Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 20 Ninth Street Middle Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City responds to Ardenwald neighbors on 20 Ninth Avenue street improvements, middle‑housing concerns
Summary
Resident testimony about an unimproved section of 20 Ninth Avenue and an upcoming middle‑housing pre‑application prompted city staff to outline maintenance responsibilities, sidewalk requirements for development permits, and options for using fee‑in‑lieu (FELOC) dollars. Staff said more written responses and a TSP update will clarify policy.
Neighbors of a proposed middle‑housing project on 20 Ninth Avenue raised concerns about street condition, parking, blocked mailboxes and trailers in the right‑of‑way; city staff provided operational clarifications and said they will put a written response into the record.
City Manager Emma Sager told council that 20 Ninth is not a fully improved street and that the city currently sweeps portions of streets and maintains the first two feet from the pavement edge; areas beyond that strip are maintained by adjacent property owners. Sager said the city last slurry sealed 20 Ninth last summer and does not currently have funding to increase maintenance beyond routine levels. She offered to provide a written response addressing specific ideas raised by resident testimony.
On the question of whether developers on unimproved streets must construct frontage improvements, Sager read from the city public‑works standards: "New sidewalks with curbs, are required for any development requiring a development permit. The location of the sidewalk within the development will be determined in the development review process." She acknowledged the common local outcome of short sidewalks that do not connect for years as redevelopment is gradual, and said the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update will clarify long‑range treatment types for corridors such as 20 Ninth.
Staff also discussed use of fee‑in‑lieu of construction (FELOC) dollars. Sager said FELOC is intended for capital improvements and that the city must still decide how to distinguish maintenance from capital work for purposes of spending FELOC in situations such as graveling or berm additions. City staff said they continue to evaluate whether to require developers on unimproved streets to perform full right‑of‑way construction or allow FELOC contributions with planned capital projects later.
On operational concerns raised by residents — blocked mailboxes and trailers parked in the right‑of‑way — staff said the city has no current ordinance specifically regulating parking at mailboxes; the city's general practice is to advise affected residents to contact USPS about deliveries. Sager also noted that the USPS says carriers should step out of vehicles to make deliveries when a mailbox is temporarily blocked. On trailers, staff said the municipal code prohibits abandoned vehicles and disallows RVs and boats parked in the public right‑of‑way; staff offered to draft proposals if council wants further regulation.
Assistant City Manager Joseph Brillio (staff) said staff will provide a written response to the neighborhood and that the TSP update and upcoming development review will inform choices about frontage improvements, FELOC use and longer‑term capital priorities. Councilors asked staff to follow up with written materials and to return in future sessions to discuss options as the pre‑application moves toward a formal application.
These remarks occurred during the community comment follow‑up and development items portion of the meeting; no new construction approvals or permits were issued at the session.
