Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-25 Planning Board Minutes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP TUESDAY, October 25, 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. Robert Guerette began the meeting at 6:35 p.m. and talked about the road tour of Bangor that the Board had with Staff on Saturday. He said that Mr. Gould handed out the first draft of the Update. Mr. Guerette said that he would begin to work on the introductory narrative. Mr. Gould passed said that there are maps intended to be included in the Update. Some are done and some need to be produced. He went over the draft for the Board to look over and noted that Staff is finished with some sections, others are still being worked on. He explained the color-coding of the draft, some sections are original and could remain, some are revised, and some he did not know what the Board would like to do with them. Mr. Guerette reviewed the format for accomplishing the goal. He liked the direction though it is different than originally discussed. It is almost a complete rewrite now. He said that originally he thought it would be left intact with overlays of the Board’s observations of the 28 transition areas and how they affect what the Plan says. Toward the end of the reviewing the elements the Board could conclude there is a superfluity of words in them that could be eliminated. He said that it seemed to him that once the draft is completed it could completely replace the Comprehensive Plan. He didn’t know if that was an update or a revision. Mr. Wheeler agreed, but the term update seemed to him that material no longer relevant would be replaced. Mr. Guerette explained that he wanted to write the narrative to explain how the City uses it, and the details of the update process including the neighborhood and workshop meetings. He thought all of the information should be attached. Mr. Rosenblatt asked for an explanation of the information. Mr. Guerette thought that would include all of the quadrant information compiled for the neighborhood meetings, results of the questionnaires distributed at those meetings, references to the minutes of those meetings. He would also explain what obsolete information was removed. Ms. Brown asked if there would be something in the introduction to make it easier for a user to find what they are looking for. Mr. Guerette said there were many comments about the Comprehensive Plan’s non-usability and the purpose of it. The Board’s goal now is to try to make it more readable, useable. Ms. Mitchell suggested that the supplemental information could be used to replace the existing 1960’s information and the old information put into the appendix. Mr. Guerette suggested that the Board go through the updated elements, sanction omissions, and make comments about the changes. Mr. Wheeler said that would be a good idea since 2005 was almost over. Ms. Mitchell wanted to prioritize what to review and wanted to know if the goals and objectives would remain. Mr. Gould said the format would remain along with the goals and objectives. He thought it would be a better use of the Board’s time to read the document before discussing it. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he had gone through the document once and he had a list of questions to bring up and if it would be useful he could. He didn’t expect everyone to agree. There were 4 items on the maps to discuss. 1. He was still concerned about open space in the Waterfront area as it was depicted in the 2003 Master Plan and thought the Land Use Concepts map should show that. 2. Broadway and Burleigh Road area, the commercial area on the Husson side of Griffin seems larger than the existing concept plan depicts. Mr. Gould said that it is a replication of the same concept on the other side of Griffin to have a concentration of commercial at the corner. Mr. Rosenblatt continued with 3. the G&ISD area across Broadway from St. Joseph Hospital. 4. He asked if the boundaries in the marsh area were consistent with the Mall/Marsh Task Force boundaries. Mr. Gould said that the commercial boundary had been adjusted to represent the Task Force diagram. 2 Mr. Rosenblatt suggested everyone could think about his questions until next time. Mr. Gould referred to the Physical Development section where it discussed the river’s edge of the waterfront as being reserved for public open space. Mr. Rosenblatt discussed the Community Facilities section, page 6, regarding parks, recreation, and open space. He said that the Board had talked about an inventory and a plan for what that would look like. Open space provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance. How would to move forward on it. Mr. Gould said the issue is to decide how far to take the open space concept. There is no time to take the open space system to completeness in just a couple of months. He said that the idea should be planted by including some language in the Comp Plan that it should be done. Ms. Mitchell said he was referring to the open space issue in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Rosenblatt said that there were two aspects. There is the issue of the open space requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance that needs to be addressed. But there is also the larger idea talked about is of the citywide open space system to result in something more meaningful. He didn’t know if that involved changing the language in the Ordinance. Mr. Lucy Quimby, Bangor citizen, added that in the absence of Bangor having a Conservation Commission, the Bangor Land Trust could be mentioned as attempting to coordinate a more systematic way of working with landowners and pieces in subdivisions. Mr. Gould said that the Land Trust is on page 9. Mr. Rosenblatt said that Open space is one set of issues. He thought the Board should have a discussion and deal with pedestrian systems mentioned on page 9 and 10. He didn’t know if the language proposed intends that. Mr. Gould said that he would like to have some systematic way of developing sidewalks. Right now if sidewalks are built in new subdivisions they are disconnected with the network as a whole, because the arterials collector streets they are off of do not have them though they would have a greater value. We have the ability to extract funds to develop them in the quiet subdivisions but not on the busy streets. Maybe we could develop an impact fee for the subdivisions then put the sidewalks on the arterials. Mr. Rosenblatt reiterated that we would identify them in the Comp Plan, but not deal with them now. He said that there are some subdivisions seen by the Board on the 3 tour where sidewalks could be useful. Perhaps homeowners associations could maintain them. Mr. Wheeler remembered this discussion. Mr. Gould said that there has a lot of discussion, but no conclusion. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the only requirement was where subdivisions were on a particular type of street. All of the sidewalks are at the discretion of the Board, but he does not remember the Board ever requiring sidewalks. Maybe there is a way to have the Board require the funding of them. He would like to hear about the pros and cons of the City having sidewalks and then move on. Mr. Ring said that the issue is still unresolved. He thought it needed to be discussed as an issue of changing the Ordinance. There also needs to be a discussion about the distinction between trails and sidewalks. The way to truly address that is by Ordinance Amendment and it may be mentioned as a goal or objective to have it stand out since there has been so much interest in it. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the mention of Bangor Beautiful and the line that it has limited success. Mr. Gould said that it would be nice to have them present, but when he has spoken with Bangor Beautiful they have run into roadblocks to creating a trail system. Mr. Wheeler said that seemed inevitable when trying to come to an agreement by multiple groups. Ms. Mitchell said the issue is to develop a plan agreeable to all, then try to overcome the barriers as they occur. The reason that she asked about the goals and objectives is that she didn’t want the ideas brought up this time to be lost as those brought up in the previous revisions/updates were. We may have to delete some of the old ones to add the new ones. Mr. Wheeler said that we had to keep in mind the difference between a plan and a process. It sounded to him that we are moving in the direction of process and away from plan. Already it has been suggested that we have another Commission and he expressed in the adoption discussions of the Penjajawoc/Mall report that having more commissions will make the planning process more difficult, time-consuming, for future development. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about a fire substation location on Hammond Street and if it was still in the plan. 4 Mr. Gould said that he asked the fire chief if that was still a desired location for a substation, he said yes, and it is on the proposed facilities map. He asked about the requirement mentioned for fire sprinkler systems in industrial park areas. He thought it would be already required. Mr. Ring said that NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency) has endless updates and the regulations are becoming more rigorous. Unless they are very small buildings they will probably have sprinkler systems anyway required by codes. So that particular item will probably be taken care of outside of mention in the Comp. Plan. Mr. Rosenblatt thought that the need for another school facility was driven more by the condition of the current facility rather than a mushrooming enrollment. Mr. Gould said Staff could check with the school department to find out the reason behind the proposed school facility. There was more discussion with speculation and opinions of school enrollments. Mr. Ring explained that the Griffin Road site purchased by the City was available and likely there would be need for a school in the future. Mr. Guerette added that in the Comp Plan we are recommending by way of the Land Use Concepts map that the site would be rezoned institutional in the future. Mr. Gould added that the Land Use Concepts map indicates what the zone should be when it brought up for rezoning. It doesn’t mean we are going to rezone it. Mr. Rosenblatt moved on to Transportation and realized that some had not been updated, regarding the Stillwater Avenue interchange and Downtown signals. Mr. Ring said that he had not gotten to that yet. He said that the Penjajawoc Task Force Report refers to some of the transportation issues, too. He updated that the Downtown signalization is ongoing. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the intermodal facility. Mr. Ring said that it was an idea, but never built. The pedestrian system language was the same as in another part and Mr. Gould said that he wanted to get his thoughts on paper and then let the Board could decide. Mr. Rosenblatt mentioned the traffic impact policy and the role the City has in traffic policy. He didn’t understand the City’s role, since DOT is involved in larger projects, but the Board is not allowed to think about traffic in the Site Plan review criteria for the smaller projects. He wanted to know if it goes on in the background. Mr. Ring said that larger projects tripping 100 peak trips the D.O.T. reviews them. The smaller projects whether they are commercial or residential do not require permits, but 5 are looked at by Staff to see what their effect on the receiving street is. The City doesn’t tag them and add them up for the total effect. There may be a potential to develop a traffic impact fee. It would not solve each development’s effect, but could allow for a fund to provide improvements for all of them together. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if he understood that if the Parkade project, which was large enough to require a State D.O.T. traffic permit, had been broken up into multiple projects that did not require one, there would still be the same traffic produced without any recommended improvements. Mr. Ring reiterated and explained again for the Board. He said that we might be able to develop an impact fee for them. He added that though people might perceived that a road has much more traffic, it may still have enough capacity to be functional. However the intersection up the street may need improvement, such as a light or lane and an impact fee fund might help. Mr. Guerette said that there is a common theme in this discussion that is similar to the open space and sidewalk issues that have occurred since he was on the Board. He asked if new business owners wouldn’t argue that they would be paying taxes out of which the improvements should be funded. If the Board decides to add a mitigation fund, should the Board just add a statement in the Comp Plan update, or is there something that the Board can do to make it happen. Mr. Wheeler said that the Board does not have taxing authority, the Council does. He agrees with the sentiment that the business community might object. The whole issue of traffic while affected by studies and statistics is affected by perception. There was a photo of traffic in downtown Bangor, which he remembered as having many jams. If anything is built that involves people there will be traffic. He said that traffic was discussed at all of the neighborhood meetings. He said that it was inevitable and the Board will waste its time to attempt to deal with it in a detailed manner. The Board would be stepping outside its authority. Mr. Ring said though there were many valid points against dealing with traffic, the Board could at least mention in the Comp Plan that it is a constant concern and there should be some discussions about dealing with it. He thought that the City might need to address it because objections may grow stronger and stronger over time as each new development comes in for review. Mr. Guerette asked if the Board stated concern about incremental traffic growth and should be looked at. Did that mean that the Board would be responsible for getting discussions going to review the issue? He cited several projects that involved traffic improvements and asked if they were voluntary or mandatory. 6 Mr. Ring said that those cited were large enough for traffic permits and were mandated by the D.O.T. Each situation is different requiring analysis that might provide different solutions to mitigate. Ms Mitchell said that it would seem responsible for the Board to outline in the Comprehensive Plan their recommendations on impact fees for example in order to move the ideas forward to the Council or those who could implement them and not shy away many of the issues brought up at the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Guerette agreed, but wanted to have a concept on how they could be done. Traffic seemed beyond the Board’s or even the Council’s ability to deal with it. It seemed that it would only be possible at the State level. Ms. Mitchell thought Mr. Ring had indicated that the City could have standards to enforce on developers regardless of what D.O.T. requires. He said that he would have to check into it definitively, but that is what he had said the City might be able to do. If suggested that if the Board decided to, then they could recommend that something be done, for instance an impact fee, about projects that do not require a traffic permit, but add up to the same size as those that do. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about pages 6 and 7 of the Physical Development Plan that he thought needed updating. Mr. Gould said that he was waiting for an update from Mr. Ring. Mr. Guerette asked if the Bangor Mall Subarea Plan included the Mall/Marsh Task Force Report. Mr. Gould said that was an old appendix and he was awaiting someone’s order to update or delete it. Mr. Guerette said that Mr. Rosenblatt who concurred had recommended deleting it. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Seminary properties should be indicated somehow. It was not a transition area when they were established. Mr. Gould suggested it might be discussed after page 19 where it talks about corridors and he has not gotten to it, and include it with the Hammond Street corridor. Mr. Guerette asked if he was going to discuss all of the transition areas and corridors as well. 7 Mr. Gould said that most of the Land Use information and background is contained within the Physical Development Section. Mr. Wheeler said that he didn’t know how the Board could complete this project without Staff to coordinate it. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the Broadway corridor, page 22 and 24, and if it was already updated or going to be. He wasn’t clear what was old and what was new. Mr. Gould said that it should be in red if it was recently updated. Mr. Guerette asked if the discussion of the corridors will remain, deleted, or will it be just the transition areas. Mr. Gould said that the corridor section would introduce the transition areas though, which they traverse. There are some transition areas though that would be separate from the corridors. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the Stillwater Avenue area on page 29 seems to need considerable updating. It talks a lot about planting trees. He thought the issue is that the area can’t support the development, not that there are not enough trees. Mr. Gould said that what was written sometimes contains the bias of the author. There is also a statement that Judson Heights is the most beautiful part of the City, but he wondered why we would make that judgement and took it out. Our goal is to make all parts of the City attractive. Ms. Mitchell said that there were some parks missing from the Land Use Concepts Map as well as the Little League ball field. She wondered if some of the wetlands seen should be shown conceptually as open space on the Land Use Concept Map. Mr. Gould said that we would bring a map showing the open spaces and the Board could decide what else to add. Ms. Mitchell said that it is on the Land Use Concepts map that she wants to see them. Mr. Guerette asked if we were going to show every major wetland in the City as open space on the L.U. Concepts map even though it is in some other zone. Mr. Gould said that is not intended. Ms. Mitchell asked if there were some significant that were large enough and why they wouldn’t be denoted as open space. 8 Mr. Gould said that the ones shown are there because of their significance in Shoreland zoning. There are other wetlands that are not shown. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about Fiscal Policy. Mr. Gould said that the City Manager and Finance Director were working on that section. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about Natural Resources and the referenced Environmental Features Map. Mr. Gould explained about the wetlands depicted by National Wetlands inventory and that they are delineated differently than the State Shoreland zoning map. He said that all of the maps are baseline references, but on site delineation is best. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the Natural Resources section does not pick up on the recent studies. Mr. Gould said that most of the data that goes into Comp Plans is provided by the State. Another study being done is High Bluffs, but there are none in Bangor. The deer yard mapping has not changed. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about water quality in the Penjajawoc Stream. Mr. Ring said there is a study for that stream as well as one on Birch Stream. They will have implications for land use when they are finished. Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Ring to pass a question to the Finance Director regarding the statement in the Physical Development section that 54% off the City’s revenues are generated by the property tax. He wondered if that number had changed and he wondered what percentage was nontaxable. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about Natural Resources section and if there is a State document on wildlife. Mr. Gould said that there is a map done through Shoreland Zoning to show wetlands and deeryards. DEP provides a map to Inland Fisheries and Wildlife showing all wetlands 10 acres or more. I.F.&W then rate them as High Medium and Low Value that have consequences for Shoreland Zoning. They do the same for deeryards. Ms. Mitchell asked if there are some new roads that are not on the Environmental Features map. 9 Mr. Gould said that most likely the Judson Heights subdivision expansion and others are not on the base. Ms. Mitchell asked about an area that is wet and it being on the map or not. Mr. Rosenblatt had 3 more questions. The next one is in the Historic section on page 14 regarding what to do about off-street parking requirement in Historic Districts. He didn’t have an opinion, but he wanted to see the issue mentioned. Mr. Gould said that it just needs to be mentioned and the recommendation does not need to be determined right now. It just needs to be in there if they want to deal with it later. The Board discussed the existing parking requirements in the Multi-Family and Service District where the problem has been occurring. Ms. Mitchell asked about some of the pros and cons about keeping the section in here. Mr. Gould explained a scenario. The con is by not requiring anyone to have parking, the street becomes overtaxed. Under State and Regional considerations, Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were shared waterfront discussions with Brewer. Mr. Ring said that there were discussions periodically. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about Economic Development section. He wondered if some of the section would be edited. There was a line that seemed more like a marketing statement. Ms. Mitchell asked for a review of the sections that had been worked on. She did know that Housing, Economic Development, and Public Facilities were done. Mr. Gould said that Physical Development was 50% done. The City Manager and Finance Director will do fiscal Policy. The City Engineer will do transportation. Natural Resources section is 90% done. If the Board wants to look at the Audubon report and suggest some ways to include information they could. He wants to be sure that the Shoreland Zoning Wetlands and Deeryards are included because while the Audubon map is nice it does not have the regulatory backing that the State supplied maps have. The Historic section is available elsewhere and not much was changed with it. A map showing the existing historic properties and districts will be added. In the Housing section if someone can make a suggestion on the Supplemental-housing inventory it would be helpful. 10 Mr. Wheeler said that in the long term if the funds were available, then the most pertinent parts provided in a condensed version would be helpful to prospective developers. Mr. Gould said that we would continue to work on the Land Use Concepts map. The Board discussed the location of Whitney Park. Mr. Guerette said that the lingering questions and bigger issues talked about having to do with Transportation, Open Space, and Sidewalk issues. He thought he understood that what was needed was an identification of the issues and that they needed to be discussed, but that they did not need to create solutions at this point. He thought that the Transportation issues would ultimately be discussed by another body, but Open Space and the Planning Board may discuss Sidewalks. Mr. Ring said that he thought because they needed to be addressed as issues in the Comp. Plan Update, but not specify what new ordinances need to be adopted at this point. He thought it would be appropriate for the Board to identify them now and even list out ideas for possible solutions. Mr. Wheeler asked if it would be fair to discuss what the Board is trying to do, that being that the Board is try to deal with changes that have happened in the City and how to anticipate what may happen in the future. Mr. Guerette thanked Mr. Rosenblatt for reading the revisions to the Plan and said that the discussions were productive. Ms. Mitchell asked if there would be other sections completed for the next meeting in two weeks or should the Board continue to discuss these sections. Mr. Gould said that he would be continuing to work on the sections. He said that the discussions will be based on what the Board brings up. He has already written in his recommended changes, but the Board needs to respond to that. There was discussion of the next meeting, an agenda, and adjournment at 8:50. 11