T&E Committee #3&4
June 24, 2010
MEMORANDUM
June 22, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy & Environment Committee
Jeff
zYOn'~giSlative
Attorney
Subdivision Regulation Amendment (SRA) 10-01; Public Utility Easements - Urban
Roads; and Bill 17-10, Public Utility Easement - Urban Roads
SRA 10-01; Public Utility Easements Urban Roads; and Bi1117-10, Public Utility Easement - Urban
Roads, sponsored by Council member EIrich, were introduced on April 13,2010.
Generally, the Planning Board requires a public utility easement (PUE) along the edge of the roadway right­
of-way; the PUE is generally in the area between the sidewalk: and the building. The easement gives
utilities the right to access to their service lines. Buildings must be located outside of the easement areas.
This suburban model of development is appropriate for most areas of the County; it is a problem in
pedestrian-oriented areas where it is desirable for the building to be built next to the public sidewalk. Under
permits issues by the Department of Permitting Services (DPS), public utilities are allowed in a Central
Business District's public rights-of-way (ROWs).
It
is not clear how utilities would be accommodated in urbanizing areas such as White Flint. The design
guidelines call for buildings next to the sidewalk. DPS does not want utilities in the ROW unless it is the
last resort.
I
SRA 10-01 would allow appropriate building setbacks by prohibiting public utility easements along urban
roads
2 .
The Planning Board would have the authority to allow a public utility easement along an urban road
Utilities would be under brick, concrete, or asphalt. Major repairs require tearing up hard surfaces and disrupting
pedestrians and motor vehicles. Given the cost, time, and inconvenience, utilities would also prefer to
be
in the right-of-way
as a last resort.
2
Under §49-32(c)(l) an "urban road" is "a road segment in or abutting a Metro Station Policy Area, Town Center Policy
Area, or other urban area expressly identified in a Council resolution." The current Metro Station Policy Areas include:
Shady Grove, White Flint, Twinbrook, Grosvenor, Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights, Glenmont, Wheaton CBD, and Silver
Spring CBD. Germantown Town Center is the only designated town center. The other areas identified as urban by resolution
are: Clarksburg, Damascus, Olney, the North Bethesda CommerciallMixed Use area, the Montgomery Hills Parking Lot
District and the Flower/Piney/Arliss Commercial Areas.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
if
it
finds that the resulting building setbacks are appropriate? The SRA was introduced with a companion
Bill. Bill 17-10 would
require
the Department of Transportation to allow public utilities to be located in
the ROW of an urban road.
The Planning Board recommended approval of SRA 10-01 and Bill 17-10 with modifications.
It
recognized that placing utilities in ROWs should be an option but not a mandate. The Board recognized
that the SRA would give it the authority to reject a PUE if it did not result in desirable building setbacks but
also wanted flexibility to address streetscapes. The Planning Board recommendation was consistent with
the Planning Staff recommendation.
On June 15, 2010 the Council held a public hearing. The County Executive expressed concern over
requiring
public utilities to be in the public ROW. Testimony pointed out that the Bill would limit the
Executive Branch's discretion and its ability to coordinate issues through the permitting process. There was
no other testimony. Staffleamed that PEPCO favors the approval ofthe SRA and ZTA.
Issues
Who should determine when public utilities should be allowed in the public right-of-way?
Currently, DPS has discretion to allow utilities in the public right-of-way. The Department issues permits
when this discretion is exercised. The combination of the SRA and Bill would allow the Planning Board to
force DPS to issue such permits. The Planning Board recommended allowing them the explicit authority to
reject PUE on urban roads (after considering both setbacks and streets cape effects), but would not require
DPS to include public utilities in the right-of-way. The Executive agreed with the substance of the Planning
Board's recommendation. This combination would leave utilities in limbo if they received conflicting
decisions.
Staff has no problem amending the SRA and Bill to state the order of location preferences outside and
inside the ROWand the procedures for using the
ROW\
but
staff believes that the Council should
determine which agency has the final determination.
As introduced, the SRA and Bill give the Planning
Board the authority to require DPS to allow utilities in ROWs. The Council could reverse those roles. If
DPS can refuse utilities in ROWs, then the Planning Board needs to know that the utilities MUST be
accommodated on private property.
If
the Council agrees with allowing the possibility of a stalemate between departments, it has the following
alternatives:
1)
2)
Do not adopt either SRA 10-01 or Bill 17-10. The status quo allows for conflicting
decisions; or
a)
Amend SRA 10-01 to require the Planning Board to reject a PUE in a public or
private alley, or under private surface parking before rejecting any PUE outside of
The mandatory referral process under Article 28 includes the placement of public utilities.
4
Ifno PUE along the street ROW locate utilities:
I)
a private or public alley;
2)
under private sidewalk;
3)
under surface parking;
4)
under the public sidewalk;
5)
under the on-street parking lane; and as a last resort
6)
under the roadway travel lanes.
DPS could allow work in the ROW by permit which could allocate the cost of repair to the utility
3
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
b)
the right-of-way; and
Amend Bill 17-10 to:
(i)
change the "must" to "may";
(ii)
require utilities to be in a PUE, if a PUE exists, except if more space is
needed and there are no prudent alternatives;
(iii) establish preferences for the location of utilities in the ROW; and
(iv) require permits for work
in
the right-of-way and to assign responsibilities.
This packet contains:
SRA 10-01
Bi1l17-10
Legislative Request Report
Planning Board and Staff recommendation
County Executive recommendation
Circle
#
1-
3-
7
2
5
6
11
12 -13
F:\Land Use\sRAs\SRA 10-01 PUE- urban roads\SRA 10-01 T&E worksession June 24.doc
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ordinance No.:
Subdivision Regulation Amend. No.: 10-01
Concerning: Public Utility Easements ­
Urban Roads
Revised:
4/1/10;
Draft No. 1
Introduced: April 13, 2010
Public Hearing:
Adopted:
Effective:
COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COLINCIL FOR THAT PORTION OF
THE MARYLAND-WASHINGTON REGIONAL DISTRICT WITHIN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmember EIrich
AN AMENDMENT
to the Subdivision Regulations to:
Prohibit public utility easement along urban roads under certain circumstances.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 50, Subdivision of Land
Section 50-40, Public utilities
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
([Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added
by
amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
ORDINANCE
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the District Council for that
portion ofthe Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery County, Maryland,
approves the following ordinance:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1
Sec.
1.
Section 50-40 is amended as follows:
Sec. 50-40. Public utilities.
(a)
General. Pipelines, electric power and energy transmission and distribution
lines and cables, and telephone and telegraph lines and cables [shall] must be
underground in a subdivision where the preliminary subdivision plan is filed
subsequent to June 6, 1967.
(Q)
2
3
4
5
6
7
Unless the Planning Board determines that the resulting building setbacks
would be appropriate,
f!
public utility easement on
f!
record plat must not be
required if the easement would abut an urban road as defined
Qy
Chapter 49
Section 32(c)(1).
8
9
10
11
12
W
Installation. Underground installation shall be required but not limited to
f!
total of six (6) or more buildings in a subdivision. Temporary overhead lines
[shall] must be permitted for any total of less than six (6) buildings in a
subdivision.
13
14
15
16
17
[(c)1@
* * *
Sec. 2. Effective date.
This ordinance takes effect 20 days after the date of
Council adoption.
18
19
20
21
Approved:
22
23
24
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
25
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
26
27
28
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
17-10
Concerning: Public Utility Easenient­
Urban Roads
Revised: 4-1-10
Draft No.
Introduced:
April 13, 2010
Expires:
October 13, 2011
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
-,N~o~n!.!:::e
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _. Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By:
Councilmember Elrich
AN
ACT to:
(1) allow public utilities in the right-of-way of urban roads.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 49, Road Code
Section 49-32. Design standards for types of roads.
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deleted from existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
17-10
1
Sec.
1.
Section 49-32 is amended as follows:
(a)
The design standards adopted under this Article govern the construction or
reconstruction of any County road except Rustic Roads and Exceptional Rustic
Roads.
2
3
4
5
*
(b)
* *
6
7
8
A limited segment of a County road may be designed to vary slightly from the
applicable standards, criteria, or specifications, as necessary to adjust to site-
specific conditions, as long as the road's typical cross-section and other
attributes confonn to the applicable standards, criteria, or specifications.
9
10
11
*
(c)
(1)
*
*
In this Article and the standards adopted under it:
an 'urban' road is a road segment
in
or abutting a Metro Station Policy
Area, Town Center Policy Area, or other urban area expressly identified
12
13
14
15
in
a Council resolution;
*
(d)
* *
16
17
18
19
The minimum right-of-way for a road may be specified
in
the applicable
master plan or sector plan for the area where the road is located.
*
(g}
*
*
Public utilities must be allowed in urban road rights-of-way.
20
21
Approved:
22
23
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 17-10
24
25
26
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
27
28
Date
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
(j)'
- 3
-f:\law\bills\1 017 public utility easements in row\1 Oxx public utility easement in row.do
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 17-10
Public Utility Easement
-
Urban Roads
DESCRIPTION:
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITIDN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
This Bill would require the Department of Transportation to allow
public utilities in urban roads.
Public utility easements that abut urban roads can create undesirable
building setbacks
in
urban areas.
To allow public utilities to use the public right-of-way.
Department of Transportation, Planning Board
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
Public utilities are in the public rights-of way in Central Business
Districts.
Jeffrey L. Zyontz, Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7896
None.
Not applicable
@
f:\law\bills\ 1017 public utility easements in row\legislative request report.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING
BOARD
THE J\L-\RYLAND-NATIONAL C>\PITAL PARK A..""lD PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICE OF TIlE
CHAIRMAN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
June 10, 2010
TO:
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the
District Council for the Maryland-Washington Regional District in
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County Planning Board
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No. 10-01
&
Bill No. 17-10
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Montgomery County Planning Board of The Maryland-National Capital Park
and Planning Commission reviewed Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.1 0-01
&
Bill No. 17-10 at its regular meeting on June 10, 2010. By a vote of 5:0, the Board
recommends approval of the Subdivision Regulation Amendment & Bill with
mod ifications.
The proposed Subdivision Regulations Amendment (SRA) adds a specific
provision to Chapter 50 that will prevent the creation of a public utilities easement
adjacent to certain road rights-of-way in urban areas, and the proposed Bill will add the
requirement in Chapter 49 that public utilities must be allowed within these rights-of­
way. Under Chapter 50 of the County Code (the "Subdivision Regulations"), Section 50­
40(c), the Planning Board is prohibited from granting final approval of a record plat to
subdivide land unless the subdivider of the land provides certificates or commitments
from applicable utility companies or public agencies that arrangements have been made
to ensure all public utilities will be provided. Over time, a practice has evolved to meet
this requirement whereby a 10' Public Utility Easement (PUE) is required to be created
along road rights-of-way as part of the plat to ensure that a location is available for
installation of gas, electric and telecommunication lines. The exceptions to this practice
are road rights-of-way in Central Business Districts (CBDs) where utilities are permitted
to be located in the rights-of-way.
8787
Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland
20910
Chairman's Office: 301.495.4605 Fa."{: 301.495.1320
l;\Iww.M
CParkandPlanning.org E-Mail:
mcp-chainnan@mncppc.org
(J)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Although these practices are not specifically required by the Subdivision
Regulations or the Road Code (Chapter 49 of the County Code), they have become the
recognized standards. However, in light of the recent master plans that envision higher
densities in non-CBD urban areas with minimum building setbacks and streetscape
standards along roads, it has become obvious that placing utilities within road rights-of­
way should be an option for these areas as well.
The Board believes that the Department of Transportation, in the case of Chapter
49, should have the ability to modify proposed utility locations based on factors that
could adversely impact public safety, pedestrian accessibility, or the placement of other
existing and planned public facilities and appurtenances. As such the Board
recommends adding language to proposed Section 49-32(g) to address this concern.
SRA 10-01 would not permit public utility easements along urban roads unless
the Planning Board finds that the resulting building setbacks are appropriate. In
determining the necessity for a public utility easement along an urban road, the Board
believes that it should also factor the appropriateness of the resulting streetscape since
streetscape design is also paramount along urban streets.
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the attached report is a true and correct copy of the
technical staff report and the foregoing is the recommendation adopted by the
Montgomery County Planning Board of The Maryland-National Capital Park and
Planning CommiSSion, at its regular meeting held in Silver Spring, Maryland, on
Thursday, June 10,2010.
RH:GR
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1HENL\RYLAND-NATION.ALCAPITALPARKA..."JDPL\"'''JNINGCOMMISSION
MCPB
Item
#
10
6/10/10
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
REVIEW TYPE:
PURPOSE:
June 1,2010
Montgomery County Planning Board
_
Revi~ I~
5{j
Rose Krasnow, Chief, Developm1!ent
Ralph Wilson, Zoning Supervisoi-(21;
\9..-.J
Greg Russ, Zoning Coordinator
Cathy Conlon, Subdivision Supervisor
Subdivision Regulation Amendment
&
Chapter 49, Road Code
Generally amend the Subdivision Regulations to prohibit public
utility easement along urban roads under certain circumstances.
SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT: 10-01
ROAD CODE AMENDMENT (Chapter 49):
Bi1l17-10
INTRODUCED BY:
Councilmember EIrich
INTRODUCED DATE:
April 13, 2010
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: June 10,2010
COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING: June 15,2010; 1:30pm
STAFF RECUMMENDATION Staff recommends approval ofSRA 10-01 and Bill
17-10 with the following modifications:
• SRA 10-01-- In determining the necessity for a public utility easement along an
urban road, the Planning Board should also factor the appropriateness of the
resulting streetscape (this is in conjunction with the existing proposal that factors
in the resulting building setbacks)
• Bill 17-10-Tbe bill should clearly state that the Department of Transportation
has the authority to modify proposed utility locations based on factors that could
adversely impact public safety, pedestrian accessibility, or the placement of other
existing and planned public facilities and appurtenances.
BACKGROUNDI
ANALYSIS
Under Chapter 50 of the County Code (the "Subdivision Regulations"), Section 50-40(c),
the Planning Board is prohibited from granting final approval of a record plat to
subdivide land unless the subdivider of the land provides certificates or commitments
from applicable utility companies or public agencies that arrangements have been made
to ensure all public utilities will be provided; Over time, a practice has evolved to meet
this requirement whereby a 10' Public Utility Easement (PUE) is required to be created
8787
Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director's Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MontgomeryPlanning.org
(f)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
along road rights-of-way as part of the plat to ensure that a location is available for
installation of gas, electric and telecommunication lines. The exceptions to this practice
are road rights-of-way in Central Business Districts (CBDs) where utilities are pennitted
to be located in the rights-of-way.
Although these practices are not specifically required by the Subdivision Regulations or
the Road Code (Chapter 49 of the County Code), they have become the recognized
standards. However, in light of the recent master plans that envision higher densities in
non-CBD urban areas with minimum building setbacks and streetscape standards along
roads, it has become obvious that placing utilities within road rights-of-way should be an
option for these areas as well. The proposed Subdivision Regulations Amendment (SRA)
adds a specific provision to Chapter 50 that will prevent the creation of a PUE adjacent to
certain road rights-of-way in urban areas, arid the proposed Bill will add the requirement
in Chapter 49 that public utilities must be allowed within these rights-of-way.
Councilmember EIrich sponsored SRA 10-01 and Bill 17-10 as companion legislation to
allow public utilities in the right-of way of an urban road (bill) and to allow appropriate
setbacks along urban roads by prohibiting public utility easements along urban roads. The
Planning Board would have the authority to allow a public utility easement along an
urban road if it finds that the resulting building setbacks are appropriate. This legislation
was introduced in response to a belief that public utility easements can create undesirable
building setbacks
in
urban areas. Typically in urban areas, the desire is to establish
building footprints closer to the street.
Section 49-32(c)(1) defines an ''urban road" as a
road segment in or abutting a Metro
Station Policy Area, Town Center Policy Area, or other urban area expressly identified
in a Council resolution.
The current Metro Station Policy Areas include: Shady Grove,
White Flint, Twinbrook, Grosvenor, Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights, Glenmont,
Wheaton CBD, and Silver Spring CBD. The town centers include: {Clarksburg,
Damascus, Olney, and Gennantown. Other Road Code urban areas identified include the
North Bethesda Commercial/Mixed Use area, the' Montgomery Hills Parking Lot District
arrel-the Flower/Piney/Arliss Commercial Areas.
Analysis of Proposed Legislation
The proposed amendment to Chapter 49 would allow companies to locate utilities
in
urban road rights-of-way. Staff believes that, as with the proposed subdivision regulation
amendment, the agency with delegated authority (in this case the Department of
Transportation) should have the ability to modify proposed utility locations based on
factors that could adversely impact public safety, pedestrian accessibility, or the
placement of other existing and planned public facilities and appurtenances. Staff
recommends adding language to proposed Section 49-32(g) to address this concern.
{g}
Public utilities must be allowed in urban road rights-of-way
unless the Director
of Transportation finds that any ofthe following would be adversely affected:
public safetv: handicapped or other pedestrian accessibilitv: or the placement of
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
other existing and planned public facilities and appurtenances. including traffic
control equipment. street trees. and storm water management facilities.
SRA 10-01 would not pennit public utility easements along urban roads unless the
Planning Board flnds that the resulting building setbacks are appropriate. Staff believes
that the amendment is reasonable since it provides the Board discretion in the placement
of public utility easements on record plats based of the appropriateness of the resulting
building setbacks.
In
determining the necessity for a public utility easement along an
urban road, the Planning Board should also factor. the appropriateness of the resulting
streetscape since streetscapedesign is also paramount along urban streets. As
recommended by staff, Section 50-40(b) would read as follows:
ill
Unless
Planning
determines that the resulting building setbacks
and
streetscape
would be appropriate,
!!
public utility easement
!!
record plat
not be required
if
the easement would abut an urban road as
Qy
Chapter
49 Section 32(c)(l).
.
CC/GR
Attachments
1.
2.
Proposed SRA No. 10-01 as modifled by staff
Bill No. 17-10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive Branch Public Testimony on
Bill 17-10
and SRA 10-01
The Executive Branch has concerns about proposed Bill 17-10 and SRA 10-0 I. This
legislation follows a year and a half long, highly visible stakeholder process on Context
Sensitive Road Design Standards that thoroughly addressed utility placement issues. The
Bill and SRA are unnecessary and render meaningless productive stakeholder processes.
If enacted, the Bill and SRA could have significant unintended consequences, including
increased expenses, greater potential for service disruption, greater interference with
transportation uses while utilities are being installed, repaired or serviced, and/or wider
rights-of-way.
The County currently allows utilities within the right-of-way in certain circumstances, but
only after a thorough review of preferred alternative locations, and careful coordination
with the other facilities that are placed in the right-of-way. As currently drafted, the
legislation significantly impacts Executive Branch discretion and its ability to coordinate
issues through the permitting process. Developers and utility companies will assert
utilities
must be
in the public right-of-way as a matter ofright. Logically, rights-of-way
will be wider to accommodate what heretofore has been dedicated public utility easement
area.
proposed legislation does not recognize nor address the space limitations that
makes much more difficult, or unfeasible, the placement of other already mandated
features such as Storm Water Management facilities, street trees, street lights, poles and
cabinets in support of traffic signals, and street signs.
The
Although difficult to quantify, the proposed legislation has the several foreseeable
potential fiscal impacts including:
1. More underground obstacles to work around when doing routine street
maintenance, such as installing street signs, replacing storm sewers, and widening
roads. Excavation within the right-of-way becomes more costly and risky due to
the need to protect and work around them.
2. There is greater risk of a utility being cut when placed in the right-of-way. If
utilities are located in a PUE, the utility companies are typically the only ones to
dig in that area, whereas there are many other reasons to excavate in the right-of­
way.
the simple act of installing a traffic sign could cut through a utility
line, and possible endanger the life of the worker installing the sign.
3. When a utility line is broken, there is inconvenience and other societal costs for
disruption of services. This could be very dramatic in areas where very high
densities are proposed, such as the TQD
ar~as
in White Flint.
4. Without widening rights-:of-way as provided in the recently adopted Context
Sensitive Road Design standards, the requirement for additional burdens within
the right-of-way will reduce
availability of space for other environmentally
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
desirable and necessary road features, including trees and the increasing space
needs for stonn water management.
5. Without increasing the width of the public right-of-way, placement of utilities in
the road right-of-way could very easily disrupt and inconvenience the provision of
bus service, inconvenience pedestrians and bicyclists and impede the general
traveling public during the times that utility lines are being installed or repaired.
If the legislation is to be enacted, we suggest that it be modified as follows:
1. Modify the language to say that utilities "may" be allowed in the right-of-way,
provided that certain circumstances are met, including that there is no reasonable
or feasible alternative to placing them in the public right-of-way.
2. Modify the language to state that utilities can only be installed in the right-of-way
by pennit issued by County, and in accordance with county standards.
)
3. If there is no opportunity for a PUE, we suggest the legislation prioritize the
location of the utilities as follows, unless a detailed engineering study by the'
applicant demonstrates that a different order is preferable:
a. Located in a public or private alley (at the rear of the buildings), if any
exist;
b. Located in the space between the right-of-way and building (yard, private
sidewalk, etc.), if any;
c. Located under private surface parking outside of the right-of-way, if any;
d. Located under the public sidewalk within the right-of-way;
e. Located under the on-street parking within the right-of-way, if any;
f.
Located under the roadway paving is the last resort.
L
4. Modify the language to require that for maintenance or repair of any utilities in
the right-of-way, the utility must replace, at its sole cost, the affected surface and
transition areas (streets cape, paving, etc.) to the condition that existed prior to
making the repair of the utility, or better.
5. Modify the language to state that if PUEs are indicated on the record plat, utilities
must be located within the PUE. In cases where the utility companies assert they
do not have enough room within the PUE's, the utilities should demonstrate that
there are not reasonable or prudent alternatives to the placement of utilities in the
public right-of-way.
Executive staff is available to work with the Council on the matters raised by the
proposed Bill and SRA. Thank you for your consideration.
~