Loading...
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