Electronic – PCB tracing – Ground plane and Power plane

I think you're on the right path, a couple of notes,

1) With a signal trace between two planes, the return current will split between the two planes, even if one of the planes is split. The return current cannot "see the future" and decide ahead of time which plane to return on. It will return above and below the trace until it sees the split at which point is says "oh crap!" and pays you back by possibly causing you to fail FCC testing. So you want to avoid running traces over plane splits even if another adjacent plane is not split. You can deal with splits with capacitors and such but this type of solution is less than ideal. I'd focus on always avoiding running a trace over a plane split on an adjacent plane.

2) Wide return paths on DC signals don't really matter.

3) You asked about two signal layers sharing the same plane. Usually, this is not a big deal if done properly. What many people do is use one of the layers as a "horizontal" signal layer and the other as a "vertical" signal layer so the return currents are orthogonal to each other. It is very common to route two signal layers for each plane, and use this horizontal/vertical technique. The most important thing to remember is to not change reference planes. Your setup could be a little tricky because going from the bottom layer to the 4th layer adds another return plane. More typical 6 layer boards are

1)ASignalHor 2)GND 3)ASignalVer 4)BSignalHor 5)POWER 6)BSignalVer

If you need smaller additional planes, like under the micro, these would usually be placed as an island on one of the signal layers. If you need to use more power planes, you might want to think about going to 10+ layers.

4) Plane spacing is important, and can have huge impact on performance, so you should specify this to the board house. If you take the example 6 layer stackup I mentioned above, spacing of .005 .005 .040 .005 .005 (instead of standard stackup with equal distance between layers) can make an order of magnitude improvement. It keeps the signal layers close to their reference plane (smaller loops).

Your placement is fine.

Your routing of the crystal signal traces is fine.

Your grounding is bad. Fortunately, doing it better actually makes your PCB design easier. There will be significant high frequency content in the microcontroller return currents and the currents thru the crystal caps. These should be contained locally and NOT allowed to flow accross the main ground plane. If you don't avoid that, you don't have a ground plane anymore but a center-fed patch antenna.

Tie all the ground immediately associated with the micro together on the top layer. This includes the micro's ground pins and the ground side of the crystal caps. Then connect this net to the main ground plane in only one place. This way the high frequency loop currents caused by the micro and the crystal stay on the local net. The only current flowing thru the connection to the main ground plane are the return currents seen by the rest of the circuit.

For extra credit, so something similar with the micro's power net, place the two single feed points near each other, then put a 10 µF or so ceramic cap right between the two immediately on the micro side of the feed points. The cap becomes a second level shunt for high frequency power to ground currents produced by the micro circuit, and the closeness of the feed points reduces the patch antenna drive level of whatever escapes your other defenses.

For more details, see https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/15143/4512.

Added in response to your new layout:

This is definitely better in that the high frequency loop currents are kept of the main ground plane. That should reduce overall radiation from the board. Since all antennas work symmetrically as receivers and transmitters, that also reduces your susceptibility to external signals.

I don't see the need to make the ground trace from the crystal caps back to the micro so fat. There is little harm in it, but it is not necessary. The currents are quite small, so even just a 8 mil trace will be fine.

I really don't see the point to the deliberate antenna coming down from the crystal caps and wrapping around the crystal. Your signals are well below where that will start to resonate, but adding gratuitous antennas when no RF transmission or reception is intended is not a good idea. You apparently are trying to put a "guard ring" around the crystal, but gave no justification why. Unless you have very high nearby dV/dt and poorly made crystals, there is no reason they need to have guard rings.