Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-06 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chair Nathaniel Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler David Clark Miles Theeman Laura Mitchell Alice Brown City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham News Media Present: None Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. As there were only four Full Members present, the Associate Members were asked to alternate voting beginning with Mr. Theeman, then Ms. Mitchell, followed by Ms. Brown. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: To amend the Land Development Code, Chapter 165, Waterfront Development District, § 165-94, and Schedule “A” as it Pertains to WDD. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-21. Chairman Guerette explained the regular format for holding Public Hearings whereby the applicant would be asked to make a presentation, proponents and opponents would be asked to speak, the Public Hearing would then be closed, and the Chairman would ask for Staff comments. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that he had a potential conflict to disclose regarding the Zoning Amendments. He indicated that his Office represents Penn National and it appears that one or more of the three Zoning Amendments before the Board may, in part, relate to the 2 development that Penn National is proposing. He indicated that he had spoken to Assistant City Solicitor John Hamer about this and they both agreed that it would be important for him to disclose this. He realized that the applicant was not Penn National nor was this an application for a specific site development application or a zone change, however, he wished to disclose this and asked the Board whether or not it felt that he should sit out on these amendments. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he felt that he could handle these items impartially, but under the circumstances he could understand that it might be best not to participate. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he had absolute faith in Mr. Rosenblatt’s integrity and that he would move that Mr. Rosenblatt did not have a conflict on these amendments. Chairman Guerette agreed, and seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the applicant. Planning Officer Gould, representing the City, indicated that this amendment to the Waterfront Development District is a “housekeeping” amendment to clarify the intent of the District. The purpose is to provide clarification of the permitted uses, amend the permitted uses’ development standards, and to create development standards for conditional uses within the District. The majority of the proposed changes are a result of working with the District over the last year or two and seeing its shortcomings. The changes are largely a housekeeping issue but clearly the timing is intended to facilitate some upcoming projects. Planning Officer Gould explained that while working with the District standards, Staff has questioned whether or not the existing 20 foot front yard setback serves any useful purpose in the development of the waterfront parcels. Mr. Gould explained that when a structure is setback 20 feet from the City’s public improvements, sidewalks, benches, and landscaping, there is insufficient space for anything of much meaningful value to occur. The applicant could plant another row of trees and shrubs but there is no room to do parking in this space. Private parking lots are not envisioned in the Waterfront Development District, so front yards have been an awkward space between the City’s streetscape area and any building. Staff feels that it makes more sense to utilize the space immediately adjacent to the city’s improvements as building area. Mr. Gould indicated that in Schedule A, there is a 50 foot setback requirement from the water. However, the setback from the water is a standard unto itself because there won’t be a building that fronts on the Penobscot River. The existing standard would never come into play and the water side of property is actually the rear of the property. Mr. Gould explained that another issue addressed was the permitted and conditional uses in the District. Some of the uses seem to be listed as independent, separate uses that really don’t have their owner specific definitions and could be grouped together. Staff felt that it did not make sense to continue parking lots as a conditional use in the District as it 3 would be anticipated as a permitted use. Staff also amended the language to clarify what the standards would be for a High Rise Hotel. Mr. Theeman had a question about the elimination of the conditional use in Section B for assembling, processing, packaging, crafting, and manufacturing of Maine grown crops, etc. Mr. Gould explained that while amending this District, he met with the Staff of the Economic Development and Legal Departments and they indicated that this was originally included in the District as there was a particular use proposed. This is no longer the case and they were comfortable to delete this use. Mr. Wheeler asked if it was primarily geared to farmer’s markets. Mr. Gould indicated that it was for a Maine Made crafts type of use where the products could be manufactured and people could come and see them made. Mr. Rosenblatt asked where the WDD area is. Mr. Gould said that it goes from the area where the Kenduskeag Stream comes into the Penobscot River downstream to the I- 395 Bridge and includes mostly the City-owned property. Where the Holiday Inn, McDonald’s and the other buildings along Main Street are they are zoned Urban Service District. The tank farm is in the WDD but the area beyond the I-395 Overpass is Urban Industry District. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had a concern that the City preserve open space in this area as none of it, at this point, is zoned either Parks and Open Space or some other zoning designation that would insure its availability for public use as open space. He also indicated that he had a concern about the 50 foot setback from the water for all of the conditional and permitted uses as it would only leave 50 feet of open space for the public to use between development and the water. Mr. Gould explained that the standards require that a project be setback 50 feet. All of the property along the water belongs to the City and, for the most part, it is now all open space. The City would like to see less open space in the WDD. As to the location of the open space and the depth, it is going to be negotiated between the development and the City. Clearly a project will not be able to develop right on the water’s edge. It is going to have to be 50 feet back, cannot be any taller than 35 feet, and have 20 foot side yards so that there will be 40 foot gaps in between structures. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what was the logic was for eliminating the front yard in just this District as opposed to other districts. Mr. Gould explained that the Downtown Development District (DDD) has no setbacks at all and a lot can be covered entirely with a building which is a very intensive development. The key to what will make it work in the WDD and what makes it work DDD is the City’s provision of parking. The City does not envision that Waterfront development will come with its own parking. The intent of the WDD is that the City will provide the parking either through existing surface parking on Front Street or a parking garage off of Main Street. The City considers this land very valuable and does not want lots of acreage eaten up in surface parking. Out in the Mall area there are setbacks because parking lots tend to go in that front yard space. The City wants developers to intensively develop each lot to the maximum extent that they can. In 4 the Waterfront area the City has put a lot of money into improvements in terms of walks, benches and landscaping. Staff feels that building should start within the 20 foot zone. Mr. Rosenblatt asked why “intermodal facilities” was moved from being a conditional use to a permitted use and why it should be a use at all in the WDD. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he thinks of “intermodal” as being cargo moving from trains to trucks and back and forth and not suitable for this District. Mr. Gould noted that Chairman Guerette had asked the same question. Mr. Gould indicated that what is intended by the term “intermodal facility” is the connection between two modes of transportation such as train and car or car and bus, and as a place where different modes of transportation come together. It is not intended to be some kind of a cargo transport facility for heavy marine use. Mr. Rosenblatt suggested that this should be defined. Mr. Rosenblatt asked why the provision regarding trying to preserve views from Main Street was removed. Planning Officer Gould explained that this is one of those areas where you try to a put a concept into language without any real nuts and bolts to do it. If the City can’t tell a developer how to develop a building to preserve views that everyone else is going to agree with, it was felt that it should not be in the Ordinance. It needs to be concrete, as to how it works. Mr. Jim Ring explained that with respect to the setbacks, the change would preserve another 20 foot setback to the rear. Regarding the intermodal question, Staff feels that this is for passenger intermodal facilities rather than a freight intermodal facilities, and a distinction could be made through definition. Thirdly, with respect to the 50 foot setback question, Mr. Ring explained that a lot of the area that is now viewed as open space is contemplated in the conceptual plan. If this change is adopted, he did not think that it will affect this area because much of it is affected by floodplain considerations which precludes building. As no one spoke in opposition, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Ms. Mitchell was asked to vote on this item. Mr. Theeman was concerned about changing an intermodal facility from a conditional use to a permitted use and that it is not defined. He recommended tabling this item until the City has a definition for intermodal facility. He said that while it may be a general understanding that this is for passenger use as opposed to freight use, to him it means freight. Chairman Guerette asked if the Zoning Amendment could be amended to add the word passenger before intermodal facility. Mr. Gould indicated that this cannot be done as this is a specific zoning amendment that has been advertised and noticed. The Board could either propose some alternate language or prepare a definition. However, the Board needed to act upon the amendment before them. 5 Mr. Wheeler moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Zoning Amendment of the Land Development Code, Chapter 165-94 Waterfront Development, Section 165-94 Schedule A as it pertains to the Waterfront District as contained in C.O. # 06-21. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed to the motion recommending adoption of C.O. # 06-21. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Board needed to find a means of including a definition for Intermodal facility into the Land Development Code Mr. Gould indicated that by the Board’s next meeting, Staff could bring some samples of language defining Intermodal facility. The two places where they have been discussed are at the Airport and at the Waterfront. In both of those areas, it is intended to be passenger facilities where trains, airplanes and automobiles would link up. Item No. 2: To amend the Land Development Code, Chapter 165, § 165- 75, Parking Structures, to Clarify Setbacks Applicable to Parking Structures. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-22. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Planning Officer David Gould, represented the applicant, City of Bangor. He explained that this is a clarification of the setbacks applicable to parking structures as opposed to those of surface parking. There is one section, Section 165-75, that deals with some flexibility that can be applied to a parking structure. Presently, there are only two parking garages in Bangor one downtown and one at Eastern Maine Medical Center. Mr. Gould explained that in looking at this, it was somewhat confusing as to whether or not the buffer yards for parking lots and the setbacks for parking lots applied to parking garages. Staff felt that this is an important time to clarify this language as there is a proposed parking garage to be built at the Airport. There was discussion amongst Staff as to whether or not to apply architectural standards and landscaping standards knowing that three foot shrubs and four foot trees probably would not work for a multi-story structure. Staff decided to clarify the District for now and try and further educate Staff relative to the design of parking garages, what landscaping methodology should be made, and deal with that in the future. This amendment is to clarify the fact that a parking garage is a structure, must meet the structure setback, and is not required to meet a surface parking bufferyards. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the current surface parking lot setback is. Mr. Gould indicated that it varies from district to district but generally it is 20 feet from the street, 10 feet from the side line and 10 feet from rear line. In the Airport Development District (ADD) it is 2 feet, but between a street there needs to be a B bufferyard and the smallest B bufferyard is 10 feet. One glitch is that the parking setback requirements don’t necessarily correspond with the buffer yard requirements. In some cases, the bufferyard controls what is required. 6 Mr. Rosenblatt asked if under this proposed language in the Downtown Development District where there is no setback if a structure could go right up to the property line. Mr. Gould indicated that it could. As no one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the amendment, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Zoning Amendment to Section 165-75 of the Land Development Code as set forth in C.O. # 06-22. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of C.O. # 06-22 to the City Council. Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code, Chapter 165, § 165- 13, Definitions, to Clarify that Gaming Is a Permissible Subcategory of Recreational Use. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-23. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked Planning Officer Gould to make a presentation on this item. Mr. Gould explained that this is another amendment that was a heavily debated item before the Planning Board when the Bass Park District was created. That proposal tried to make clear that the Penn National facility would be allowed at Bass Park and that a new definition called “Gaming Facility” was added within the Bass Park District. The Bass Park District was approved but the actual zone has never found a geographic location. Mr. Gould indicated that recently, a temporary gaming facility has gone into the former Miller’s Restaurant on Main Street. At that time there was some consternation among the Code Officials as to whether having a definition of gaming facility in a Bass Park District and no other district in the city could be construed as a limitation for it to be allowed to go elsewhere. A determination was made, but the question still lingers and now there is discussion of gaming going in other locations. Staff felt that this was an opportune time to clarify the details of where that use could go. Essentially there are two options, one would be to delete the current definition, or it could be clarified as to which subcategory of uses within the Land Development Code that definition could fit into. Staff has chosen to clarify the language to allow it to work within the entertainment definition which applies in a number of other different zoning districts. As was pointed out in the Staff Memorandum the location where gaming facilities can be located is regulated by the State of Maine and also by the City of Bangor. Geographically, while the use might fit in zones far and wide, the regulatory structure of gaming is only going to allow it within a short distance from Bass Park. This amendment will give it broader latitude to be clear that it is allowed in other districts and other locations. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if State Law changes so that the potential number of square feet or number of acres that are eligible for this use expands if Staff would return to this definition as there are many locations within the City that this use would not be appropriate for. Mr. Gould said that he did not share a concern that this is so special or carries such 7 impacts. However, there are reasons why the City should get its land use controls in place for this kind of use because they clearly are not now. If the regulations change and they are allowed in every community and every part of the City, he did not see any reason why the Land Development Code should come back and artificially restrict it to some small area. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the only issue that he would take exception to would be that of traffic. There are places in the City for which a recreational use would be permitted that could accommodate the traffic flows better than others places in the City. If there is some move in the Legislature to increase the radius from the racetrack to 5 miles or 10 miles would the Board have the opportunity to revisit this and decide, for example, whether to link it to a major arterial road. Mr. Gould indicated that the same argument would apply to certain retail and drive-thru restaurant uses as some are high generators and some are not and they are not limited to specific arterials or roadways. Mr. Gould indicated that at a certain level traffic would be reviewed by the Maine Department of Transportation. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Clark moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the amendment the Land Development Code, Chapter 165-13 Definitions as contained in C.O. # 06-23. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to recommend approval of C.O. # 06-23 to the City Council. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he wished to commend the Planning Staff for being proactive in matters such as this. Mr. Wheeler noted that he has been on the Planning Board for four years and is presently in his fifth year and there has been such a difference in the rate of growth and landscape of potential growth here in Bangor. Mr. Wheeler said that he thought that the fact that the Planning Staff is not simply reacting to problems after they occur, but rather recommending amended ordinances to accommodate those changes which are either evident or probable is not only commendable, but is necessary. Mr. Wheeler said that this is a city, a city must have people, and people will generate traffic. Bangor is a destination point for about 50 percent of the populated area of the State of Maine and he has a very high level of confidence that the Staff, City Council and even the public at large are much more ready to accommodate the growth and change as result of growth than they give them credit for. Mr. Wheeler said that Bangor has lots of open space and Bangor has the need for more parking, to be sure, as developments come along. Mr. Wheeler, going back to the Waterfront Development District, said that he did not feel that the City is going to “mess this up.” He said that he was delighted to hear the Planning Officer say that there is no Waterfront Development Plan, there is a concept. He said that he through that this exactly as it should be at this point in time. He said that he wished everyone could be quickly transported to Burlington, Vermont at sunrise in the morning, or even better in a warmer time of year, to see how they have handled the development of their waterfront area on Lake Champlain and what they have done to connect their downtown and integrate those services and attractions unique to waterfront areas with their whole community. He thought everyone could understand that what the City is dealing with here is not a danger but an opportunity that knocks probably not more than 8 once in a lifetime. He commended the Planning Officer and his staff and the Engineering Office for taking these initiatives and bringing them to the Board at a time when it can consider them in an atmosphere of calm deliberation rather than panic and public concern. Chairman Guerette felt that Mr. Wheeler’s comments were well stated and the compliments to the Staff were well deserved. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 5: Site Development Plan to construct 20,416 square-foot addition to building and complete improvements and landscaping at 982 Stillwater Avenue in a General Commercial and Service District. Thomas Ellis, Stillridge LLC, applicant. Mr. Vinal Applebee, Vice President of Ames A/E and represented Stillridge LLC, the applicant and owner of 982 Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Applebee explained that the applicant is seeking Site Development Plan approval for a building expansion of 20,416 square feet. The Site contains 4.1 acres and is bordered by Kittredge Road and Stillwater Avenue. To the north of this site there is an 80-foot reserved right-of-way for a future expansion of Kittredge Road Extension. A similar site development plan received Planning Board approval in August, 2001. The two-year construction deadline expired before the project was completed. The applicant constructed one of the buildings and installed the utilities for the entire site. The applicant also received a two year completion date extension to 2005, which has since expired. Mr. Applebee explained that the applicant is now seeking a new approval for this site plan. He noted that there are a few minor changes from the originally site plan. These include over head electric that is now coming off of Stillwater Avenue instead of Kittredge Road; minor changes to the parking lot to include some center islands to separate traffic flow in parking areas which were included in the original approval; additional landscaping which was on the original plan but not installed and an increase in the size of second building. Mr. Applebee indicated that the project currently holds a valid DEP Stormwater Permit and an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit. Mr. Applebee discussed the traffic study done at the time of the original approval noting that with the existing and proposed buildings it is estimated that there will be 199 peak hour vehicles entering and exiting this site during a Saturday afternoon. Mr. Clark asked if there was a reason why the applicant was now proposing to build the second building on this site. Mr. Applebee indicated that the applicant was in talks with prospective tenants for the second building, and this is the reason that he wishes to move forward at this time. The applicant is presently completing interior renovations to the vacant portion of the first building. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the MDOT Permit required any improvements to be done as a result of this development. Mr. Applebee indicated that the Permit did not require any off 9 site improvements, only that the entrance drive be constructed 80 feet closer to Hogan Road to place it further away from the future Kittredge Road expansion and right-of-way. Mr. Theeman asked if there were any other items on the originally approved site plan that were not constructed. Mr. Applebee indicated that there were very few items and they were minor in nature. He noted that the changes were to include islands in the parking lot, to include a few missing landscape plantings, to indicate that the overhead electric is coming in from a different location, and to indicate that the propane tanks are smaller than proposed and located behind the building as opposed to the larger ones shown on the original site plan and located to the side of the building. Mr. Applebee indicated that he felt that these items were not significant in nature. Mr. Gould noted that regarding the Staff comments, Staff tries to give the Planning Board all the information it has to help the Board will understand the process that has taken place from the beginning of this project. In this case, there was a project approval, and a subsequent completion date extension approval. This past summer the project’s completion date was coming due and the applicant indicated that he wanted another extension to complete the project. When people ask for extensions or revisions, the Planning Staff goes out and visits the site. In this instance, Staff noticed that the majority of the landscaping was not in place, the islands were not installed and the design and layout of the parking was not consistent with the approved plan. It was Staff’s recommendation that the Board not grant this applicant an extension because the plan was not consistent with that originally approved by the Planning Board. Ms. Mitchell asked if there has been any MODT study done that considers all the different curb cuts along Stillwater Avenue between Ridgeview Drive and Kittredge Road. Mr. Gould said that these need to be taken in order of development. What MDOT asks an applicant who is requesting a Traffic Permit to do is to factor in all other existing known projects in process in order to account for their traffic. Any projects that come along after this one would have to take this project into consideration such that any traffic review at the Target development would include traffic coming out of this site even through it was not built at the time. Another example would be that the projects have had to accommodate the proposed traffic of the Widewaters development even through it has not been built, it gets put into the model. Ms. Mitchell asked if the traffic was considered with the originally proposed drive to this site or the current drive and the Kittredge Road extension. Mr. Gould indicated that it was his understanding that they came to the City and got approval of the driveway in a specific location. In discussions with MDOT subsequent to the Bangor Planning Board approval, the driveway was moved. It has been quite a few years since then and they never came back to the City to get this approved. MDOT approved the driveway where it is. It is the City’s approval that has been inconsistent. Mr. Applebee indicated that the MDOT Permit shows the driveway where the applicant is proposing it at this meeting. He added that the peak hour study done on a 10 Saturday is the time determined by MDOT because that’s in the Mall area and that is when the peak traffic occurs. Ms. Brown asked if the Board was approving an expansion of the building while approving an extension. Mr. Gould explained that the Board is being asked to approve what the plan shows. While the building is larger than that originally approved, this a new approval. Mr. Theeman asked if revised plans have been submitted addressing Staff concerns and what the landscaping requirements are for this project. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant has submitted revised plans addressing Staff concerns and the Land Development Code requires that a parking lot have a minimum of a B Bufferyard between the parking lot and a street. In this instance where the parking lot exists there is a proposed B Bufferyard. Where there is a building to the side and rear the only requirement is an A Bufferyard. Where there is a proposed future street it needs to be treated as an existing street so along the entire rear of the building is a B Bufferyard is required. Mr. Theeman asked what is required under a B Bufferyard. Mr. Gould indicated that it has a number of different options. It is based on the width and distance of the buffer meaning as the width shrinks from 25 feet to 20 feet to 10 feet the number of plant units increase. There is a B Buffer that includes a berm which is a 10 foot, B-3 Buffer. They are proposing to do a B-3 Buffer along Kittredge Road. Along Stillwater Avenue, because the parking lot is located such a great distance from the street, the applicant could have a B-1 or B-2 buffer which does not require a berm. Chairman Guerette said that when the Planning Board approves a project the Board is anticipating that the project will be constructed as it is approved. He said that he did not like to see applicants come back saying that the project was constructed somewhat different than what was approved. He hoped that Mr. Applebee would convey to the applicant the importance of abiding by the plan and if changes are necessary that there are mechanisms to accommodate this. Mr. Applebee indicated that he would convey the Chairman’s comments. Chairman Guerette then asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould explained that based upon the latest submission, that Staff is comfortable that the noted concerns have been addressed. Mr. Gould indicated that he sat down with the applicant in August and discussed the status of this plan and what the Planning Office’s position would be relative to extensions of completion of his plan. The avenue that the applicant has chosen to take is the best one for all involved which is to bring this site into compliance. As the revised plans are now in order, Staff recommended that the Planning Board grant Site Development Plan approval. Chairman Guerette noted that Associate Member Mitchell would vote on this item, and asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board grant approval for the Site Development Plan to construct a 20,416 square-foot addition to the existing building and 11 completion of improvements and landscaping at 982 Stillwater Avenue in a General Commercial and Service District. Thomas Ellis, Stillridge, LLC, applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted five and favor and none opposed to approving the Site Development Plan for Thomas Ellis, Stillridge, LLC, applicant. Item No. 6: Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Act approvals to add a two-story stair tower of 300 gross square feet and change walkway and accessible parking location at 60 Sylvan Road in a General Commercial and Service District. Darling’s Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation from the applicant. Mr. Charles Rohn, Executive Vice President for Darling’s, Inc., explained that this is a project that was completed late last summer. During the building process the applicant encountered a couple of issues that did not work the way the original architects had laid out on the plan. The applicant has worked with the City Staff to come up with some minor alternatives for a couple of issues, namely, to relocate a couple of the handicap spaces to bring them closer to the building to make it easier for access without installing long ramp areas, and the other item was to add a 300 square foot stairwell on the back of the building to facilitate flow within the building. Mr. Theeman asked what is in this building. Mr. Rohn indicted that it is the Value Center for used car sales. Chairman Guerette noted that this was an interesting site to watch being developed with the extensive retaining walls. He indicated that he was in support of the application as it appears that these are minor changes to the plan to improve access. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the Board approved this application in September, 2004. At that time it was a Site Location of Development Act approval as well as a Planned Group Development and Site Plan Approval. At the as built stage, the building was a little larger and under the Land Development Code if it is 200 square feet or less it could be handled as a Minor Revision. Due to the fact that it exceeded the 200 sq. ft. limit for Staff to approve in-house, and due to the fact that it is a Site Location of Development Act Modification, there is no process presently to approve that kind of amendment at a Staff level. Those approvals need to go before the Board however small. The applicant provided all of the updated plans, and Staff submitted this to the DEP Office who gave the City delegated authority to approve the amendment. As all of the details are now in order, Staff recommended approval of both the Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act approvals. (The Planned Group Development Approval is still in effect and does not need to be re-approved.) Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the modifications proposed at 60 Sylvan Road for Darling’s, Inc., applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the 12 motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved to grant Site Location of Development Act Modification approval to the proposed modifications at 60 Sylvan Road for Darling’s, Inc., applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette indicated that there were three sets of Minutes needing Planning Board Approval, those of the November 1, 2005, October 5, 2005 and the September 20, 2005 Meetings. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the Meetings of September 20, 2005, October 5, 2005, and November 1, 2005. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mitchell, and the Minutes were approved unanimously. Chairman Guerette reminded the Board of the Comprehensive Plan Workshop th Meeting on Tuesday, December 13. Mr. Gould discussed with the Board the progress of incorporating the Mall Task Force’s recommendations into the City’s Land Development Code. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to formally request that any new Ordinance revisions proposed as a result of the Mall Task Report be forwarded to the Board for review and comment before it gets to the voting point of a Public Hearing. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Planning Staff would request a copy of a written report regarding School enrollments from the School Department that could be shared with the Planning Board. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.