HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-29 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF MARCH 29, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Hal Wheeler
David Clark
Ryan King
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Bill Masters
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould – Staff Planner
James Ring – City Engineer
Peter Witham – Staff Planner
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and stated that the
meeting’s purpose is to begin a review of the Comprehensive Plan. He recommended
that discussion of the minutes that were distributed to the Board be taken up at the end
th
of the meeting if the Board is inclined. They are minutes from the March 8 Public
Hearing of the Comprehensive Plan at the Mary Snow School.
Mr. Guerette explained that had asked Staff Planner David Gould to give an
overview the existing Comprehensive Plan with the Board as a starting point for the
meeting. He spent some time thinking about a frame work for what the Board might try
to accomplish in the update of the Comprehensive Plan and came up with a few
questions to think about. Should the Board update the introduction in the
Comprehensive Plan, eliminate arcane information from the Plan, request input from
other municipal departments on sections pertinent to those departments, update
information for each of the quadrants, incorporate the transition areas into the Plan,
have discussions on changes within each of the transition areas them, and have
discussions on Ordinance text amendments for issues that have been discussed in the
past. He asked if Board members had other issues to bring up before Mr. Gould began
a verbal review of the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Gould explained that the Comprehensive Plan is compiled of many pieces
and while most of them were written and put together when he was not with the City he
did recognize some of them. He distributed an outline (below) that he had created of
the Comprehensive Plan, indicating the sections, their topics, and his comments about
the existing information.
BANGOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000
SECTION CONTENTS COMMENTS
PHASE I – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Historical Perspective Brief history and Bangor Planning OK
Existing Development Existing and recent growth could be updated
Demographics Population data & changes to 1990 update to 2000
Existing Services & Infrastructure Basic Services, Fire, Police, Parks, now dated
Schools, etc
Infrastructure Sewer, Water, Highway system
Bus, Airport,
TABULAR DATA value?
Environmental Conditions soils, water quality, wetlands, very basic info
floodplains
Agriculture & Forestry Acreage In farm & forest (timber largely Penobscot County
management) data
PHASE II – SYNTHESIS
Big Picture Concerns Emerging issues still relevant
City Resources Limited funding sources dated, but relevant
Community Survey Results Discussion of 1989 survey results now dated
Emerging Issues
Service Prioritization
Specialized Facility Complexes relevant discussion
Policy Development
Expanding Resources Valuation tables
PHASE III - PLANNING
ELEMENTS
Housing Policies Good thorough discussion of
housing
Economic Development 1997 E.D. Strategic Plan some duplication
2000 Community & Economic more duplication
Profile
Community Services Primary Service Area Concept
Several Facility Plans Good, could be updated
Transportation Summary Goals & Objectives Good, broad discussion
Physical Development Plan Development Policy Still a sound overall
development policy
sub areas - review
Fiscal Policy Revenues & Expenses numbers old but policies are
still relevant
Natural Resources Basic elements Goals, & Policies 1998 data
Regional Issues State Planning Goals - Regional OK
resources
Historic Resources History - Policies & Goals Phase I & II could be correct
section
limited discussion on
resources
APPENDICES
Airport Master Plan Out dated version
Harbor Management Plan N/A - 1989?
Airport Peripheral Lands Study N/A
Bangor Mall Subarea Plan 1989
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Bangor Center Revitalization Plan 1989
Waterfront Development Plan 1996
Downtown Circulation Plan N/A
Stillwater Ave Corridor Study likely old version - redone in
2004
PHASE IV – IMPLEMENTATION
Policy Program and Planning Good Discussion
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Capital Imp. Plan 1997-2001
ACTION PLAN Numerous policies - plans to be Good Goals - much still to do
developed
Mr. Gould explained the organization of the Comprehensive Plan into the
“Phases” of Existing Conditions, Synthesis, Planning Elements, and Implementation,
plus additional Appendices, which are plans of specific areas in the City that were then
attached to the Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that while some of the data may be
out of date, there are some policies in the Implementation section that have not yet
been implemented, although the some of the same issues have been brought up at
some of the recent neighborhood Comprehensive Plan meetings. Mr. Gould then
proceeded to discuss each of the sections of the Plan listed in the outline and indicate
which ones seemed fine as is, which ones could be updated somewhat or condensed,
and which ones were obsolete or irrelevant.
Mr. Rosenblatt interjected to inquire about a specific section, Environmental
Conditions, and if it needed to be updated. Mr. Gould indicated that the way the Plan
was organized there may be some redundancy, but more updated information may be
found in the section, Natural Resources, which was added in order for the City to have
the Plan adopted by the State.
Mr. Masters interjected to ask if he might ask a question about a specific section
of if Mr. Gould would prefer to continue. Mr. Gould indicated that he would prefer to go
through the entire outline first and then continued his discussion.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked a question about the housing section and if it was possible
to have that updated and how difficult that would be. Mr. Gould said that it depended on
the information to be updated.
Mr. Wheeler said that he would like the Planner to continue his discussion of the
outline without interruption.
Mr. Masters said that was why he asked the question and believed that was what
was decided.
Mr. Gould continued the review to the end and said that the Plan is composed of
the late 1980’s version and then pieces that were added in the late 1990’s in order to
obtain State Planning Office approval. He said that he was open to questions, but that
he thought what was begun a year ago in the update process was the update of
Planning Elements and identification of transition areas within the City and an update of
specific development policies in physical areas of the City.
Mr. Guerette said that he would like to have discussion of how to go about doing
this project, but that at some point the Board would have to stop discussing how and
just start doing it.
Mr. Roseblatt told the Board that the State Planning Office has a document
called Updating your Comprehensive Plan and recommended it to Board members. He
said he thought the Board should identify what sections need to be updated, then
discuss how to update each one. Updating your Comprehensive Plan recommends four
methods: 1. take selected sections and update them; 2. rewrite policy sections and
update inventories; 3. add a supplement or updated layer to the plan for 2005; and 4. do
an entirely new plan. He didn’t think the Board could decide until the existing Plan is
reviewed.
Mr. Masters agreed that the Board should review the whole Plan and indicated
that one method for reviewing it might be for the Board members to pair up and have
each pair cover selected sections of the Plan. It would allow the Board to effectively go
through the whole Plan. Mr. Masters indicated that he had gone through three
Comprehensive Plans to compare them for the class that he is in.
Mr. Guerette thought Mr. Master’s idea of dividing the group to cover certain
sections was a good idea. He asked if it would also follow that the Board members
covering certain sections should also ask for more current information from the City
department that the section is pertinent to.
Mr. Masters thought that information would need to be obtained anyway, but that
the Board members would find parts of the Plan that are good or bad and need to be
updated and would present their findings to the rest of the Board. He thought that if the
Plan were divided among members it might take 4 meetings to discuss the whole Plan.
Mr. Wheeler indicated that he agreed and that he did not see how this process
could be effected without involving the individuals or departments related to specific
sections of the Comprehensive Plan, and also involving stakeholders in different areas
of the City.
Mr. Guerette asked Mr. Wheeler to identify those who he felt were necessary.
Mr. Wheeler listed the Community and Economic Development director, Parks and
Recreation director, Bass Park director, Waterfront Development Committee of the
Council or other pertinent entity, and also stakeholders such as business leaders and
individuals and groups concerned with the healthy balance between natural areas and
economic forces within the City.
Mr. King indicated that he understood this process to be an interim update of the
Comprehensive Plan and not a complete update of it. He said that the Board could go
ahead and work on a complete update, but it was not due until five years from now. He
said he would rather spend the time reviewing the comments made at the workshops
and working them into the appropriate sections and leaving other sections for the full
update in five years.
Mr. Roseblatt asked Mr. Gould about the implementation plan of action items.
They appear to be grouped by planning element, which he thought were each of the
Planning Elements. He asked if the actions are actually listed at the end of each of the
Elements. Mr. Gould said that he had only done a cursory review and did not know if
they were. But he noted that Applendix B, Plan Element Action Plan, has its end a table
and status for each of the elements, including the responsible City departments for each
one.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the end point is to revise the action items by updating the
respective planning elements.
Mr. Masters noted that Mr. King had a good point that this was not a revision, but
a review of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Board did not have to make any
changes, but could if there were glaring deficiencies. He said that the Board could
discuss endlessly what to do, but needed to adopt an action plan of its own and that this
was just a review.
Mr. Rosenblatt thought this was more than just a review, but an update. Mr.
Masters said that he understood this to be just a review and asked Mr. Gould his
opinion. Mr. Gould said that the intent is an interim update of items that are out of sync.
Mr. Masters said that the only way to that was to do a review and that it did not have to
be by his particular way, but it was just a suggestion.
Ms. Mitchell said that she thought there was confusion on the goal, but her
understanding was that it is a comprehensive plan update. She thought that the State’s
guide to updating the plan was a good guide and that the first step mentioned in it was a
review. She asked if there was agreement on that. She then asked if everyone thought
this was an update as well. There were no disagreements.
City Engineer James Ring indicated that for the past year the project was
discussed by former Planning Officer Katherine Weber as an update. He said that he
thought the Board should review the Planning Elements, but what the Board should
consider are the planning aspects and areas of the City that have seen many changes
in the past five years. He said the discussion of updating the Housing Element was
pertinent, but what he thought they should focus on would fall under the Planning
Elements. An update of Phase 1, Existing Conditions, would be mostly data gathering.
Phase 2, Synthesis, section would involve mostly a review and could easily be updated.
But in thinking of the meetings that were held in the four quadrants and the public
comments, he thought that the big picture issues contained in the Planning Elements
and particular areas of change within the City, so-called transition areas, would be the
areas of focus. He saw this as an update, which is entirely different from a rewrite.
Mr. Guerette agreed that all of the discussions had centered on those sections of
the Plan and that it was important to make sure that the Planning Elements are still
relevant. He suggested that the update discussions may need to continue as extra
meetings. While everyone seemed to be drawn to the beginning of the plan where data
obviously needs to be updated, that could be handled later, but the more necessary
review is in the Planning Elements section. He liked the idea of splitting up and
reviewing certain sections and then getting back together. He thought it would be
difficult to get all of the work done in regular meetings and that additional review time is
needed.
Mr. Masters said that North Yarmouth’s revision of their Plan took two years.
Ms. Mitchell asked if there is a way to balance getting new information while
reviewing the old information or if there Staff time before the review is started to obtain
updated information.
Mr. Gould said the City anticipates that Staff will do most of the writing and
updating. In lieu of splitting up the Plan among Board members it would be helpful for
the Board to indicate which sections need no changes, minor changes, major changes,
or a rewrite. He indicated that part of the reason that the focus has been on the
development policy section of the Plan is that much of the change in data, does not
have a great affect policy decisions how areas such as the Penjajawoc Marsh should be
treated.
Ms. Mitchell thought that with housing or transportation could have a bigger
impact than some numbers might on those areas of the Plan and perhaps some of the
data could be updated.
Mr. Clark thought rather than rewriting the entire history of Bangor in three
months would be a bit months that we are doing a review/update. Government has a
tendency to overthink and drag out the project. Could it be as simple as having
everyone having a homework assignment to discuss Housing on such and such a date
or transportation. Then assign a section for anther date and so on.
Mr. Wheeler thought that Mr. Clark’s suggestion was an equally valid method.
He thought assigning each section to just two people it would be difficult if the two
people ended up not reaching a consensus, so there should be at least three people for
each section.
Mr. Masters said that method would be fine. Perhaps one person could decide
which section is more important to focus on and then assign it to everyone.
Mr. King said that he supports Mr. Clark’s suggestion and that he would rather
have the opportunity to review each part of the plan and develop his own opinion on all
and not just part of it.
Councilor Geoffrey Gratwick was present and asked if could make a comment. It
seemed that the questions should be asked on each section and let the most important
ones float to the top. In the housing section for example an intense review of housing
controls should be undertaken. But he didn’t think the Board would find they could
conduct that, but it is a question nonetheless in the early step.
Mr. Guerette made a recommendation that in preparation for the next meeting he
would ask everyone on the Board to be prepared to discuss Elements 1 and 2. If the
agenda is lengthy, then the Board might only be able to discuss the first. What he
meant by discuss was to understand what the planning elements are and view each
section in light of what is known today five year later, such as the data produced from
the transition plans and input from the Quadrant meetings. If Board members feel that
additional information is needed, then that request can be made at the next meeting.
He said that he thought this would be a beginning and there is only one week until the
next meeting, and that every meeting should include discussion on the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Wheeler agreed that the discussion should continue at the regularly
scheduled meetings, but wondered if another meeting could be scheduled for 2 weeks
from tonight. He was not sure if the Board would be ready for a substantive discussion
in one week, but he would do what the Chairman asked.
Mr. Rosenblatt suggested that maybe two elements might be too much for the
next meeting, but that the discussion should continue. He asked Mr. Gould if Element 2
had already been superceded.
Mr. Gould said that he believed it had been updated and that the Board might
wait until he obtained copies of it from Community and Economic Development. He
suggested that the Board members go through the comments from the neighborhood
meetings to consider dealing the topics that came up again and again and not spend as
much time on those sections that did not seem to be of major concern.
Mr. Masters indicated that he believed the amount necessary is however long it
takes and that he did not want to be rushed into it.
Ms. Mitchell said that it seemed like the Board was being asked to focus on just
the Planning Elements. Mr. Guerette said that was so. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Gould if
he meant that the Board did not have time to do all of it. Mr. Gould said that he did not
mean there was no time. He indicated that when Ms. Weber was beginning the
discussion a year ago, the focus was on several areas in the City that were undergoing
change and that they needed to be addressed in the Comp Plan review. It was
confirmed by neighborhood comments.
Mr. Masters said that those issues should be discussed within the Planning
Elements.
Mr. Wheeler asked if understood whether the Board should incorporate all of the
neighborhood comments or just some of the more common ones.
Mr. Masters said that all of the comments should end up being discussed within
the Planning Elements.
Mr. Guerette asked Mr. Ring to speak.
Mr. Ring observed that the key issues that keep being brought up in the transition
areas were what would end up being discussed and dealt with in the update. He
suggested that the Board might just start with the housing element, which may or may
not have much to change, but it is a starting point of discussion to see what method
might work on the other elements.
Mr. Guerette decided that since the Board is to update the Comprehensive Plan,
they might also update the method of doing so as they go along. He asked that the
Board be ready to discuss Planning Element #1 of Phase 3 at the April 5, 2005 meeting.
It may not be a contentious area and easy recommendations may be made or the
method will be changed.
Mr. Masters said that reviewing this section will give the Board some idea of what
should be in the Plan for the issue of neighborhood preservation, which was one
neighborhood comment.
Ms. Wheeler mentioned that the issue of affordable housing did come up in the
neighborhood meetings and that it is relevant to this section.
Mr. Guerette suggested that Mr. Masters had become the librarian and that his
recommendation of the State’s website was very helpful.
Mr. Masters then recommended another planning text book.
Mr. Guerette asked to review the assignment that the Board be prepared to
discuss Planning Element 1 at the April 5, 2005 meeting. He asked the Board members
if they would like to schedule a meeting for April 12 now and not schedule on a week to
week basis.
Mr. Wheeler agreed that it was essential to schedule the meeting. Ms. Mitchell
asked if the intention would be to continue the Housing element discussion or move on
to the Economic Development element at that meeting. Mr. Guerette indicated that at
the conclusion of next week’s meeting the Board would decide what the following
week’s assignment would be.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that in addition to the Element 1, Housing Element, the
Board should look at the Housing Action items at the end of the Comprehensive Plan in
Phase IV because they pertain to Housing Element.
Mr. Guerette agreed and also recommended looking at Transition areas and
information from the public meetings.
Mr. Masters reminded the Board that it State Law mandates citizen input in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wheeler asked if that hadn’t been done. Mr. Masters said
that only 150 people at the meetings didn’t seem representational of the entire
population unless those were the only people who cared. He talked about the 1989
survey and that there might be other ways to gather input, since the former Planning
Officer had already determined that there was not enough in the budget for another
survey.
Mr. Wheeler agreed that the attendance at the meeting based on the number of
parochial interests was not a reliable indication of citizen input, but only that the Board
had scheduled the meetings for opportunities for public input and had met the State
requirement with the public meetings. The ball was now in the Planning Board’s hands.
Mr. Guerette suggested that the topic of the discussion be listed on the agenda
for each of the Comprehensive Plan update meetings, which might provide an
opportunity to gather more input at the meetings even though they will not be public
hearings.
Mr. Masters read a passage from a planning textbook on public input.
Mr. Wheeler said that he spent 25 years trying to gauge public opinion.
Mr. Guerette asked if there was a motion to approve the minutes of the workshop
meetings. Mr. Wheeler preferred to defer the minutes until the next regularly scheduled
meeting. Mr. Guerette said they could be deferred. Mr. Masters moved to defer the
minutes. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion to defer the minutes to the next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF MARCH 29, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Hal Wheeler
David Clark
Ryan King
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Bill Masters
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Peter Witham
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and explained that
the purpose of the meeting is to begin a review of the Comprehensive Plan. He
th
recommended that discussion of the March 8 Public Hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan at Mary Snow School be taken up at the end of the meeting.
Chairman Guerette asked Planner David Gould to give an overview of the
existing Comprehensive Plan a starting point for the meeting. In thinking about a frame
work for what the Board might try to accomplish in the update of the Comprehensive
Plan, Chairman Guerette came up with a few questions to think about: (1) Should the
Board update the introduction in the Comprehensive Plan, (2) Eliminate arcane
information from the Plan, (3) Request input from other municipal departments on
sections pertinent to those departments, (4) Update information for each of the
quadrants, (5) incorporate the transition areas into the Plan, (6) have discussions on
changes within each of the transition areas themselves, and (7) have discussions on
Ordinance text amendments for issues that have been discussed in the past.
Chairman Guerette then asked Mr. Gould to give an overview of the existing
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gould explained that the Comprehensive Plan is compiled
from many pieces. Mr. Gould distributed an outline (below) that he had created from
the Comprehensive Plan, indicating the sections, their topics, and his comments about
the existing information.
BANGOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000
SECTION CONTENTS COMMENTS
PHASE I – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Historical Perspective Brief history and Bangor Planning OK
Existing Development Existing and recent growth could be updated
Demographics Population data & changes to 1990 update to 2000
Existing Services & Infrastructure Basic Services, Fire, Police, Parks, now dated
Schools, etc
Infrastructure Sewer, Water, Highway system
Bus, Airport,
TABULAR DATA value?
Environmental Conditions soils, water quality, wetlands, very basic info
floodplains
Agriculture & Forestry Acreage In farm & forest (timber largely Penobscot County
management) data
PHASE II – SYNTHESIS
Big Picture Concerns Emerging issues still relevant
City Resources Limited funding sources dated, but relevant
Community Survey Results Discussion of 1989 survey results now dated
Emerging Issues
Service Prioritization
Specialized Facility Complexes relevant discussion
Policy Development
Expanding Resources Valuation tables
PHASE III – PLANNING
ELEMENTS
Housing Policies Good thorough discussion of
housing
Economic Development 1997 E.D. Strategic Plan some duplication
2000 Community & Economic more duplication
Profile
Community Services Primary Service Area Concept
Several Facility Plans Good, could be updated
Transportation Summary Goals & Objectives Good, broad discussion
Physical Development Plan Development Policy Still a sound overall
development policy
sub areas - review
Fiscal Policy Revenues & Expenses numbers old but policies are
still relevant
Natural Resources Basic elements Goals, & Policies 1998 data
Regional Issues State Planning Goals - Regional OK
resources
Historic Resources History - Policies & Goals Phase I & II could be correct
section
limited discussion on
2
resources
APPENDICES
Airport Master Plan Out dated version
Harbor Management Plan N/A - 1989?
Airport Peripheral Lands Study N/A
Bangor Mall Subarea Plan 1989
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Bangor Center Revitalization Plan 1989
Waterfront Development Plan 1996
Downtown Circulation Plan N/A
Stillwater Ave Corridor Study likely old version - redone in
2004
PHASE IV – IMPLEMENTATION
Policy Program and Planning Good Discussion
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Capital Imp. Plan 1997-2001
ACTION PLAN Numerous policies - plans to be Good Goals - much still to do
developed
Mr. Gould explained that the Comprehensive Plan is organized into the “Phases”
consisting of Existing Conditions, Synthesis, Planning Elements, Implementation, plus
additional Appendices, that are plans of specific areas in the City that were attached as
appendices to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gould indicated that while some of the
data may be out of date, there are some policies in the Implementation Section that
have not yet been implemented (although the some of the same issues have been
brought up at some of the recent neighborhood workshop on the Comprehensive Plan).
Mr. Gould then proceeded to discuss each of the sections of the Plan listed in the
outline and indicated which ones seemed fine as is, which ones could be updated or
condensed, and which ones were obsolete or irrelevant.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Environmental Conditions Section needed to be
updated. Mr. Gould indicated that more updated information regarding environmental
conditions may be found in the Natural Resources Section, which was added later in
order for the City to have the Plan adopted by the State.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked a question about the housing section and if it was possible
to have that updated and how difficult that would be. Mr. Gould said that it depended
upon the information to be updated.
Mr. Gould said that the Comprehensive Plan was composed of the late 1980’s
version with sections that were added in the late 1990’s in order to obtain State
Planning Office approval. Mr. Gould indicated that he was open to questions, but that
he thought what was started a year ago in this update process was the update of
Planning Element, identification of transition areas within the City, and an update of
specific development policies in physical areas of the City.
3
Mr. Guerette said that he would like to have a discussion of how to go about
doing this project, but that at some point the Board would have to stop discussing how
and just start doing it.
Mr. Rosenblatt told the Board that the State Planning Office has a document
called Updating your Comprehensive Plan and recommended it to Board members. He
said he thought that the Board should identify what sections need to be updated, and
then discuss how to update each one. Updating your Comprehensive Plan
recommends four methods: 1. take selected sections and update them; 2. rewrite policy
sections and update inventories; 3. add a supplement or updated layer to the plan for
2005; and 4. do an entirely new plan. He didn’t think the Board could decide until the
existing Plan is reviewed.
Mr. Masters agreed that the Board should review the whole Plan and indicated
that one method for reviewing it might be for the Board members to pair up and have
each pair cover selected sections of the Plan. Mr. Masters said that that would allow
the Board to effectively go through the whole Plan. Mr. Masters indicated that he had
gone through three Comprehensive Plans to compare them for a class that he is taking.
Chairman Guerette said that he thought Mr. Master’s idea of dividing the group to
cover certain sections was a good idea. He asked if it would also follow that the Board
members covering certain sections should also ask for more current information from
the City department that the section is pertinent to.
Mr. Masters thought that that information would need to be obtained anyway, but
that the Board members would find parts of the Plan that are good or bad and need to
be updated and would present their findings to the rest of the Board. He thought that if
the Plan were divided among members it might take four meetings to discuss the whole
Plan.
Mr. Wheeler indicated that he agreed and said that he did not see how this
process could be affected without involving the individuals or departments related to
specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan, and also involving stakeholders in
different areas of the City.
Mr. Guerette asked Mr. Wheeler to identify those that he felt were necessary.
Mr. Wheeler named the Community and Economic Development Director, the Parks
and Recreation Director, the Bass Park Director, the Waterfront Development
Committee of the Council or other pertinent entity, and also stakeholders such as
business leaders, individuals and groups concerned with the healthy balance between
natural areas and economic forces within the City.
Mr. King indicated that he understood this process to be an interim update of the
Comprehensive Plan and not a complete update of it. He said that the Board could go
ahead and work on a complete update, but it was not due until five years from now. He
said that he would rather spend the time reviewing the comments made at the
4
workshops and working them into the appropriate sections and leaving other sections
for the full update in five years.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould about the implementation plan of action items.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that he felt that they appear to be grouped by Planning Element.
He asked if the actions are actually listed at the end of each of the Elements. Mr. Gould
said that he had only done a cursory review and did not know if they were, but he noted
that Appendix B, of the Plan Element Action Plan has a table at the end and lists a
status for each of the elements, including the responsible City departments for each
one. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the end point is to revise the action items by updating the
respective planning elements.
Mr. Masters noted that Mr. King had a good point that this is not a revision, but a
review of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Board did not have to make any
changes, but could if there were glaring deficiencies. He said that the Board could
discuss endlessly what to do, but needed to adopt an action plan of its own and that this
was just a review.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that he thought this was more than just a review, but an
update. Mr. Masters said that he understood this to be just a review and asked Mr.
Gould his opinion. Mr. Gould indicated that the intent is an interim update of items that
are out of sync. Mr. Masters said that the only way to do that was to do a review.
Ms. Mitchell said that she thought there was confusion on the goal, but her
understanding was that it is a comprehensive plan update. She thought that the State’s
guide to updating the plan was a good guide and that the first step mentioned in it was a
review.
City Engineer James Ring indicated that for the past year the project was
discussed by former Planning Officer Katherine Weber as an update. He said that he
thought that the Board should review the Planning Elements, but what the Board should
consider are the areas of the City that have seen many changes in the past five years.
Mr. Ring said the discussion of updating the Housing Element was pertinent, but what
he thought they should focus on would fall under the Planning Elements. An update of
Phase 1, Existing Conditions, would be mostly data gathering. Phase 2, Synthesis, this
section would involve mostly a review and could easily be updated. But in thinking of
the meetings that were held in the four quadrants and the public comments, Mr. Ring
said that he thought that the big picture issues are contained in the Planning Elements
and the particular areas of change within the City, the so-called transition areas, would
be the areas of focus. He saw this as an update, which is entirely different from a
rewrite.
Mr. Guerette agreed that all of the discussions had centered on those sections of
the Plan and that it is important to make sure that the Planning Elements are still
relevant. While everyone seemed to be drawn to the beginning of the plan where data
obviously needs to be updated, that could be handled later. Mr. Guerette indicated that
5
the more necessary review is in the Planning Elements section. He liked the idea of
splitting up and reviewing certain sections and then getting back together. He thought it
would be difficult to get all of the work done in regular meetings and that additional
review time is needed.
Ms. Mitchell asked if there is a way to balance getting new information while
reviewing the old information. Mr. Gould said that the City anticipates that Staff will do
most of the writing and updating. In lieu of splitting up the Plan among Board members
it would be helpful for the Board to indicate which sections need no changes, need
minor changes, need major changes, or need to be rewritten.
Ms. Mitchell thought that housing or transportation could have a bigger impact
than some of the other sections and perhaps some of the data could be updated.
Mr. Clark thought that it could be as simple as to have everyone do a homework
assignment or to discuss Housing or transportation on a certain date and then assign
another section for another date, etc.
Mr. Wheeler thought that Mr. Clark’s suggestion was an equally valid method.
He thought that assigning each section to just two people might make it difficult if the
two people ended up not reaching a consensus, so there should be at least three
people for each section.
Mr. King said that he supported Mr. Clark’s suggestion and that he would rather
have the opportunity to review each part of the plan and develop his own opinion on the
entire Plan and not just part of it.
Councilor Gratwick said that it seems that the questions should be asked on
each section and let the most important ones float to the top. In the housing section, for
example, an intense review of housing controls should be undertaken
Chairman Guerette made a recommendation that in preparation for the next
meeting that he would ask everyone on the Board to be prepared to discuss Elements 1
and 2. If the agenda is lengthy, then the Board might only be able to discuss the first
Element. He asked that the Board review what the planning elements are and view
each section in light of what is known today, five years later, such as the data produced
from the transition plans and the input from the Quadrant meetings. If Board members
feel that additional information is needed, then that request can be made at the next
meeting. Chairman Guerette said that he thought that this would be a beginning and
there is only one week until the next meeting, and that every meeting should include
discussion on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wheeler agreed that the discussion should continue at the regularly
scheduled meetings, but wondered if another meeting could be scheduled for 2 weeks
from tonight. He was not sure if the Board would be ready for a substantive discussion
in one week, but he would do what the Chairman asked.
6
Mr. Rosenblatt suggested that maybe two elements might be too much for the
next meeting, but that the discussion should continue. He asked Mr. Gould if Element 2
had already been superseded. Mr. Gould said that he believed that it had been updated
and that the Board might wait until he obtained copies of it from the Community and
Economic Development Department. He suggested that the Board members go
through the comments from the neighborhood meetings to consider the topics that
came up again and again and not spend as much time on those sections that did not
seem to be of major concern.
Mr. Masters indicated that he believed the amount of time necessary is however
long it takes and that he did not want to be rushed through it.
Ms. Mitchell said that it seemed like the Board was being asked to focus on just
the Planning Elements. Chairman Guerette said that was so. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr.
Gould if he meant that the Board did not have time to do all of it. Mr. Gould said that he
did not mean there was no time. He indicated that when Ms. Weber was beginning the
discussion a year ago, the focus was on several areas in the City that were undergoing
change and that they needed to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr.
Gould indicated that this was confirmed by the neighborhood meeting comments.
Mr. Masters said that he felt that those issues should be discussed within the
Planning Elements. Mr. Wheeler asked if understood whether the Board should
incorporate all of the neighborhood comments or just some of the more common ones.
Mr. Masters said he felt that all of the comments should end up being discussed within
the Planning Elements.
Mr. James Ring, Director of Infrastructure and Development Support, observed
that the key issues that keep being brought up in the transition areas are what would
end up being discussed and dealt with in the update. He suggested that the Board
might just start with the housing element, which may or may not have much to change,
but would be a starting point of discussion to see what method might work on the other
elements.
Mr. Guerette decided that since the Board is to update the Comprehensive Plan,
they might also update the method of doing so as they go along. He asked that the
Board be ready to discuss Planning Element #1 of Phase 3 at the April 5, 2005 meeting
as this Element may not be a contentious area and easy recommendations may be
made, or the method will be changed.
Mr. Masters said that reviewing this section will give the Board some idea of what
should be in the Plan regarding the issue of neighborhood preservation, which was one
neighborhood comments. Ms. Wheeler mentioned that the issue of affordable housing
did come up in the neighborhood meetings and that it is relevant to this section.
Mr. Guerette noted that Mr. Masters recommendation of the State’s website was
very helpful. Mr. Masters then recommended another planning text book.
7
Chairman Guerette reviewed the assignment that the Board be prepared to
discuss Planning Element 1 at the April 5, 2005 meeting. He asked the Board members
if they would like to schedule a meeting for April 12 now and not schedule on a week to
week basis.
Mr. Wheeler agreed that it was essential to schedule the meeting. Ms. Mitchell
asked if the intention would be to continue the Housing element discussion or move on
to the Economic Development element at that meeting. Mr. Guerette indicated that at
the conclusion of next week’s meeting the Board would decide what the following
week’s assignment would be.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that in addition to the Element 1, Housing Element, the
Board should look at the Housing Action items at the end of the Comprehensive Plan in
Phase IV because they pertain to the Housing Element. Mr. Guerette agreed and also
recommended looking at Transition areas and information from the public meetings.
Chairman Guerette suggested that the topic of the discussion be listed on the
agenda for each of the Comprehensive Plan update meetings, which might provide an
opportunity to gather more input at the meetings even though they will not be public
hearings.
Mr. Masters moved to defer the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Guerette, and passed unanimously.
As there were no further comments, the meeting was adjourned.
8