Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

was concerned that property owners would be assessed again for a future upgrade caused by changes made to the access by ODOT, despite assurance from staff. Mr. Spain felt the issue was not about assessments. Rather, he averred, it was about the scope and context of the project. He observed that the original project as proposed had resembled a nice parkway. He did not think this would be appropriate for the area. He wanted the road to be improved, adding that the question lay in how much improvement there should be. Mr. Samer asked that the original proposal be included in stakeholder notebooks. He conveyed the Bicycle Coalition's perspective which was that the entire River Avenue was a collector. He said the group would like to deal with the road creatively so that it would meet the standards as a collector and as a bicycle arterial. Mr. Meeker commented that his concerns lay both in the assessments and in the design. He averred that the City needed to spend the money realistically for the needs of the area. Ms. Vaughn relayed the SCCO point of view. She said they were sensitive to assessments and costs and supported a fiscally responsible redesign of the road. She stated that there \-vas a lot of concern about the congestion in the area and were trying to look for other roads to utilize aside from River Road. She shared that the SCCO wished to preserve the ambience of the neighborhood. Mr. Hyman agreed with Mr. Meeker. He could not see how important it was whether it was an assessment problem or a design problem. He said the real issue was one of undertaking a project that "made sense." He noted that he lived near Irvington Road, which he felt to be an example of a bad transportation construction project experience. He opined that the construction of the project had been conducted in a disorganized fashion. Ms. Damron shared the RRCO's concerns with the group. She said the organization was concerned for the long~range impact on the greater community and because of this they valued bicycle access. She related the organization's support for natural swale drainage systems. She expressed a preference for making the more heavily trafficked west end of the road "beautiful" and representative of the community in ways such as planting native trees She believed this project could become a template for future road projects. She suggested inclusion of a pedestrian crossing at the post office. She also observed that there were mixed use design elements at the west end of River Avenue and felt it warranted a formalized pedestrian transportation facility. She noted the organization was sensitive to assessment costs. Mr. Hoobyar surmised that while assessments and costs were important to the property owners, the design of the road was also very important He commented that the "devil" was in the design details. Mr. Hill proposed that the group consider splitting River Avenue into two segments, the first segment comprised of the area traversing River Avenue from River Road to Ross Lane and the second segment comprised of the remainder of River Avenue to its connection with Beltline Highway. He recommended that the first segment be built to a three. lane road standard including a bicycle path. He averred that it made sense to provide better connectivity to the mixed use area at the west end. He said there was a lot of traffic to the Ross Lane point of River Avenue because of the business on one side and the wastewater dump site on the other and suggested a "slow-clown point" be planned at that point. For the second segment of the road, he recommended a scaled-down version of the proposed road with one sidewalk and two lanes. He noted he rarely saw pedestrians or bicyclists beyond Ross Lane. MINUTES---River Avenue Stakeholder Group- Public Works Department August 30, 2005 Page 7