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.