Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-21 Planning Board Minutes Amended and Approved 2/6/07 PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nat Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler David Clark Miles Theeman Jeff Barnes Allie Brown Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring John Hamer Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove the item for discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The item approved is: Item No. 1: Site Location of Development Modification and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 320-sq. ft. storage building and stormwater drainage at 1 College Circle in a Government and Institutional Service District. Husson College, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Guerette explained that there were two applicants who were requesting that their items be continued. He wished to entertain those items at this time so that anyone who came to listen to any debate on these items would not have to wait until the end of the meeting to find out that it its going to be continued. The first item was for a zone change at 1027 Kenduskeag Avenue for Forrest H. Grant Family, LP that was not ready for consideration because the City Council referred this item to the Board’s December 5, 2006 Meeting. 2 Item No. 2: To amend the Land Development Code by changing part of a parcel of land located at 1027 Kenduskeag Avenue from Rural Residence and Agricultural District to Low Density Residential District. Said part of a parcel containing approximately 8.8 acres. Forrest H. Grant Family LP, applicant. C.O. # 07-11. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a motion to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board. Mr. Wheeler moved that the zone change for 1027 Kenduskeag Avenue be deferred to the Board’s meeting on December 5, 2006. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Wheeler said that for as long as he has served on this Board there has been a process that has worked very effectively with regard to zone changes. After processing of the application through the Planning Office the item is then taken to the City Council, which as a matter of tradition and procedure then refers it to the Planning Board for a Public Hearing, discussion by the members of the Planning Board, a recommendation by the Planning Staff and then a vote of the members of the Board as to whether or not the zone change should be recommended to the City Council. It is his understanding that the Council at the insistence of at least one member who had received phone calls from some residents of the area persuaded the Council not to refer the item to the Planning Board at this time so that the Council could have further discussion. He said that he did not know why the Council has chosen to corrupt the process that has worked very effectively and very smoothly and why they have not trusted the Planning Board to entertain this item, for the public to make its comments to the Planning Board, and then have its opportunity to determine whether or not the zone change should be approved. The Planning Board cannot approve the zone change but can only recommend approval of a zone change to the Council. The Council has the final say in the matter. He said he was about as angry as he has ever been as a Member on this Board to see the Council take this action and he condemned it because it is a distortion of a good process. He could only wonder what other motives may have come into the Council’s mind or some Councilor’s minds in preventing the Planning Board from considering this item tonight. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted 4 in favor and 1 opposed to the motion to continue this item to the December 5, 2006 Meeting. Item No. 9: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 209,816 sq. ft retail store with a 9,450 sq. ft. outside garden center located at 888 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District and a Stream Protection District. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing indicating that the applicant had requested that this item be continued to the Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting. Planning Officer Gould indicated that because there will be a substantial agenda for the Board’s next meeting, Staff looked at having this hearing at a location that might accommodate more people than the City Council Chambers would allow. Another possibility would be to entertain a special meeting. Staff checked on the availability of City th Council Chambers and found it would be available on Monday December 4 if the Board wanted to have a special meeting to deal with this application. th Mr. Theeman indicated that it would be his preference to start the meeting earlier on the 5 as opposed to meeting on two nights. Chairman Guerette felt that even if they did start an hour earlier it still would be a very long meeting. 3 Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board hold a special meeting for consideration of this item on Monday, December 4. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 57 Court Street from Government and Institutional Service District to Urban Residence Two District. Said parcel containing approximately 9,000 sq. ft. Jill L. Simpson, applicant. C.O. # 07-12. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Jill Simpson, the applicant, explained that 57 Court Street is presently a church that she wishes to convert for residential use. She said that this would be a great opportunity for her to use her talents and experience as an architect while investing in the downtown area. She indicated that the proposed zone change is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Guerette asked if Ms. Simpson if she planned to use this as a one-family residence. Ms. Simpson indicated that the URD 2 district allows for one or two units as a maximum for the size of the site but it was her intent to use it as a one-family residence. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for comments from opponents. Ms. Kay Surplus a resident of 53 Court Street, indicated that she was neither in favor of nor in opposition to this request as she did not know much about the project. She asked what design the applicant proposed for the church, if she was proposing an addition or was just converting the interior of the building. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for a zone change to change a 9,000 sq. ft. parcel from Government and Institutional Service District (G & ISD) to Urban Residence 2 District (URD-2) located at 57 Court Street. In April, 2006 a single-family structure (58 Court Street) was rezoned to G & ISD to accommodate a parking lot expansion of the YMCA. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy Map and Zoning Policy Map indicate there are two predominant uses in that area. There are institutional uses such as the county court house, the soon to be relocated Police Station, and the YMCA Facility and extending further out Court Street is a mix of single-family and multi-family structures within Urban Residential 2 District zoning. URD-2 has minimum lot sizes of 9,000 sq. ft. which would accommodate a one or two-unit building. However, the District does allow for more units but a larger lot area is needed to accommodate more than two units. With an anticipated residential use, Staff feels that that would balance off the expansion of the G & IS District and the loss of the house for the YMCA parking lot. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates this area for residential development. Given its consistency and the direction that the Staff would like to see Court Street move, Staff recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Wheeler asked about the comment in the Staff Memorandum that the property would be converted to residential use with the potential for a home occupation. Mr. Gould indicated that the home occupation use is not one of rezoning. Anybody in a residential zone has the ability to go to the Code Office and get permission to do a home occupation provided it meets the standards within the Land Development Code. It is not a use that is determined by the Planning Board. Chairman Guerette asked if the applicant wished to make any further comments. Ms. Simpson indicated that she did not have any plans to add on to the building but only to make interior renovations and repairs. 4 Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning at 57 Court Street from G &ISD to URD-2 as contained in C.O. # 07-12 – Jill Simpson, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Item No. 4: Amending Chapter 165, Section 81 – Lighting. To add Lighting Standards. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-13. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer Gould explained that this amendment to Chapter 165, Section 81 dealt with lighting in commercial developments that are subject to site plan review. Presently, the only standard the City has is very generic and does not set any specific thresholds or details in terms of lighting levels, height of lighting, or illumination levels. This is something that Staff has struggled with for many years and is adamant about applicants providing details of the lighting on their plans as to type, intensity, and the height. However, whatever they propose is more or less generally acceptable under the Land Development Code because it does not provide any kind of guidance. Mr. Gould explained that some Members on the City Council asked Staff to come up with better standards. Staff researched other locations and other lighting guidelines and found that many of those guidelines are complicated with different lighting levels for different uses, with an array of different standards for different situations. This proposed model is one that comes from the City of Rockland. It is straight forward and simple and sets one basic standard for most all lighting. One standard that is fairly rigid in the code is its maximum height of lighting fixtures to a maximum of 25 feet in height. This is fairly restrictive and generally lower than what we have typically seen. The other standard that it sets is a lumination level for lighting of any adjacent properties at a ½ a foot candle levels. This is a commonly accepted standard for communities that regulate foot candle standards. Typically most lighting on site plans now are the shoebox style or full cut off luminairs but in the bigger developments they tend to be 30 to 40 feet tall. The overall intent in terms of lowering the light standards is the potential of light pollution. The higher you get the fixture the more likely it is going to spread out and potentially be glaring off-site. Mr. Gould explained that there was some concern for urgency and this is why it has come before the Board as a public hearing and not as a basic discussion item. There was considerable debate about developing lighting standards at the time of the Comprehensive Plan Update. At that time, there was an opinion that leaving it generic didn’t really tie up hands but by the same token it didn’t give the Board much control. Mr. Gould said that this is an opportunity for the Board to consider whether it feels that this is the right approach, if the Board would like to see a more complicated lighting standard, or some other means of flexibility. Staff likes the proposed language as it simple and straight forward and it gives clear guidance as to what the standard is and recommended that the Board recommend this to the City Council for approval. Mr. Theeman asked if this would affect lighting on the sides of buildings as he was concerned about the height issue. Mr. Gould indicated that the height standard would apply and that he did not have a concern about limiting it to 25 feet high on a building if that is the same standard that is going to be applied to light poles. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was concerned by some aspects of the amendment. He said that it makes the process harder by having this come before the Board in full form without having an opportunity to have workshop on it and discuss it informally. He noted that there are several buildings in Bangor that have lights that project upward and he asked if this amendment would prohibit that. Mr. Gould indicated that it potentially could but there is some ability for the Board to grant some flexibility provided that the intent is met. He felt that Mr. Rosenblatt’s point was well taken This amendment is intended to reign in glare and light off a property but is not intended to eliminate building lighting. Mr. 5 Rosenblatt was concerned that in the process it may create some unintended side effects that are not beneficial and don’t promote the goal. Mr. Rosenblatt who would grant the exception contained in Section 2 F when it can be demonstrated that the intent of this section will still be substantially met. Mr. Gould indicated that he presumed that it would be the Planning Board who would make that determination but would need to come to some conclusion as to how to determine that wiggle room as provided in Section F. Mr. Clark asked if this amendment covered all lighting in the City from street lights to business lights. Mr. Gould indicated that generally it is going to be lighting that is subject to site plan review by the Board. Mr. Theeman asked if this standard would also apply to commercial signage on the side of buildings. Mr. Gould indicated that it would and that signage is already regulated. This would deal with the illumination. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he has been literally blinded more than once by strong lighting on the side of the buildings at various automobile sales facilities and said he felt that this standard is highly appropriate. Ms. Mitchell asked how did this standard overlay with the light review that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) does of lighting, particularly of signage in the downtown and other historic districts. Mr. Gould indicated that he was not familiar with what standards the HPC applies but added that any lighting, even if it goes thru HPC review as part of a project, could eventually come before the Board. Ms. Mitchell indicated that the HPC did approve a number of those upward lights and asked if this would then be passed down to the HPC as a review standard if they see it first. Mr. Gould explained that it wouldn’t as this is a Land Development Code standard. Presently, there is a lighting standard that exists (Section 165-81) that is very generic and does not give guidance to say when it’s acceptable and when it’s not acceptable. This standard would not be a standard that the HPC would apply. It would be a standard in the Land Development Code. The proposed amendment would make the standard more specific than the one that exists now as to how you meet the requirements. Mr. Theeman noted that the amendment indicates that there are a number of exceptions including approved signs. He indicated that it would be helpful for him to know if there is a height requirement for signage before he voted on this. Mr. Gould indicated that an example of another exception would be athletic fields. He indicated that if the Board wanted to delay or defer this, they could say they didn’t think it was ready to make a recommendation. Mitchell indicated that the only concern that she could see would be the upward lighting of buildings in the downtown area. She felt that this would be an opportunity to add to the aesthetics of the downtown and the livability of the area to control this, as far as the district it is in, to put more detail in as to the upward facing lights on a building. Mr. Theeman asked if all existing lighting would be grandfathered if this were passed. Mr. Gould indicated that it would and added that the last section of the amendment talks about existing nonconforming lighting and its intent to come into compliance as it is changed or altered. Chairman Guerette indicated that he agreed that he would have preferred to have seen this in a workshop format. He noted one application before the Board during his tenure that dealt with the lighting was the stadium complex at Husson College. At that location there was very intense lighting demand being put almost in the middle of a residential neighborhood. At that time, the Board would have liked to have had a lighting standard but this proposal excludes athletic fields. While he felt that 6 this was a great step in the right direction he felt it needed more thought and input from the Board. He indicated that he would not vote in favor of this item and would like to see this discussed in a workshop. Mr. Theeman indicated that while he agreed he felt that there was a pending application and a second one that of the Racino that would be directly affected by the prospect of having 24 foot poles as opposed to 40 foot poles. While he felt that the process was imperfect he was planning to support it. Mr. Robert Frank, WBRC Architects-Engineers, said that the site lighting aspect has merit and it brings it into a pedestrian scale with cut offs and fields. However, he said that it is the building side that that he is concerned with noting that the Thomas Hill Standpipe would not exist today with the lighting that is incandescent and shines outward. There are buildings on Harlow Street that have lighting that is horizontally projecting that by no means would be considered glaring. Another example is Eastern Maine Medical Center. Mr. Frank noted that some of the structures that are multi-storied have ornamental lighting that would violate the current language. He said that he suspected that if there isn’t a standard that separates the building side from the site side, the language might have to be constantly revisited. He suggested that in a workshop session the Board might want to look at bad examples and good examples to have a comparison approach to give guidance to designers on what they were or were not looking for. There being no further comments, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this proposed amendment was to get the ball rolling and not an attempt to push something through that the Board may not be comfortable with. While this amendment appears to be straight forward and simple the Board is at liberty to recommend either for or against it. Ms. Brown asked if there was any reason why the Board couldn’t have a workshop on this in light of the comments by Mr. Frank. Mr. Gould explained that Board has a little leeway in timing before a recommendation needs to go back to the City Council. The Ordinances gives the Board 30 days to make a recommendation. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if it would be more useful for the Board to have a workshop and be able to make a more constructive recommendation versus possibly voting it down at this meeting. Mr. Gould indicated that the question is one of logistics. In all likelihood if the Board gets another proposal, it is likely going to come from Staff. What he is saying is that between now and 30 days will Staff have the ability to go through and try and come up with some alternate language that would meet the Board’s needs. Ultimately, the Board is going to have to make a recommendation on this specific proposal. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board vote on the amendment and recommend to the City Council the adoption of the amendment to the Land Development Code, Chapter 165-81, pursuant to Council Ordinance 07-13. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed to recommend approval to the City Council. Item No. 5: Amending Chapter 165, Section 74 B. Design Construction and Maintenance to add evergreen trees as part of internal landscaping in new development. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-14. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the Land Development Code requires that developments that have large parking lots provide landscaped medians in every other double row of parking. The standard also requires that the applicant plant shade trees one per every 40 linear feet within those islands. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff has some concern that all those shade trees are deciduous and this time of year they provide no greenery within that internal 7 green space. The suggestion was made to make a percentage of those shade trees evergreen in nature to provide some sort of year round greenery within the parking lots. This amendment proposes that 50 percent of those trees within the parking islands be evergreen trees. Ms. Brown asked if anyone had investigated how well evergreen trees respond to salt or other chemicals that are used to cut down on snow build up. There are certain maples, crab apples, etc. that have been developed specifically for cities that will withstand the effects of salt and chemicals. Ms. Brown felt that evergreens trees are an unfriendly mixed with the salt and 50% of the trees dying might not be what is wanted. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff has not done any specific study on salt tolerance of any tree species in the City. He indicated that the species and types of trees are left to the applicant and their designers. The current standards require the planting of evergreen trees and bufferyards along streets. Designers have found species of trees that can survive our parking lot environments. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for opponents. Mr. Paul Brody, Landscape Architect with WBRC Architects-Engineers, indicated that there were four things that came to mind when considering this amendment. First, the issue of security as evergreens are a great place for thieves and muggers to hide; these trees drop a great deal of pitch and sap on vehicles; they are not appropriately sized for a five foot island as they get very big in size; the trees can be limbed but there is still the problem of pitch & sap; and they will grow faster than the deciduous trees. Mr. Brody indicated that the growth rate of the deciduous trees in the islands can be helped by using urban soil planting mixes. Mr. Theeman indicated that he felt that parking lots are ugly and this was a way to make them more aesthetically pleasing. He recognized Mr. Brody’s concerns and asked how they would do this if they enacted an ordinance such as this. Mr. Brody indicated that modulating the amount of parking, and developing small parking groups within larger parking lots with larger buffer area would provide not only vertical screening but horizontal space between parked cars and make a better parking environmental both visually and aesthetically. Screening those uses with the buffers that are in place which do allow for a more appropriate place for evergreens can go a long way towards screening and buffering the parking lots. Many communities require that parking is located behind the retail buildings to create centralized parking lots that are surrounded by multi-use buildings that face the street, are close to the curb, create a pedestrian space in front of the buildings and keep the parking more utilitarian. Mr. Steve Ribble, Landscape Architect with Ames A/E, indicated that he echoed Mr. Brody’s sentiments about the potential pitfalls of the evergreens. He indicated that security is definitely one of the issues. When evergreen trees are limbed up they lose a lot of the character and the insides can often times become hollowed out because they don’t get enough sunlight. They also provide a place for people to hide and they are also litter catchers. Evergreen trees can be six feet wide and this is clearly inappropriate for something that is currently a minimum of five feet wide. Because of their size will need to be replaced often as they will be stunted. The aesthetics that we trying to achieve by having 50 % of these trees be evergreens will actually be less than anyone is imagining. Mr. Ribble was emphatic about creating an aesthetic in the winter but felt this should be done through the use of shrubs. He said that both evergreen trees and shrubs are going to pose driving issues, they will create drifting of snow in the parking lots, and they will tend to be icier creating slipping hazards for pedestrians. There are species that are salt tolerant, and that grow very narrow. Mr. Ribble said that he would encourage the adoption a 50% shrub requirement or some such thing that could be a minimum of six feet in height at maturity to mitigate this need for a green aesthetic in the winter. 8 Mr. Gould indicated that Staff has been working for several months to revamp the landscape standards and balance different plant materials, plant numbers, and other details. The concerns relative to security are interesting because some people’s objective is to have the landscaping hide the vehicles in the parking lot which is contrary to the concept of security. Mr. Gould suggested that there are very talented people who could find species that would fit and work in the parking lots while there are others that aren’t as skilled and may put the wrong trees in the planting buffers. Mr. Gould explained that this amendment was the idea and concept of a City Councilor. What has happened is the City’s minimum standard has become the standard and nobody is providing alternatives for wider islands and rearranging plantings. Staff is looking at ways to deal with flexibility without loosing the overall concept of trying to provide some structure to parking lots to avoid the days of the old Broadway Shopping Center where there was free flowing traffic without any kind of physical barriers for control. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he was very grateful for the information provided to the Board by the experts. He said that, Mr. Gould’s statement that he felt confident that the experts could find some acceptable alternatives to the evergreens, falls a little bit short of reassurance for him and he believed that the City Council is going to be making the final decision in this matter. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he was hesitant to support this amendment in view of the expert testimony. Mr. Gould indicated that the City’s decision will be the same as with all buffers in that they require people to plant trees but not the species type. Chairman Guerette indicated that the testimony that was provided especially with regard to the safety features of a parking lot, visibility, the trapping of debris, and the fact that evergreen trees are at their widest point on the ground where deciduous trees are the opposite, would compel him to not support this item, either. He indicated that he did like the suggestion of evergreen shrubbery. He did not think this ordinance, as it is written, provided the right kind of guidance to impose that requirement. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed and indicated that he would not support this amendment, either. He felt that it would be much more productive to have these discussions before being presented with an amendment and being asked to vote on it. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendment to Section 165-74B set forth in C.O. 07-014. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 0 in favor and 5 opposed. The motion was defeated. Item No. 6: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 35,984 sq. ft. addition for use as 40-units of elderly congregate housing located at 302 Husson Avenue in a High Density Residential District, Contract High Density Residential District and a Contract Low Density Residential District. First Atlantic Corporation, applicant. Mr. Theeman indicated that one of the corporations involved with this project is a sister corporation to his employer and felt that he had a conflict of interest. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to determine that Mr. Theeman has a conflict. Chairman Guerette seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Barnes to vote on this item. Chairman Guerette declared the Public Hearing opened and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Steve Ribble from Ames A/E indicated that he was representing the applicant, First Atlantic Corporation who is requesting Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval to construct 9 an addition to the existing Ross Manor facility located at 302 Husson Avenue. Mr. Ribble indicated that the proposal would add 37,800 sq. ft. to this facility. The zoning of this property is currently High Density Residential (HDR), HDR Contract and Low Density Residential District (LDR). The LDR zone will not be impacted by the development. The Planning Staff has indicated that they have met all of the Ordinance developmental standards in this application. Mr. Ribble noted that the conditions within the HDR Contract Zone limited the use to accessory to or associated with the Ross Manor Nursing and Assisted Living Facility, that development standards be basically those of the Low Density Residential District, that the vegetative buffer, which is defined as the LDR portion of the property, be a visual vegetative buffer to be maintained in perpetuity. Mr. Ribble indicated that the conditions have all been addressed, met and or exceeded. Mr. Ribble said that the applicant is also seeking Site Development Plan approval and will also be applying for a Site Location of Development Permit. Mr. Ribble explained elements of the site plan that included a buffer from the abutting Shopping and Personal Service zoned property. Due to the stormwater requirements the applicant has sought and obtained from the abutter a grading and drainage easement for some of their stormwater needs and in compensation for that they will be supplying the buffer as part of this site plan. This requires an A buffer and they are proposing approximately a C buffer. There was a condition in the Norumbega Medical facility application that the building be in context and concert with the Ross Manor facility and they are going to be complying with that standard, as well. Mr. Ribble indicated that they submitted an architectural elevation drawing of the facility to support their finding that this proposal is compatible with the architectural style of the surrounding buildings. Chairman Guerette asked if they would be relocating some existing parking to construct this new building as he was concerned with traffic flow and whether or not this new design would lend itself to the effective entering and exiting of emergency vehicles. Mr. Ribble explained that there currently is a looped parking lot on one side that is double loaded so each side of the drive aisle has parking and on the other side it is single loaded which has parking on one side. The new plan replaces the single loaded parking with double loaded (two aisles) parking and added parking out on the Broadway side. Mr. Ribble explained that the turning areas have been sized for ambulance service and some fire service. The paved access around the building is strictly an emergency/service entrance but all service will be handled as it currently is handled on the east end of the building. Chairman Guerette noted that there is only one curb cut into the entire facility and asked if they had given thought to making another egress point out to the Norumbega Parking Lot. Mr. Ribble indicated that other access points such as onto Broadway through the neighboring property and through the Norumbega property were explored and for various reasons were ruled out. There were no proponents or opponents. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 36,789 sq. ft. addition for elderly congregate housing to the existing Ross Manor facility on Broadway. This parcel over time has an extensive zoning history in terms of contractual rezonings, the most recent one changed a Low Density Residential District to a Contract High Density Residential District but still maintained the Low Density Residential District development standards such that it will maintain a low lot coverage, a low amount of impervious surface, and maintain the historic buffer that has always been important to the Grandview Avenue neighborhood. There are evergreen trees that provide a buffer around Broadway, Husson Avenue and the neighboring properties on Grandview Avenue. Planning Officer Gould explained that the High Density Residential District (HDR) allows them to do congregate and elderly housing provided that it does not exceed 50 units in a building. He noted that there is specific language in the HDR District that specifies how to connect buildings if there are over 50 10 units. An extensive review was done of this addition and how it would meet the contract zone standards of the district. Also reviewed were any increases in building and impervious surface on the old part of the site to make sure that it did not exceed the standards. Staff feels that what the applicant has proposed complies with the various zoning district standards in the numerous contract districts. Staff was adamant that the project provide all of the buffers that have been on the plans from the beginning. Staff asked the applicant to look at traffic as this is a standard for conditional use. Even though this is a big development, the amount of trip generation for this type of facility is fairly low and the applicant provided information that their site driveway will operate at a level of service B which is a fairly good level of service. The applicant has provided for adequate utilities such as sewer and water. Mr. Gould indicated that this is a unique area relative to stormwater and the plan anticipates future development requirements relative to DEP permitting for stormwater treatment and infiltration beds and other modern stormwater details to deal with water quality. This parcel is on the edge of a natural occurring stormwater channel which they will retain and detain and discharge to as opposed to adding additional flow to the already taxed Husson Avenue stormwater system which is at its maximum. The Board needs to make a finding relative to architectural consistency with buildings in the adjacent area and Staff feels that the rendering they provided is consistent with the existing structures. Mr. Gould noted that the applicant will have to get a Site Location of Development Act Permit as the size of this project warrants that level of review. He pointed out that the Board should consider conditioning approval under Section 100.D.4.B which talks about the standard of having 50 units and the specific architectural standards as to how this building should be attach to the existing structure. Staff suggested that the Board, if it deems that it meets Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals that it be condition that the applicant demonstrate that they do meet the standard of Chapter 165-100. D.4. B,1 thru 6. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the applicant has reviewed those standards and incorporated them into the site plan. Mr. Gould indicated the submittals did not highlight those elements but it is a requirement of the Land Development Code. Mr. Clark asked if they had considered fire doors that automatically shut to prevent fire going through the entire area, and if the driveway entrance could be made a little wider as it is difficult to enter the site. Mr. Ribble indicated that there are specific fire codes for assisted living and congregate housing that need to be met. For example one hour walls, two hour walls, etc. There are places where fire doors are required. All of those codes will be met in order for them to get a building permit from the Fire Marshall. Chairman Guerette asked if the proposed lights would be shut off at some point during the evening. Mr. Ribble explained that shielded cut off means at the bottom of the bulb so that the illuminare does not extend outwards. Chairman Guerette asked how the stormwater system will work and if there was any proposed mitigation. Mr. Ribble indicated that the project was designed with the best management practices adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection. When the water comes into the inlets of the parking lot there is a chamber system that releases it into the pond that is adjacent to the parking area. There is filter material in the bottom of that pond that allows the water to seep down to a perforated pipe. There’s a network of perforated pipe below that 18 inch deep bed of media that the water permeates through, and that will be changed periodically. The new regulations required that every 5 years the owner is required to maintain or certify that the stormwater quality is maintained as was originally designed. The pond itself handles the quantity requirements and then by allowing it to filter through this media and go through the piping, it cleanses it as well. There is no oil/water separator but some of this media is bark or wood based soil that some of it would attach to. 11 Chairman Guerette noted that he felt that this is a wonderful project that has required an extensive collaborative effort between the developer, the owner and the City Staff. He felt that this is a great facility in terms of the quality of the services they provide there. Chairman Guerette said that he was concerned about the suitability of the entrance for a facility of this size and the fact that there is only one point of egress. However, he indicated that his concern would not prevent him from supporting the application. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed development at 302 Husson Avenue, First Atlantic Corporation, applicant on the condition that the applicant comply with the standards set forth in Section 165-100, D, 4, B, 1-6. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed development at 302 Husson Avenue, First Atlantic Corporation, applicant, on that same condition. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item No. 7: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a cell tower and a 217 sq. ft. equipment shelter on a portion of 109 Haskell Road in a General Commercial and Service District. U.S. Cellular, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the applicant. Mr. Bob Gashlin, represented Bangor Cellular Telephone LT which is a subsidiary of U.S. Cellular. Joining him was their attorney, Richard Trafton, from Trafton & Mattson. Mr. Gashlin, indicated that U.S. Cellular has a license from the Federal Communications Commission to provide service to the Bangor market. They are experiencing problems providing service in the area of Bangor Mall and the I-95 corridor. They propose to fix that problem by constructing a cell phone tower and telecommunications facility at 109 Haskell Road. They have leased a 1.26 acre parcel from Webber Energy who recently received subdivision plan approval of this parcel. Mr. Gashlin indicated that they propose to build a facility which will include a 150 foot cell phone tower, a 12’ x 12’ equipment shelter, a propane tank, a backup power generator, and associated utilities. This tower will accept five different carriers which will alleviate the need to build a specific tower for each person that comes in. He explained that when locating a cell tower there are three things that they look at connectivity, capacity, and coverage. The tower needs to be located in a position where it connects with other existing towers in the area. Presently they have a connection on the water tower off of Essex Street, one downtown, and one in Orono. This is the site that they need to provide the proper coverage, capacity and connectivity for this area. Mr. Gashlin discussed the conditional use standards and the site development plan. Mr. Gashlin indicated that he felt that this use met the two specific conditional use standards of the district for a 150 foot tower, as well as, the four standard conditional use criteria. Mr. Gashlin indicated that the use standards of the district are met without a variance, the proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets; (one maintenance visit per month is anticipated) they propose adequate and appropriate utilities, fire protection is available on Hogan Road; they have filed for a stormwater permit with the DEP; and the proposed use is appropriate for the location because of the conformance to the general character and style and bulk of buildings within 500 feet. Mr. Gashlin indicated that they are required to provide a bufferyard for this facility and they are proposing to use a B-3 bufferyard. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the Staff pointed out that there is a need for either an easement for off-site grading or a revision to the plan would need to be done to keep the grading on the site. He asked Mr. Gashlin if this had been addressed. Mr. Gashlin asked that the Board grant approval contingent upon U.S. Cellular providing proof that the proposed grading is either within the leasehold parcel or that they provide an easement showing that they do have a right to do grading on this 12 property. Mr. Rosenblatt, with respect to the tower itself, asked if there were any lights proposed. Mr. Gashlin indicated that there are no lights on this tower. He further explained that the FAA requires lights on towers over 200 feet tall. They looked at this site and determined that they would rather go for a lower height (150’) without a light. Ms. Mitchell asked if there are existing towers in that area that accommodate other businesses as well. Mr. Gashlin indicated that there are existing towers but most of them are not owned by U.S. Cellular. There are no other towers in the immediate area for his company to co-locate on. Ms. Mitchell asked how much of an area does a tower like this cover. Mr. Gashlin indicated that there is no specific answer to that but as an estimate the new CDMA digital technology is quite limited in the broadcast area. Some people say that these are designed to effectively work a 3 or 3.5 mile radius but that is tempered by a number of factors such as topography, the height of trees (as trees will block the signal), if there are buildings in the area they will block the signal, and if the site going to be on high or low topography. Some places may work 8 miles while others will be less than 3.5 miles. Mr. Barnes asked if there were other unlighted towers in the area. Mr. Gashlin indicated that Unicel has a 100 foot tower on I-95 south of the Airport and the reason for that is that they are close to the flight path. There is another one that is approximately that height in Brewer. The problem with going with such a low height is it is not optimal and will not provide the coverage. Mr. Barnes indicated that he felt that a light would be a safety feature and a nice addition. Mr. Gashlin indicated that if the Board felt that if the Board wished to add that as a condition they would add a light. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for comments from opponents. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer David Gould indicated that this application is for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 150 foot tall cell tower with a 217 sq. ft. equipment shelter and driveway located on a 1.2 acre parcel. When Webber Energy was before the Board to do a two lot subdivision there was a lot of debate about the two proposed lots. One of the lots from the very beginning was intended for this use. When the applicant went to place the use on the lot there was some difficulty in making all the elements fit on the site. A public utility and a public service use is a Conditional Use in the General Commercial and Service District (GC & S). The district understands that this particular use requires only a minimum 5,000 sq. ft. lot. Where the tower is to be located the lot is approximately 95 feet wide. The GC & S District also requires that public utility and service uses provide a B Buffer as a standard default for side and rear yards which is something that Staff has been working with the applicant to provide on this site. The Land Development Code standard conditional use requirements relative to meeting the requirements of the district, providing appropriate utilities, dealing with traffic are not really an issue relative to a cell tower. The Code provides a special provision for any structures that are going to exceed the height limit within the district and requires that the Board make a specific determination that the taller structure be at least 100 feet from any residential structure. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant’s representative did a good job explaining the reason why they think this is an appropriate location for their cell tower. Mr. Gould pointed out that the tower is approximately 1700 feet from the Rolling Meadows Subdivision. There is residentially zoned land that is approximately 240 feet away, but it is undeveloped at this time. Mr. Gould indicated that he believed that a tower has to be 200 feet or taller before there is a requirement for specific lighting on the tower. He noted a couple of existing towers that are not noticeable through the tree line but because of their flashing strobe lights it makes them more visible within the landscape. Mr. Gould said that Staff does not have a particular concern relative to the location of a 150’ tower in this fairly heavy commercial district immediately adjacent to I-95. 13 Mr. Gould indicated that there are places on the site where they need to provide a B buffer. There is a part of the yard that isn’t buffered in the current proposal but Staff would hope that the Board could condition their approval such that Staff could continue to work with the applicant to provide a B buffer that screens the entire part of the yard. Also there is an issue of a storm drainage culvert crossing that appears to Staff to have grading that goes beyond the leased area of the lot. Staff would be comfortable with having those two details as a condition of approval if the Board finds that this does meet the conditional use standards. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he agreed with Associate Member Barnes in his desire to see a light on this tower but said he did not think he could attach that as a condition because it was superseded by Federal Regulations which do not require it. He moved that the Board grant approval for a Conditional Use and Site Development Plan to construct a 150’ tall cell tower and 270 sq. ft. equipment shelter at a portion of 109 Haskell Road in a General Commercial and Service Street with the conditions that the applicant revise the plan to show the required buffers and either provide an easement for off-site grading or to revise the grading so that it is kept on-site. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Gould explained that the typical process is to do two motions. The only reason you need to do two is in the chance that the Board’s vote on the two different motions would be different. If you are all in agreement and you are all going to vote that way on both motions you can do it in one motion. Mr. Wheeler revised his motion into two parts the first for approval of Conditional Use. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Wheeler moved approval of the Site Development Plan with the conditions aforementioned. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item No. 8: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 136,885 sq. ft. gaming facility, a 1469 space, 4-story parking garage, a 180,915 sq. ft., 7-story, 150-room hotel located on Main Street, Lincoln Street, Dutton Street and improvements at Bass Park in a Contract Waterfront Development District and a General Commercial and Service District. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., and City of Bangor, applicants. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that his firm, Farrell Rosenblatt & Russell has done work in the past for one of the applicants, Bangor Historic Track. They are not currently doing any work for the applicant but he wished to disclose his firm’s past work and would be happy to do whatever the Board would like in terms of participation. Mr. Theeman indicated that he did not believe that Member Rosenblatt had a conflict on this issue. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he has provided music services for Bangor Raceway over the past 12 summers but he did not feel that he had a conflict. Chairman Guerette did not feel that there was a conflict on the part of either member and he would allow participation of all regular members. Attorney Helen Edmunds, of Pierce Atwood, represented the applicant Bangor Historic Track and co-applicant City of Bangor. She explained that this is a request for approval of a permanent gaming facility to be located on Main Street between Dutton and Lincoln Streets along with a satellite employee parking lot to be located on Dutton Street. The project is located in a Contract Waterfront Development District and the proposed employee parking area is located in the General Commercial and Service District. They propose a gaming facility (137,000 sq. ft.) a connected 1469-space parking garage; a 150-room, 7-story hotel, and a 145 space employee parking area located off site on Dutton Street. The project includes related off site improvements such as significant improvements to the existing Bass Park stormwater drainage system and utilities in the area. This applicant is concurrently undergoing Site Location of Development Act review with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, as well as, review of a Traffic Movement Permit application filed with the Maine Department of Transportation. There has been a voluntary remedial action plan filed with DEP for some of the conditions found on site. 14 Ms. Edmonds indicated that the are requesting four separate approvals: major site development plan approval for the entire project, a conditional use approval to allow the hotel building height of 100 feet in the Contract Waterfront Development District, and Shoreland zoning approval that is required for a small portion of the site improvements which include drives, a parking ramp and a portion of the loading area that are located within the 250 shoreland zone. All of these improvements are located at least 130 feet from the Penobscot River. They are also seeking flood plain approval for an outfall pipe that is located adjacent to the River and handles some of the stormwater runoff from the project. Mr. Robert Frank, of WBRC Architects-Engineers, explained the site development plan boundaries. He indicated that he would defer any traffic related items to Tom Gorrill, Traffic Engineer from Gorrill Palmer Associates. Mr. Frank discussed the proposed removals that include demolition of the Main Street Inn, the Holiday Inn structure, the former Coffee Express, and the Pella Windows store. The existing structures between Dutton and Lincoln Street down to the railroad and up Main Street will be removed. There are paved areas that will be removed including all of Dutton and Lincoln Streets due to utilities that will be going in there. There will be site work done to some segments of Hubbard Street and the upper part of Catell Street to make room for utilities; the spur off-ramp on I-395 will be removed and widened to a “T” configuration; and improvements within Main Street will be the removal and replacement of the curb line of the existing openings to the businesses. Mr. Frank discussed the gaming facility, the parking garage, circulation in and out of the parking garage, circulation to and from the site, he hotel tower, access points to the site for pedestrians, employees, vendors, bus, bus charters, valet parking and users of the proposed parking garage. Mr. Frank also discussed the topography of the site, proposed utilities and landscaping. As part of this project the sewer will be separated and they have also made provision that if the City comes through with a separation project in the future they will be able to tie into that. Bass Park from 1975 until today has developed without any formal approvals through the Site Law process. As part of this project, the applicant is doing an after the fact application with DEP to address and remediate any after- the-fact permitting. The proposed landscaping and plantings will be of similar materials such as granite, brick, and the benches that are used along the Waterfront. They also propose to buffer the employee parking area over behind the Irving Station to buffer the view from the residential area. Regarding stormwater they have chosen not to use bio retention swales due to the fact that up in the corner of Bass Park there are modifications that address not only the runoff from Bass Park (9 acres of pavement and 7 acres of lawn) but a total of 88 acres will drain into this system. Currently any time you have more than a 25 year storm event it exceeds the capacity of this existing 30 inch line and it basically floods and runs down beyond the homes on Catell Street. It also floods down at the intersection of the on-ramp to the Interstate. They propose to compensate for the runoff from the Racino site that runs directly into the river by treating an additional 7 acres across the street behind the Irving site. The river will now be seeing 16 acres of treated runoff where prior to that there were none. Mr. Tom Gorrill and Ralph Norwood both from Gorrill Palmer Associates were present to answer questions of the Board regarding traffic. Mr. Gorrill indicated that this site is ideally suited, from a transportation standpoint, for this use given its proximity to I-395 for people to get in and out of the site quite quickly and to diffuse the traffic. The site does generate in a peak hour over 100 trip ends which requires a Traffic Movement Permit from the Maine Department of Transportation. Mr. Gorrill indicated that the applicant has filed for this Permit and a scoping meeting has been held and the traffic study has been completed and submitted to MDOT for their review. Mr. Gorrill indicated that they are proposing not to include a turning lane on Main Street because it does operate at an acceptable level of Service without it. They propose to move the off ramp back 15 towards I-395 to be a “T” intersection at the existing light, to erect a fence to provide a shield from the headlights, provide an exclusive left lane for the traffic coming out of Dutton Street, as well as modifications to the existing traffic signals. Provision has been made for pedestrian access from the employee parking area to cross Main Street to include a crosswalk with a pedestrian signal phase. With all of the proposed improvements the traffic will operate at an acceptable level of service along Main Street. Mr. Theeman asked if there would be a light being installed at Lincoln Street. Mr. Gorrill that because there are traffic signals at Buck Street and Dutton Street they are not proposing one at Lincoln Street. Mr. Theeman asked if they anticipated making a left hand turn out of Lincoln Street. Mr. Gorrill indicated that signage will be installed to direct people out to Dutton Street to the proposed light and with the dual turning lanes. Mr. Theeman had questions regarding signage, pedestrian access, and employee access. Mr. Frank explained that the majority of those coming to the facility will either self park or use the valet parking. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Frank to comment on the impact of lighting and if the proposed lighting met the standards within the lighting amendment discussed earlier this evening. Mr. Frank indicated that with respect to the glare they are choosing a pole mounted light that would meet the height standard, it would have full cut-offs that would match one of the waterfront standards to be compatible and would fully comply with that standard as it is less than 24 feet. With respect to the building mounted lighting they do have elements in the front of building that will be architecturally luminating some of which will be above 25 feet, will shine horizontally, will not glare, will not be for site illumination as much as they will be for building wall washing and give a sense of arrival. Some of lighting may be grandfathered. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Gorrill to clarify the lanes and why the right turn lane off of Main Street into the primary entrance was removed because the plans submitted to the Board have the lane on it. Mr. Gorrill explained that State requirements do not allow structures within 20 feet of the edge of pavement. The intent of that is if you ever widen the road in the future that there won’t be a structure in the way. The right turn lane that was originally proposed did not comply with State Standards that they have eliminated it and is shown on the revised plans. From a traffic standard the elimination there will be an acceptable Level of Service even without this turning lane. However, should that statute change then this could be added to the plans. If they had their preference, they would put it in but it will function well without it. Ms. Mitchell how many cars does it queue and then how many lanes is that of the queuing in. Mr. Frank indicated that there would be 3 full lanes of queuing in front of the drop off which would be approximately 55 cars that could actually queue up before you backed up onto Main Street. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the standard that the hotel not be located within 250 feet of the mean high water of the Penobscot River and if this proposal meets that standard. Ms. Edmunds and Mr. Frank indicated that they are. Mr. Frank noted that the tower of hotel was located so that it meets that requirement. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the access road in the back as it heads toward Dutton will drop and if the grade is an acceptable grade. Mr. Frank indicated that it would and that the grade is acceptable and they are matching what is there now. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was anything within 250 feet and there was mention of an outflow pipe. Mr. Frank indicated that the outflow will be done via a 48 inch outflow pipe that basically intercepts all of the Main Street site runoff. The runoff is going there now under the Hydro building or through the treatment plant. The stormwater does not impose impact but in the floodplain itself, any filling they are proposing to excavate where that pipe comes out and backfill it with heavy rip rap to protect that outflow so there will be no additional fill in the floodplain area. They are not changing the profile of the river but the run off going there now will be in a slightly different location. 16 Mr. Clark asked about buses and asked if after the passengers are discharged if the buses will be directed up to the other side of the street or will they be lined up there on site. Mr. Frank indicated that they have a secondary parking on Dutton Street. The Charter buses will discharge passengers, go somewhere to refuel, rest, and wait for folks to leave and come pick them up again. They also envision the City bus to drop off passengers at the bus stop for the employees of through the drive and the use of the parking at Bass Park. Chairman Guerette said that he felt that it would be important to know what this facility will look like from the waterfront, from Brewer, and from coming across the Memorial Bridge. The Urban Design Group discussed renderings of the proposed buildings. Ms. Mitchell asked what the view from the Brewer side would be and if there would be windows on that side of the development. Mr. Frank indicated that there were no windows, it is stucco and this area would be the mechanical space on that portion of the hotel. The height of the hotel is designed such that when you are looking down river you are looking over the tanks and the view of the river will be unfettered. Chairman Guerette had concerns about how the stormwater was not proposed to be treated. The fact that they were proposing outflow directly into the Penobscot River seemed primitive in terms of how stormwater is treated. He noted that other applications have elaborate bio cells now and try to clean the water up as much as possible before it goes anywhere. Mr. Frank indicated that in this case it is actually a matter of 20 years of prior development. Unfortunately they do not have the luxury of going back into all of Bass Park. What they are essentially doing is improving an existing system by adding a wet pond and an area for sediment to drop out where one currently does not exist. When they looked at this project, and this was a discussion point with DEP at the outset, if they tried to do a LID approach on this site which is virtually covered by structures, they would be looking at an underground system. Underground systems are really tanks that don’t get maintained and they didn’t feel that given the amount of money spent just to treat their 7 acre site they could accomplish much in the way of a beneficial system. Instead, they looked at the whole area with the idea that there was a chance to fix several things. This site currently drains into the river and what they are doing instead is treating 9 acres plus an additional 7 acres to compensate for this. Chairman Guerette indicated that he was impressed with the amount of data, work, graphs, and renderings that accompanied this presentation and that the project and has been an enormous effort. However, when the agenda was distributed to the Planning Board Members the Planning Staff did not have an endorsement for this project because there were multiple details and items missing that had been requested and not provided. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Frank to explain why he felt that the information submitted is now complete for the Board to act favorably on this project. Mr. Frank indicated that because of the State’s right-of-way requirements along Main Street they needed to short the building and eliminated the turning lane. These changes, from their perspective, were a major deal because it affected everything that was connected to it. They met with Planning Officer Dave Gould to clarify what items were missing from the plans. Subsequent to the meeting they submitted revised plans to the Planning Office addressing all of the items line by line that were brought up in the Staff Memo. He said that they felt that they have met the Board’s requirement for information and they would ask that a condition of approval be that the Planning Officer finds that all of his items have been addressed. Mr. Frank indicated that they would understand if the Board chose to table this item but he felt that they could work it out as a condition of approval and that Planning Staff would be able to address this. 17 Chairman Guerette asked for proponents. There being none, he asked for opponents. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette then asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that he did not wish to provide a Staff report at this point in time. He explained that Staff sat down with WBRC and marked up plans, sheet after sheet, as there were several errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. Mr. Gould noted that the State indicated that the applicant needed to move the building back so the plan set that Staff reviewed prior to the meeting did include that change. Essentially the building has been redesigned to deal with that, and they now have more space in front of the building to do more landscaping. Staff has not reviewed the revised plans because they have not been provided. If there is a Public Hearing in which the public is invited to come to City Hall to review the plans and make comments they really need to see the plans that the Board is going to approve. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would need a few days to go over the plans after they are submitted before making a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Hamer if they closed the Public Hearing what would be the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to reopen it. Mr. Hamer indicated that the Public Hearing is important because it needs to be advertised in advance. In this case it has been done and the lack of people present indicates that there is less interest in the application. It is just standard practice to allow comment on any site plan that comes before you whether or not there is a public hearing required. The Board can close the public hearing and not reopen it because that would implicate the advertising mechanism. However, the Board could still accept comment at the next meeting should there be any comments from the public but it would not be a formal public hearing. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would prefer to continue the Public Hearing and continue the discussion at a subsequent meeting. Ms. Brown asked if there was a complete set of updated plans as the Board hasn’t seen them. Mr. Frank indicated that it would be realistic to assume that by the middle of the next week these would be available. Mr. Frank also indicated that they would be happy for the Board to continue this to allow them time to look at the revised plans Mr. Theeman indicated that the applicant made a good presentation, but unless there was something dramatically different to discuss, he would hope to avoid a repeat of the type of presentation that the Board heard this evening. He said that the lack of public present suggested that final drawings would not elicit a significant number of people in attendance and he would like for the Board to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board continue this item, from this point in the process, to either the next scheduled meeting or the first meeting that is available subsequent to the submission of the revised plans and after the Planning Department’s opportunity to review those plans and give the Board their advice. Chairman Guerette said that he felt that the Board should indicate that this would happen th at the December 5meeting. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Wheeler indicated that having lived in this community for over 60 years he felt he could safely estimate that this is probably the largest development of integrated components in the history of this City. The construction of Dow Air Force Base in the 1940’s and the Bangor Mall in 1970’s involved a higher amount of square footage but there was no direct comparison possible. There could be no disagreement with the fact that the impact of this project not only on lower Main Street but on the entire downtown business district is virtually incalculatable. This is the way development works. Some in City government will remember, as he does, that back in the 1970’s the City was persuaded by a particular developer that he could renovate the entire downtown district in such a way that the unfulfilled promise of the Urban Renewal Project of the mid and late 60’s would finally be fulfilled. That was a fantasy. Mr. Wheeler felt that experience created an attitude of extra or ultra caution toward any major development project that has been 18 proposed since then. While that caution is always to be preferred to acting rashly, he felt that that attitude of caution, from his perspective, has served to discourage and deter many other developers from making major investments in the City of Bangor and, in particular, the downtown area. What he saw tonight is a long awaited antidote to that negative mind set and this will stimulate an untold amount of additional private sector investment. Mr. Wheeler said that he could only commend the applicant for having persevered through a fire storm of political opposition from the State level on down and maybe even beyond the State level. Something of this magnitude is long over due and he said that we now st have good reason to hope that the first half of the 21 Century will be much greater and more beneficial th to this community than the last half of the 20 Century was. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he was happy that before his term on the Board expired that he had the opportunity to participate in the approval process. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to continue this item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 10: Planning Board Approval of Minutes of the October 17, 2006 Meeting. The minutes of the October 17, 2006 Minutes were approved as presented. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 11: Planning Board Approval of Amendments to the Planning Board By- Laws. Chairman Guerette noted that the next item for consideration was the amendments to the Planning Board By-laws. As the By-Laws had been discussed many times previously, Mr. Rosenblatt moved approval of the amendments. The motion was seconded and it passed unanimously. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.