Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-11 Planning Board Minutes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP TUESDAY, October 11, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Nat Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Peter Witham Mr. Robert Guerette began the meeting at 6:40 p.m. with a continuation of the discussion on compilation of the update from the previous meeting. There was a discussion of what kind of maps, narrative introductory text, identification of information gathered along the way. He reminded everyone that there was no resolution on further public meetings other than the Public Hearing required to present to the citizens of Bangor. He asked Mr. Gould how Staff was coming along on the draft. Mr. Gould said that regarding the introduction there was nothing more than what he passed out the last time. He would wait for editing from the Board. He said there would be new books for the Board members on elements to change. It will have old pages to look over and the new information added so they can see what will be removed and what will be added. Mr. Guerette said that they also wanted to include copies of the minutes of the Update meetings, even those where the recording failed. Mr. Gould said that he had passed out some meeting minutes for the Board to review. The other thing passed out were copies of transition areas on the land Use Concepts map. He wondered if anyone had looked through them. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he had looked at them and asked if Mr. Gould could go through how he arrived at the changes. Mr. Gould added that issues have come up that are not relevant to particular elements or areas. He has pondered and made notes about them. The first pertains to subdivision development and open space and sidewalks. The second regards the overall policy of nonconforming uses and step-down and how the Land Use policy deals with old out-moded buildings. Is it strict or lenient? There may need to be a statement about them in the Comprehensive Plan. There are examples where they have occurred but there are others where there needs to be more guidance. Mr. Rosenblatt understood there have been some accommodations for reuse by rezoning. He asked for a sense of how much nonconforming uses were a problem or an issue. Mr. Gould said that there were many in existence. He cited a medical office in an old building on Mount Hope Avenue. On Pier Street is an old ice cream factory that the Zoning Policy says should be a single-family house. He said that Mr. Wheeler may recall a provision in the 1974 Ordinance during the 1980’s for step-downs, that was dealt with as a conditional use. The 1991 Ordinance does not allow that to occur in th Single family zones now. The Grant’s Dairy conversion to Brooks Pharmacy at 14 and Union Streets was a step-down conversion. Mr. Guerette thought that most of the examples were successes. They discussed that there was no mention of it in the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ring added that if there were some mention or guidance in the Plan it would encourage reuse before it deteriorated and became a problem. It would make sense to encourage less intense use. Mr. Gould explained the side by side clippings of the Land Use Concepts map showing several proposed changes. Near Downtown staff tried to clarify the Commercial, Institutional, and Second Street Park areas. The residential neighborhood near I-395 was articulated as discussed. In most of the City many the big white unknown areas are being eliminated. Mr. Guerette asked about the March and Catell area confirming that it was residential and also showing an enlarged commercial area on Main Street near Dutton St. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the Waterfront's proposed and existing open space. He thought the Waterfront Plan indicated more open space rather than commercial space. He wanted to be sure the Comprehensive Plan reflected the Waterfront Plan. Mr. Ring discussed the various plans and the general concept of open space between the river and the railroad tracks. Mr. Rosenblatt was referring to the plan showing open space between Main Street and the railroad tracks. Mr. Ring said that all of the plans conceived of a mix of open space and commercial, but specifically open space between the railroad and river. 2 Mr. Gould said that all of the Comprehensive Plan maps depict things generally, but not measurably. And they show open space and amphitheaters in several different areas. He didn’t recommend basing land use policy on the current waterfront plan because it may change. The general idea is that the water’s edge would be public space. Mr. Wheeler asked how much tax revenue that open green space would generate. Mr. Rosenblatt responded that if the City is made attractive, then more people might live in the City and increase the tax base. He thought the review should move on, but he thought the green space contemplated between Main and the railroad tracks along Railroad Street, was fixed rather than in transition as he was now hearing. He didn’t want the Comp Plan to fix a policy that the City didn’t already contemplate. Ms. Mitchell asked if it made sense to adopt the current Waterfront Plan into the Comprehensive Plan as the Penjajawoc Plan was. Mr. Gould said that the Comprehensive Plan was not like a Site Plan and could not be that specific. Second Street Park, the Fire Station, and Counseling Center were added to the map. Davenport Park was not on the plan, but it would be added. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Belvedere Place Condominiums location is in High Density Residential, but it was explained that Waterfront Development District accommodates it as a permitted use. Transition area number 3 was Penjajawoc Marsh and was not done in these changes, but in the Marsh Study area. It will be included. Number 4 is the institutional area around Saint Joseph Hospital, Mary Snow School, and Naval Reserve Center blocks. It now shows the commercial area on the corner of Stillwater and Essex, Broadway and North Park, and on Center Street Staff put some of the residential are back on a residential. Mr. Guerette said at a previous public hearing regarding a zone change next to Saint Joseph Hospital that there were neighbors who spoke strongly about preserving the residential neighborhood. The Board at that time decided to defer any discussion on that area until the Comprehensive Plan until the Update. The areas up for rezoning at that time were on Center and French Streets. One of the things brought up was that Saint Joseph Hospital had never been able to provide a long-term facilities Plan. In the absence of that he thought adding the yellow strip on Center Street to the map made sense to help protect the neighborhood. If the hospital wanted to pick off parcels for rezoning one lot at a time toward the intersection of Broadway and Congress that would be there prerogative and the Board would have to entertain those each time. 3 The area is still primarily residential and if we zoned it institutional we would be sending a message to the residents to get out. Ms. Mitchell asked about the west side of Center Street where there seems to be a lot of institutional properties. By leaving it residential does it mean that we want it to revert to residential because the use seems consistent non-residential for a block there. Mr. Gould could not recall more than two, but Ms. Mitchell remembered one more. He said that the history of the area has been to try to protect the larger residential neighborhood on the West Side of Center Street. Recognizing the hospital’s need to grow was the encouragement given to it by the City to grow towards Broadway. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the East side of Broadway and that it seemed fairly residential. Mr. Gould said that it was mostly one and two family buildings. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the logic for it being institutional. Mr. Gould explained the other properties in the block surrounding the residential strip were institutional and that it was one potential area for the hospital to expand. Mr. Ring said that the hospital was sent the signal to expand toward Broadway rather than into the Center Street neighborhoods. There has been a significant amount of discussion about it. Mr. Wheeler added that it should be remembered that the hospital does not have the power of eminent domain. If a property does not want to sell, then the hospital can not acquire it. Mr. Guerette asked about the red triangle at the corner of Essex and Stillwater and there was discussion about the former A&P there. Ms. Mitchell asked if it was the quality of the program that made the wide white line around area number 5. Mr. Gould said that it could be tightened up more. This area reflected the discussions around the Grant properties. It shows the churches and reorientation of residential properties, the mobile home park, and the city school site. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the box of red across from Kev-Lan at Broadway and Griffin Road. Mr. Gould said that it reflects discussions held recently with the Grant owners. Ms. Mitchell asked about the area near number 6, the white area between the yellow and green near the Kenduskeag Stream. Mr. Gould said that white area would be filled in too and explained the concept of green paralleling the Stream, then yellow low density residential, then high density residential farthest from the Stream. Mr. Guerette asked for confirmation that everything on the particular map was within the primary service area. He asked about the corner of Broadway and Griffin that is 4 shown as commercial, but wondered about the apartments being constructed there. The area shown as white is where the apartments are occurring, but Staff would check to see if it should be shown as LDR or HDR. Ms. Mitchell was trying to remember if the new proposed subdivision next to the city school site on Kenduskeag was LDR or HDR. It is LDR. Shown on the corner of Griffin Road and Kenduskeag Avenue is a private residence that staff left as Low Density Residential. There was discussion about whether it should be treated the same as the east side of Broadway and indicated as possible expansion for the School site. A lot of times the G&ISD is shown as representational of ownership, but Mr. Gould said it could be shown however. It doesn’t rezone the property, but indicates it could be in the future. The Board wanted it to be shown as Institutional. Mr. Guerette discussed the area along Kenduskeag Avenue being Low Density Residential. Ms. Mitchell thought it was interesting that the recent zone change there was so controversial. Mr. Gould said that the only reason is that people who have lived there for years have always seen it as rural. The residents are not in tune with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, so it is news to them. They are attuned to the fact that with sewer and water in the area, it is not likely to stay open with fields and woods for too many more decades. Mr. Guerette asked about Saint Michael’s Center that was not shown on the map. Ms. Mitchell said that it was like a house as it is and likely could be turned back to one. Discussion moved to 6, 14, 7, and 2. Mr. Gould said for 14 the concept of Low Density Residential along the Kenduskeag Stream and no High Density Residential until Ohio Street is crossed. The maps recognize the small commercial properties on the corner of Griffin and Ohio. Low Density out to Finson Road where the subdivision was just approved. There is a little piece of High Density Residential that should be taken out. Near Finson. The area of Saint Mary’s Church is shown as Institutional. The Maine Avenue changes area represented best on the last map in the set. The separate uses commercial, institutional, industrial are now showing rather than as all commercial. Mr. Guerette asked about map 7 some areas proposed for institutional where it is presently commercial. The ice cream/radiator shop commercial, GE as industrial, Army Guard as Institutional. The shape of the road at Telcom Drive was added. Area number 11, EMMC the parking lot, and Wing Park off of Otis Street going across to the Medical Center, Cascade Park, Veteran’s Home, BMHI State offices. There was a little ribbon of Institutional along the north side of State Street was removed to indicate that it should not be an area to rezone. There were some commercial areas added along Garland Street and Mount Hope Avenue to recognize them. Williams Park and 5 the former shoe factory at Newbury and Hancock were mentioned as not showing up. As they were not in a transition area they were not added, but could be looked at. Area number 9 Outer Union Street discussed. The Land Use map didn’t change, but the Zoning Policy recommends HDR and where it shows up as LDR on the Land Use Concepts map. It will be changed. Mr. Ring said that the area shows as HDR adjacent to the Airport and it could be a problem in the future if allowed to develop it that way. The Air Guard area was added, but doesn’t show. There was discussion about whether the airport side of Union Street should be Low Density or Rural Residence and Agriculture. Mr. Wheeler asked what the rational of maintaining a RRA district within the City boundaries. Mr. Gould said that it is useful when there are no services in an area. The City can not service the whole land area within the municipal boundaries. The recent zone change at the corner of Ohio and Davis Road was an example where it straddles the Urban Growth Boundary. One side can be serviced and the other can not easily be serviced. It functions as a low-density residential zone, but allows other typically rural uses as well. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Job Corps facility was also RR&A and outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. She thought the concept for that should be something other than low density residential. Discussion of other area on Union Street. Mr. Guerette remembered discussions about the effect of Airport noise on the west side of Union Street and how it should guide the policy. Mr. Gould said the Land Use Concepts Map recommends Low Density Residential and the Zoning policy recommends High Density Residential. It should not recommend any more than low density. Ms. Mitchell asked that if we are looking long term should that area even be recommended for residential if there are reservations about the noise and the other side of Union Street has the Job Corps and ball fields. Mr. Guerette said residential intown and beyond surrounds the ball fields and Job Corps. He asked if Institutional would be added for the Job Corps and the ball fields. Ms. Mitchell asked if there is interest in that area being commercial. Mr. Gould said there is commercial interest everywhere, but didn’t think we should consider extending commercial farther out along Union Street. 6 Mr. Wheeler reminded everyone that Dow Lane School was constructed because of the presence of Dow Air Force Base and the military families. Mr. Gould said the board talked about the area on State Street at Hogan Road. There are commercial properties on State Street, some high-density residential buildings on the hillside and farther up the hill the institutional uses of Levinson Center and Maine D.O.T. He talked about area 15 that the map now recognizes those residential developments that are there. Ms. Mitchell said that it was still unclear whether we are mapping existing uses or what makes sense 15 years from now. In the case of Saint Joseph Hospital we are mapping what makes sense down the road where in other cases we are not. Mr. Gould asked if we would rezone to industrial a house lot in the middle of a subdivision because the policy says it shows it be industrial. Ms. Mitchell said that would be the same as on Broadway, where the residential strip is forecast to be institutional, to say that it is ok for a house in the middle of the strip to become part of the hospital. There was discussion about a particular corner lot and Mr. Gould said that we could fill in the corner with what is around it. Ms. Mitchell said she didn’t think we should. It just seemed inconsistent what we are doing. She didn’t think we had a vision of what we are trying to do with the City, but we are mapping it anyway piecemeal. She was not complaining, but it just seems an inconsistent process. Mr. Guerette said the area here (on Main Street) was surrounded by industrial and it is a unique little area where people are not selling out wholesale and we should protect it. Ms. Mitchell said that was the same with the Broadway neighborhood where people are not selling out. Mr. Ring said that if you go up Dillingham Street or Olive Heights you aren’t aware of the industrial surroundings. Thatcher Street might feel a little differently. Whereas Broadway it is a strip of residential right on an arterial. Mr. Guerette said that without regard to actual use, it is the intent of the plan to have residential here and along Broadway to have institutional. Mr. Ring said that is what the plan says. The question is, is that the intent? 7 Ms. Mitchell said that is the question. If we want to represent the City and say there should be areas for industrial expansion, where are they? She wasn’t saying this is it, but if it’s surrounded on all four sides, then… She thought these are the kinds of discussions that the Board should be having for concepts of the future. But we haven’t heard feed back from that area and she didn’t have an opinion on that area because she hadn’t studied it. Mr. Guerette talked about the development of a neighborhood where people lived within walking distance to stores and there were enough residences for be it to be a little community. This neighborhood is as well defined as one such as Little City. What we heard from residents at the neighborhoods was the preservation of them. So he could support making the change on the Dillingham Street neighborhood to residential. Ms. Mitchell’s impression of the neighborhood was not as detailed and she was looking at the larger perspective of the City. Mr. Wheeler asked if he misunderstood the mission of that the Board is attempting to complete. He said that it was an update not a revision. It was fine to meet, look at maps, read minutes, discuss areas, but if every member had not taken the time to drive around the City to familiarize them, then there was something lacking in the process. In talking about visions, then he thought would occur 5 years away in the complete revision. He understood that the update would reflect those areas that are experiencing a transition and to establish some general guidelines along which the Board could proceed for the next 5 years using common sense and above all a personal physical awareness of the actual areas under consideration. He didn’t think a firm stand should be taken on areas if the facts on the transitional nature of them were not firm. Mr. Guerette thought that brought the group back into focus on what the group is trying to do. They were looking at the transition areas and asking if what has occurred in the areas in the past 5 years is the same direction they should go in the next 5 years. In the case of the Broadway plan the answer was yes. In the Main Street neighborhoods the answer was not, that there was a vibrant neighborhood that should be recognized by making a change on the map to preserved it. He thought it was the Board’s prerogative to go back and second-guess each area. The map of 15 represents the discussions of that particular transition area. He asked if there was anymore concern about it. Mr. Gould talked about area 16, the Spring and Curve Streets area that had some areas that needed defining for commercial and institutional areas. There was a question if the Federal Building should be institutional. 8 Mr. Guerette said that it appeared to be outside of the transition area boundary and likely was not changed because that was the focus. Mr. Gould talked about area 17 Union Place changes recognize the Seminary property and surrounding commercial properties. Mr. Guerette said that he thought the concept for Union place was still undecided because the City has not chosen a developer for the site. There are no changes in the City Forest or along the rural road frontages. There is nothing on 18, and 19. 20 was looked at, 21 is outer Mount Hope Avenue where the multi family project was just approved. 22 is the airport lands represented by the last sheet just looked at. 23 is Maine Business Enterprise Park, is also on that sheet and is represented as an industrial park, but Staff is looking to create a business park district. Ms. Mitchell asked about the 17, the Seminary area if the whole area was G&ISD and that it was not on the map before. Mr. Gould said that given the type of buildings on the property it would not likely revert to single-family and might provide opportunity to some other non profit entity. Ms. Mitchell asked if the single-family designation was just a mistake. Mr. Gould said there were other examples of inconsistent mapping. On area 24, the industrial parks are now represented as industrial. Mr. Guerette said that it was nice to review the maps with the understanding that what started the project were the transition areas. For the actual update if the focus of discussions will be by elements how will they be incorporated into the document. Mr. Gould referred to number 5, Physical Development, that it includes the Land Use Plan. Changes in the focused transition areas will show up on the proposed Land Use Concepts Map. Ms. Mitchell referred to area 26, on State Street, and noted that some of the entities are not represented, such as commercial properties and the Abraham Lincoln School. Is the plan to not have those there Mr. Gould said that area had not been studied piece by piece. Ms. Mitchell thought that the commercial entities should be represented on the State Street frontage. 9 Mr. Gould said that like Hammond Street it was the Old Route 2 corridor and there was some discussion of that in sections of the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood meetings didn’t bring up encroachment issues along the State Street corridor, but some of the zone change meetings did bring out neighbors. Mr. Ring asked if there were very many residential properties on State Street at all. Staff made a note to look at State Street. Mr. Guerette said this was an important review to make the changes on the Land Use Concepts map. He looked forward to see all of the pieces put together. Now need to let Staff work on the narrative to explain the maps and each of the elements. He asked if there was now more stability in the Planning Office because the Board needed this to be worked on. Mr. Wheeler thought there was a lot of work provided in the previous two weeks by Staff and he was pleased. Mr. Guerette asked for other items. Mr. Gould asked if there was an interest in having a discussion focused on subdivisions around policy issues of open space, sidewalks, and other public improvements. In the existing Comp Plan there is not a lot of guidance on those issues that it would be nice to have. Mr. Guerette said it would be nice to refer to the minutes because there have been some discussions about those issues. He didn’t know if they led to any firm conclusions, but they might get some guidance from them rather than try to reinvent the entire thought process. One of the important components of that from the City’s point of view is the management/fiscal issue and how that would that guide the Board’s discussions. Mr. Ring said there was a discussion that may be tangential but related to the subject was talk of open space and whether it should be a detention pond or not. That could be handled by changes in the Ordinance. One other thing that he recalled was looking for opportunities to make open space connections when new subdivisions are created. It is a little more conceptual than can be handled by Ordinance amendment and might be mentioned in the Comp. Plan. And try to identify places to logically connect them. Ms. Mitchell thought there was discussion about attempting to map the green spaces, and where the connections would be. 10 Mr. Wheeler wondered if it would be useful before adopting the update to have a tour of the City together in order to have a visual concept of what it is the Board is recommending. He remembered doing that when he was on the Council and thought it was very important to see exactly what the Board was dealing with and didn’t see how they could make an informed or intelligent decision any other way. Everyone thought it was a great idea and there was discussion on how and when to accomplish that. Mr. Ring and Mr. Gould said that it could be arranged and would proceed to do that. Ms. Quimby asked about some of the changes recommended could have significant impact on some of the neighborhoods and asked if there would be opportunity for public input before it is in final form. Asked which ones in particular she mentioned the changes along Broadway near Griffin Road and also near Saint Joseph Hospital. It seemed like a good idea that the people nearest to the changes would be on notice and be able to look at the map. Mr. Gould explained the basic minimum process to review the draft document, just as was done with the Penjajawoc Task Force report when it was up as an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. There would be legal posted public notice by advertisement and website that the plan is available for 30 days for the public to review in advance of the Public Hearing. They could come to City Hall to look at the existing plan, the proposed changes, and make a decision on whether they have a concern or not. After the 30 days the Board would hold the Public Hearing where we would go through the Plan generally and what the proposed changes are. The public from any and all neighborhoods may come and make favorable and unfavorable comments on it. The Board would deliberate, make changes or amendments, then vote on a recommendation to the City Council. That is the minimum for the draft document. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if it was correct that if substantive changes were needed after this process that it would have to go through the whole process again. He wondered if there was some way of getting meaningful public input before it is that late into the process. Mr. Gould said that just at Staff level that would be going on for 30 days before the Public Hearing where the public would be coming in to look at and talk about them. Even if there were 10 neighborhood meetings, there might be someone attending the last meeting who had substantive issues. Mr. Rosenblatt was concerned that if it were structured so there was no opportunity of Board presentation and comment before the Public Hearing then the Board would not be in a position to respond to the comments. It would be under pressure to approve the draft without regard for the comments and he didn’t think that was a healthy way to proceed. 11 Mr. Gould said that no matter how many hearings in advance there are there could still be someone at the end who did not hear about the previous ones. The question then is what is adequate public input. Ms. Quimby said that the Task Force which was pertinent because it was such a long process and there were so many stakeholders participating. While she didn’t expect that the Board would take that long of a time for each of the areas in the Comp Plan update, by the time of the Public Hearing for the Mall Task Force Report, there had already been a lot of involvement and opportunity for comment available. She thought it was important for the democratic process and public morale to invite participation as opposed to going through the minimum process. Mr. Gould said that the Board has been meeting every two weeks and publicly going through this. He said these meetings have been as open and as noticed as the Task Force Meetings were. If people have not chosen to attend then it has been the same process. Mr. Guerette agreed and said that the Board has been holding these open workshops sessions since the neighborhood meetings began in January, in other words, all year. He thought since the Board was selected by the City Council to look at land use issues they needed to show leadership and resolution in this process. He did not think they should hold up a final recommendation for people who want to intercede at the end of the deliberations when the Board has dissected the Plan in an effort to better understand it and consider changes. He didn’t think it was economic of just to try to derail the process in the end by being indecisive about it. He had thought that what could be done during the 30 day public notice period the board could have information sessions, one or two days a week. A member of planning Staff and Board could be present for the people to ask questions of. Mr. Rosenblatt added that we think we are at the end of the process, but have not seen the draft yet. Isn’t there a way after an initial draft to have one meeting where the public could look at it and provide comment before the final draft is presented for the Public Hearing? He said the document would be available with the benefit of finalizing the document for the 30 days and Public Hearing. Mr. Guerette agreed that it would not slow down the process and when we get to the second or third draft we could advertise and invite public comment before the Public Hearing. Mr. Wheeler wanted to add that these meetings have been going on for almost a whole year and anyone who had not attended, but wanted to make comment had better do so, because it was going to be voted on in the end. He did not have any objection to holding a meeting before the Public Hearing, but thought the comments would end up 12 being parochial. He said that the Board had been appointed by the Council to do a job and if that not satisfactory then we needed to burn the Charter, turn this into a Town so that we can hold a public meeting and let every citizen attend and make the final decision. Mr. Guerette said that what would be expected at the next meeting is a draft for the Board to look at. Mr. Gould said that there would be something for the Board to look at and added that Mr. Clark was the member whose term would be up in 2006. He needed to notify the Clerk of his interest if he wanted to continue on the Board. Mr. Guerette asked for adjournment of the meeting at 8:55 p.m. 13