Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Frontage Improvements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewiston staff propose Chapter 31 tweaks to ease frontage/sidewalk burden on infill development
Summary
Staff told the council Chapter 31’s frontage requirements and triggers (for curb, gutter, sidewalk and ADA ramps) create cost barriers for infill development; they flagged options including revising FILO rules, favoring postponement agreements, pursuing a sidewalk master plan, and creating administrative variance processes.
Public Works Director Dustin Johnson and Community Development Director Shannon Grow laid out why Lewiston’s Chapter 31 frontage-improvement rules have repeatedly slowed infill projects and created high upfront costs for property owners and small developers. "Our job is to implement the code," Dustin Johnson told the council, adding that ADA ramp triggers and full frontage requirements can add 20–40% to project costs when a mill-and-overlay or remodel requires ramps or retaining walls.
Grow described examples where the code has required significant frontage investment for modest projects: "This piece of property... would require full frontage improvements for a curb, gutter, and sidewalk, plus retaining walls," she said, showing aerials of Hathaway Road and orchard-area lots. Staff explained the two existing exceptions: a fee-in-lieu (FILO) that collects roughly "$20 to $60,000 a year" used as a local match for grants, and postponement agreements that defer construction until a later city-led project or local improvement district (LID).
Council discussion covered trade-offs: some members favored postponement to avoid upfront burdens for homeowners; others warned that postponement creates a continuing lien-like obligation that may pass to future owners. Staff recommended short-term code edits to reduce administrative friction (clarifying FILO eligibility and adding topographical/administrative variance language) while the city completes a sidewalk master plan. Suggested tools included limiting frontage obligations to the addressed street for corner lots, phase-based developer agreements (10-year participation windows), LIDs for contiguous blocks, and more explicit exemptions for high-cost topography.
Directives and near-term next steps from the meeting: staff will draft limited code amendments to ease administrative application of FILO and postponement options, queue the bigger policy questions (such as redefining infill triggers and corner-lot requirements) for revision tied to a sidewalk master plan procurement this summer, and consult the Disability Advisory Committee and Public Works Advisory Council before returning to council for formal readings.
