Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-28 05-87 ORDINANCEItem No. 05-87 Date: 2-28-05 Nem/subject: Ordinance, Amending the Code of the City of Bangor, Chapter 165, Land Development Code, 4 165-128(C)(11), Street Right -of -Way Widths, to Reduce Minimum Right - of -Way Widths in Certain Subdivisions. Responsible Department Legal The purpose of this amendment is to allow a commercial/industrial subdivision that ends in a cul-de-sac and that has ten or fewer lots to utilize a 66 -foot wide right-of-way rather than an ao-foot wide right-of-way, provided no traffic hazard is created. Department Head MJanNag^er'.s`Comments: t, Vt•'f""^ O'nc3 - .vy�llsor w.t #iV� ��u,,,, ,DG`S �.Frv-rM-sd4 V� CityManager Associated Information: Finance Director Legal Approval: ry Solic Introduced for Passage First Reatlin@@ n Page _ of ReferralrL. 05-8) "sjg« to councilor Gioty ek February 28. zoos CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE.) Ordinance, Bmending the Code of the City of Bangor, Chapter 165, Land Development Code, § 165-128(C)(11), Street Right -of -Way Widths, to Reduce Minimum Right - of -Way Widths in Certain Subdivisions. Be!lor0anedbyBre Qq' ofd as fzsill : That the Code of the City of Bangor, Chapter 165, § 165-128(C)(11) be amended as follows: (a) Street right-of-way widths shall not be less than the following: Street Type Right -of -Way (feet) Residential access 50 Residential 60 Collector/commercial/industrial service 80 Major arterial 100 Freeway (divided highway) 120 Rural 66 Notwiffistandino subsection a above commercial or Industrial service riaht-of-way width may be reduced to 66 feet where r1l the f terminates in a cul de -sac and services no through traffic Rl the cul-de-sac serves no mare than ten (10) lots antl 131 The City Enoineer Engineerissues a wnttgrt th t the reduced right-of-way- 'tlth will he sufficient tcmmodate the Proiected trafficn aand utility needs the proposed development served by the street IN CITY COUNCIL February 28. 2005 F1fat Reading d Referred Co Planning y 1 IN CITY COUNCIL March 14. 20054 Notion Mede and seconded for Passage Notion Doubted Vote; 4-1 Councilors voting yea: Caolvell Farrington, Greene. Ramses, Stone and Tremble Cownol,rs voting w: G[atufcR # Ila -8L ORDINANCE (]TILE,) Avevdin6 eh4�Code Of Cbe Ctly Of Bmgor. FCer 1 5. Lend Development Code. S 145-128 (C)(). Street Right -Of- Nay Nidihn. to Deduce Mini® Right -Of -Nay Widths in Certain Subdivisions A.ngnmm coane0o. 6�" Excerpt from Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2005 Meeting Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code Chapter 165- 128 (C) (11), Street Right -of -Way Widths, W Reduce Minimum Right -of -Way Widths in Certain Subdivisions. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 05- 87. Chairman Guerette opened the public hearing. lames Ring, City Engineer, represented the applicant, Ory of Bangor. Mr. Ring explained that this application is for an amendment to the City's Land Development Code Chapter 165-128 C, (11) Right -of -Way Widths. Mr. Ring explained that the Land Development Code currently does not make a distinction on the sire of commercial or industrial type roadways. R Just has one requirement of 80 feet as a minimum. in looking at the number of commercial or industrial park type rights-of-way there is a great variation ranging from 50 feet up W 100 feet of right-of-way width. In cases where there are large developments or high traffic generating developments it would be understandable why one might see more than 80 feet. There are a couple of places in Bangor where the right-of-way Is only 50 feet in a commercial or small industrial park. At the time they were constructed, the requirement was only 50 feet. Mr. Ring explained that an applicant had approached the City regarding a proposed subdivision located off of Mecaw Read who felt that the 80 fact right - Df -way created a hardship for his proposed subdivision. The applicant asked the City to take a look at this requirement. Staff reviewed the request and with some limitations saw no reason to require an 80 -foot right-of-way, for smaller developments. Mr. Ring indicated that Staff would recommend the proposed amendment contained in C.O.#05-87 to change the Ordinance to make a distinction for small commercial or Industrial seryice type rights-of-way, for a reduction provided that: the right-of-way terminates in a cul-de-sac and serves no thou traffic both presently and in the future; that the cul-de-sac serves no more than 10 lots; and that the City Engineer issue a written report that the reduced right-of-way width will be sufficient to accommodate the projected traffic generation and utility needs of the proposed development served by the street. Mr. Masters asked for a definition of right-of-way. Mr. Ring explained that a right-of-way, in terms of public streets, is actually the land that will be owned by the City. It is not an easement. A right-of-way is not Just the street pavement it is the full width within which the City or public utilities can locate their facilities. In the case of a 66 -foot right-of-way that the adjacent property abuts, that would be in public ownership. For quite a number of years now when public streets are dedicated and accepted there is a requirement that the City receive a deed to the land so that the City owns this land in fee. Within a 66 -foot wide street, there might be a 30 -foot wide travelway of pavement that leaves 18 feet on either side which would allow open ditching, which is typical on these types of streets, and where over head utility poles, etc could be located. Mr. Masters asked if the streets were centered within the right-of-way. Mr. Ring noted that most street pavements are constructed to be centered within street rights-of-way, but not always. There may be topographical issues that might support off -setting the street slightly. Mr. Masters asked if the entire 66 feet is the City's responsibility. Mr. Ring indicated that it is. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had concerns about this amendment due to the recent concerns regarding hall First, the proposed language talks about the 66 -foot width where the cul-de-sac serves no more than ten lots. He asked if the entire street would serve 10 lots or the cul-de-sac section of the street would serve 10 lots. Mr. Ring indicated that it would be the entire street. Mr. Rosenblatt asked with respect to each lot, if there could be more than one commercial or industrial use on that lot. Mr. Ring said that that was possible. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that them was no mention as to the length of the mad. Mr. Ring indicated that the size would be dictated by the number of lots and would not be allowed to service any thru traffic. Mr. Ring indicated that Staff worked with the Legal Department to provide some parameters that the Staff could be comfortable with. For example, in a situation where a piece of property was to be developed such as the proposed subdivision located off of Mecaw Road, If that subdivision could be extended to serve future commercial land, then in reviewing this as the City Engineer, he would have reservations. In instances such as this where there is a physical limitation such as a deep ravine and gully there is no logical way that a street could be extended to serve more than the area proposed. Mr. Ring noted that this is similar to residential cul-tle-sars where the street right-of-way is less than those rights-of-way for thru streets. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the City Engineer knew what specific uses are being proposed in a subdivision when he issues that report. Mr. Ring indicated Mat all of the uses allowed would be considered. He added that the current industrial park roads may serve several side streets and are 66 feet or less. When the requirement was changed be 80 feet, a number of years ago, the concern was that we wanted to make sure that we had a street that could potentially serve a very large area to allow for enough right-of-way width. Mr. David Moyse indicated that the roquest Is a result of a subdivision project that he will be seeking approval of. He indicated that he is proposing a 1,000 -foot street with a cul -de -sag. Only four of the proposed lots are located in the City of Bangor the other lots are located in Hampden. Mr. Masters indicated that he though it was nice to put this amendment forward to help the applicant, but asked if there was a way that the City Council could provide a waiver in this particular instance without an amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Ring noted that he could not think of any instance where the City Council has done this, particularly on a zoning issue. What this would apply to would be a Planning Board Review. Mr. Moyse noted that Assistant City Solicitor Hamer had indicated that this was the only selutbn to this problem. Chairman Guerette closed the public hearing and asked for questions from the Board. Mr. Wheeler said that an exception cannot be made to an ordinance on the books. It either has W be repealed or amended. He asked what the Planning Board's legal authority in this Is. Mr. Ring indicated that an ordinance change can only be accepted or rejected by the City Council. Ordinances that relate to Land Development Code issues, zoning, etc. are introduced at City Council and then referred to the Planning Board. The Planning Board, as in the case of a zone change, would make its recommendation and that would go back to the City Council for action. This item is referred to the Planning Board for its consideration and recommendation. Planner Gould indicated that Staff had no issue with the adequacy of a 66 -foot right-of-way. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend approval of this zoning amendment to the City Council. Mr. Gould indicated that he would like to see the City adopt a set of road standards that would deal with the length of roads, length of streets without curbs. He noted that Staff does a lot of these things in-house as it has a very capable Engineering Staff, but It would be nice to have it written down as a code. Chairman Guerette moved W recommend to the City Council that the zoning amendment contained in C.O. k 05-87 to reduce minimum right-of-way widths in certain subdivisions, be approved. Mr. King seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt outlined the reasons why he would he voting against the motion. First, the proposed amendment has no length limitation, only a limit on the number of lots. Secondly, the requirement that the cul-de-sac serve no more than 10 lots, as currently worded, some could argue that the reduced width applies so long as the cul-de-sac portion of the street serves no more than 10 lots. Thirdly, streets are often extended past their initial cul-de-sac. The Planning Board has seen this in Meir experience. He was not sure what would happen then. Fourth, he had concerns about the report from the City Engineer in cases where changes in usage, which inevitably will occur, and the traffic associated with those changes. He said that the Board is dealing with any industrial or commercial use and there could be a large variance in the amount of traffic associated with those sorts of uses. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he Is fearful that as those changes take place, there will be inadequate street widths. Mr. Wheeler said that he is in agreement with most of Mr. Rosenblatts points. Principally he would not be supporting this amendment because it is being passed through the Planning Board for opinion and recommendation only, and not for final disposition. He mid that while he agrees with the Planning Staff that a lot of Ordinances need to be updated and revised, he did not feel that a piecemeal approach is the appropriate way to do it, particularly at this time with the Comprehensive Plan Update already upon them. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would vote against this amendment as a matter of principal only. Mr. Guerette asked for a motion. The Board voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed to recommend to the City Council approval of C.O. # 05-87.