Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-12 Planning Board Minutes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Ryan King Jonathan Siegel Hal Wheeler Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: James Ring David Gould Peter Witham City Councilors Present: Geoffrey Gratwick Chairman Guerette opened the meeting. He asked Mr. Gould to discuss the memorandum that he prepared regarding Element No. 4, Transportation. Mr. Gould said that the element does not lend itself to a review discussion transition area by transition as the previous elements did. He tried to point out that transportation is broad and includes the airport, the Bus, highways, streets, sidewalks. While project plans may be made ahead of time, there are frequently changed because of other projects or factors. For example, this element has a plan for improvements at the Maine and Vermont Avenue intersection. Since then, the Maine DOT has come up with its own plan for a change there. He listed some short-term intersection improvements that Engineer Ring may want to add to. Around the City’s Maine Business Enterprise Park and the Mall area there are some long term projects that need to be kept in the plan, such as a proposed direct I-95 to Airport terminal connection. The East-West Highway, though not in Bangor, has been seen as important to the economic development of the City. An inter-modal connection of the airport, rail, water, and highways is a long-term goal. Pedestrian systems has been talked about for some time and just by memory we have marked up a map of existing sidewalks and streets without sidewalks. One thing talked about was subdivisions with sidewalks and the potential to connect them to the system. Does it make sense to require that subdivisions with no proximity to the sidewalk system have them. But those near to the system it makes sense to have them. Mr. Guerette mentioned a few items for the table. The Land Development Code does not specifically mention transportation, but the Board hears much about transportation related issues, such as traffic, which comes up all the time from neighbors to projects on the Planning Board agendas. Agenda items also bring up discussions about having more pedestrian connections. There is a concern about streets being short cuts. He has always been concerned about cumulative effects of traffic on the street system in the Mall area. He thought he recalled John Hamer’s memo about the Planning Board’s role regarding traffic. Mr. Ring remembered that memo from a couple of years back and said that we would get copies to the Board. Mr. Guerette said that with a narrative update for each section the Board should think what this one on transportation should include. He thought there should be mention about how traffic affects residents and neighborhoods and also businesses seeking new locations. Regarding sidewalks, he thought concern was expressed that they may have internal value even in subdivisions are isolated from the system. He asked for ideas or comments from other Board members. He responded to a call for examples. The Board might make suggestions on the impact of traffic through developments by recommending increased law enforcement, signage, or graded roadways to visually cue people to drive safely. The Neighborhood meetings brought forth comments about traffic so the Board should make constructive suggestions and comments on how to deal with it even though not governed by the Land Use Ordinance. Mr. King thought it might be interesting to identify the particular issues that came up by Quadrant such as the Bass Park area, the Mall Area, and traffic on rural roads. He didn’t think the Board could do much about them, but record the issues. Mr. Wheeler talked about increasing gasoline prices and his past familiarity with Bangor’s public transportation system. He asked if data could be provided for how much traffic is being provided out of the neighborhoods and to commercial areas. He thought that it might need to be expanded with increasing transportation costs. Mr. Ring said that data was available for the bus system and asked Mr. Wheeler about the old bus system. He said that City has the routes and passenger utilization and will bring an overview to the Board. Also he talked about BACTS (Bangor Area Comprehensive Transportation System) involvement with the routes and ridership. There has been growth in ridership and additional routes discussed depending on funding. They talked about the old routes, new routes, and the neighborhoods into which they went and go now. Mr. Ring said that with regard to the many discussions he has heard about traffic he thinks that the biggest issues that need to change are habits and attitudes and sometimes economics drive that. Mr. Siegel agreed that the Board needs to make a statement, but was not sure what it should be. He thought that comments at the quadrant meetings were all similar. Residents all said the volume and speed of traffic were eroding the quality of life. He 2 thought the ideas of signage and law enforcement seem to be after-the-fact solutions that have not been successful. Signage doesn’t work for locals who will continue with the same paths until too costly. Unfortunately attitudes and habits are the hardest to change successfully. Mr. Siegel indicated that new development should not depend on the current arterial system and that there has to be some other engineering based system. It seemed that all the traffic studies he has heard since being on the Board resulted in “no appreciable increase.” Mr. Guerette said that he has always wondered about the traffic studies done by retailers who are spending millions on the projects, but the studies seem to show that no one will be going to them. Ms. Mitchell asked if this was the first Element to diverge from the Transition area format. Mr. Guerette thought that at the last meeting on the Economic Development and Community Services Elements the Board had gotten away from the transition area format because they came up with more general issues and the format would not fit with this element. Ms. Mitchell asked if there was going to be a change in format in the write up because they could quickly come up with a list of transportation issues by transition area and then be categorized by type. For the Land Use Development issue there could be some reference also. For instance, currently with regard to the design of subdivisions there is encouragement of the use of short local loops and cul-de-sacs and for High Density residential developments they should be built on high traffic arterial streets. She thought there might be others to pull out for the update. For instance, recommending sidewalks for certain size subdivisions whether or not they are connected to the existing system because it is difficult to predict whether or not they might be connected 15 years from now. Regarding inter-modal issue, regionally, the Airport is prioritized from a regional perspective but not as she understood from the City’s perspective. Mr. Guerette liked her idea of going back to the transition area format because it would be a more systematic way of doing it. Mr. King thought that the Board needed to move the process along. Ms. Mitchell didn’t know if they needed to look through everything, but she thought that Staff could easily do so because they know five them are ready. Ms. Mitchell indicated that where there is a study that has been accepted that they’re going to implement. At some point it would be valuable for the compilation of an update to note that because the Board was focusing on Transition areas and just to maintain consistency that would be important. She didn’t think it needed to be an extensive discussion, though. 3 Mr. Wheeler asked what the study was. She said that it could be the study of the Stillwater Avenue corridor or the intentions to change the Maine Avenue corridor that overlap the different transition areas. Mr. King was concerned that if it were a transition issue that overlaps with another study that they would spend double time talking about it. But everything overlaps, so he saw Ms. Mitchell’s point and there are some issues like the Marsh that are talked about in several meetings, but he didn’t feel the need to go over them again. Mr. Guerette thought it would be constructive to identify all of the traffic and transportation issues. Then the Board could safely make a conclusion about all transition areas where development has occurred at a faster rate and if that they are affected by transportation issues. For example with commercial developments on residential neighborhoods he thought it would be easy for Staff to look traffic counts and how they affect different transition areas. If commuting traffic from other communities at peak hours were a traffic concern then it would be easy to identify and name the streets and transition areas. In the case of this element where the Board will not make recommendations for zoning or land use amendments then it would make sense to talk about what the traffic situations are and make suggestions to deal with them. Mr. King clarified that he was talking about identifying by quadrant and Ms. Mitchell was talking about by transition area. Mr. Guerette said that in the last two elements the issues transcended specific transition areas and they weren’t addressed with zoning and text amendments and it actually helped to move the process along more rapidly. Mr. Ring went through his thoughts on this element. The Transportation Systems Plan is the title of the element and seems to look at the issue more broadly with basic needs rather than specifics such as curb radii and where sidewalks were needed. It seemed more general to him. Use of public transportation and changing attitudes is appropriate for this discussion, but sidewalks and street specifications are more land development code oriented. For the Comp Plan update it seemed more relevant to identify the needs and concerns. Other elements and were concerned with specific types of land use, but keep in mind that all land uses generate traffic. Also habits and attitudes have been evident with every project that has been before the Board. Residents may say that traffic is horrible on my street and there is a perception it has increased, but people may miss that it may still be relatively low. Increases may seem significant, but may be much less than what the street can safely handle. Most are aware that everyone must agree that all should drive less, carpool, use public transportation, but people don’t. Looking at non-growth areas he has seen increases in traffic. There are more drivers per household, more trips for drivers. Traffic is a quality of life issue. The reality of the 4 traffic on Stillwater Avenue when looking at the prediction compared to actual counts, the predictions are conservative. The smaller projects aren’t projected, but do add up. Mr. Siegel said that it seemed from Mr. Ring’s comments about long-time residents in an area of increased traffic who come forth to speak on projects shouldn’t hearken back to a former time because that is what growth is about, the roads are built to accommodate more traffic, and that it what it means to live in an semi-urban area. He agreed that people have difficulty accommodating change, but at the same time he thought that was troubling. He thought that the Planning Board should mandate sidewalks even though there are two main objections. It cost more for the developer to install and it cost more for the City to maintain. In other cities it is the responsibility of landowners to maintain the sidewalks and if the City has to do that the landowner is sent a bill. He recommended that the City Council make some change like that. Because as Mr. Ring had said in 10 or 20 years they would all be connected. He thought it was a critical safety and health issue to have sidewalks. He described where he lived as on Burleigh Road where there are no sidewalks and that his children have never been able to go anywhere without a car trip especially in the winter. It is certainly a safety issue and he thought it was appalling that it has always been a fiscal issue to people. So he would strongly recommend sidewalks in subdivisions. Mr. King said that he didn’t think it related to what is being discussed tonight. He thought that sidewalks should be a Land Development Code, housing issue. He realized that the Board has talked about sidewalks before and all were pretty much in agreement. He wouldn’t be supportive of anything more than what is already in the Comp Plan regarding sidewalks as related to transportation systems. Ms. Mitchell thought the Board’s process of going through the Comp Plan update was good as far as identifying the issues for the different planning elements, but the Board was avoiding some of the policy, goals, and implementation issues. That is where a sidewalk mention could come in, but also other things that are mentioned in the policy, goals, and recommendations that come out of the planning elements that are not being talked about. She asked if the purpose of the Comp Plan update was to bring up updated issues in each section of the planning element or also to consider those more recent issues and then update the policies and recommendations at the end of each of those planning elements. Mr. Guerette said that although the Board does not update all of those policies and goals in a formal way because that would require the participation of municipal departments who have interests in them. It is incumbent for the Board to record those things that have changed in the last 5 years for each of the elements and to make known any concerns and recommendations for the next 5 years. The Board can look at the 5 goals, recommendations, and policies in the Transportation section. One of the policies is to designate a program for bicycles and pedestrians lanes to widen pavement on existing streets without them, upgrade existing sidewalks in existing areas. The City 5 shall implement a sidewalk system on major streets and in residential areas. If the Board wanted to have a discussion about sidewalks it would be under this goal, and as a Board decide whether to recommend residential developments be required to have sidewalks. They may not be adopted, but the Board can recommend them. He said the Board had talked about a lot of issues and now they can be put under the context of each of the goals under the Transportation section of the plan and identify the concerns related to the goals and any recommendations the Board might make. Mr. Wheeler said that at the first workshop session it was suggested that there be one or two sessions with representatives from the real estate community. Addressing Mr. Siegel’s comment there being no sidewalk in his neighborhood he made the observation that that factor did not cause him not to move there. What he meant was that these are all overarching issues that have a legitimate purpose in these discussions, but to try get a grasp around them was difficult. He agreed with Mr. King that the Board tended to get into the details rather than look at the whole picture. While the discussions are valid and useful in the broad picture, the chairman has noted in order to address them in specific fashion it would involve representatives of many municipal departments. And also he thought the Board should get feedback from people in the real estate community as to what affect the absence or presence of sidewalks has on the sale of residential properties if the Board is going to address sidewalks as a specific issue. Mr. Siegel said that it did not factor into their decision of whether to buy there or not because they did not understand the difference of the presence or absence of them having moved from an area where there were sidewalks. But now he understood the difference. It would be fine to have the real estate representatives in, but he didn’t know if they would be knowledgeable from the perspective of sales on the effect of sidewalks. Mr. Gratwick asked if would be permissible for him to speak. He was very interested in this discussion. He said that he while he thought the Board needed to look at the bigger picture it was important to discuss some of the details as they would have an impact on the larger picture. He would hope that a document resulting from this would have a review of the larger picture, but also put forth some goals and recommendations for the City Council to consider. He mentioned some examples such as those related to traffic, curb cuts, parking lot connectivity, sidewalks, and a 50-year plan for green spaces and connections. He suggested that they involve Bangor Beautiful in their plans for trails. He thought it was the details that would have a long-lasting effect on the City in the future. Mr. King thought some of the ideas such as the park trail system and he mentioned the commute another way day, which he follows weekly. He didn’t want to stifle the sidewalk discussion, but it had been discussed as much as the Penjajwoc issue. He just wanted to move on the discussion of the other issues before they are lost. 6 Mr. Guerette said that at the last workshop meeting the Community Services discussion their was an attempt to inventory the parks, trails, sidewalks and he thought there was quite a bit of overlap with transportation. So the discussion would continue this evening on that line. The Board should attach their comments to each of the items in the Goals, Objectives, and Recommended Policies section. He began talking about Goal #1 – Establishment and Maintenance of Goods and People on the Street and Highway System. He read through the Recommended Policies and began discussions to discern how much impact the Planning Board has on each of them. Mr. Gould said that some of them highlight different factors and direction for Council and Staff to follow with its limited resources. Mr. Ring commented on one that points to BACTS coordination, State and Federal governments, and funding of projects. BACTS looks at spending of the regional money assigned to it by the State. Most of it is targeted for streets and roads, but some is for less traditional things such as pedestrian. He talked about access management on arterial roads and that BACTS is the primary entity to produce studies those roads such as Stillwater Avenue or Broadway because they are regional. Mr. Guerette continued with the last policy under Goal #1 and asked if was a concern of the Planning Board. Nobody thought that it was. He moved on to Goal #2 – Alternatives to Automobiles and read through the Recommended Policies pausing after #5 – promotion of bicycles and other vehicles. He recalled a new trail system along the Kenduskeag Stream Park. Mr. Gould said that he thought it was the Trailhead Grant application the previous fall, but it was not a new trail. Mr. Siegel commented on the use of the word appropriate for bicycle transportation and said that he thought there was no place where it was inappropriate, except where it is unsafe, and it is only unsafe where there is sharing with automobile traffic. If it were a priority of the City and the Board then it would require the significant effort of providing bicycle lanes. He said that those without barriers to automobiles were a problem because people tend to park cars in them and drive in them. He mainly was questioning the use of the word appropriate as if the author suggested there were places were bicycles are not appropriate. Ms. Mitchell thought the policy could be a planning board issue when regarding new development around streets such as subdivisions. What is encouraged around new commercial or residential development and she would like the Board to consider bicycle access when considering new development for approval. Mr. King said that he bikes 50 to 100 miles a week within Bangor and said the hardest area to bicycle is out on Stillwater Avenue. He had talked to Dick’s Sporting Goods about there being no bicycle rack at the Mall to lock up them there. Ms. Mitchell agreed that access thorough the mall area is hardest even though the new Stillwater Avenue sidewalk helps. Bangor Beautiful has looked at going from Mount Hope Avenue to Hogan Road and the City Forest either over or underneath 95. She 7 said that EMCC and Mr. Gould noted that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic that goes through the sewer pipe under I-95. With EMCC and EMMC parking there could be a large market for pedestrian traffic to the Mall on the other side of I-95. Discussion clarified and said that the sewer pipe was actually the Penjajawoc Stream, but there is also a sewer line running through there in a box culvert on which it is convenient to walk. Mr. King mentioned another element not listed is other alternative areas for automobiles there is the Downtown area that is most congested. There is a great effort to make parking difficult Downtown. He wanted better enforcement of parking and to keep people from moving their cars around and realizes that they are downtown employees. Mr. Wheeler said that the scofflaws have been around for 40 or more years. It has always been a concern, but he wondered how the Planning Board could do anything when it is a responsibility of the Police and Public Works Department. Mr. Gould said that it is better than 15 years ago with an active program of parking check people. Mr. Gratwick brought up the 80,000 lb. Trucks going through Downtown because they can’t go on I-95. Unlikely that Bangor can change it, but make sure they are on properly designated streets. Mr. Ring said another issue that was not brought up is truck traffic and weight limits. It does not seem like a Planning Board issue, but there are routes developed by BACTS that throw planning projects off. He hoped there was some mention in the Comp Plan. Mr. Guerette thought this regulatory issue should be put under Goal #1. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Ring when the rotary traffic was put into place Downtown, but he thought it was because of Dow Air Force Base. Now the traffic comes from surrounding towns. What kind of problems would occur if the rotary were returned to two-way? Mr. Ring thought that it was the early 1960’s. Through BACTS there was a Downtown Circulation Study in the 1990’s that considered the rotary and it confirmed that it helped to relieve the congestion. There were 8,000 more people living in Bangor 40 years ago, but there may be many more trips now than then. The daytime population is much higher than the residential population. Regarding improvement and efficiency of existing arterial streets Broadway coordinated signals were just completed and Union Street will be next. 8 Mr. Guerette said regarding promotion of bicycles and alternative vehicles, that the Board has not seen a good inventory of the existing bicycle routes and wondered if it was being worked on by other organizations. It might be useful for the Board to work with the organizations by approving routes for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, identifying existing routes, and encouraging the City to promote bicycle use and other alternatives. Ms. Mitchell added that it would help if the Board were not stopping at just inventorying and would have a plan for what they would like to see. Also at the last meeting the Board talked about identifying fees to actually implement them and have a long-term strategy about how to do that. Also they need to have input from other groups who are focussed on just that. Mr. Guerette asked to move Goal #3 – Integration of Transportation of Bangor with National and International Markets. Recommended Policy 1. Protection of aeronautical areas at the airport from non-aeronautical development. Ms. Mitchell asked about the status of the Inter-modal Facility at the airport. Mr. Ring explained that MDOT did a feasibility study 2 years ago. It said there was not enough demand for two sites, one at the river and one at the airport for all modes, but it was probably still worth considering. The one difficult linkage is the rail connection. Air and ground are still possible. On the waterfront there is not the demand to make it busy. The City obtained a grant for the docking facility at the waterfront for ferry service. (There was more discussion but some microphones were off.) Mr. Ring went on to say that it would be a long way away for high-speed train service. Just because it won’t be in the near future, Ms. Mitchell said that the section should mention the East-West Highway. Mr. Wheeler said that the East-West Highway has been considered for at least 20 years. There was discussion of the transition areas around the Airport and the note to protect areas around the airport from non-aeronautical uses and also incompatible development. Mr. Ring recalled discussion of an area targeted for residential use on the land use concepts plan. Mr. Siegel did not know what it meant to protect to protect the aeronautical integrity of the airport and was it related to post-9/11 issues. 9 Mr. Ring said that the Airport Master Plan describes aeronautical versus non- aeronautical uses. At one end of the runway is a Golf Course fortunately. On the Northwest end is some bog lands, but also buildable lands that the City has obtained easements on. Also the area off Union Street the City needs to be careful of recommending high-end development that would complain about noise. Mr. Gould described the Fairways Subdivision where noise easements were obtained so residents could not complain. Also in the late 1980’s when there was a residential proposal for the end of Downing Road. The City obtained land there then. Mr. Siegel asked if there were any post 9/11 issues with the base. Mr. Gould said that it was classified and there were fences and guards around the military areas. Mr. Ring said that the City controls most of the Airport and can control what goes where. Mr. Guerette moved on to Recommended Policy 4 - Integration of Street and Highway System with the Airport and didn’t see what that there were any private issues with this. Mr. Ring brought up the concept plan for a more direct route from I-95 at Hammond Street to the terminal complex. Also there are some items on the Mall Marsh map that need to be updated. Policy 5 – Integration of Intercity bus service with City’s transportation system. Mr. Guerette thought that it had already been done. Policy 6 – Integration of Intercity rail system with City’s transportation system and freight-generating sites. He thought that very few people use it anymore and that it was not an issue for the Planning Board. Policy 7 – Integration of harbor facility with the City’s transportation system. Mr. Guerette asked what demand on the harbor was there for movement of goods other than oil. Mr. Ring said that other than the bulk terminals it was a policy put in for consideration of moving passengers sometime in the future. Ms. Mitchell asked about mention of Brewer because of past discussions between the two cities. Mr. Guerette said that he didn’t know how to bring this into this goal since it specifically was talking about integration into national and international markets. He didn’t think the Board was going to be making policy recommendations to the Transportation 10 Element unless they deal with specific Code or Land Use language. Because they are not rewriting the Comprehensive Plan and asking the Transportation staff to participate in the discussions and come up with a policies. The Board is looking at an update review. It is good to mention other communities, but not recommend policies for other communities. Goal #4 Coordinated System of Street and Highway Access and Development. Policy 1 – Anticipate right-of-way needs through Official Map action and required dedications for identified arterial streets. Mr. Ring mentioned the parallel service road in the Mall and the airport service road as roads that were anticipated. He said that there would not be a lot of new street needs because while they come up from time to time, they are not frequent. Policy 2 – Encouragement of short local loops and cul-de-sacs. Possibly signage and speed bumps could be recommended. Mr. Siegel thought speed bumps could force drivers to change, but signs and enforcement lead people to believe that things have changed, but they haven’t. He would support recommendation of the physical changes. Ms. Mitchell noted specific intersections where accidents occur; however they are not in transition areas. The Board could concur with areas that are problematic, but she thought the Board should defer specific engineering recommendations to engineers. Mr. Guerette referred to the Rolling Meadows Subdivision and the long straight street in that. He mentioned recommending features to make a street more attractive and help to slow down traffic in the subdivision. The area was fine as far as zoning was concerned for that type of development, but some of the details were missing. Mr. Wheeler asked what benefit would a cul-de-sac have provided within that subdivision. Ms. Mitchell said that she didn’t know if it was the specific street design, but she thought there could be something in the land development code regarding traffic control devices that would be recommended in a subdivision if there would be such a street. Mr. Wheeler asked if these would be considered on a case by case basis or as an overall policy. Ms. Mitchell thought that it would be on a case by case basis because there were areas where a through street would be recommended. Mr. Wheeler agreed with that. Mr. Siegel thought the language indicated that generally. 11 Mr. Guerette thought that the policy recommended not using new streets as new through streets. Mr. Ring thought that it was better not to get to specific, but refer to general traffic calming or expediting features. The Rolling Meadows Road is a long street, but it could have been proposed to go through to Haskell Road. On other subdivisions this policy could be interpreted to have a lot of cul-de-sacs off of an arterial road when more interconnectivity might be better. Mr. Wheeler asked if he thought this language should be changed to be more general. Mr. Ring just noted this because the discussion had become specific. Mr. Wheeler said that he thought this was too specific rather than general. Mr. Guerette moved on to Policy 3 - Right-of-way dedications. Mr. Ring mentioned the Stillwater Avenue acquisitions of right-of-way over the last 15 years from to go from 66 feet to 100 feet. This has also been done on other streets. Policy 4 – Curb cut spacing – People cited several site plans where access was coordinated. Ms. Mitchell asked if the unstated intention was to minimize the number of curb cuts also. Mr. Gould said that he didn’t think the Comp Plan needed to be micro-managed as to specifics since is it is not regulatory as the Ordinance is. (There was more discussion, away from the microphones and drowned out by the air conditioners.) Mr. Guerette moved to Policy 5 Off-street parking. He thought the Land development Code addressed this. Policy 6 – Higher density residential development on collector or arterial streets. Mr. Gould said that there are definitions in the Land Development Code and this was discussed on in the Broadway/Griffin/Kenduskeag triangle. Lower Density along Kenduskeag moving toward High density along Broadway. Policy 7 – Private streets for site access and elimination of any future public maintenance responsibilities. Does this pertain to developments on Essex Street? Mr. Ring thought private streets could serve condominium developments. Also there are developments that serve business complexes on public ways that should be private. Mr. Guerette asked when there is a plan going through review is there discussion about whether a road should be public or private. Mr. Ring said that when there is common 12 land serving a development whether business or residential then he sees the opportunity for it to be a private street. There may be a couple of projects appearing before the Board in the near future that may. Policy 8 – Specific guidelines for arterial street standards. Mr. Gould said that there are arterial street standards, but the City rarely builds them. Policy 9 – City shall upgrade its database of streets for better management. Mr. Guerette thought that was not a Planning Board Issue, but a Staff issue. Policy 10 – City shall require more thorough design evaluation of streets in development review process through specific design. Mr. Guerette said there was some of that. Mr. Gould said that much of Bangor’s land is very wet. Roads are many times built to a standard design and for a long time developers could get by with a simple profile. Road design and standards required have been improved. Developers even complain about the improved standards. Goal #5 - Provide safe movement of Pedestrians and other non-automobile traffic in the Community. Mr. Guerette said that the discussion was opened this evening with discussions about these issues. He read through the current recommended policies. He didn’t mean to gloss over them, but much of this was already discussed. He asked about the concept of requiring sidewalks in subdivisions. Mr. Siegel said that a lot of the language sounds good and he assumes it has been there awhile, but he has not seen real interest in the community around him as far as following these recommended policies. He suggested that if there is interest in continuing them then there should be a recommendation to place more emphasis on focusing on them. Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Siegel thought this was part of the habit versus attitude problem as was discussed regarding automobiles and public transportation. He said his reason for asking is that wherever he drives (and that is primarily on the West Side) he sees walkers, joggers, and bike riders especially in fine weather. And naturally one does give them right-of-way. He wonders if there were new and improved sidewalks in those areas, and some of them had sidewalks in disrepair for some time. He wonders if the habit of using the street and the only thing that bothers him is people who think they can walk down the middle of a traffic lane and not make any effort to give way to an oncoming vehicle. He said that he did his best, but sometimes it necessitates a virtual stop because of a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. And this to him represented a mindset on the part of people who like to walk and jog and bike and push their children in carriages that the streets belong to them when they’re using them 13 and not to the automobile. And maybe we need a commission to bring these two interests together. Mr. Gould asked Mr. Ring if he saw the City developing another bike/pedestrian system as was done on Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Ring thought that yes on arterials where there is need. He sometimes thinks that he is perceived as being anti-sidewalk, but he is not, because he deals with these issues on a day to day basis. He thinks that sidewalks as a transportation system, some sidewalks are a transportation system on the arterial and collector streets. On the other hand in quiet residential area he sees them as more of an amenity rather than a transportation mode. Over time there may be change in habits, but he thinks of how many times the City has redone sidewalks and still see people walking in the streets, but maybe it takes time. He said that he was not being facetious. Mr. Wheeler said that he was not saying it facetiously either, he made light of it, but it is a problem. Mr. Siegel said that he wasn’t suggesting that sidewalks were a transportation mode per se. He said that vehicles do not mix well with either pedestrians or bicycles. He has spent a lot of time on the road as a bicyclist and it is a very dangerous situation to be in the roads. Mr. Guerette was impressed with the map to see where sidewalks are part of the transportation system per se. Ms. Mitchell said that at the last meeting about focusing on the key connections and new developments with regard to this. By focusing on those things it is a long-term goal to connect them into the transportation system. Mr. Ring said he was thinking about that and that recently there was a discussion about looking at land uses, identifying desire lines and potential trail connectivity. When we review a project try to identify future potential connections. Some statements should be added about that. Mr. Guerette asked for any other discussion about this planning Element Ms. Mitchell understood that sidewalks were an amenity and a quality of life issue. With this goal there are issues for maintenance and development of them. She thought that the Board should take a stand and attempt to identify some funding of them towards developers, so that it is not just the responsibility of the City. 14 Mr. Guerette said that all sides of the argument have been heard in workshops and regarding projects that come before the Board. Does anyone have a proposal for a specific recommendation to put into the Land Use Code? Mr. Mitchell said that she was willing to work on it with others. She thought Bangor Beautiful has made some strides on parts of what should be recommended. Maybe the City should recommend someone from that group. Mr. Gould mentioned that Michael Pullen would be a good contact in that group to get their information relative to trail systems. Mr. King said that he hasn’t been a big proponent of sidewalks in general, although he was interested in the connectivity concept. He thought it was the responsibility of everyone including pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobile drivers to walk, ride, and drive more safely. Mr. Guerette said that next time, in two weeks, the Board would be on Planning Element 6 – Physical Development. All Board members should take a look at it before then. Mr. Ring said that he would not be able to attend. Ms. Mitchell said that she would be willing to work on a proposal, but she would like someone from the City to identify whom else to work on it including Mike Pullen. Mr. Guerette said that when the Board first started looking at the Housing Element many of the transition areas had some housing issues, so the Board decided to review each transition element as it pertained to each element. But after getting into the Planning Elements that seemed to be a bit more Planning Board intensive, such as Economic Development, the Board changed the approach and instead of discussing each transition area separately they focused on the Element and how it related to the city as a whole. The Board did that a little bit more detail tonight and was able to get through it tonight. He wanted to continue in the same mode unless anyone had an objection to it. Any method can be lengthy, but the process deserves the review of each of the Goals to see if they raise any red flags. The summation of all of this information will be the interesting part of the narrative at the end of the process. Mr. King thought that going through the objectives was a good way of going through the elements and the Board should try to focus on that as an agenda. There were a lot of comments and questions before hand. Mr. Guerette said that with any exercise there is a warm up. 15 Ms. Mitchell said that the agenda could be more detailed to keep the group focused. Say the first 15 minutes as a review of what has changed and then moving to the Goals and Objectives in order to have more structure in the meeting. Mr. Guerette agreed and adjourned the meeting. 16