Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

discussing something that was not possible. Mr. G. Austin asked if funding for the project would be lost if it was not executed soon. Mr. Schoening replied that it would not necessarily be lost, because the council had budgeted for this project. He said if the council decided that no action was the choice to take it would reprogram the funding to another project. Mr. G. Austin concurred with the idea of waiting to engage in River A venue improvements until there was a better idea of how 0 DOT would proceed with its larger project. Mr. Hill related that at the last public meeting he attended there was majority agreement that improve- ments to River Avenue were needed. He noted that the road flooded in front of his property every winter. He asked if the City Council had the authority to instruct staff to work with property owners on a scaled dow'll version of the road project. He thought the appropriate place to end the full road upgrade would be at the west side of the Wastewater Facility and then conduct a scaled down version of the road improve- ment to the east of that point to the Beltline Road. He recommended proposing a compromise. He noted that he frequently dealt with land use codes in his work and they did not always make sense. He averred that River Avenue was an instance in which the applicable codes did not make sense in relation to the use of the area. Mr. Hoobyar asked where the agreement among the group lay. Mr. Hyman supported returning to the council and asking just what the group was able to do with the project. Mr. Schoening reiterated that the direction from the council was that city standards could be flexed to a certain extent, but it would not be possible to override State law regarding pedestrians and bicyclists. He stressed that it was not possible to take maintenance funds and spend it on streets that did not have a road structure sufficient to support that level of repair. Ms. Damron remained unclear as to whether the City Council would absolutely not consider a main1e- nance overlay. Mr. Hill disagreed, stating that a maintenance overlay was not appropriate for the road and the storm drainage facilities were needed. Ms. Vaughn observed that an improvement to the road was needed. She did not feel confused about where the flexibility in the project lay because staff had clearly delineated those areas with room for movement. She felt those areas allowed for creativity and unless the group was in disagreement regarding whether the improvement was needed at all, it could conduct the necessary problem-solving and proceed. She thought the real issue was economic and an underlying concern for property owners was tbe amount the project would cost them. She said it could be a hardship. She did not think it was necessary to return to the City Council. Mr. Samer remarked that his sense from the City Council was that the stakeholder group should be creative in bringing the road up to urban and safety standards. He averred that not seizing the opportunity now could be cause for future regret. He was ready to move forward. MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group - Public Works Department August 24,2005 Page 10