Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-10 Planning Board Minutes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nat Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler Alice Brown Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Peter Witham Bangor Daily News Dawn Gagnon City Councilors Geoffrey Gratwick Susan Hawes Two citizens present Mr. Gould recapped what was finished. The Housing section was finished by updating or eliminating parts of the 2000 Housing supplement. The Economic element was done, Public Facilities finished, Transportation Mr. Ring said would be ready by the th January 24, and Physical Development the Board just went through. We were hoping to hear from the Administrative Division of the City on Fiscal Policy, but have not. Natural Resources, Historic and Archeological, State and Regional, we have been through. After they are all finished and put together the implementation policy could be looked at. At this point it makes sense to start thinking about dates for a public presentation meeting and how it should be done. It has been about 12 months since the neighborhood meetings began. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the maps that were in the room. Mr. Gould said that the Land Use Concepts map represents the last changes that the Board had worked on and the Zoning Policy map is in progress. Mr. Guerette noted that they had been worked on. Mr. Gould said that these are drafts of the proposed zoning policies. Ms. Brown asked if the boundaries used for the areas were based on parcel information. Mr. Gould said that they are approximate and there was discussion about decisions the Board would have to make on future zone changes. In this update there were a lot of gaps filled in. By definition white is rural on the map, but there have been a lot of gaps between the colored areas. There was a request about what had been rezoned. It was explained that they are not the existing zoning districts, but zoning policies for any future zone change requests. A commercial area on Griffin Road Kev-Lan was noted and changed to a smaller area. The Institutional area on Broadway and Center Street were noted. There was discussion about printing full-sized copies for each Board Member and staff would do that. Ms. Mitchell asked about State Street and if it reflected what was there. Mr. Gould indicated that it was noted that it does now, whereas the current Land Use policy and the Zoning Policy maps ignored the existing uses and zones. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the map reflected the Mall/Marsh task force recommendations they did. There was a question about what why all the white was there, but it was recommended to be rural. There was discussion about the Primary Service area boundary, what it represented, and how it affected use and zoning policies in different parts of the City. It was noted that all of the maps show an approximation of boundaries, which for policies are guiding documents and do not need to be ground-controlled. The current zoning map, though, is based on parcel boundaries. Mr. Gould answered a question about the two heavier dashed lines in the current Zoning Policy map whereas the proposed Zoning Policy map only has an outer dashed line. He said that the original concept was to have two sets zoning districts with corresponding development standards. One set was for the older, denser, built-up, inner area and the other set was for the newer, more spacious, less developed area. There was a concern that the larger setbacks desired for the undeveloped area would cause a hardship in the older areas. Over time since 1991 there have been cases where the zones have become mixed. The less restrictive inner city standards have been more desirable all over the City, have been misused, and have been used even by the City itself in developing areas. Mr. Rosenblatt said that one source of trouble in the existing maps is the inconsistencies and the new ones look better. He asked about the area near Essex Woods and what the two colors represented. Mr. Gould explained that one area represents Parks and Open space the other is State-mandated Resource Protection District. For some reason the area around the City Forest was represented as Parks 2 and Open Space in the current zoning policy, but Mr. Gould thought the use there was more in keeping with Rural Residence and Agriculture rather than Parks and Open space, such as Bass or Hayford Parks. Mr. Ring asked why land owned by the City, zoned P&O and used as P&O, it should not be shown as P&O. There was discussion about Essex Woods and the City Forest. There were questions about the cemeteries and that they are Government and Institutional Service not Parks and Open Space even though they may be open. The Board looked at the existing zoning map and it showed the City’s Essex Woods as Low Density Residential, Rural Residence and Agriculture, and Resource Protection even though it is used as a park. Likewise the City Forest is shown as Rural Resource and Agriculture, Resource Protection, and Government and Institutional Service where the old City dump is. Mr. Gould quipped that he didn’t want to have policy map show Parks and Open Space to forestall someone building a stadium there. He guessed that it would be rezoned to P&O only if the City needed to do something there. Mr. Guerette asked if he recommended Resource Protection. Mr. Gould thought the specific areas should be Resource Protection and the area around it Rural Residence and Agriculture. Ms. Mitchell asked why the area in Essex Woods is not zoned Parks and Open Space. Mr. Gould said that it could be, but had not been done. Mr. Guerette asked if the Board wanted to go over everything individually now or wait until examining copies of them. Mr. Rosenblatt said he wondered how to get all the feedback and also the Public comment period. Mr. Guerette said that there needed to be an inventory of the incomplete sections. He said those would be Transportation and Fiscal Policy and then a final review of the land use maps. He thought the Transportation section was not lengthy and could be looked over in one meeting. Fiscal Policy is also brief and has less impact on land use. If the maps are distributed before the next meeting they could be looked at He discussed the 30 day notice period before the Public Hearing and thought there could be an advertised open forum with a draft presentation of the update in case there were suggestions. At the final Public Hearing we did not want to be in a state of needing to incorporate substantial changes. The calendar was looked at. When all of the Board comments are incorporated and maps updated, then the Board would be in a better position to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Ring said that the Transportation Section was being typed and would be ready at the next meeting. He had spoken to Mr. Barrett about the Fiscal Policy section and that might be ready also. Mr. Ring said that Staff would get copies of maps for the Board to review for the next Comp Plan update meeting. He thought there would be two more 3 meetings and said that Transportation is 12 pages that can be streamlined plus changes. There was agreement that the documents if short could be done with the maps. There were more questions and there was much more discussion speculating about the number of meetings the rest of the process would take. There was a discussion about a pragmatic ending time for the process so that it could go to the Council, maybe the end of March. At the Public meeting there would be a last draft copy of the report. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the report when advertised would be the last draft. He asked if the changes heard during the 30 days or at the Public Hearing would extend the time frame. Mr. Gould said that if they are substantial changes it would require another advertising for 30 days. Mr. Ring said that the report would need to be final at the advertising for the Public hearing. Comments would be gathered during the 30 days and at the Public Hearing, but no decisions on changes would be made until the end of the Public Hearing. Then the decision on changes would be made, and if substantial, would require a another Public Hearing. Mr. Rosenblatt wondered if there could be something for January 31 for the public to look at before changes are made and then advertising on February 14. Mr. Guerette said that it is what Staff can get together. Mr. Wheeler asked what kind of responses would be generated from comments. Mr. Rosenblatt speculated on what they might be. Mr. Wheeler thought this was a revision, but reminded everyone that it was an update and there was no dramatic shift being recommended to the City Council. Ms. Mitchell said that she did not want to rush Staff and set a date if another 2 weeks are needed. She said that the Implementation section was done yet and time had not been discussed for that most important piece. Mr. Gould said that the next meetings will be light on the regular agendas. He said that it has been helpful to have Mr. Guerette and Mr. Wheeler push this process through. In the end though the amount of time spent will be forgotten and the end product will be the focus. Ms. Brown said spending the time at the end is important and not rush it. Mr. Guerette said that it was time to start planning for the presentation. He asked Ms. Mitchell what she meant by the Implementation Section not being done. She said she 4 thought Board was going to work on the list of things recommended for being worked on. If there were a draft that the Board could work on it then that would be fine. Mr. Gould said that he envisioned the Board going through each section and coming up with a list of tasks and who would be responsible for them. Mr. Guerette asked if the Board felt when the document was 99% complete it still seemed appropriate to have a comment workshop before the 30-day advertisement. There was consensus that it would be. Mr. Gould said that most changes to the drafts are minor and will not take a long time. Mr. Guerette asked what percentage is done. Mr. Gould said 20%. Mr. Guerette said th that another meeting should occur on the 24 and we’ll see how much could be done. th Mr. Rosenblatt asked if a piece were ready before the next regular meeting on the 17 could the Board look at it then. Ms. Mitchell said at least the maps could be distributed. Mr. Guerette asked Mr. Gould to run through the outline for a public comment period. Mr. Gould said that he wanted to present a date, but he was calling the Public Presentation meeting an opportunity to review all of the Board’s past year activities beginning with the neighborhood meetings through updating the existing maps. He said there is another half of the Plan that has not been looked at. Only the back Policy half, the Planning Element of the plan was looked at. Mr. Guerette asked if in 6 months time will the Comprehensive Plan consist of the first old half and the updated second half. Mr. Gould said that we have not touched the first data half, but it is still part of the plan. Mr. Guerette thought that the first half was going to be discarded and Mr. Wheeler remembered that too. Mr. Guerette said that it was not important, but in the interest in cleaning up the Plan then keeping it does not add to that goal. Mr. Wheeler agreed. They asked the Board members to consider that. Mr. Guerette thought that it seemed sometime in mid-March might be the Public Hearing. There was more discussion. Ms. Valerie Carter asked questions on if the Transportation section might include more pedestrian discussion. Mr. Guerette thought the comments could be reflected in both the Transportation and the Physical Development sections and her comments could be provided in writing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm. 5