HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08 Planning Board Minutes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Nat Rosenblatt
Hal Wheeler
Alice Brown
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould
Jim Ring
Peter Witham
Mr. Guerette opened the meeting at 6:45 p.m. This would be an overview of Elements
1, 2, and 3.
Mr. Gould asked if he could recap a list of things to go over.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked the Board to revisit the discussions on four items having to do
with the Land Use Concepts Map. 1) the current proposal of the G&ISD area across
Broadway from St. Joseph Hospital; 2) the Mall area Commercial boundaries and their
consistency with the Mall/Marsh Task Force; 3) the Griffin and Broadway commercial
concept; and 4) the Waterfront green space area in the Dennett’s cove area.
Mr. Gould said there are more issues and mentioned High school population.
Mr. Guerette asked if it was only a matter of putting green areas on the LUC map
where they are proposed.
Mr. Gould said as long everyone realizes that the map is representational.
Ms. Brown agreed that they are representational.
Ms. Mitchell said that she thought they were more than representational. When
applicants come forward with projects the Board relies on the Plan, not how they feel
about it. For example with the St Joseph area rezoning, if the maps didn’t recommend
G&ISD zoning it could have gone the other way. Regarding the Waterfront, the
adopted waterfront plan shows green area going all the way to Main Street.
Mr. Gould said it is not just the map, there are other pieces to the Comp Plan and there
is history surrounding all of the areas.
Mr. Rosenblatt said it seemed to him that if the Comp Plan includes Waterfront Plan,
then the Land Use Concepts map should reflect it.
Ms. Mitchell agreed and thought the green area on the waterfront plan should be on
the Land Use Concepts map.
Mr. Guerette though it important to show green space in the area adjacent to the river.
Mr. Rosenblatt said there is some comfort with the Waterfront Plan in the Comp Plan at
least, but with St Joseph Hospital he is less comfortable with the residential area across
Broadway proposed for G&ISD.
Ms. Mitchell agreed but thought she lacked a history of the City. It seemed odd to pick
off the neighborhoods for other types of development.
Mr. Wheeler said he endorsed the feelings, but supported Mr. Gould’s comments. The
Board is considering a long-term view of Broadway at Griffin Road as well as near St
Joseph Hospital.
Ms. Mitchell wanted more discussion if there will be more picking off of homes for zone
changes.
Mr. Wheeler said that sounds like a sniper, but didn’t think Board is capricious.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked why the area across Broadway is considered for G&ISD.
Mr. Gould said it was a consideration of the larger area. A question to ask is if houses
in an area are being invested or de-invested.
Mr. Guerette said that the changes are subtle.
Mr. Rosenblatt didn’t want the Board to be bogged down here, but he didn’t see the
dynamic for 5 years out on the east side of Broadway. He was alright with the north
side of Congress Street, but was not ready to make a leap across Broadway.
Mr. Wheeler said that it is best to be careful with the use of the word Vision. This is a
process of what has gone on, why, and what may go on. Logical or illogical he didn’t
see a changed articulated vision.
2
Mr. Guerette wondered if things have occurred requiring codification since 2000. On
Center St., yes across Broadway several institutional uses and 2 stripes of residential
along Broadway and Essex Street.
Ms. Brown observed that development in Bangor may be 20 years behind Newburyport,
MA, where she recently lived. It has a chance to provide development options.
Whatever is proposed causes pain and there will always be change in neighborhoods.
She saw an opportunity to provide guidance on State Street for a solid economic base
for the City.
Mr. Rosenblatt said he would allow the discussion to move on because the majority
want no change to the map. Just the strip of residential on Broadway.
Ms. Mitchell said it is hard to predict though. The High Density Residential zoning
proposal for the former Naval Reserve Center on Essex Street did not pass.
Mr. Guerette asked how to reach a consensus.
Mr. Gould presented the maps as proposed and asked what is the appropriate use of
the corner of Broadway and Griffin Road.
Ms. Mitchell noted the extended area of commercial use proposed on the corner of
Broadway and Griffin.
Mr. Gould said that he had extended the commercial area on the Kev-Lan corner of the
Broadway Griffin Road intersection. When the Board settles on the Land Use Concepts
map then the Zoning Policy map will be the focus for further definition.
Ms. Mitchell asked if he is thinking of something different and if the proposed L.U.C
map is a reflection of current zoning. If in looking ahead to the next 5 years the
commercial interests are satisfied by the recent Grant rezoning why extend it to the
other side of Griffin Road.
Mr. Guerette asked if anyone was worried about commercial expansion along Griffin
Road.
Mr. Rosenblatt said on the Kev-Lan side of Griffin Road he was and why change it?
Mr. Gould said that it was an extension of the policy of discussed before of not having
long narrow commercial strips, or even deeper strips, but of concentrating a big enough
area at the corner. The area is undeveloped and not hemmed in yet.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Gould who the landowners are.
3
Mr. Guerette said that there was a good discussion during the Grant zone change on
Broadway. Many people recognized that this corner could be a significant development
in the Primary Service Area. Seems logical that he would want to develop that corner.
Mr. Rosenblatt saw the change as a departure to having a more substantial impact on
the neighborhood and saw it as a mistake to have larger parcels. As usual there is no
traffic analysis of the impact on the area. It is a mistake to make changes without
further study, because this will allow further development than what strip development
would have allowed.
Mr. Guerette asked if the zone change requests lately in the area indicate there is great
pressure to have commercial on the map when owner could make a case for it.
Ms. Mitchell said of the recently rezoned property that if the developer across the street
knows, then it might make development significantly easier.
Mr. Gould asked if the Board wanted to make the commercial area high density
residential instead.
Mr. Wheeler asked what development could occur on the land if it might be wet.
Ms. Mitchell said that if it is very wet it would be odd to propose a heavy use like
commercial.
Mr. Guerette asked what is driving commercial uses there.
Mr. Gould said that he didn’t think commercial should be extended all the way out
Broadway in a linear fashion so this seemed like the best opportunity to expand
potential commercial areas.
Ms. Brown said that it was amazing how many people request zone changes. If we
were doing it correctly then there would be fewer zone changes. Why expand
commercial areas.
Mr. Wheeler said that he didn’t think the zoning policy is not intact.
Mr. Guerette said that this is an update, not a revision. If there is no issue-based need
for commercial there, then High Density Residential should remain and let the 2010
revision take care of it.
Mr. Wheeler said that the Husson factor may take care of it.
Mr. Guerette asked if student housing could be in G&ISD.
4
Ms. Brown said that Mr. Beardsley indicated Husson was not interested in housing.
Mr. Guerette said that he noted substantial discussion on this and would like to see a
specific application before changing the colors on the map.
Mr. Rosenblatt said one remaining item is the talk about open space and the need to
inventory to prepare a plan.
Mr. Gould said that the City has never had an open space plan. If there were and a
subdivision were proposed we could see it fitting into that plan. It is not a zoning
mechanism. There is no guidance now, but a plan and language to guide it would be
valuable.
Mr. Ring asked if it would identify places to connect.
Mr. Gould said that it could provide a guide for that.
Mr. Guerette asked where we should go with this.
Mr. Gould said that it might go in the Community facilities section.
Ms. Mitchell said that she was thinking of the area behind Woods of Maine.
Mr. Gould said that Natural Resources section may I.D. that wetland.
Ms. Mitchell asked how we correlate this. What is important on Natural Resources Map
ditto the Open Space Plan.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked what is proposed in the park site of Judson Heights shown on the
Natural Resources map.
Mr. Gould said that it was a creation of Judson Heights Subdivision, but nothing was
ever done with it.
Mr. Wheeler said that it looks like a natural picnic area.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that it might be added to the Open Space Plan.
Citizen Lucy Quimby asked to speak and noted mention of the Bangor Land Trust
(B.L.T.) in pedestrian systems. Would like the B.L.T. to be mentioned in the Open
Space Section. She had an example of an individual wanting to do something with their
land, but not wanting to create a land trust, but would like it known that the B.L.T.
would be glad to be formally noted as wanting to coordinate discussions with
landowners and developers.
5
Mr. Guerette said that the Open Space discussion is a good lead into Subdivision
requirements.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that for Comp Plan purpose, mainly mention pedestrian systems
and open space and then state goal of where to go from here. Perhaps set a
mechanism to go forth with the issue.
Mr. Guerette said he would like the update to indicate this. It should be studied sooner
nd
rather than later. On page 9, 2 paragraph what to do is hanging and we should add a
stronger statement to it.
Ms. Mitchell said that a pedestrian systems plan would propose pedestrian paths where
the make sense.
Mr. Wheeler said that it may be a matter of economics. If a developer wants to put in a
development, then saying they must put in sidewalks, there would be economic
implications for installation and maintenance afterwards.
Mr. Ring added that for a particular development there are costs. Once it is completed
and the developer is gone the improvements are the responsibility of the owners and/or
the municipality. There may be other maintenance methods to discuss.
Mr. Guerette said this was a timely discussion, which will have to consider the details,
whoever is appointed to study them.
Mr. Wheeler observed that many people do not use sidewalks on the West side of
Bangor.
Mr. Rosenblatt turned the Board’s attention to page 11, school needs.
Mr. Gould said that the school superintendent wrote a paragraph stating that there are
no immediate needs.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the sentence stating that in the interim period there should
be sprinkler systems in industrial parks. Regarding the Bass Park section, should there
be an update of that area?
Mr. Wheeler said that it is interesting that Council talked about a 2004 definite
shutdown of the auditorium, but now they are looking at 2012 for a replacement.
Ms. Mitchell asked if the new court building was in this section?
6
Mr. Gould said that it is not talked about in Community Facilities but in the Downtown
section.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that he had no idea how the area highlighted in green should be
changed.
Mr. Gould said that $1.25 million was indicated for improvements to the Auditorium, but
$30 million was to be the replacement cost.
Mr. Wheeler added that now the $1.25 million applies to the Auditiorium not the
raceway.
Mr. Ring said that many upgrades have been done to the Auditorium. What the figure
to continue operating there is he didn’t know, but continued investment will be
necessary until it is replaced.
Mr. Rosenblatt called attention to page 2, Fire Protection where it did not make sense
as written regarding being in the Primary Services area. Two distance ranges were
written 0 to 1000 and 500 to 1000.
There was a discussion of wording in the Primary Services Area about changes needed.
Ms. Mitchell called attention to #6 on the next page.
Mr. Gould indicated that we had gotten by all these years.
Mr. Rosenblatt called attention to page 15, #5 at the top, zoning timing policy
Mr. Gould said the theory is that at a certain time the service areas will grow, then
zoning will follow in that order, not vise versa.
Mr. Wheeler added that we could strike “timing.”
Mr. Rosenblatt pointed out on page #17, “City to initiate curb side pick up.”
Mr. Ring said #3 should participate in regional waste and recycling could be changed to
seek regional waste handling problem. They can be reworded.
Mr. Guerette asked if there was anything else with sections 1, 2, & 3.
Mr. Gould said that he had just finished section 1.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked about Economic Development.
7
Ms. Mitchell called attention to the second paragraph, first part. “The City of Bangor…”
The first 2 sentences could be deleted.
Mr. Rosenblatt suggested changing the color of table headings. On page 7 he had a
question about employment of 50,000 in the MSA.
Mr. Wheeler told a story of Godfrey’s brush factory.
Mr. Rosenblatt called attention to page12, Downtown Bangor, and the grammar in the
ndnd
sentence. Also bottom of last paragraph, Page 13, 2 paragraph, 2 sentence.
Ms. Mitchell asked if in the Housing section we could delete the citizen attitudes section
because of new survey at neighborhood meetings?
Mr. Rosenblatt said how to shorten the section is very difficult. There is the original
1988 information, then the 2000 addendum and wondered if the Board is changing or
just adding an update. He asked if there is current data.
Mr. Gould said he tried to refer to old text as black and include new text as red. The
Board could send some sections to the appendix and keep goals and objectives.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that it seems like recent numbers are the most valuable part of the
exercise.
Mr. Wheeler said that paragraph by paragraph just to delete the repetitive parts.
Mr. Rosenblatt thought the citizen attitudes survey was 16 years old and not as
relevant.
Ms. Mitchell added particularly with a new survey.
Mr. Gould said that the recent survey was a very small survey or questionaire at the
meetings.
Mr. Wheeler asked why not take it out as it is very old.
Ms. Mitchell referred to trends of recent decades on page 5, cited 1990 data, vacancy
data. 1990 data not necessary or owner occupied and renter sections could go.
Mr. Guerette suggested getting rid of page 5 and to start with 1990’s page 7. About
the serious implication of 1989 Plan, several said not relevant.
Ms. Mitchell said there is not much history in other sections.
8
Mr. Rosenblatt called attention to the top of page 9, “since” or “from”.
Ms. Mitchell said of the last 2 sentences of paragraph to strike supply and 2 sentences
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if 52% rental is a characteristic of the State?
Mr. Gould said that places like Hampden have newer housing and a lower rate of rental
properties. Bangor has an older housing stock and the rental rates tend to be higher.
Ms. Mitchell turned to page 11 to bring up two points. Could special needs be whittled
to a couple of sentences to say that the population present needs housing. She
thought it was too detailed. On page 17, second paragraph, she thought the
Community Survey ought to go. The next paragraph has dated data and could delete
old data on page 18. On page 19, 2005 Consolidated Plan the old substandard units
matches the new, 4049 substandard dwelling units. On page 16, in the “efforts to
constrain costs” could scratch the paragraph and “today in mainstream America.”
Mr. Gould said that it could refer to something small that kicks it into the substandard
category.
Mr. Rosenblatt referred to page 26 where it mentions the International Building Code.
Mr. Wheeler asked why talk about acquisition on page 26 because much is not needed
in the Board’s report.
Mr. Guerette said that it is good to keep the message, but redundancies can be deleted.
Mr. Rosenblatt mentioned March 2000 supplemental housing on page 1.
Mr. Gould said one option, would be to make pages 1 – 7 an appendix. Then could go
through the goals and policies and fit them into other parts.
Ms. Mitchell asked if the section could just be replaced.
Mr. Gould said we could try.
Mr. Guerette said to put it back in and wrestle with goals and policies. This is a good
example of a layered section needing surgery.
Ms. Mitchell said that even pages 1-7 could be edited.
Mr. Guerette distributed his draft of the introductory narrative.
9
Mr. Gould said to introduce the concept of a starting point. The first part passed out
was an old list of appendices what they were, when they were done, and a
recommendation.
Mr. Guerette said that it was a useful intimate review of plans and asked if each person
would like to take a section.
Mr. Wheeler said that an open discussion of each section is better, though time–
consuming.
10