Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to advance sidewalk-code change after lengthy debate on equity, trees and costs
Summary
The council did not advance first-reading approval of Bill 11064, which would have changed sidewalk requirements for certain additions; members debated sidewalk funding, the new Transportation Development District (TDD), tree loss, and waiver disparities.
The Kirkwood City Council did not approve first reading of Bill 11064, an ordinance amending municipal code Chapter 25 sidewalk requirements (section 25-69(a)(2)(i)(a)), after extended council debate about equity, trees and funding.
Council members discussed how the existing code requires sidewalks when an addition doubles a home's size, and the proposed change would remove that requirement for some additions. Several council members said the change could mean fewer sidewalks would be built over time, particularly if homeowners manipulate the percentage threshold for requiring a sidewalk. One council member described the current 100-percent threshold as arbitrary and said homeowners could avoid sidewalks by making slightly smaller additions.
Council members referenced the Transportation Development District (TDD) recently approved by voters, which is expected to provide approximately $4.8 million per year for transportation projects; several said TDD funds reduce the need to require sidewalks from homeowners. Staff and a council member noted the city’s 2015 master bike-and-ped plan estimated prioritized sidewalk construction costs (one-sided) at about $220 million at that time.
Council members also debated the tradeoff between planting/stewarding street trees and forcing sidewalk installation that could remove established trees. A staff estimate cited a concrete pour cost of roughly $8,000 for 150 feet of 5-foot sidewalk; a council member said a homeowner had estimated $20,000 when factoring tree work.
Because Planning & Zoning issued a negative recommendation on this change, council members noted a supermajority (5 of 7) is required to adopt the ordinance. After discussion, the council did not secure the required supermajority on first reading; the item will remain under consideration and may return with revised language or additional analysis.
