Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-09 Planning Board Minutes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Ryan King Nat Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Peter Witham Chairman Guerette opened the meeting at 6:50 p.m. to hopefully complete Elements 6, 7, & 8. Regarding Element 6, Fiscal Policy, he reminded the Board that the strategy has been to review each transition area and whether an element affected that transition area. He said that Mr. Gould had suggested that this element was not pertinent to each of the transition areas, but Mr. Guerette thought the Board should look at it anyway. Mr. Gould suggested that if the Board wanted, the applicable departments could be asked to provide more or updated information for this section. He didn’t think the section needed to be dealt with in this revision, but it was up to the Board. Mr. Guerette asked if they decided to update this section, but not others, would other departments feel slighted that theirs were not. Mr. Gould said not to worry about not asking, but if the Board would like it the departments are there to ask. He said that Staff would provide the information, but he didn’t think anyone would feel slighted not to be asked. Mr. Rosenblatt asked who prepared Section 6 Fiscal Policy. Mr. Gould said that likely the Planning office went to the Finance Department for help. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Fiscal Policy should be in a Comprehensive Plan according to the State. Mr. Gould said that yes it is part of the requirement. Mr. Rosenblatt said that it is historically interesting, but not relevant to now. Is information readily available? One thing not included are State laws and changes relevant to Fiscal Policy. How easy would it be to update? Mr. Gould said the other thing would be when was this written because it refers to 1977 to 1989. Mr. Wheeler asked what percent of the General fund is from the property tax? Mr. Gould said he was not sure, but it would be easy to find out. Mr. Wheeler said that there is a high ratio of non-profits in the City wondered what it currently is. Mr. Gould said that the City continues to attract them as a regional center. Mr. Gould….4 bullets easy. 5, 6, and 7 not much change last regional hub. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how the board should recommend changes to Goals, Policies? Mr. Guerette said it would be useful to have others update the sections. Mr. Gould said #9 highlighted, suggests there should be coordination between infrastructure expansion and development policy. For instance sewer extension requests. Ms. Mitchell said she understood the City is not expanding infrastructure. Mr. Gould said in terms of Development Growth Boundary, no. But there is an extensive area not served, but that could be. Mr. Guerette asked if there was a recommendation to support this particular item. Mr. Gould explained that in this update, those with no comments would result in no changes in the Comp Plan. Highlighted topics will be commented upon. Mr. Clark asked for clarification that if we didn't do anything, nothing would change, but at the complete revision, all sections would be changed. Mr. Gould said that likewise in this update discussion there are areas outside of Transition areas that are not being addressed. Mr. Wheeler said that this was like sailing into the fog, but not in a negative sense, the whole list of goals and objectives and policies…at some time in this process with land use decisions that the Planning Board makes with, zone changes, site plans, subdivisions, etc. He cited Item 5 that explains the need to be concerned about all aspects of life in Bangor there has to be a balance with the economic aspects, which is the reason for his support of commercial developments in contrast to others who have different views. The point is not that the Board has no direct impact on the policy, but that the policy has a continuing direct impact of all that the Board does. He didn’t see how the Board has any obligation to change them, but to be aware of all issues when considering one issue. Mr. Guerette said that is a very good point. Mr. Gould asked if the Board was familiar with #15? There is an impact fee that is assessed on all development in Mall area of $.40 per square foot that goes into a fund to help support infrastructure in the area. 2 Mr. Guerette said the only discussion the Board has had was in regard to open space and the concept of assessing a fee for it. Mr. Gould said he has background information on this that he would share at another time. Mr. Guerette said this is similar to what Mr. Wheeler was discussing where these are not policies that the Board needs to change, but be aware of and that they are in existence when discussing an issue on whether to have an impact fee. It is already in there. Mr. Gould said that a TIF district had been discussed for the Mall/Marsh area to fund the acquisition of open space. Ms. Mitchell added that particular discussion applied to just commercial development and wondered why it could not be for all development in that area. Mr. Rosenblatt said that it is hard to believe that nothing has changed in this section and could someone look at it. And that policy may have changed since it was written. Mr. Gould said that it was hard to know whom to ask. When he shared with Code Enforcement some of the housing element items they had never seen them. Mr. Rosenblatt said that there may be someone knowledgeable about the issues and policies and they could look at them and tell the Board if there were new policies. It would be helpful to know if they are applicable or not and be current. If there were some other policy regarding impact fees it would be good to be aware of it. Mr. Wheeler asked if these were policies or just goals and objectives? It seemed to him that policies were directives that were backed by legalities and not just guiding principles. He didn’t think it was policy with a capital “P”. Mr. Gould said that they were not established policies because if they were then we would be doing and following them. Mr. Guerette suggested that they are recommended policies. But he still thought it would be worthwhile for someone to determine if they are still relevant. He asked Mr. Gould about the attention given to #9 and if he thought the Planning Board’s affect on development in the City. They discussed several example for linkages called for in #9, such as the outer sections of streets where the Board has said they prefer to see certain types of development on one side rather than the other even when there are no public improvements or within the Primary Service area. On outer Ohio Street there is no public sewer and water, but if the City had plans to develop in that area, there should be direct links in support of that plan. He thought the linkages were valuable 3 and that the Board is in support of them and worth having a narrative on it. Also they Board would be in support of T.I.F.s (tax increment financing) in number #10. Also the Board is in support of the possible use of impact fees to fund infrastructure and open space. If someone would review and update the relevancy of them and then update the introduction, it would be good. Mr. Gould asked if City tax bills show where the money goes. Mr. Wheeler said that they do and added that the downside to T.I.F.s is that money is removed to pay for other things. Mr. Guerette, however, asked if the long-term goal of a TIF wasn’t a benefit. Mr. Ring added that it is an enticement to bring in long-term investment and hopefully retain the revenue. Mr. Gould asked Mr. Ring if it was possible to have the Finance Office update the Fiscal Policy Plan. Mr. Ring thought it was possible. Mr. Gould talked about CSO (Combined Sewer Overflow), Solid Waste, BIA (Bangor International Airport) and the goals and policies of funding and improvements. He asked Mr. Ring who generated them and are they still relevant? Mr. Ring said they are part of an annual audit and the CSO is still relevant, but nearing the end. Regarding the Capital Improvement Plan, it is possible to update parts of it. Mr. Gould asked if the Mall area impact fee assessment should change? Mr. Ring said we should look at it. Ms. Mitchell asked who "we" are. Mr. Ring said that Staff and explained the City’s fees, which cover only a development’s related costs. He explained that accumulated impact fees covered the relocation of Sylvan Road. Mr. Guerette thought there were two approaches. The Board would like the Fiscal section updated and the whole thing reviewed to see what is relevant and also have a narrative to explain policies relevant to Board and would support recommendations. Ms. Wheeler said this is specific to Mall, but why not to other areas like Union Street Mr. Ring said that this was an area foreseen to have specific impacts. There are State- mandated limits on the size of any specific assessment district and also on the total for the City as a whole. Ms. Wheeler said for clarification that these are impact fees not T.I.F. s being talked about. Mr. Ring said that another there is another assessment being discussed for the Mall area for beautification, however the area is not defined and the whole Mall area is too large to consider all at once. Regarding T.I.F.s in #10, they are only used for unique 4 projects and not for development in direct competition with others of same type that exist in the municipality. Mr. Guerette asked the Board to move on to the Natural Resources Inventory and Analysis section. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if we knew when and who wrote it. Mr. Gould said that a lot of it is base line information from the State. Gerber did the soils part and Dominie is a planner. Mr. Rosenblatt said there were references to maps, but they were not included. Mr. Witham said that the maps indicated in this section were included in other sections, but when the report was written the future page numbers of the map were unknown. Ms. Lucy Quimby, Bangor resident, discussed L.D. 261 and how it may change the way the City does things. Also that there was a lot of data indicating natural features in the City. Mr. Gould said while there may be a lot of data, has the status of the wetland changed. It talks about the different areas, but indicates indeterminate status for them. Ms. Quimby said that there were changes to the significant list, but maybe not to the essential list. LD 261 the mode of designating significant habitat areas and consequence that the City will follow because of setbacks. Whether it will go beyond what the Task force came up with, she thought it would a little bit but was not sure. Mr. Ring asked for confirmation that it was LD 261. Mr. Gould reiterated Element 7 page 7-5 that said there is only 1 area, a wetland, designated as Significant, but 4 deeryards and 6 other wetlands considered “candidate” sites. Ms. Quimby said she thought the effect is that the candidate sites now will be changed to significant. Mr. Gould said that working for the City it would be extremely helpful if someone at the State would actually notify us changes. Mr. Ring said that we need to check the sections to find out what has changed and a lot of them are general. Cite the changes from the Penjajawoc Task force report, but do checks and cite changes Audubon report, Birch Stream, & Penjajawoc and update the language. A lot is very general, but we could reference the other documents and make the language a little more specific. Also include reference to other urban streams. Ms. Quimby said in her attempt to understand she found someone to talk with and she would be happy to pass on information who is more versed in the issues. 5 Ms. Mitchell said that it would be nice to get the specific information on the sites cited and where they are. The Penjajawoc is known, but the six candidate wading habitats, and the three that straddle the boundaries in the east, north, and west. They are not specifically identified enough. Mr. Gould got up to explain the various agencies’ maps that identify wetlands and how much they do not correspond to one another depending on how they are classified or how who is mapping them. Ms. Mitchell asked about the identifiers of some of them and if they are significant. Mr. Gould explained that there are some that are legally identified, others show many more wetlands that are not. Ms. Quimby said it depend if from Aerial photos or ground work Mr. Gould said some of the maps have legal implications relative to Planning and the DEP. What is important for us to know how to treat them. Much of the Widewaters debate occurred because the State did not provide both parties with the same information on how the same wetland should be treated. It is only fair to the Board to know the status of them. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Gerber map is what determined the designation in the Comp Plan for the City to go by. Mr. Gould said that what is adopted in the zoning map is what is legal, but he did not have the zoning map to point to. The Comp Plan maps may show green for open space, but those green areas are not necessarily adopted as resource protection. Mr. Guerette asked when we need to know the status of some areas and in some instances we don’t know. What entity determines that. Mr. Gould said that LD 261 clarifies that. What he is saying we can only do it is well as what the State provides for information on how to classify areas. Until they send new information, he didn’t know how we could make decisions based on something else. Beginning with Habitat is an interesting collection of maps, but it is all the same information that we already have, just presented on a nice map. Ms. Quimby suggested that the City has the option to look at other information gathered such as the Audubon report and decide if while designating what the State dictates, because it is in our back yard the city could adopt a higher standard beyond what the State has set. 6 Mr. Guerette thought it was imperative to acknowledge the importance of this element in its own right just for identifying our natural resources and habitats. While we don’t necessarily have enough information that would change the section, but with the new inventories it would be interesting to add them as components even if most of them have focused on the Penjajawoc Marsh area. Because what we have heard from the neighborhood meetings was the value of the natural areas of the City. Mr. Gould called attention to was discussed several meetings ago that Bangor should consider developing an Open Space Plan and outdoor recreation plan. Mr. Guerette said that was talked about in the Physical Development Plan. Was there some funding to help municipalities to identify? Ms. Quimby said that IF&W wanted to update the wetland maps, but requirements dictated that they would have to update all of them. With LD 261 she understood there would be a rule-making section that would make it easier to reclassify some of the candidate wetlands that have remained undetermined. Ms. Mitchell said that she would be uncomfortable rubber stamping something that has not been designated because the Planning Board might need to have something definitive to fall back. Mr. Guerette said that in the absence the most the Board could do, would be to refer to the end agreement. The Board would not be going out to reclassify them. Ms. Mitchell said that there needs to be more clarity and it sounds like there is some data that could be reworked to fall back on to provide some clarity. Mr. Gould said there is data, but it there is no clarity as to how it classifies them. He didn’t think that the data did that by itself. Experts would have to be called in. Ms. Mitchell asked if the data has a direct impact on where the development can occur and if that wasn’t available around the Penjajawoc. Ms. Quimby said that that was what the Task Force tried to come up with. The Audubon report gathered all of the data that was available and catalogued it into one place. And then it was looked at and came up with a plan that hopefully will not be derailed by the State in that it tried to consider regulations as minimal because of the competing interests. Some aspects, however, may be tightened up that weren’t addressed such as tree cutting. Mr. Ring continued to explain the Task Force process. As he looked at the Land Use Map and areas on the map the largest area of wetland is out in the Northeast of the 7 City. However there also some along the Kenduskeag Stream and out along the Hermon boundary. Mr. Guerette In relation to Comp Plan Update how do we want treat this section? Ms. Mitchell thought that if there were other significant wetlands that have not been as much discussed as the Penjajawoc, then it would be wise to identify them before some proposed development threatens them. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if this should be limited to wetlands or other natural areas as well. Ms. Mitchell thought that she would prioritize the wetlands as number 1. Mr. Guerette asked if she was referring to 7-7, the six wetlands and 4 deer habitats? Ms. Mitchell said yes and if they were anywhere near development should they have restrictions. Because the Penjajawoc was not identified as significant until after the development was proposed. Mr. Guerette said that it sounded like a mapping task and asked if there was a map that prioritized them? Mr. Gould said that the maps identify them, but prioritizing is a judgement that has not been done. Ms. Mitchell said that they might be prioritized by their proximity to adjacent areas that might be near expanding development. Mr. Guerette clarified the type and purpose of this map as a tool to continue the discussion of them. Mr. King spoke to say that what he saw was reworking the element. He agreed with Mr. Ring that the data should be checked, and to focus on identifying the policies, but not looking at maps and figuring out boundaries. It was important to make sure the policies are consistent, but he didn’t think the Board should be trying to map where the wildlife is. Ms. Mitchell said that it is less about revising the document than as an action step for those after the revision to take the action for a rezoning around the wetlands for protection. Mr. King said that there has been protection around the wetlands, but that the issues should be fairly treated. 8 Ms. Mitchell said that by not planning ahead and looking at the areas, then the Board might run into problems such as occurred around the Penjajawoc. Mr. Wheeler said that Mr. King made a strong point that if we become highly proactive regarding the wildlife and habitat then it creates a predisposition that could call more problems. He would support his point of view and to consider projects on a case by case basis. Because there are pro-active groups that drive the process already. Mr. Rosenblatt thought the section should be updated. Ms. Mitchell said that if a more forward-looking policy had looked at the Penjajawoc then some of problems would have been avoided. Mr. Guerette though everyone was talking about the same things. Look at the goals, which does say to consider the wildlife areas. Here in the Comp Plan there is a little bit better method to suggest candidate sites if anything has been identified so we should incorporate and use them. Mr. King didn’t think we needed to get too specific because we won’t be able to find consensus with the maps, which may change. He just didn’t think that it should be too specific. Mr. King said that from the previous Comp Plan to now, areas had gone from being considered insignificant to significant. Ms. Mitchell is not as concerned about the Comp Plan as someone looking at the areas afterwards and thinking about the regulations around those areas considered candidates. Mr. Wheeler asked for clarification of the Candidates. Mr. Guerette said this group was charged with being concerned with the Comp. Plan and that there has been a large discussion about how to do that. He hoped the minutes would reflect that. He didn’t think it needed to be rewritten, but it is important to talk about transition areas when there have been natural resource concerns for example in the Mall area. He didn’t find anything objectionable in the current plan and would support current goals and policies. Mr. King saw a conflict with the goal of discouraging development in the wetland areas on page 2. But the Board is getting ready to have a public hearing on the Penjajawoc Area that actually has a policy promoting development in that area. Mr. Ring said that the Comp Plan a guiding document, but not the regulation mechanism itself. A lot of the discussion has focused on how to deal with the issue, but those are handled in the Land Development Code. There are specific legal implications for adopting maps. What he thought needed to be done was 1. Verify designated areas 9 and make sure they haven’t changed. 2. Goals and Objectives – correct, revise, or supplement, but some may be difficult to get to specific concerns such as the Penjajawoc Task Force report, which is more specific than the Comp. Plan Area. The areas have changed and the perception of the public has changed. 3. Also look at the language and supplement it. 4. Staff should send a letter to IF&W and request the latest maps for Significant wetlands, Candidate wetlands, etc. Those are key elements and then get more specific. Mr. Guerette asked to move on to #8 State and Regional Considerations. He asked Mr. Gould what he had in mind. Mr. Gould said that he saw no changes necessary. What the section largely does is cite the State Growth Management Law. It talks about Regional Issues that may have been developed in the PVCOG era of the Growth Management Law early phase that could broadly have been considered in the area. Then discussion with regional planning issues beyond the City, but he didn’t think it had changed. Mr. Guerette thought it was well written. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if PVCOG still operates and what they do? Ms. Mitchell explained that they are hired out to towns to do Comp Plans in other communities that do not have Staff for that purposed. The also consider more regional issues to help small towns work together. It is also a sounding board for any town that asks them. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there is a greater planning overlay? Ms. Mitchell said they are seeking to do more, but only with those communities that want t. Mr. Gould said they do review of Community Development Block Grant applications that are forwarded to the State. In theory they are supposed to be providing regional planning, but there is very little of the regulatory capability that municipalities have. Mr. Rosenblatt asked regarding regional issues across the Penobscot River, if there are many discussions with Brewer. Mr. Ring said it was timely considering the Harbor Committee. There has been some dialogue, some irregular joint meetings of the Councils. There has been a marriage of the waterfront plans at least on a map. The whole aspect to the riverfront development has come up with like minds. He added that the PVCOG dialog on broad objectives on issues in region of a larger area and population. He thought it was a good source of 10 discussion on the overall makeup of areas outside the borders because what happens outside affects the interior. Mr. King noted that there were no recommended goals or policies for this section and he wanted to know why are there are none. He didn’t want to rubber stamp it, but maybe it really was not an element. Mr. Guerette thought it might be a great introduction to the Comp Plan and asked if it was typically included? Mr. Gould said that every municipality that sent a Comp Plan to the State also had to send a copy of the Comp Plan to the regional entity to see that it was consistent with the region. Mr. Guerette asked about Phase II and if it was a stand-alone element. Mr. Gould said that Historic and Archeological Resources was likely added by the City with no Element number during the State’s review process when it was found missing. If the Board were happy with the Goals and Policies then it would remain unchanged. The Board looked through them, Mr. Guerette said he would like to have a brief discussion of where to go from here. He said that all of the Planning Elements had been covered. It didn’t mean that it was finished. Now Staff needed the time to coordinate all of the minutes and notes, return to the Board and with a condensation draft and recommendations that should be made to the Zoning Policy Map and Land Use Concepts and Zoning Maps. After review and draft version made then talking about a Public Hearing. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if it would be new layer or substitute pages? Mr. Gould said he thought this would be a summary report that is added to the Comp Plan. He said the Board looked through Comp Plan elements. These are the thing found and will be included. He only hoped that there would be time to bring the minutes together and synthesize those things that came up meeting after meeting. Mr. Guerette asked if this would eventually be available electronically. Mr. Gould said that it would and explained the how the process of review has changed regarding first beginning as transition area discussions, then later elements focused on larger geography. Text of discussions would be included. We have tried to find the original documents of the Comp Plan, but some computer files can not be opened now. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the maps and if they would be included. He said that he hoped they would be updated and included, especially the two that are used frequently. 11 Mr. Gould said that we would like to have them, but the software used to create them is difficult to work with. It is the basis for all of these maps, but we will provide them. He discussed the City’s current map production system. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the inconsistency in the two maps and if there would still be two. Mr. Gould said that there is still need for the general Land Use Concepts map along with the more specific Zoning Policy map that would provide guidance to the Board. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Land Use Concepts map was the way to get to the Zoning Policy map. Mr. Gould explained that the Land Use Concepts map is a broad-brush approach, then the Zoning Policy map refines it to particular zone. As we have seen though there are some inconsistencies that we hope to fix. Mr. Guerette asked if it would be appropriate to suspend the workshops for the month in order to get the information together and catch up. Mr. Gould said that he was going on vacation and he would like the Board to wait until Staff could get the sections together. We could wait until it is 100% put together or put some together and review. He said that the Board needed to keep pushing because Comprehensive Planning always is pushed to the rear. It has been a good steady focus, but there are always other projects and continuing applications to deal with. We are getting behind. He added that the office has been short-staffed for six months and is still waiting for a new Planning Officer to be hired. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Ring how the search has been going. Mr. Ring said that two more applications for the position were received and discussed them briefly. Just the Comprehensive Plan alone with a full staff makes a full staff. It has been a busy season. Mr. Guerette said that he didn’t mean to hold off for a long time and 100% completion would take a long time to go through, so getting it in large pieces would be good. He suggested having no more Comp Plan meetings in August in order to catch up and take a vacation. Mr. Gould said that he hoped to get the several pieces to the Board in advance to look through before giving the whole thing to them. 12 Mr. Guerette said that he would miss the meeting on August 16, when the Task Force Report airs the Public Hearing for it. Mr. Wheeler would chair the meeting. He asked how it would be presented. Mr. Gould said that the Staff report would review State requirements regarding consistency specifics. He had had interesting conversations with the State Planning Officer. It may take some time to get it into shape for it to be consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what to anticipate at the meeting, if it would be a hearing or a vote. Mr. Guerette said that potential outcomes could be one way or another. The Board might make a recommendation and vote on it, or continue it if it is long and contentious. Mr. Wheeler said that the item should remain on agenda, there is a lengthy agenda already Mr. Gould said there would be 5 public hearings, plus projects at that meeting. Mr. Wheeler said it should stay on the agenda, it is important enough that it should probably be continued to the next meeting as it is not something to rush through. Ms. Mitchell asked what happens if it is adopted, but not consistent with the State’s format. Mr. Gould It may take work to get the changes in a format for it to be accepted as part of the Comprehensive Plan for State to accept. State wants specific information on how the Penjajawoc Task Force Plan affects the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. It may take some time to get it in order. Mr. Guerette said that we’d possibly dealing with an update and integration of the Task Force Report. Mr. Gould said that the regular update also needs to be submitted to the State for consistency. There was discussion about who would be attending the August 16 meeting. Mr. Guerette adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. 13