Discovery Session Report

A SUMMARY OF THE
WOODSTOCK UNIMPROVED STREETS

DISCOVERY SESSION
HELD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2010

1

LARKE PLANNING
Leah Hyman
Al Klein
Rani Boyle
Katie Lynd
Emily Lieb

Portland State Univeristy
Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning

www.roadwaynotimproved.com
roadwaynotimproved@gmail.com

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

IntroDuctIon
O n 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, the neighborhood. As shown in Figure 1, the
visions and concerns regarding unimproved majority of participants live on or adjacent
streets. to unimproved streets, with the most heavy
concentration of participants in the area south
of Woodstock Boulevard, which is home to the
Attendance highest concentration of unimproved streets in
the neighborhood.
Forty-two adults and five children attended
the Discovery Session. As the participants After residents settled into the main meeting
entered the Woodstock Community Center, room of the community center, LARKE
they were asked to provide their name, email member Katie Lynd opened the meeting by
address, and how they heard about the session asking attendees how long they have lived in the
on a sign-in sheet. Most residents heard about neighborhood and whether or not they live or
the meeting either through word-of-mouth, adjacent to an unimproved street. Participants
LARKE announcements at Woodstock events represented a balance of new residents and
(community center potluck, neighborhood some who had lived in Woodstock for several
association meetings), an article in their decades, as shown in Table 1. The majority of
neighborhood paper (The Bee) or by fliers audience members indicated that they lived on
attached to the doorknobs of houses along or adjacent to unimproved streets.
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

4 DISCOVERY SESSION REPORT ~ ROADWAY NOT IMPROVED ~ APRIL 2010

Figure 1. Where Ds Attendees live in Woodstock

Table 1. How long Ds attendees have lived in the Woodstock neighborhood
<1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 20-50 years >50 years
5 12 2 6 10 3 4


PresentAtIons
D uring the first half of the session, LARKE
team members gave three brief presentations:
The project will be carried out in three basic
phases.
• Project Overview and Timeline (Emily Lieb) Phase 1: Information Gathering
• Unimproved Streets FAQ (Leah Hyman) (January-March)
• LARKE Woodstock Street Inventory Results LARKE conducted several primary and
and Photo Tour (Al Klein, Rani Boyle) secondary research efforts, including an
inventory of Woodstock Streets, background
Project Overview & Timeline research on city policy and Woodstock
demographics, informational interviews, an
online survey and the Discovery Session.
Roadway Not Improved is a partnership
between the Woodstock Neighborhood Phase 2: Alternatives
Association and five Portland State University (March-May)
Master of Urban and Regional Planning LARKE is researching alternative street designs,
students. Through conversations with WNA and funding strategies, models for maintenance
inquiries into City of Portland policies, LARKE agreements and alternative policy approaches.
identified a disconnect between what Woodstock These concepts will be refined based on
residents want for unimproved streets and feedback from an Advisory Committee
the formal tools offered by the City. This consisting of city planners, engineers, and
disconnect created an opportunity to explore policymakers. Alternatives will be presented to
two things: the Woodstock community for feedback at an
open house on April 24.
1. alternative, community-based improvement
options and temporary uses for unimproved Phase 3: Final Products
rights-of-way (ROW) (May-June)
LARKE will develop two final products: a
2. alternative city policy options that would toolkit of design options and implementation
allow for more flexibility, both in terms strategies for community-based ROW projects;
of mechanisms for improving streets, and a final report containing a more detailed
alternative design options that are more analysis and recommendations for city policy.
sensitive to context


Figure 2. roadway not Improved Project timeline


Unimproved Streets FAQ Why are so many streets unimproved?
There is no exact answer for this question. It is
likely that when the Woodstock neighborhood
The FAQ presentation served to clarify the was annexed into the city limits, existing
rules, regulations, rights and responsibilities unimproved streets were unfinished at the
relevant to unimproved rights-of-way (ROW). time of annexation, like many outer SE
DS participants were provided with an FAQ neighborhoods. Through many different
handout and given time to ask questions and administrations during the last century, the City
make comments following the presentation. has never made paving these streets a priority.
Below is the material provided during the In the current economic climate, the City does
session, as well as questions and comments from not have the financial means to dedicate toward
residents. finishing unimproved streets.

What is a street and what is the right-of-way What city agencies might be involved in
(roW)? street improvements and maintenance?
The city of Portland defines a street “to be any The City is lots of bureaus which maintain the
street as defined in the City Charter, including all infrastructure and development of the city of
area between property lines, and area dedicated Portland. These are some of the bureaus that
to street use.” This is not a very clear definition regularly work on projects within the street:
but it is the one offered by the city charter.
Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT): For
The right-of-way (ROW) refers to the legal the most part, PBOT maintains roadways and
access easement which exists over all public transportation systems throughout the city.
streets and includes all space entitled to public According to their website, the bureau’s work is
use. An access easement allows the City to “plan, build, manage and maintain an effective
of Portland to require some maintenance and safe transportation system that provides
obligations from the property owners adjacent people and businesses access and mobility.”
to the street while still allowing for public use PBOT has several different programs which deal
of the street and sidewalk. The full ROW may with construction and maintenance of streets,
include the sidewalk, planter strip, curb, gutter, including their Expanded Maintenance Options,
parking lanes and travel lanes within the street. Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) and the
If these elements don’t currently exist, it still Transportation System Plan, which is the long-
doesn’t preclude the space from being within the range plan to guide transportation investments
ROW. in Portland.

What is an unimproved street? Bureau of Development Services (BDS): BDS
The Portland charter offers no clear definition administers the building and development codes
of unimproved streets. For the purposes of of the city, issues building permits and facilitates
this project, LARKE Planning considers any entitlement for new developments on private
street which is not maintained by the Portland properties. BDS moniters and regulates work on
Bureau of Transportation as unimproved. private property ensuring that such work does
Typically, unimproved streets are lacking some not create problems within the ROW. If you
combination of a paved surface, curbs, and want to build anything new on your property,
sidewalks. you generally are required to check with BDS
first.


Bureau of Environmental Services (BES): BES How flexible is the City with regard to how
provides Portland residents with water quality adjacent property owners use and maintain
protection, watershed planning, wastewater unimproved roWs?
collection and treatment, sewer installation While the city requires unimproved streets to
and stormwater management. BES activities be maintained by adjacent property owners,
in the ROW deal with managing sewer and only certain types of work can be done without
stormwater treatment with street, parking strip a permit obtained from the city. Under the
and pedestrian zones of the ROW. Expanded Maintenance Options, the City allows
some flexibility in maintenance performed
Who is responsible for maintaining by property owners. As long as the following
unimproved streets? parameters are met, owner maintenance of
Property owners on unimproved streets unimproved streets is allowed without a permit:
are responsible for maintenance of the
ROW. According to the city charter, as the • travel lane width on the unimproved street
property owner, you have both the right and remains the same
the obligation to maintain your section of • there is no change in existing drainage
unimproved street maintenance up to the center patterns outside the right-of-way and
line of the street. In Title 17.42 of the city drainage ways within the right-of-way are not
charter it states: altered to impact water flow
• materials used in street maintenance are
“Until a street improvement has been equivalent to the existing street materials
constructed to City standards and the City • no asphalt, concrete or other man-made
has expressly assumed responsibility for material is applied to existing dirt or gravel
street maintenance, it is the exclusive duty of surface
the abutting property owners to construct, • any new maintenance does not adversely
reconstruct, repair and maintain the unimproved affect neighboring properties
street in a condition reasonably safe for the • no trees are removed from the right-of-way
uses that are made of the street and adjoining • no speed bumps or other traffic calming
properties. Streets that have not been improved devices are constructed.
to City standards are not and will not be
maintained or improved at City expense, except Essentially, as a property owner you may
at the discretion of the City and as provided in maintain the adjacent unimproved right-of-way
this Code and the City Charter.” up to the quality it currently is or was in the
past. If you can prove that the street was once
Comment: If there is an empty lot on an unimproved in better condition, for example there was gravel
street is any build-out required? in the street at one point, you can lay down
new gravel without a permit. All maintenance
LARKE: PBOT requires a ½-street improvement or a
performed in the ROW using larger tools and
waiver if the cost is not feasible at that time.
vehicles and without a permit falls under the
Comment: A resident commented that they built out on PBOTs Expanded Maintenance Options.
their lot and there was no requirement for or mention of
street improvements, even in the permitting process.


Comment: Can I define the boundaries of my yard with measure as a nuisance and complains to the City, you will
materials such as railroad ties to keep people from driving get a letter.
on my grass?
What standards does a street have to meet to
LARKE: Yes, this is allowed and is affordable!
be accepted for maintenance by the city?
------
PBOT does not want to encourage the
Comment: When discussing various repurposing
construction of poor quality streets, so the
options, is there any consideration for what streets have
bureau sets a high engineering bar to ensure
utilities underneath them?
long-lasting and high-quality streets. The City’s
LARKE: You should always call for utility locations if existing neighborhood street standards are
you are doing any excavation on your property. designed primarily as traffic facilities comprised
of two travel lanes, plus either two parking
Who is responsible when problems occur in lanes, one parking lane, or no parking, yielding
unimproved streets? widths of 32, 28, or 20 feet, respectively. In an
Property owners along unimproved streets R5 zone, (which much of Woodstock is) the
are liable for any problems which occur as a full ROW- including sidewalks, curbs, gutter,
result of defective conditions of streets. (See parking and travel lanes- can vary from 35 to
Chapter 17.42.030 of the Portland Charter.) 50 feet. The minimum sidewalk width is at
The charter also says that property owners along least 5 feet and the parking strip varies from 5
unimproved streets are liable for any claims, to 10 feet depending on the requirements for
judgments, settlements and defense costs the stormwater management assessed by the Bureau
City incurs due to the property owner’s failure of Environmental Services.
to maintain, construct and repair unimproved
streets. Basically, if the City gets sued because of Comment: Would restricted vehicle access (bicycle/
damage occurring on an unimproved street next pedestrian-only) be an option on unimproved streets?
to your house, you are responsible party, not the
LARKE: We are planning to research the feasibility of
city. This is unlikely to happen, but the City has
restricted vehicle access options.
its bases covered.
Comment: Some Woodstock land owners have attempted
What are the repercussions for private uses to “shut down” streets to vehicle access by relocating dirt
within the public roW? along street entrances. However, these efforts have led
Portland operates on complaint-based system to some “undesirable” activities in the bushes on those
for nuisance claims within the public ROW. If segments.
someone complains about private uses within ------
the ROW, the City will send the property owner Comment: What about emergency vehicle travel on
a letter informing them of their liability for the unimproved streets?
unimproved street and may require removal of
LARKE: We will look into what restricted use would
the perceived nuisance. The City does minimal
mean for fire, EMS, and other emergency services.
follow-up to such complaints unless complaints
are lodged repeatedly against the same property
Who maintains improved streets?
owner.
If the city accepts a finished street for
maintenance, the abutting property owner is still
Comment: If a road were partially blocked by the
responsible for the sidewalk, curbs, driveways
property owner to restrict access, could someone with a
and parking strips. However, the City will
4x4 then complain to the City?
maintain the curb except when in combination
LARKE: Natural traffic calming measures are not with the sidewalk damage or if the curb has been
opposed by the City. However, if someone perceives the damaged by tree roots. Green streets and public


stormwater facilities which are generally found doesn’t mean the obligation for maintenance has
in the planter strip area are maintained by the moved from the property owner, it only means
Bureau of Environmental Services. The City also the properties on that street did not have to pay
maintains the width of pavement in between the for their expanded maintenance options. The
curbs on either side of the improved street. important thing to remember here is that even
if a bureau does improvement work within the
Comment: Are there different commitments from street, unless PBOT accepts the street as up to
business owners adjacent to unimproved streets? full city street standards, the responsibility and
liability for the street is still in the hands of the
LARKE: No, businesses are still property owners and
property owner.
are treated the same as those who own houses adjacent to
unimproved streets.
other Questions & comments:
What is an LID?
Comment: What is a street vacation?
A Local Improvement District (LID) is a
method by which a group of property owners LARKE: A street vacation refers to the transfer of
can share in the cost of transportation ownership of ROW space from the city to adjacent
infrastructure improvements. This involves property owners. This mechanism was used in the past for
improving the street, building sidewalks, and streets that weren’t considered passable to vehicular traffic.
installing a stormwater management system. ------
An LID can also be used to install sidewalks Comment: What is the City’s policy on street vacations?
on existing streets that previously have been
LARKE: Connectivity is the city’s first priority so there is
accepted for maintenance by the City. When an
reluctance to relinquish public ownership of ROW space,
LID is formed, property owners agree to assume
even if it is not currently passable to vehicles. City policy
responsibility to pay for the project. The cost
does not currently support the use of street vacations.
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


Street Inventory & Photo Tour
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 Observed existing uses of the ROW by adjacent
segments are completely impassable, except property owners included:
perhaps to the avid hiker.
• expanded parking
Many street segments possess a unique array of • gardening
characteristics, and several have characteristics • composting
and conditions that vary significantly, even • portable play structures
within a single block segment. Some are • seating
graded, well- maintained gravel streets with • chicken coops
good visibility while others meander or have • brush piles
overgrown vegetation that inhibits visibility. • 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.)


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


HOLGATE
PARD EE PARD EE

53RD
40TH

49TH
50TH
51ST
LONG LON G

58TH
47TH
48TH
43RD
44TH
45TH
46TH
SCHILLER
SCHI LLER

59TH

60TH
LIEBE
CESAR E CHAVEZ

LIEBE

51ST
RAYMOND

48TH
MITCHELL
42ND
43RD

MITCHELL

49TH
40TH

MITC HELL

50TH
STEELE
45TH

INSLEY

50TH
INSLEY

60TH
INSLE Y
HAROLD HAROLD
40TH

HAROLD

56TH

58TH
54TH
ELLIS ELLIS

57TH
REEDWAY
CESAR E CHAVEZ

51ST
52ND
41ST

RAMONA
50TH

RAMONA
KNIG HT KNIG HT
49TH

KNIGHT
47TH
48TH

WOODSTOCK
46TH
43RD
44TH
45TH

55TH
MARTINS 56TH
40TH

CARLTON
CAR LTON

60TH 60TH
TOLMAN
TOLM AN
HENRY HENR Y HENRY
58TH

GLEN WOOD
Street Classifications
Sub-standard Classifications
COOP ER
EVERGREEN Unpaved
40TH

BYBEE Paved, No Curbs
45TH

RURAL Paved, Curbs, No Sidewalks
41ST

OGDEN
44TH

Paved, inconsistent Curbs/Sidewalks
KNAPP
Paved, Curbs and Sidewalks
CESAR E CHAVEZ

HENDERSO
42ND

N
FLAVEL
REX 3.6
Street Length 1.5
MALDEN
in Miles
44TH

1.5
LAMBERT
1.6
LEXIN GTON
NEHALEM
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
TENINO TENINO
UMATILLA
HARN EY

0 0.125 0.25 Miles
38.8


Figure 4. concentration of Potholes on unpaved streets in Woodstock


HOLGATE
PARDEE PARDEE

43RD

53RD
49TH
40TH

50TH
51ST
LONG LONG

58TH
47TH
48TH
44TH
45TH
46TH
SCHILLER
SCHI LLER

59TH
60TH
LIEBE
CESA R E CHAV EZ

LIEBE

51ST
RAYMOND

51ST
48TH
42N D

MITCHELL
43RD

49TH
50TH
40TH

MITC HELL
STEELE Concentration of Potholes
45TH

INSLEY on Unpaved Streets

50TH
INSLEY

60TH
INSLEY
HAROLD HAROLD
40TH

HAROLD High

56TH

58T H
ELLIS

54TH
ELLIS
Medium

57TH
REEDWAY
CESAR E CHAVEZ

41ST

52ND
RAMONA
50TH

RAMONA
Low/None
48TH
49TH

KNIGHT KNIG HT
47TH

WOODSTOCK
46TH
43RD
44TH
45TH

MARTINS
40TH

CARLTON
CARLTON

60TH 60TH
TOLMAN
TOLMAN
51ST

HEN RY HENRY 58TH

GLEN WOOD
COOPER
EVERGREEN
40TH

BYBEE
45TH

RURAL
41ST

OGDEN
KNAPP
CESAR E CHAVEZ

HEN DERSO
42ND

N
FLAV EL
REX
MALDEN
44 TH

LAMBERT
LEXIN GTON
NEHA LEM
CRYS TAL SPRINGS
TEN INO TENIN O
UMATILLA
HARN EY

0 0.125 0.25 Miles


DIscussIon
F ollowing presentation, participants were
invited to participate in small group (5-8 people)
The purpose of the small group discussions
was not to seek consensus around the issues
associated with unimproved streets, but rather
discussions. Attendees were divided into five to capture diverse points of view. Each group
groups, and a LARKE facilitator was assigend was provided with a map on which to record
to each group to facilitate a discussion of the location-specific notes.
following questions:
After 30 minutes, everyone came back together
• What locations in the neighborhood do you frequent and a representative from each group provided
and how do you get there (routes)? a summary of what had emerged from their
• What streets do you avoid and for what reasons? discussion. Prominant themes from these
• What streets do you enjoy and for what reasons? small group discussions and the debrief are
• What streets would you like to see repurposed? synthesized below, and a full documentation
What would your vision be for those streets? of public commentary from the meeting is
provided in Appendix B. Group discussion maps
are provided in Appendix C.


Destinations & Routes
corridor was noted as another destination that
Many residents identified Woodstock Blvd. residents use N/S streets to access. Schools
as the main thoroughfare with access to and parks were identified as frequently visited
amenities and identified preferred travel routes locations that lack connectivity due to unpaved
to Woodstock Blvd as North/South streets that streets that lack sidewalks
are paved and have sidewalks. The Springwater

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


Undesirable Characteristics
Traffic/Safety

In identifying streets they dislike or avoid, Reckless driving, including kids on all-terrain
concerns about safety, security, accessibility and vehicles, led many participants to cite safety
aesthetic appeal were the most common themes as their top concern relative to unimproved
raised by participants. streets. Residents who are parents of young
children noted that their children do not see
Accessibility the unimproved streets as a “street” but an
extension of their yard or play area, which could
Participants noted that narrow, uneven and be appealing if approached correctly, but also
steep roads with no signage make travel through becomes a safety issue. Residents noted the
Woodstock difficult. Various roadway conditions lack of stop signs and traffic calming devices,
(mud, gravel and potholes) create significant and noted that some vehicles take unimproved
barriers to travel that affect vehicles, pedestrians streets to avoid traffic on Woodstock Blvd.
and bicyclists alike. “Lake Carlton” -- a pothole
on Carlton that sometimes spans 15’ by 20’ security
and is filled with water -- was identified by
several participants as an extreme example of Residents noted experiences with crime or
accessibility problems in the neighborhood. drugs on Henry, Tolman and Ramona, some of
Many residents also noted the lack of ADA which had resulted in police assistance in the
ramps and crosswalks on unimproved streets. past. On SE 50th from Woodstock to Duke,
residents identified a foster home between the
Figure 6. streets Participants Avoid 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.


Desirable Characteristics
Additional roW space

While some residents did not feel that Many residents also noted that a positive
unimproved streets contribute to livability, others characteristic of living on an unimproved
felt they positively impact the neighborhood ROW is the perceived extension of landowner
by reducing and calming traffic on residential space. Several commented on the opportunities
streets, creating natural ambience and providing presented by these streets as a result of their lack
additional space for use of the ROW for of impervious surfaces.
gardening and recreation.
Figure 7. Streets Identified as Enjoyable
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)


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


Ideas for Repurposing & Access
Improvement
Participants talked about many improvement
ideas related to access. Pedestrian or pedestrian/
Participants contributed a wide variety of bike only pathways were a common theme.
repurposing ideas for unimproved streets in Residents also liked the idea of a serpentine
the neighborhood. Many of these ideas lend car lane to reduce or calm traffic. Access to
themselves well to the desired characteristic of garages was important for a few residents, but
“country roads” or expanded garden spaces, they were also in favor of closing specific streets
which are elements residents like about some to large delivery trucks. Some felt unimproved
existing streets. Ideas fell into two general streets around Safeway and schools should be
categories: Natural & Recreational Use and paved with sidewalks. Many felt that potholes
Access. Only a few comments didn’t fit into should be filled with gravel or dirt rather than
these themes, and paving all unimproved streets pavement. Better signage and streetlights were
was mentioned in only a few specific cases. also expressed as ideas that would facilitate ease
of travel and improve security and safety.
natural & recreational use
comprehensive Vision
Many participants envisioned ROW space
being utilized for gardens or related activities Some participants also talked about the need
like composting and chicken coops. Play areas for a comprehensive neighborhood vision for
for children and animals alike were suggested, unimproved streets. There was mention of
including a dog agility course, children’s play creating a network of interconnected community
areas and a horseshoes court. Residents spaces.
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.


concLusIon
T hough a wide variety of opinions were
expressed during the Discovery Session, some
Participants’ ideas reflected a range of perceptions
about how non-travel space in the ROW should
valuable themes and common neighborhood be used. Some felt this additional space should
considerations emerged from the event. be used by adjacent property owners, as is
Despite concerns about accessibility, safety, currently the case along many unimproved streets
security and aesthetic appeal, many DS in the neighborhood. Others saw opportunities
participants expressed interest in exploring to create amenities that could be shared by all
opportunities to implement alternative property owners on a single block. Still others saw
improvements and community uses along opportunities to create community spaces with
unimproved streets. There was a general feeling benefits that would extend beyond the use of
that such projects should respect the natural adjacent property owners to the entire community
charm and “country road” feeling these streets and its visitors.
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.


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 Saturda y, Februar y 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 RoadwayNotImproved@gmail.com or visit
www.RoadwayNotImproved.com


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)


APPenDIX B: coMMents
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
Access
• Potholes
• Lake Carlton
• No sidewalks along Lois School on Glenwood street is very dangerous for students
• No ADA ramps
• Narrow/uneven streets
• Mud

safety
• Dust 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

security
• Poor 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/Appeal
• Litter 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


other
• 43rd and Carlton: an owner had drywall installed and never fixed the street, rendering storm drain
useless
• Vehicles 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 Woodstock
• Nice 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 Access
• Strategic 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/Safety
• Visual 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 Access
• Pave Henry St.
• Improve the streets around Safeway
• Access to garages


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

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

other
• Chicken 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


Discovery Session Report

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie Discovery Session Report

Ähnlich wie Discovery Session Report (20)

Discovery Session Report