HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-25 Planning Board Minutes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
David Clark
Ryan King
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Hal Wheeler
Laura Hoovler-Mitchell
City Staff Present: James Ring
David Gould
Peter Witham
Chairman Guerette opened the workshop meeting and discussed the transition
areas and what has happened in them regarding housing during the last 5 years.
Chairman Guerette said that in order to look forward to the next 5 years, the Board
should have data for all of them. Acting Planning Officer Gould said that potentially the
Board could, but in some of the transition areas nothing, regarding housing, has
occurred in them and they were not included in the list of areas to look at in this Comp
Plan update.
Chairman Guerette asked if anything has happened in the Downtown/Waterfront
transition area. Mr. Gould said that only the Belvedere Project has been approved, but
it has not been built.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that Transition Area 2 - Waterfront, also includes the
Downtown and Main Street areas. Mr. Gould indicated that he broke this area down
into two areas for discussion purposes. There was discussion of the Pleasant Street
Condos and the Board’s approval of the Belvedere project and whether it is a high-rise
or not, high density, and high value. Mr. Gould said that this is what it is considered
because it is not intended to be affordable housing. Mr. Guerette asked if there was
concern about whether affordable housing was contemplated on the Waterfront. Mr.
Gould thought that the area was not being developed to accommodate affordable
housing as the City has invested much in that area to make it high value real estate and
it was probably not appropriate. Mr. Guerette reiterated that the narrative that
indicates no housing on the water’s immediate edge as that area would be reserved for
the public. Mr. Gould explained that the theory was that the area adjacent to the water
would be reserved for more public activities and as one moved farther from it, more
private uses such as housing could be contemplated. Residential development tends to
have issues of privacy and might make attempts to thwart public uses.
Mr. Ring explained the public process involved in the planning of the waterfront
and development of the current land use plan, and that there was a demand to have a
lot of public area along the water’s edge. There are buildings planned at the edge, but
available for public use. Moving away from the water, private buildings are proposed
for office, hotel, and residential use. The major area near the water is to be for public
uses including open space and that area should not be infringed upon by private uses.
Chairman Guerette offered suggestions to the columns in the table and asked if a
developer were to propose a similar residential development at the other end of the
waterfront would there be any objection or would it be considered desirable. Mr. Ring
said that the other end of the City’s waterfront area is limited to the water’s edge, but
that there is private property between it and Main Street that was included on the first
waterfront plan. Mr. Rosenblatt asked where the open space is. Mr. Ring indicated
that it is primarily between the railroad tracks and the water. There was discussion of
the different areas along the Waterfront and where construction should occur.
Chairman Guerette outlined some thoughts that high value, high-density residential
development was desirable, but cautioned that it not be along the water’s edge
infringing in the open space. Mr. Ring suggested making a reference consistent with
the Waterfront plan.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Ring how tangible are the prospects for development of
the commercial aspects in the waterfront at this time. Mr. Ring listed the recent
discussions with prospective developers and that nothing has been approved for
development through the Planning Board. Mr. Guerette asked if any formal
amendments were needed to restrict residential development away from the water’s
edge. Mr. Gould stated that everyone was comfortable with the status at present and
that there have been enough discussions with enough people to keep the intention of
the water’s edge in mind. That being said, there will always be someone with a
competing interest but there are already provisions for residential development within
the plan within certain guidelines. If the Board is comfortable with the language
already contained within the Comprehensive Plan then that is what it has to say about
this area.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that there is some area on the west side of Main Street that
is in the transition area. Mr. Gould said that it isn’t the waterfront area, but maybe the
Main Street area within the larger transition area. There was discussion about that area
as being similar with a mixture of commercial and residential uses and similar to other
areas where those competing forces were. Ms. Mitchell mentioned Habitat Humanity
projects in that area and the possibility of more affordable housing projects going into
the area. Mr. Gould noted that he has talked with Community Development about the
issue that if more area were rezoned to higher density residential development would it
2
help to encourage affordable housing. It seemed that mostly sites that the City had
some prior interest in developed into affordable housing, so it was not just rezoning
areas that would cause that to happen. Areas for sale at market rates would be
developed at market rates, not affordable or assisted housing.
There was more discussion on qualifications of affordable housing relating to
income, mortgage rates, and housing costs. There was discussion on what control the
Planning Board might or might not have on the availability of affordable housing. What
it depends on more is the developer and what financing is available to help in
redevelopment projects. There was discussion of whether there is a market need for
more high density residential uses and whether they are affordable or not. Because
there is vacant high-density land available and not being developed it would appear
that it is not presently in high demand. To add to the Board’s recommendations could
be support of high density, high value, residential whether condominium or rental. Mr.
Wheeler talked of previous proposals and goals, and that those being listed in the
Board’s recommendations now should be realistic.
The Board discussion other areas of the City that were zoned for high density
residential use where large older homes had deteriorated into rooming houses and that
would need to be considered in the discussion about zoning areas for high density
residential. There was also discussion about affordable housing with respect to rental
units and mobile homes.
The next topic of discussion was Transition Area 1A – Downtown that borders
the waterfront area. Housing activity in the area has been apartment related.
Conversions of downtown buildings do not necessarily go before the Planning Board.
Until there was no requirement for parking in the downtown, developments did go
before the Board. Discussion continued about what is considered downtown, and the
area or the areas zoned Downtown Development District. There was discussion of the
older residential areas surrounding the Downtown that in the 1980’s were continual
sources of problems. It led to those areas being downzoned in 1991 to reduce the
pressure on the small lots with older structures and many cars per dwelling unit.
The discussion shifted to the Main Street stretch from Shaw’s to Bangor Daily
News and the possibility that housing could be lost to retail/commercial in that area.
There was discussion about the view that residential development over commercial
development is seen in a better light than in the recent past. Proximity to the
waterfront could influence development along there in that direction. Market forces and
real estate prices change how it will develop. City investment in cleaning up that area
encourages the private sector to invest.
Chairman Guerette summed up the Downtown area that most of the residential
development has been in reuse of the upper floors of older buildings. A positive
occurrence, but the Board does not have any recommendation to enhance or diminish it
3
either. Mr. King brought up the movement to keep the Police Station downtown was
part of a trend. Mr. Wheeler discussed Bangor’s evolution and clustering of types of
uses in the City. The best thing would be to encourage it to continue.
Discussion turned to the Bass Park area. Mr. Guerette described the extent of
the area. Mr. Gould pointed out the old, fragile residential area between this area and
I-395, but not the Olive Street area. Mr. Guerette asked if there was recent
development to infringe on that area and it was pointed out that it was only on the
Main Street frontage. There is a small area of apartments in the neighborhood, but
most are single-family residential and it is an example of a small cohesive neighborhood
in need of protection. Discussion at the neighborhood meetings indicated a strong
sense of community and concern about Bass Park Plans. Although not much
development in the area, there is potential with the racetrack area and also Main Street.
So, the Board’s concern is that there be no encroachment into them, except for
businesses on Main Street and beyond one building deep. Properties fronting on Catell
Street and I-395 may be multi-family, but most are single-family. Shaw’s was seen as
an example where residential neighborhoods are eaten away bit by bit.
There were many comments from the Buck Street side in proximity to Bass Park
and the existing traffic issues there. The Board reviewed the Land Use Concepts and
Zoning Policy Maps. In order to state the Board’s support of preserving the March
Street neighborhood the Board discussed whether or not there is a need to make any
changes. There is no way to control what proposals come before the Planning Board,
but with statements of goals and use of Comp Plan’s boundaries, there can be
ammunition to protect the areas. However, the Board may use it to ask the applicant
how a development will protect the residential area. There was discussion of a URD-1
parcel that was listed, but did not show up in the March Street area and where it was.
It was identified as being on Buck Street and actually a part of the Bass Park holdings.
There was more discussion as to the creation of the Bass Park District and how that
would affect the neighborhoods on Buck Street.
The next area discussed was Transition Area 4 - the Broadway area from Center
Street to Essex Street, and from I-95 to Congress Street with Saint Joseph Hospital,
Mary Snow School, Redeemer Lutheran Church, and the Medi-Maine facility included in
the area. Examination of uses and the reason for inclusion of the area was when Saint
Joseph Hospital acquired houses for rezoning and also for use as parking areas.
Neighbors were concerned with St. Joseph’s ability to acquire properties and gobble
them up and what effect it would have on their properties. A question posed to the
planning Board if the Board wanted to make an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
to reflect the City’s interest in preserving the neighborhoods. Mr. Guerette asked if St.
Joseph were to acquire a property or block of properties if they would be able to make
a compelling case to rezone, but the City could not make a case because of the need to
preserve the neighborhoods. Would the Board want to identify an area where
expansion would not be encouraged, or would that upset people on one side of the line.
4
Saint Joseph was encouraged to have neighborhood meetings when an issue of parcel
acquisition occurred.
Mr. Ring noted the Government and Institutional areas on the Land Use
Concepts and Zoning Policy Maps and asked if the Board thinks that the Policy needs to
be changed or does the policy on the west side of Center Street need to be changed to
reflect the reality of the institutional uses there as they are pre-existing. Also there was
discussion about the area on the east side of Broadway that is presently residential.
Mr. Gould explained that before 1989 there was no Zoning Policy Map only a
Land Use Map, which in zone change requests caused some problems. There was a
need to split it into a broader Land Use Concepts map showing categories of zoning and
a more refined Zoning Policy map to identify types of the categories. He explained that
there were inconsistencies between the two maps that needed to be cleaned up. Mr.
Rosenblatt asked if in 2000 the plan was to discourage residential use in the part of the
transition area that appears to be inconsistent between residential and institutional. Mr.
Gould explained that it was supposed to be a little vague so that it could be subject to
interpretation.
Chairman Guerette noted that the whole frontage of Broadway from Mary Snow
School to Stillwater Avenue is residential except for St. Joseph. Mr. Guerette noted that
the narrative noted residential use along the Center Street, but nothing about the
Broadway frontage. Mr. Gould said that in the entire time that he has been with the
City, the City has guided Saint Joseph Hospital away from the Center Street side and
towards the Broadway side. This is why he wrote the narrative that way. It is very
clear from a neighborhood perspective why that was done and it also may prove
problematic in the future to hem the hospital in. Ms. Mitchell agreed that the area on
Broadway is left residential, but it allows future options. There was discussion of the
larger area between Broadway and Essex Street that has institutional areas.
There was talk of remaining silent on the east side of Broadway and there was
no question that eventually the institutional area will grow. There was discussion about
letting the policy be and letting market forces determine future changes. The Board
suggested no changes to the Zoning Policy Map. The Board discussed the statement
regarding the Center Street neighborhoods and that they are covered.
The next area discussed was Transition Area 5 - Outer Broadway. There was
discussion about the developments that have taken place including Judson Heights,
Burleigh Road, and Birch Hill Estates. Potentially, there could be a new school on Griffin
Road and Kenduskeag Avenue and new residential developments in the neighborhood.
The rural developments on outer Essex Street were mentioned that have been thought
of as “sprawl,” but there are differences between this and those areas. Broadway is
very busy and there is much traffic originating from a long distance. There is interest
in development in that area because of ease of access, close proximity and space. It
5
was stated that the height of land along Broadway should be preserved for residential
development where the Judson Heights expansion is occurring.
Mr. Gould explained the origin of the two sets of zoning districts, one for newly
developing areas where setbacks are possible, and the other for older neighborhoods.
Where they become confused, problems can occur. What would be looked for in the
Judson Heights area subdivisions is not the same as what would be looked for in the in-
town "tree streets" areas. The Low Density Residential standards were encouraged for
the New York Street area, but the developer wanted to develop it with the Urban
Residential District standards.
Chairman Guerette discussed two issues in the suggested narrative. One to
caution against continued linear development. Mr. Gould noted the areas along
Broadway beyond Griffin and Broadway and that there was compatible development on
the frontage of Judson Heights. If the Board were to encourage High Density
Residential on that side of Broadway that type of development might help to limit the
potential access problems farther out. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the current zoning on
Broadway and that there was a large amount of commercial zoning. He asked if it was
developed. There was discussion about it being vacant, about its origin, what is
appropriate and that it could be discussed in the commercial elements. Mr. Gould said
that a bigger block or chunk would be preferable rather than an extensive stretch of
zoning. Discussion of a deeper zoning area would allow one access road into it rather
than multiple driveways that can cause traffic problems.
The Board discussed businesses and institutions on Broadway and vacant land on
the corner of Griffin and Broadway. The original concept for Judson Heights with its
strip commercial development with limited number of entrances, low density, and
higher density uses has seemed to work. If it were to be developed piecemeal then
there might be more entrances and exits and associated traffic problems. Mr. Gould’s
concern is the other side of Broadway, where the Land Use Concepts and Zoning Policy
Maps show a linear commercial strip along Broadway that might cause problems. That
side might be reconfigured to make it deeper and with a limited number of access
points. Ms. Mitchell suggested changing the Maps to make a deeper area of
commercial and not as long. The Board talked about an Exchange from Commercial to
High-Density areas. The Board discussed Commercial area because it is difficult to talk
about housing without its effect on other types of uses.
The Board discussed the need to identify areas where residential growth can
occur and Broadway seems to be a natural area for it. Chairman Guerette said that the
Board should make note of that and that there have been residential developments in
the area to support that concept. He thought the boundaries of the transition areas
should be changed to include the Bomarc area. Mr. Gould said that it was not included
originally because it did not have City sewer service. If they had not come up with a
private sewer, the City would not have proposed it. Mr. Guerette thought that at some
6
time Broadway might be widened and Mr. Gould said that the City makes an effort to
acquire lands along arterials for expansions. There was discussion of the Urban Growth
Boundary and the need to modify it by pulling it in a bit because the outer limit beyond
which public services are unlikely to extend very soon. The Planning concept is to know
what can be handled, and the Board does not want to suggest that we could extend
services farther than we can now. If it can’t be serviced then we shouldn’t promote
development there. So by contracting it would discourage “sprawl”.
Mr. Ring discussed the potential expansion of sewer, water, and emergency
services with respect to the Urban Growth Boundary and the expense. He also talked
about access management on Broadway and concentrating the commercial
development closer to Burleigh Road rather than stretching it out along Broadway. Mr.
Ring also discussed the future school site at Griffin and Kenduskeag indicating that
there are no specific plans for this site at present.
There was discussion about the undeveloped land across Broadway from Judson
Heights and its current zoning of Low and High Residential and about the big
commercial zoning area across from Bangor Baptist Church. Chairman Guerette
suggested adding housing developments that have taken place such as Birch Hill
Estates and the Woodridge Subdivision as adjacent housing. The conclusions and
recommendations Mr. Gould made were good. It was noted that the Urban Growth
Boundary should be done if there is any serious interest in doing so in tandem with a
statement that while future growth area, it would be prudent to bring the Urban Growth
Boundary inward. Mr. Gould said that development may go out there eventually, but
not within the near term and Staff could take a look at it. Chairman Guerette wondered
if it would upset anyone to move the Urban Growth Boundary inward. If there are
people within the service area without services it might send people the message that
there is no hope. People would have to demonstrate that they could connect to the
sewer and water anyway, so it would not make a difference. If there were availability of
sewer and water within the zoning area on the maps, then the City would recommend
rezoning.
Discussion continued on potential recommendations for zoning in the future.
Whether to change the Land Use Concepts Map and Zoning Policy maps in the High
Density Residential to Commercial zoning at Burleigh Road and Broadway.
If that is something to consider, then when looking at commercial element, to
look at it then. What might be acceptable to the landowners would be to take an equal
amount of land and swap it, reconfigure it in the location that would be more sensible
for access management to commercial land.
There was reiteration about the discussion about changing the zoning policy and
that it could happen at a later time.
7
Chairman Guerette then asked if the Board wanted to move into the next
transition area, how the process was going, and if the Board had any recommendations
for changes. Mr. Wheeler thought it was going well but that there had to be a
combination of the general and specific approach to each issue. There was a recap of
the decisions made for Transition Area 5. Everything seemed to be about maintaining
residential and institutional use on the west side. Future development of High Density
Residential on the west side of Broadway was favorable and the East side was already
commercial.
Mr. Wheeler asked for a memorandum from Staff summarizing the decisions for
this area, as they are somewhat complex. Chairman Guerette asked if Staff would be
changing all of the narratives in the sections in reference to the sections of this area
after the Board has had a chance to discuss them. Ms. Mitchell asked if he meant a
memo summarizing this document. Mr. Wheeler said a memo summarizing area 5. Mr.
Gould suggested something a little more in depth and that we it could be earmarked to
return to.
Mr. Wheeler related his concerns going back to the early 1960’s when the last
commercial development on Broadway was at the corner of Alden Street and Broadway,
then the Broadway Shopping Center was constructed, and then the Bangor High
School. The conventional wisdom in the 1960’s before the Bangor Mall existed was that
most of Bangor’s commercial development would extend out along Broadway. His
concern is that for an area like this to grow all along over these years and then for a
halt to be called for the area.
Mr. Ring explained that one of the things that happened in recent years is that
until the sizeable residential developments such as Judson Heights and the recent
expansion occurred, the small commercial projects by themselves did not have much
impact on traffic except for cumulatively. Development of other residential
developments if large may trip more traffic improvements. Of course there is much
more traffic out Broadway from and to other towns. There is a minimum 100 trips a
day,
Ms. Mitchell said that this process would take a very long time to complete. Mr.
King said that he liked the process of going through each transition area and discussing
the issues in each one. As things come up, eventually Staff can be prepared to discuss
the elements flagged for each transition area.
Mr. Ring said that maybe the discussions should continue through all of the
transition areas for this element to get an idea of how long it will take to talk about the
issues in each area. Mr. Clark said that he liked the process, but share Member
Mitchell’s view that it would take until 2010 to finish. If we accept the fact that there
will be lined crossing in each discussion and to note that and get back to it later.
8
There was general agreement that the discussion was involving more than just
the housing element and that some of the discussion will return. One of Chairman
Guerette’s interests is to incorporate what has happened within each transition area.
There were lists for the neighborhood meetings for each quadrant that could be broken
down into transition areas. In Looking through the lists, it is apparent that not every
transition area will be represented. Mr. Gould said that the Staff would attempt to not
repeat the same information.
Mr. Ring reviewed some aspects of the Penjajawoc Bangor Mall Study Area Task
Force, how it had progressed, and indicated that the final presentation was
forthcoming. Mr. Ring indicated that there were some diverse perspectives that were
brought together in this process. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that it would not do any
harm for some of the Board Members to attend the presentation. Mr. Ring said that he
hoped that some of the recommendations would be useful as it had been a long
process with imput from many sides.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
9