Friday, January 22, 2010

PORTLAND DAILY SUN
http://www.theportlanddailysun.com/cgi/story.pl?storyid=20100121050321000526
City adopts revised Waynflete zoning plan


By Casey Conley
Reporter
casey@portlanddailysun.me

New zoning rules adopted by the city council this week give Waynflete School more flexibility for future on-campus expansion but prohibits the West End private school from converting four on-campus homes into school uses.

Last month, the planning board recommended passage of a Waynflete "overlay zone." Within that zone are four single-family homes, only two of which are currently owned by the school. The version of the plan that passed the planning board would have allowed the school to subdivide the homes to include up to 60 percent school or office space while retaining 40 percent of the structures for housing purposes.

An amendment proposed by Councilor Dave Marshall banning such conversions passed the council 8-1 Wednesday night, with only Councilor Dan Skolnik voting against it. A companion amendment stripping a planning board provision requiring any construction over 5,000-square-feet within the overlay zone to receive city approval also passed. Under that rule, the school will have to seek city approval for any projects 10,000-square-feet or greater -- which aligns it with the current city standard.

With the two amendments, the 20-year overlay zone was adopted, establishing as campus boundaries its existing "footprint" between Spring, Danforth, Emery and Fletcher streets.

Reached Thursday, Marshall said the amendments mirrored a compromise he first offered last spring to resolve tensions among neighborhood groups worried about further "encroachment" by the school into the surrounding area.

He added that because the new rules treat the entire campus as a single lot, instead of more than a dozen individual lots, the school can "do some creative infill" to maximize on-campus development.

Wednesday's vote marks the end of a two-year process aimed at setting boundaries for Waynflete's future growth and development. The issue divided West End residents, with some arguing Waynflete has already expanded too far into the neighborhood and others who say the school should be allowed to expand on its own terms.

A phone call to Mark Seger, Waynflete's headmaster, wasn't returned by press time.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Waynflete Overlay Zone Amendments

On Friday I made public language of the amendments to the Waynflete Overlay zone I am sponsoring, which are consistent with the compromise I asked for nine months ago after the neighborhood forums at Williston West and Reiche School. The amendments will be considered by the City Council during our meeting next Wednesday.

The decision to bring the amendments forward was very challenging, and one that I have made after rereading the City's Comprehensive Plan. The first amendment is to remove the 5,000 foot trigger for Major Site Plan Review, and the second is to restrict residential conversion within the zone. With respect for all interested parties, I have brought forward these amendments to make the public aware of two amendments the Council will consider. This approach makes the amendment process more transparent.

Earlier this week, I asked the City's Corporation Counsel Office to prepare the amendments, put them on the agenda, and send them to interested parties. In addition to my meeting with Alan Holt on behalf of Waynflete, I also met with representatives of the Western Promenade Neighborhood Association (WPNA), the two parties that I have been asking to compromise for over nine months.

The amendments, if passed, will achieve the compromise I asked WPNA and Waynflete to accept following two neighborhood forums at Williston West and Reiche Elementary School. I hosted the forums after fourteen months of consultation work facilitated by Alan Holt on behalf of Waynflete. Last spring, I suggested a compromise for the Overlay Zone to encompass the existing campus plus two residential properties that could not be converted to school use. The compromise was accepted WPNA reluctantly and followed by the West End Neighborhood Association.

Waynflete did not agree to the compromise of two residential properties at the time and submitted a proposal to the Planning Board that would have included five residences in addition to the existing campus for the Overlay Zone. During the Planning Board process,Waynflete changed its proposal to compromise plan I suggested. The difference here is Waynflete asked the planning board to allow the homes to be converteds to be 60% school use and 40% residential. The compromise I first proposed nine months ago did not allow for residential conversion.

After reviewing the City's Comprehensive Plan and considering the context of the neighborhood, I believe that converting the four existing residential single family homes into offices and apartments would have a significant impact on the residential nature of the neighborhood in particular on Danforth Street. By preventing the conversion of these residential properties to school use, the single family homes will be preserved, which will allow for larger families to to live on the Waynflete campus and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood.

By publicizing the language of the amendments on Friday, all members of the public will now of know two amendments that will be offered at next Wednesday's meeting. It is possible for any Councilor to move an amendment from the floor at any Council meeting without any prior notice and without any time for interested parties to respond. Publicizing the text language of the amendments early - that have been well known to stakeholders for nine months - makes the amendment process as transparent as possible.

Please see the agenda description and memo to the Planning Board below and the find the Waynflete Overlay Zone on the

CITY OF PORTLAND

MEMORANDUM

TO:
Members of the Planning Board

FROM: David A. Marshall, City Councilor, District 2
DATE: September 22, 2009

RE: Waynflete Overlay Zone

The purpose of this memo is to provide history of the process that I have participated in to date.

After months of meetings with representatives from Waynflete School, the Western Promenade Neighborhood Association, the West End Neighborhood Association, and City Planning Staff it is clear that we can all agree on one thing: that an overlay zone for theWaynflete campus is a critical policy tool needed to provide long-term predictability for campus development.

While the months of meetings through the CCC and two neighborhood forums have brought us to our common support of utilizing an overlay zone, there are still very different perspectives regarding the additional number of residences that should be included within the overlay zone. Throughout the process I maintained the position of protecting the housing stock and the tax base, as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Early in CCC process, all parties embraced the overlay zone concept, however, it was apparent that Waynflete and the WPNA had vastly different perspectives on acceptability of campus expansion into residences in the neighborhood. Waynflete was considering all of the buildings within the boundaries of Spring, Danforth, Emery, and Fletcher Streets.

WPNA was considering all residential expansion off the table and insisted that the campus not expand beyond its current footprint.

As the CCC proceeded in discussion, Waynflete introduced a couple of draft scenarios for the campus. The first was to expand the campus footprint to include seven residences and one institutional building (St. Louis Cathedral), while constructing additions and structures to the campus. The second scenario was working within the existing footprint of the campus and building additions and structures, which Waynflete did not see as acceptable and was using the scenario to illustrate its point. WPNA objected to the first scenario of campus expansion and continued to insist on maintaining the existing footprint.

In the spirit of compromise, I suggested to both sides a middle ground proposal to incorporate an additional four properties into a possible overlay zone, two residences and two institutional properties. Although I did not name the residential properties - which I intentionally left undesignated to allow Waynflete flexibility - I did suggest including Williston West Church in the overlay zone in addition to St. Louis Cathedral. The rationale for suggesting the inclusion of Williston West is due the proximity to the campus, the established relationship between the Waynflete and Williston West, and the availability of space at Williston West. Also with the proposal was the intent to maintain the current level of housing units and property taxes.

In addition to the middle ground proposal I asked the members of the CCC to participate in a neighborhood forum to bring the discussion to a wider audience. All parties agreed to participate in the forum that I would host at Williston West.

Over one hundred people participated in the Waynflete Overlay Zone Neighborhood Forum I hosted at Williston West. Waynfletepresented the two overlay zone drafts and presented future space needs. Then, WPNA announced its support of the middle ground proposal that I had suggested. WENA expressed concern with including St. Louis in the overlay zone, however, did not take a position of the various scenarios at the time. Public comment was taken and recorded at the event and residents were encouraged to provide written feedback at the forum or through email. The forum at Williston West was successful in widening the discussion and made it clear that support existed for both sides of the debate with a desire to see compromise.

After the forum at Williston West, it became clear that WENA desired a greater participation in the discussion and requested a forum be held at Reiche Community Center. All parties agreed to participate in an additional forum with a similar format and the event was scheduled.

At the Waynflete Overlay Zone Neighborhood Forum I hosted at Reiche, over thirty people participated. Waynflete made its presentation again. Next, WPNA announced its plan for an overlay zone, largely based on the middle ground proposal. WPNA’s overlay zone proposal included a map of the campus, which designated two residential properties along with the inclusion of St. Louis and Williston West. Then, WENA reiterated its concern of the inclusion of St. Louis in the overlay zone. During the public comment portion, it was clear that opposition to the inclusion of St. Louis in the overlay zone was growing. Residents were encouraged to provide written feedback through email as well. The forum at Reiche was successful in further engaging the residents within the West End Neighborhood Association.

At the next CCC meeting, the group discussed the feedback received from the forums. During the meeting WENA announced its support for WPNA’s overlay zone proposal. All the parties agreed that it was not necessary to include St. Louis and Williston West in the overlay zone. Instead, the overlay zone would not restrict the ability of Waynflete from utilizing institutional properties outside of the zone. Finally, at the end of the meeting I requested that parties join for one final meeting of the CCC and the parties agreed.

During the final meeting of the CCC, Waynflete presented its final proposal for an overlay zone. The overlay zone would include five additional residences and the back yard of another residential property. Under the proposal, Waynflete School would consist of a campus core and sub districts with a couple buildings to remain completely residential. Additionally, the overlay zone would provide flexibility to add residential units in some buildings while removing them from others with the intent of preserving the same number of residential units and to maintain a similar tax base.

The CCC meetings and neighborhood forums helped to bring the conversation regarding Waynflete expansion from two-city-blocks to five residences. While WPNA and WENA oppose the overlay zone application brought forth by Waynflete, we have narrowed the debate to four residences, the two on Grayhurst Street and the two on Storer Street. Currently, these four residences are separated from the campus by a brick wall and a row of trees, which create a solid barrier between the neighborhood and Waynflete. Even though Waynflete did not embrace the my middle ground proposal and the neighborhood associations are still in opposition, I feel the work done to date had placed the Planning Board in a better position to provide a well-informed recommendation to the City Council.

In Service,
David A. Marshall
City Councilor, District 2
207.409.6617
damarshall@portlandmaine.gov
AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EVENING SESSION
JANUARY 20, 2010

http://www.portlandmaine.gov/eveningagenda.htm

Order 138-09/10 Amendment to Portland City Code Chapter 14. Land Use Article III.
(Tab 11) Zoning Re: Waynflete School Overlay Zone – Sponsored by the Planning Board, David Silk, Chair.

The Planning Board is forwarding a recommendation to the City Council recommending approval of an overlay zone for the Waynflete School campus and several adjacent properties in the vicinity of 360 Spring Street. The amendments involve a proposed zoning test and an accompanying overlay zoning map. The Waynflete School Overlay Zone concept is similar in concept to the University of Southern Maine Overlay Zone.

The overlay zone has been proposed by Waynflete in order to establish a clear understanding between the school, the City and the neighborhood of the school’s potential plans regarding future development of their campus facilities in the R-4 and R-6 zones and to clearly define its boundary in the neighborhood.

The overlay zone limits Waynflete’s future growth and expansion to a specific campus footprint which provides certainty in terms of what nearby residential properties may or may not be included in the school’s future expansion plans.

Under the present system Waynflete requests approval (site plan and conditional use review) for school expansion plans on a property by property basis that tends to address short-term needs by not necessarily the long-term plan.

Rather than a limited review of an individual school project, the Planning Board’s overlay zoning process has required an in-depth analysis of long-term plans for the entire campus within the context of the City’s Comprehensive Plan resulting in a more complete and informed planning process.

The end result is a campus plan that has been reviewed under the lens of the City’s comprehensive plan providing a tightly defined school campus boundary that accommodates Waynflete’s future facility needs while protecting the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.

Councilor Marshall plans to offer an amendment that would prohibit residential conversions within the overlay zone and eliminate the section that defines major and minor developments in the overlay zone for the purpose of site plan review. The result of the elimination of the section that defines site plan review is that all major and minor development will be subject to review as will be provided in Section 14-522 (Site Plan). As such, changes of use of less than 5,000 sq. ft. will not be subject to any review (Planning Authority or Planning Board), and changes of use, building additions and construction of any new structure 5,000 sq. ft. or greater will not be subject to Planning Board review. His amendment has been included in the backup.

This item must be read on two separate days. It was given a first reading on January 4th. Five affirmative votes are required for passage after public comment,
CITY OF PORTLAND

MEMORANDUM

TO:
Members of the Planning Board

FROM: David A. Marshall, City Councilor, District 2
DATE: September 22, 2009

RE: Waynflete Overlay Zone

The purpose of this memo is to provide history of the process that I have participated in to date.

After months of meetings with representatives from Waynflete School, the Western Promenade Neighborhood Association, the West End Neighborhood Association, and City Planning Staff it is clear that we can all agree on one thing: that an overlay zone for the Waynflete campus is a critical policy tool needed to provide long-term predictability for campus development.

While the months of meetings through the CCC and two neighborhood forums have brought us to our common support of utilizing an overlay zone, there are still very different perspectives regarding the additional number of residences that should be included within the overlay zone. Throughout the process I maintained the position of protecting the housing stock and the tax base, as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Early in CCC process, all parties embraced the overlay zone concept, however, it was apparent that Waynflete and the WPNA had vastly different perspectives on acceptability of campus expansion into residences in the neighborhood. Waynflete was considering all of the buildings within the boundaries of Spring, Danforth, Emery, and Fletcher Streets.

WPNA was considering all residential expansion off the table and insisted that the campus not expand beyond its current footprint.

As the CCC proceeded in discussion, Waynflete introduced a couple of draft scenarios for the campus. The first was to expand the campus footprint to include seven residences and one institutional building (St. Louis Cathedral), while constructing additions and structures to the campus. The second scenario was working within the existing footprint of the campus and building additions and structures, which Waynflete did not see as acceptable and was using the scenario to illustrate its point. WPNA objected to the first scenario of campus expansion and continued to insist on maintaining the existing footprint.

In the spirit of compromise, I suggested to both sides a middle ground proposal to incorporate an additional four properties into a possible overlay zone, two residences and two institutional properties. Although I did not name the residential properties - which I intentionally left undesignated to allow Waynflete flexibility - I did suggest including Williston West Church in the overlay zone in addition to St. Louis Cathedral. The rationale for suggesting the inclusion of Williston West is due the proximity to the campus, the established relationship between the Waynflete and Williston West, and the availability of space at Williston West. Also with the proposal was the intent to maintain the current level of housing units and property taxes.

In addition to the middle ground proposal I asked the members of the CCC to participate in a neighborhood forum to bring the discussion to a wider audience. All parties agreed to participate in the forum that I would host at Williston West.

Over one hundred people participated in the Waynflete Overlay Zone Neighborhood Forum I hosted at Williston West. Waynflete presented the two overlay zone drafts and presented future space needs. Then, WPNA announced its support of the middle ground proposal that I had suggested. WENA expressed concern with including St. Louis in the overlay zone, however, did not take a position of the various scenarios at the time. Public comment was taken and recorded at the event and residents were encouraged to provide written feedback at the forum or through email. The forum at Williston West was successful in widening the discussion and made it clear that support existed for both sides of the debate with a desire to see compromise.

After the forum at Williston West, it became clear that WENA desired a greater participation in the discussion and requested a forum be held at Reiche Community Center. All parties agreed to participate in an additional forum with a similar format and the event was scheduled.

At the Waynflete Overlay Zone Neighborhood Forum I hosted at Reiche, over thirty people participated. Waynflete made its presentation again. Next, WPNA announced its plan for an overlay zone, largely based on the middle ground proposal. WPNA’s overlay zone proposal included a map of the campus, which designated two residential properties along with the inclusion of St. Louis and Williston West. Then, WENA reiterated its concern of the inclusion of St. Louis in the overlay zone. During the public comment portion, it was clear that opposition to the inclusion of St. Louis in the overlay zone was growing. Residents were encouraged to provide written feedback through email as well. The forum at Reiche was successful in further engaging the residents within the West End Neighborhood Association.

At the next CCC meeting, the group discussed the feedback received from the forums. During the meeting WENA announced its support for WPNA’s overlay zone proposal. All the parties agreed that it was not necessary to include St. Louis and Williston West in the overlay zone. Instead, the overlay zone would not restrict the ability of Waynflete from utilizing institutional properties outside of the zone. Finally, at the end of the meeting I requested that parties join for one final meeting of the CCC and the parties agreed.

During the final meeting of the CCC, Waynflete presented its final proposal for an overlay zone. The overlay zone would include five additional residences and the back yard of another residential property. Under the proposal, Waynflete School would consist of a campus core and sub districts with a couple buildings to remain completely residential. Additionally, the overlay zone would provide flexibility to add residential units in some buildings while removing them from others with the intent of preserving the same number of residential units and to maintain a similar tax base.

The CCC meetings and neighborhood forums helped to bring the conversation regarding Waynflete expansion from two-city-blocks to five residences. While WPNA and WENA oppose the overlay zone application brought forth by Waynflete, we have narrowed the debate to four residences, the two on Grayhurst Street and the two on Storer Street. Currently, these four residences are separated from the campus by a brick wall and a row of trees, which create a solid barrier between the neighborhood and Waynflete. Even though Waynflete did not embrace the my middle ground proposal and the neighborhood associations are still in opposition, I feel the work done to date had placed the Planning Board in a better position to provide a well-informed recommendation to the City Council.

In Service,
David A. Marshall
City Councilor, District 2
207.409.6617
damarshall@portlandmaine.gov

View District Two: A Work in Progress in a larger map