Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

Continuing, Mr. Hill observed that in the private sector one rarely paid as much as 12 percent of a project's total cost in engineering and design fees. He noted that 25 percent of the city project's cost was attributed to engineering fees and opined that the group needed to hold the City Council and City staff accountable for this seeming discrepancy. Mr. Meeker agreed with the idea of building out the road to Ross Lane but wished to hold the beautifica~ tion to a minimum. He commented that raised pedestrian facilities could cause damage to boats being brought in and out of his business, Clemens Marina. Mr. Samer said it would be possible to design a pedestrian island in the middle of the road that was not raised and would not damage Mr. Meeker's customers' boats. Regarding build-out of the bicycle path, he pointed out that bicyclists wished for connectivity at the east end of River Avenue. He suggested that the bicycle lane be improved over the full length of the road, with a full improved bicycle lane to Ross Lane and a sidewalk built to the wider mixed use standard from that point eastward. He noted that a regular sidewalk was not wide enough for safe passage of both pedestrians and bicyclists. He added that he had measured the road and determined it to be wide enough to accommodate the wider sidewalk standard used in mixed use development. Mr. Hoobyar observed that bicycle traffic could increase with improvements. Mr. Sanler concurred. He predicted rising gasoline prices would also increase bicycle usage. Ms. Damron concurred with Mr. Samer. She said bicycle/pedestrian issues were very important to the RRCO. She also agreed that median pedestrian refuges did not need to be raised. She believed that foot and bicycle traffic would increase on River Avenue once the improvements had been completed. Mr. Meeker did not want the turn lane to be blocked with such refuges. Mr. Hill thought Mr. Samer's suggestion to build a sidewalk to mixed use standards east of Ross Lane made sense. He did not think bicyclists would want to share a lane with cars after that point anyway, given the dramatic increase in speed that occurred as vehicles approached Beltline Highway. While he favored the inclusion of landscaping, Mr. Hill observed that the City sometimes struggled to maintain landscaping it had already installed. He suggested that lower maintenance landscaping be utilized. Mr. Hoobyar commented that landscaping meant different things to different people. Mr. Austin said it seemed the group had agreed on a three-lane road to Ross Lane and asked if the group should take a vote prior to discussing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Mr. Howard asked why Ross Lane should be the point at which the three lane road should be built to. He felt building it out to post office was far enough. Mr. Hill responded that Ross Lane was where the industrial traffic stopped. Mr. Hoobyar asked the group to indicate with a show of hands whether they supported splitting the road into two segments. The River Avenue Stakeholders Group indicated with a unanimous show of hands its support for splitting River Avenue into two sections with different development standards to suit the difference in uses for those two parts of the road. MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group- Public Works Department August 30, 2005 Page 8