With considerable development seen as “inevitable” for the northern portion of Westbrook, city officials are looking to take a more proactive approach to planning potential neighborhoods, with a hope of taking the burden of traffic away from Route 302.

A small number of landowners who control the fate of hundreds of acres in Westbrook, and who are either interested in selling the land or have it on the market already, also want to work with the city toward development opportunities.

At a joint meeting between the Westbrook City Council and Planning Board Monday, City Planner Molly Just outlined a vision for the area, and a number of landowners advocated for the city to relook at zoning regulations that make it difficult to bring utilities such as sewer to the rural areas.

While many councilors and Planning Board members were receptive to exploring the concept, some were skeptical that Westbrook residents living in the rural areas surrounding Prides Corner would support dense development.

City Administrator Jerre Bryant described the area in discussion as the “expanded Prides Corner area,” and said there have been a few studies that looked at congestion along the Westbrook corridor, which has led to a closer look at how planning and development plays into the city’s traffic woes.

Since last year, Just has been working with consultants to discuss planning options, and the discussions have included the Westbrook landowners, something Just and the consultants said is rare.

“What if we were to provide everything a community needs on new streets, and work together to do something new and different, and that may cost the taxpayers less to accommodate new residents who are coming anyway?” she said, arguing that the Prides Corner area, dubbed a growth area, will be slowly developed either way.

Kat Beaudoin from Integrated Planning Solutions and Carol Morris of Morris Communications were both present Monday. They were both part of a grant-funded effort by the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) to look at long-range development in Greater Portland.

Developments could be designed to take pressure off the traffic-plagued Route 302, Just said, by creating through streets that bring commuters elsewhere behind Bridgton Road and that also promote a more pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.

While this may mean more densely developed residential areas (eight to 15 units per acre), supporters argue that the collaboration would lead to development that is preferable, with an eye toward “community-centered” projects.

In a memo for the meeting, Just said the existing pattern of development in the area is one of “singular, dead-end roads,” which are costly for the city to provide services to, but make sense for developers who are limited by the city’s zoning.

“The reason for this type of scattershot development is that the densities allowed in areas not served by sewer do not provide for the return on investment necessary to build a network of connected streets such as those found in the established neighborhoods closer to downtown,” Just said. “Additionally, the prevalence of ledge in the Prides Corner area adds to the cost to build here.”

Just, Beaudoin and Morris said bringing utilities to the undeveloped land would allow for higher-density development that could also create “more clustered village areas.” Beaudoin said eight housing units per acre is the minimum required to serve a neighborhood with public transit.

“People wouldn’t have to drive all the way to the mall or Gorham to get something, and if it’s done in other places, as well, it stops people from having to drive everywhere,” Morris said, about taking development off Route 302.

Just described “community-centered” development as plans that would include “a neighborhood center with a mix of uses and smaller lot sizes or a variety of unit types, public gathering and activity spaces, and off-road trails and on-road sidewalks would lead into less densely developed areas, on a new street network.”

Morris said other PACTS communities are also advocating for this type of planning, including the Red Bank area of South Portland.

“These are much more neighborhood scale,” Beaudoin said, adding that this type of development, as opposed to the current trend of one-off roads, could save the city $2.8 million per year.

During the meeting, a number of landowners spoke about their properties and what they envision for development. David Coppersmith, who owns the former Wormell farm – a 111-acre expanse – said he’d like to see mixed-use development there.

Coppersmith, who lives in Portland, said he envisions neighborhoods like Deering Center in Portland, which have become “their own little community.”

“I see a coffee shop, a day care, and as you travel in, maybe another business,” he said. “But nothing that’s going to attract a lot of automobile traffic.”

He said the land is currently for sale, but said he wants to paint a picture for potential buyers of “this is what we’d like to see on that land.” He added that he also wants to preserve a portion of the farm as public green space.

Dana Dresser, who owns two parcels off Brook Street that total some 40 acres, said he’s co-owned the land for a decade, and has spent five years conceptualizing plans for it. So far, he said, “we just can’t find anything that works.”

He said the land has considerable ledge, and the constant “stumbling block” in development is bringing in utilities.

“We’d like to do something with it, but we’re hoping to get some sort of middle ground to get us all rolling in the same direction,” he said.

Laureen Hollyday, with her husband Matthew Hollyday, has owned 14 acres off Lunt Drive for 23 years. She said they would like to see the type of “community-centered” development that has been discussed, with homes with a small footprint and walking trails. In a letter to city officials, she asked the city to “consider increasing density limits, as well as determine a feasible way to provide city sewer.”

City Councilor John O’Hara said asking the city to pay for installing sewer puts it in a tough position.

“We can’t bond taxpayers’ money to put infrastructure in for someone to make a profit on,” he said. “We’ve got enough to handle right now.”

A few city councilors questioned how receptive the extended Prides Corner neighborhood would be to development down the road.

“I don’t recall there being that level of receptivity to this type of development in this section of the city,” said Mayor Colleen Hilton.

She referred to discussion in 2013 over a proposed 98-unit housing complex on the site of the former Prides Corner Elementary School. Due to public pushback, the City Council rejected the plan, and the developer is now constructing a 46-unit condominium project.

“There’s a reason people build over there – they want the rural atmosphere,” O’Hara said. “They don’t want that type of development over there and there’s no infrastructure to support it.”

Beaudoin said the city could consider “other vehicles” to stem the cost of utilities, such as creating a Tax Increment Financing district.

With long-range planning, most scenarios and questions posed at the meeting are still what-ifs.

“How do we know that what we’re going to get is that village center?” asked Council President Brendan Rielly.

He said that with the potential development years away, there’s no guarantee that businesses will accompany the residential homes to create the desired neighborhood.

Councilor Mike Foley also said that variety or corner stores in Westbrook are struggling now, and there’s no reason to believe new residential development will yield successful businesses.

“How is something like this going to be successful when our existing businesses have either closed or are struggling?” he asked.

Beaudoin responded that stores are more successful when they are clustered with other businesses.

However, all of the discussion, Just insisted, was to simply get the ball rolling in discussions with city staff on how to approach planning for “inevitable” development in the rural parts of the city. With a go-ahead, Just and the consultants will continue to look at this type of planning, and the specific costs associated. The biggest piece is also deciding on who will pay for what.

“This is just a barebones plan to start the conversation,” Beaudoin responded.

Bryant told the landowners that this process is in its earliest stage, but that the city has an opportunity.

“In most areas, you don’t have this opportunity to sort of plan and create in an orderly, methodical fashion,” he said.