See Chapter 17.42.030 of the Portland Charter.) The charter also says that property owners along unimproved streets are liable for any claims, judgments, settlements and defense costs the City incurs due to the property owner’s failure to maintain, construct and repair unimproved streets. Basically, if the City gets sued because of damage occurring on an unimproved street next to your house, you are responsible party, not the city. This is unlikely to happen, but the City has its bases covered.

What are the repercussions for private uses within the public roW?Portland operates on complaint-based system for nuisance claims within the public ROW. If someone complains about private uses within the ROW, the City will send the property owner a letter informing them of their liability for the unimproved street and may require removal of the perceived nuisance. The City does minimal follow-up to such complaints unless complaints are lodged repeatedly against the same property owner.

Comment: If a road were partially blocked by the property owner to restrict access, could someone with a 4x4 then complain to the City?

LARKE: Natural traffic calming measures are not opposed by the City. However, if someone perceives the

measure as a nuisance and complains to the City, you will get a letter.

What standards does a street have to meet to be accepted for maintenance by the city?PBOT does not want to encourage the construction of poor quality streets, so the bureau sets a high engineering bar to ensure long-lasting and high-quality streets. The City’s existing neighborhood street standards are designed primarily as traffic facilities comprised of two travel lanes, plus either two parking lanes, one parking lane, or no parking, yielding widths of 32, 28, or 20 feet, respectively. In an R5 zone, (which much of Woodstock is) the full ROW- including sidewalks, curbs, gutter, parking and travel lanes- can vary from 35 to 50 feet. The minimum sidewalk width is at least 5 feet and the parking strip varies from 5 to 10 feet depending on the requirements for stormwater management assessed by the Bureau of Environmental Services.

Comment: Would restricted vehicle access (bicycle/pedestrian-only) be an option on unimproved streets?

LARKE: We are planning to research the feasibility of restricted vehicle access options.

Comment: Some Woodstock land owners have attempted to “shut down” streets to vehicle access by relocating dirt along street entrances. However, these efforts have led to some “undesirable” activities in the bushes on those segments.------Comment: What about emergency vehicle travel on unimproved streets?

LARKE: We will look into what restricted use would mean for fire, EMS, and other emergency services.

Who maintains improved streets?If the city accepts a finished street for maintenance, the abutting property owner is still responsible for the sidewalk, curbs, driveways and parking strips. However, the City will maintain the curb except when in combination with the sidewalk damage or if the curb has been damaged by tree roots. Green streets and public


stormwater facilities which are generally found in the planter strip area are maintained by the Bureau of Environmental Services. The City also maintains the width of pavement in between the curbs on either side of the improved street.

Comment: Are there different commitments from business owners adjacent to unimproved streets?

LARKE: No, businesses are still property owners and are treated the same as those who own houses adjacent to unimproved streets.

What is an LID? A Local Improvement District (LID) is a method by which a group of property owners can share in the cost of transportation infrastructure improvements. This involves improving the street, building sidewalks, and installing a stormwater management system. An LID can also be used to install sidewalks on existing streets that previously have been accepted for maintenance by the City. When an LID is formed, property owners agree to assume responsibility to pay for the project. The cost of new street construction is assessed and then divided among property owners. Financing for the project is accrued either through property owners paying up front for their portion of the cost (usually around $20K) or through a lien assessed against the homeowner’s property to be paid off in 5, 10 or 20 years.

Comment: One Woodstock resident commented that the City’s quote for an LID on their streets was around $40,000, not $20,000.

Why are some streets improved at certain times without the neighborhood being informed?City-sponsored street maintenance happens for a variety of reasons. The City decides to perform maintenance at their own discretion so even when they are not obliged to make improvements, sometimes they do! For example, if BES performs a sewer maintenance project within the right-of-way, the bureau may pave the street after they complete their project. This still

doesn’t mean the obligation for maintenance has moved from the property owner, it only means the properties on that street did not have to pay for their expanded maintenance options. The important thing to remember here is that even if a bureau does improvement work within the street, unless PBOT accepts the street as up to full city street standards, the responsibility and liability for the street is still in the hands of the property owner.

other Questions & comments:

Comment: What is a street vacation?

LARKE: A street vacation refers to the transfer of ownership of ROW space from the city to adjacent property owners. This mechanism was used in the past for streets that weren’t considered passable to vehicular traffic.------Comment: What is the City’s policy on street vacations?

LARKE: Connectivity is the city’s first priority so there is reluctance to relinquish public ownership of ROW space, even if it is not currently passable to vehicles. City policy does not currently support the use of street vacations.


In February, LARKE conducted an inventory of Woodstock’s streets. All streets were driven to idenitify the presence/absence of pavement, curbs and sidwalks on each block segment. Unpaved streets were walked to develop a more detailed inventory of characteristics and conditions, including:

surface materials and condition•passability (width)•slope•number of buildings facing onto the stret•uses of ROW space by adjacent residents•

All unpaved streets were photographed.

Results indicated that Woodstock has 3.6 miles of unpaved streets, which is just under 8% of the total linear miles of the neighborhood. Of unpaved streets, over 70% have a moderate to significant concentration of potholes or other surface conditions (such as mud) that reduce the ability to travel. Six unpaved segments are passable only to pedestrians, while eight segments are completely impassable, except perhaps to the avid hiker.

Many street segments possess a unique array of characteristics, and several have characteristics and conditions that vary significantly, even within a single block segment. Some are graded, well- maintained gravel streets with good visibility while others meander or have overgrown vegetation that inhibits visibility.

Street Inventory & Photo Tour

Observed existing uses of the ROW by adjacent property owners included:

expanded parking•gardening•composting•portable play structures•seating•chicken coops•brush piles •fences•retention walls•basketball hoops / courts•objects placed for the purpose of defining •the edges of the vehicle pathway (e.g. stones, railroad ties, stumps, etc.)



41ST

42N

D

52N

D

44TH

STEELE47

TH

57TH

43RD

4 0T H

RAYMOND

REX

54TH

WOODSTOCK

REEDWAY

60TH

59TH

MARTINS

KNIGHT

LONG49TH

4 5TH

46TH 48

TH 50TH

RURAL

INSLEY

KNAPP

FLAVEL

LIEBE

OGDEN

BYBEE

PARDEE

TOLMAN

RAMONA

MITCHELL

NEHALEM

SCHILLER

LAMBERT

LEXINGTON

EVERGREEN

MALDEN

51ST

ELLIS

COOPER

HENDERSON

GLENWOOD

58TH

TENINO

CRYSTAL SPRINGS

56TH

HAROLD

HENRY

CARLTON55TH

CESA

R E

CHAV

EZ

53R D

HARNEY

UMATILLA

HOLGATE

40TH

LIEBE

42N

D

PARDEE

50TH

4 9TH48

TH

LONG

TOLMAN58

TH

44TH

43RD

MITCHELL

48TH

44TH

49T H

MITCHELL

INSLEY

HAROLD

SCHILLER

RAMONA

43R

D

45TH

C ESA

R E

CHAV

EZ

TENINO

47TH

CARLTON

INSLEY

51ST

41S T

HAROLD

46TH

CES A

R E

CH

AVE Z

HENRY60

TH

HENRY

45TH

50TH

KNIGHT

60TH

40TH

44TH

5 0TH

56TH

40TH

40TH

KNIGHT

45TH

58TH

60TH

51ST

ELLIS

Sub-standard ClassificationsUnpaved

Paved, No Curbs

Paved, Curbs, No Sidewalks

Paved, inconsistent Curbs/Sidewalks

Paved, Curbs and Sidewalks

3.6 1.5

1.5

1.6

38.8

Street Length in Miles

Street Classifications

0 0.250.125

Miles

Figure 3. Woodstock street types by surfacing and Presence of sidewalks and/or curbs


41ST

42N

D

52N

D

4 4TH

STEELE47

TH

57TH

43RD

40T H

RAYMOND

REX

54TH

WOODSTOCK

REEDWAY

60TH

59TH

MARTINS

KNIGHT

LONG

RURAL

49TH

45TH

46TH 4 8

TH 50TH

INSLEY

KNAPP

FLAVEL

LIEBE

OGDEN

BYBEE

PARDEE

TOLMAN

RAMONA

MITCHELL

NEHALEM

SCHILLER

LAMBERT

LEXINGTON

EVERGREEN

MALDEN

51ST

ELLIS

HENDERSON

COOPER

GLENWOOD

58TH

TENINO

CRYSTAL SPRINGS

56TH

HAROLD

HENRY

CARLTON

CESA

R E

C HAV

EZ

53RD

HARNEY

UMATILLA

HOLGATE

50THMITCHELL

42N

D

49TH

47TH

INSLEY

PARDEE

43RD

HAROLD

SCHILLER

48TH

40TH

LIEBE

49TH

RAMONA

LONG

44TH

TOLMAN

43RD

60TH

TENINO

51ST

CESA

R E

CHAV

EZ

5 8T H

58TH

CARLTON

50TH

5 1ST

HAROLD48

TH

CES A

R E

C HA V

E Z

45TH

HENRY

45TH

KNIGHT

60TH

40TH

INSLEY

41ST

44TH

50TH

4 0T H

40TH

45TH

60TH

46TH

51ST

ELLIS

Miles

Concentration of Potholeson Unpaved Streets

High

Medium

Low/None

0 0.250.125

Figure 4. concentration of Potholes on unpaved streets in Woodstock


DIscussIonFollowing presentation, participants were invited to participate in small group (5-8 people) discussions. Attendees were divided into five groups, and a LARKE facilitator was assigend to each group to facilitate a discussion of the following questions:

What locations in the neighborhood do you frequent •and how do you get there (routes)? What streets do you avoid and for what reasons? •What streets do you enjoy and for what reasons? •What streets would you like to see repurposed? •What would your vision be for those streets?

The purpose of the small group discussions was not to seek consensus around the issues associated with unimproved streets, but rather to capture diverse points of view. Each group was provided with a map on which to record location-specific notes.

After 30 minutes, everyone came back together and a representative from each group provided a summary of what had emerged from their discussion. Prominant themes from these small group discussions and the debrief are synthesized below, and a full documentation of public commentary from the meeting is provided in Appendix B. Group discussion maps are provided in Appendix C.


Destinations & Routes

Many residents identified Woodstock Blvd. as the main thoroughfare with access to amenities and identified preferred travel routes to Woodstock Blvd as North/South streets that are paved and have sidewalks. The Springwater

Figure 5. What locations do you frequent in your neighborhood and how do you get there (route)?

corridor was noted as another destination that residents use N/S streets to access. Schools and parks were identified as frequently visited locations that lack connectivity due to unpaved streets that lack sidewalks


Undesirable Characteristics

In identifying streets they dislike or avoid, concerns about safety, security, accessibility and aesthetic appeal were the most common themes raised by participants.

Accessibility

Participants noted that narrow, uneven and steep roads with no signage make travel through Woodstock difficult. Various roadway conditions (mud, gravel and potholes) create significant barriers to travel that affect vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists alike. “Lake Carlton” -- a pothole on Carlton that sometimes spans 15’ by 20’ and is filled with water -- was identified by several participants as an extreme example of accessibility problems in the neighborhood. Many residents also noted the lack of ADA ramps and crosswalks on unimproved streets.

Traffic/Safety

Reckless driving, including kids on all-terrain vehicles, led many participants to cite safety as their top concern relative to unimproved streets. Residents who are parents of young children noted that their children do not see the unimproved streets as a “street” but an extension of their yard or play area, which could be appealing if approached correctly, but also becomes a safety issue. Residents noted the lack of stop signs and traffic calming devices, and noted that some vehicles take unimproved streets to avoid traffic on Woodstock Blvd.

security

Residents noted experiences with crime or drugs on Henry, Tolman and Ramona, some of which had resulted in police assistance in the past. On SE 50th from Woodstock to Duke, residents identified a foster home between the park and the school that has been unresponsive to mediation attempts to discuss problems associated with Ramona Street being a “funnel” for teens walking to the 24-hour Safeway. A lack of lighting adds to concerns about car break-ins and crime.

Aesthetics/Livability

Participants expressed that lack of maintenance, landscaping and litter removal creates a feeling of unimproved streets as abandoned spaces that negatively impact the visual appeal of the neighborhood. One resident remarked that unimproved streets are “depressing to walk on.” Use of the ROW for storing trash and parking extra cars was noted as negatively impacting the feeling of the streetscape. Finally, some participants commented that dust from delivery trucks and other large vehicles creates health concerns.

Figure 6. streets Participants Avoid


Figure 7. Streets Identified as Enjoyable

Desirable Characteristics

While some residents did not feel that unimproved streets contribute to livability, others felt they positively impact the neighborhood by reducing and calming traffic on residential streets, creating natural ambience and providing additional space for use of the ROW for gardening and recreation.

Traffic Calming

Participants noted that while potholes reduce accessibility on unimproved streets, they also contribute to safety by serving as natural (and inexpensive) traffic-calming devices. Residents enjoy walking unimproved streets to access neighborhood parks and for walks with their children and pets, because these streets are generally less traveled and low traffic compared to the bustle of Woodstock Blvd.

country charm & natural Appeal

Some participants said the “country road” charm of unimproved streets contributes to a unique character and natural ambience to the neighborhood. Streets that have become overgrown and only accessible to pedestrians were cited as pleasant streets, particularly if they showed signs of maintenance or landscaping.A number of specific locations were identified as good examples of unimproved streets that still contribute to pleasant neighborhood character, even if they are not vehicle-friendly:

SE 46th (a BES green street with light traffic •and low speeding)Carlton between 43rd & 42nd (has been •maintained by the adjacent property owners since 1956)SE 45th and Henry (nice footpath)•

Additional roW space

Many residents also noted that a positive characteristic of living on an unimproved ROW is the perceived extension of landowner space. Several commented on the opportunities presented by these streets as a result of their lack of impervious surfaces.


Figure 8. Aggregate Map of Streets Identified as Enjoyable or Problematic (or both)


Ideas for Repurposing & Improvement

Participants contributed a wide variety of repurposing ideas for unimproved streets in the neighborhood. Many of these ideas lend themselves well to the desired characteristic of “country roads” or expanded garden spaces, which are elements residents like about some existing streets. Ideas fell into two general categories: Natural & Recreational Use and Access. Only a few comments didn’t fit into these themes, and paving all unimproved streets was mentioned in only a few specific cases.

natural & recreational use

Many participants envisioned ROW space being utilized for gardens or related activities like composting and chicken coops. Play areas for children and animals alike were suggested, including a dog agility course, children’s play areas and a horseshoes court. Residents expressed they would like guidelines for planner beds, and a more clear physical delineation of private and public space. Several also pointed to the need for more maintained vegetation. A few participants expressed the desire for decorative elements to contribute to the feeling of streets as community places.

Access

Participants talked about many improvement ideas related to access. Pedestrian or pedestrian/bike only pathways were a common theme. Residents also liked the idea of a serpentine car lane to reduce or calm traffic. Access to garages was important for a few residents, but they were also in favor of closing specific streets to large delivery trucks. Some felt unimproved streets around Safeway and schools should be paved with sidewalks. Many felt that potholes should be filled with gravel or dirt rather than pavement. Better signage and streetlights were also expressed as ideas that would facilitate ease of travel and improve security and safety.

comprehensive Vision

Some participants also talked about the need for a comprehensive neighborhood vision for unimproved streets. There was mention of creating a network of interconnected community spaces.


concLusIon

Participants’ ideas reflected a range of perceptions about how non-travel space in the ROW should be used. Some felt this additional space should be used by adjacent property owners, as is currently the case along many unimproved streets in the neighborhood. Others saw opportunities to create amenities that could be shared by all property owners on a single block. Still others saw opportunities to create community spaces with benefits that would extend beyond the use of adjacent property owners to the entire community and its visitors.

Though a wide variety of opinions were expressed during the Discovery Session, some valuable themes and common neighborhood considerations emerged from the event.Despite concerns about accessibility, safety, security and aesthetic appeal, many DS participants expressed interest in exploring opportunities to implement alternative improvements and community uses along unimproved streets. There was a general feeling that such projects should respect the natural charm and “country road” feeling these streets contribute to the neighborhood.

The majority of participants were interested in exploring alternative street configurations that would provide more flexibility to maintain the “country road” feeling of streets and to limit vehicular access while improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. However, they voiced concerns about costs and how the city would respond to such projects. They also anticipated challenges in building consensus among neighbors for doing improvements or ensuring long-term maintenance. Some felt that local businesses such as Safeway & BiMart should contribute to street improvements.

23


APPenDIX A: FLIers & HAnDouts

Woodstock Discovery Session

An opportunity to explore temporary uses and community-based alternatives for right-of-way improvements in the Woodstock Neighborhood

When Saturday, February 27, 2010 10:00am to 12:00pm Where Woodstock Community Center Who Woodstock residents & LARKE

Light Refreshments will be available

If you are unable to attend this session, please contact us with your opinions, concerns, and questions at [email protected] or visit

www.RoadwayNotImproved.com


APPenDIX A: FLIers & HAnDouts

WOODSTOCK Discovery Session

February 27, 2010

AGENDA

Arrival 9:45am (LARKE Planning)

Introduction 10:15am (Katie, LARKE Planning)

Project/Policy Overview 10:30am (Emily, Leah, LARKE Planning)

Photo Tour 10:50am (Al, Rani, LARKE Planning)

*Break

Small Group Activity 11:15am (LARKE Planning)

Small Group Debrief 11:45am (Katie, Leah, LARKE Planning)

Closing Remarks 11:55am (Katie, LARKE Planning)


Neighborhood Destinations & Routes

Schools•Coffee Shops & local amenities•Jogging routes/ Springwater corridor•Parks•Grocery Stores•Streets that run North-South are easier to take•Woodstock Blvd•

Undesirable Characteristics, Locations & Concerns

AccessPotholes•Lake Carlton•No sidewalks along Lois School on Glenwood street is very dangerous for students •No ADA ramps•Narrow/uneven streets•Mud•

safetyDust from delivery and large trucks leads to health concerns•Reckless driving•50th from Woodstock to Duke – kids speed on ATVs•Lack of stop signs•Holgate at 41st = scary bike and ped crossing•Kids don’t see streets as streets•

securityPoor lighting•Experiences with crime or drugs, some resulting in calls to police (Henry, Tolman, Ramona) •Ramona is a funnel for teens walking to Safeway (open 24/7)•Foster home between the park and the school has been unresponsive to mediation attempts from •neighbors about noise and nuisances.

Aesthetics/AppealLitter and trash piles•“Depressing to walk on”•“Used to be a nice neighborhood, a city of roads is now a city of dandelions and weeds”•Poor lawn maintenanc•Abandoned vehicles•

APPenDIX B: coMMents


other43rd and Carlton: an owner had drywall installed and never fixed the street, rendering storm drain •uselessVehicles take Carlton to avoid traffic on Woodstock•Lack of public/private definition•

Desirable Locations & Characteristics

46th is a green street with light traffic and low speeding•Country charm, gardens, nature•Carlton between 43rd & 42nd has been maintained by the adjacent property owners since 1956, they •are 54 year residents of WoodstockNice path on 45th and Henry•Nice routes to the park•Less traveled streets are pleasant to walk to avoid the bustle of Woodstock•Streets with sidewalks and ramps•Streets that are kid- friendly•“Naturally vacated” streets and places where neighbors tried to limit traffic•Ped crosswalk at 52nd and Reedway•Streets with non-vehicular access and ground cover instead = pleasant walkability•Extension of landowner space•

Repurposing/Improvement Ideas and Locations

restricting Vehicular AccessStrategic vacation of ROWs to create longer blocks, limit crime•Vacation of one side of ROW•Close SE Martin between 40th and 41st to vehicular traffic•Close unimproved streets to large trucks•Cover or fill in roads with rock and gravel, not pavement•“Woonerf ” alternatives to allow creative streets including cars, bikes, and people•

Traffic Calming/SafetyVisual borders to define vehicle path•Short blocks = natural traffic calming•Narrow/one-lane vehicular paths•Curvy, serpentine vehicular paths•Signs to reduce speed/caution children playing•

Improving Vehicular AccessPave Henry St.•Improve the streets around Safeway•Access to garages•


Vegetation/GardensGuidelines for planter beds•More trees in ROW•Landscape to benefit property owner•

recreationCommunity gathering spaces•Children’s play equipment/area•Dog agility course•Horse shoe pits•

otherChicken coops•Street lights or alternative lighting•Pirate Flags•Self- sustaining neighborhood vision – 20 minute neighborhoods•

Implementation Questions/Concerns

Safeway & BiMart should contribute to street improvements•It will be difficult to build consensus among neighbors•Pedestrain islands on Woodstock cause traffic to peel onto unimproved streets•If community gardens are considered, who is responsible for maintenance?•Neighborhood vision or block by block?•Duke & 50th has a house in the ROW due to a vacation on Duke•

Comment Cards

Two comment cards were filled out. One consisted of praise from the Woodstock Neighborhood Association secretary (“You all did an amazing job. I think this is the best organized, most informative, and animated session in three decades! Congratulations!” – Elizabeth Ugroff) and the other mentioned that paved streets on main thoroughfares need maintenance attention from the City.


APPenDIX c: sMALL GrouP MAPs





Documents

Discovery Session Report