Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

Mr. Henry observed that the proposal from the property owners shared many of the same elements that the original design contained. He thought it was a responsive design that met the needs of the community. He felt it was good that bicycles were being accommodated. He said the roadway width with center turn lane was identical to the original proposed roadway width with two bicycle lanes. He conveyed the engineering concerns regarding the width of the sidewalk. He stated that there was no standard for a curbside sidewalk, but the general rule was a ten foot width. He said he would have a great deal of concern about having a five~foot curbside sidewalk next to traffic. He pointed out that toward the east end of the project, setback sidewalks would require additional right of way. He suggested, for the group's consideration, the original staff proposal of approximately seven and a half feet of curbside sidewalk at that point. Ms. Damron liked Mr. Samer's proposal. She underscored that the things to include in the plan that were important to the RRCOincluded safety/operational changes to the River Road/River Avenue intersection, natural swales for storm water drainage, and that trees be included both on the north and south sides of the road. She repeated her concern that road improvements would increase travel speeds. Mr. Howard commented that everyone had a wish list. He pointed out that no one was getting everything they wanted in this plan. He said the property owners had tried to listen to everyone and incorporate their concerns into the proposal. He felt the proposal included trees where they made the greatest difference. He underscored that the property owners had heard people asking for sidewalks on the north side of the street and even though this would prove to be very costly to the property owners, they had included this in their proposal. He thought the project could become huge and this would run counter to the goals for the group set forth by the City Council. Mr. Meeker expressed concern about the potential that sidewalks would need additional right of way. Mr. Howard remarked that this was one place the plan needed to be trimmed back. Mr. Samerthought a 12~foot bikeway on the south side would meet the needs of bicycles and pedestrians. He was not as concerned about a five-foot curbside sidewalk on the north side of the road because there would be far less pedestrians on that side and because traffic was less likely to be speeding as it moved toward the intersection with River Road. He opined that the danger was more apparent than reaL Ms. Damron asserted that another meeting would be needed, given the time. Ms. Rojas asked whether the group could make further amendments after a vote on Mr. Samer's motion had been taken. Mr. Hoobyar called for a vote on Mr. Samer's motion. The motion passed, 6:2:2; Ms. Damron and Ms. Rojas voting in opposition; Mr. Hyman and Ms. Vaughn abstaining. MfNUTES--River A venue Stakeholder Group - Public Works Department October 5. 2005 Page &