Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Realm topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission grants variance to waive sidewalk fee for 417 Hickman in a 6–1 vote
Summary
The commission voted 6–1 to grant the property owners at 417 Hickman a variance waiving the fee‑in‑lieu-of‑sidewalks and the requirement to construct a sidewalk, citing neighborhood context and qualifying criteria in the city code; staff and commissioners discussed policy implications and rough proportionality calculations.
City staff presented background on the city's sidewalk policy and the fee‑in‑lieu ordinance adopted in 2023. Staff explained the fee option was intended to avoid building “sidewalks to nowhere” and to pool funds for targeted city sidewalk projects. For 417 Hickman, staff said the lot met two eligibility criteria for fee‑in‑lieu consideration: less than 50% of the block face has sidewalks and no sidewalks exist in the vicinity.
Staff also explained how rough proportionality is calculated: a project's demand on the roadway and pedestrian network is measured, then credits such as right‑of‑way dedication reduce the developer’s (or homeowner’s) proportional share. For this property the staff's worksheet produced a demand figure that, after credits for right‑of‑way dedication, resulted in an $8,000 fee in lieu of constructing sidewalks.
Owner Nancy Saunders Trucker told commissioners she and neighbors strongly oppose a sidewalk at this location and believed she had been told previously that she would not be required to pay the fee or build a sidewalk. Commissioners debated fairness and precedent: some said the fee mechanism was appropriate and consistent with council policy to build sidewalks where they are most needed; others said applying the fee to an individual homeowner in an older neighborhood created an unfair burden and could be revisited at the UDC level.
Commissioner Fryer moved to approve the variance waiving the fee and sidewalk requirement for 417 Hickman; Commissioner Gates seconded. The motion passed on a 6–1 vote. Staff will record the variance and its stipulations with the plat/permit documents. Several commissioners also urged staff and council to review the UDC and fee policy to clarify how the rule is applied to individual homeowners versus large developers.
Next steps: staff will document the variance decision, update plat/permit records accordingly, and the council/staff may consider a policy review of the fee‑in‑lieu mechanism's application to single homeowners.
