11/20 -

Freeport Project Review Board Minutes
Freeport Town Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
6:30 p.m.

Prior to the meeting (5:00p.m.) the Board held a site walk of the proposed Maine Sailing Partners on Noble Drive.

PRESENT: David Marstaller (Chairperson), Jane Benson, Jason Donahue, James Gorman, and Donna Larson (Town Planner). Erik Anderson, Cliff Goodall, and Dale Whitmore were excused.

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m.

ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the September 26, 2007 Project Review Board meeting.
It was noted that these minutes would be up for approval at the next meeting.

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson noted that the Community Attitude Survey Development Committee has been working on the survey and hopes to have it done by the end of October. It will then be mailed to residents.

Mr. Marstaller mentioned that at the last meeting the Board granted preliminary approval for the Freeport Living Retirement Community. There had been changes to the plan in regards to the location of the two buildings. At the meeting, the Board agreed to not do a site walk, however there has since been feedback and he feels that the Board should do a site walk due to the change in view and the loss if trees. Ms. Larson noted that the developer has offered to fly balloons; the Board agreed that would be helpful. Mr. Marstaller suggested that it would be helpful to see the view from Route One. The Board agreed to have a site walk on Saturday, November 3, 2007 meeting at 8:30 am at DiMillos. The applicant will mark the clearing near the large buildings, with the limit of clearing closest to Route One and will stake the corners of the cleared area. The Board also wants to see the entrance and the location of the house closest to Pine Street, and the view from Pine Street. The entrance to the lodge will be marked with a balloon.

Mr. Gorman recused himself from the review of the next item.

ITEM III: Design Review and Site Plans
LL Bean – Davis Warehouse – West Street
The applicant is proposing to pave an existing gravel parking lot and add a 4’x4’ section to the existing loading dock. No other changes are proposed. Class B property – Design Review District I. Tax Assessor Map 9, Lot 41. LL Bean, applicant and owner; Carl Dodge, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that this is a material change to an existing parking lot and Design Review is required. The lot will still have 3 handicapped parking spaces and those spaces will be striped. The applicant will be adding a strip to direct employees to the entrance of the E-Store. There is no increase to the amount of impervious area as this is a gravel lot now.

Carl Dodge, representative, stated the he has met with the Public Works Director and there needs to be a crosswalk across West Street to connect with the parking lots and the sidewalk. The location will be to the west of Depot Street near the Town parking. The lot will be regarded and the pavement on the edge of the road will be improved. The loading dock will be extended and a line will be added to indicate a separation with the loading area and waiting area.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The existing loading dock will be extended by four feet. The scale of the overall building will not be altered.

2. Height.
No changes to the height of the building are proposed.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The existing loading dock will be extended in length by four feet.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The rhythm of solids to voids in the front facades will not be altered.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The proportions of opening within the facility will not be altered.

6. Roof Shapes.
The roof shape will not be altered.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The relationship of façade materials at the Davis Warehouse will not be altered.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The loading dock will be extended by five feet. This is on a portion of the site which is already
developed.

9. Site Features.
The applicant is proposing to pave an existing gravel parking area. The three handicapped parking
spaces will be striped.

10. Signs
No signs are proposed.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Mr. Donahue / Ms. Benson moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for LL Bean to pave the parking lot at the Davis Warehouse building on West Street, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 09/13/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review Ordinance with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
Vote: 3 Ayes / 0 Nays (Gorman recused)

LL Bean – Hunt Fish Store – Main Street / Justin’s Way
The applicant is proposing new door pulls for the new Hunt Fish Store on Justin’s Way / Main Street. No other changes are proposed. Class B property – Design Review District I. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 64-ETC. LL Bean, applicant and owner.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant is seeking approval to change the door handles at the Hunt/Fish Store on Main Street / Justin’s Way. The proposal would be for door pulls in the shape of fishing poles. The handles would be made of forged iron and about 3 feet in length and 3 inches wide.

Sean Selby, representative, stated that they will be using antler pulls on the inside doors. He showed the Board images of both handle styles. Ms. Larson noted that Design Review is not required for the inside door pulls.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.7
Relationship of Facade Materials.
The door pulls at the Hunt Fish store will be fishing rods made of forged iron. They will be three inches
wide and 36 inches in length.

Ms. Benson / Mr. Donahue moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for LL Bean for new door handles at the Hunt/Fish Store on Main Street / Justin’s Way, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 10/04/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review Ordinance with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
Vote: 3 Ayes / 0 Nays (Gorman recused)

Mr. Gorman rejoined the Board.

Antonia’s Pizzeria – Exterior Alterations
The applicant is proposing to add a new door and stairway to the Varney Road side of the building. Class C property – Design Review District I. Tax Assessor Map 23, Lot 56. Antonia’s Pizzeria, applicant and owner.

Ms. Larson explained that the door and stairs will provide egress for an apartment on the second level. The door will be metal and will be the same as the existing door on the lower level. The framing and railing of the steps and porch will be made of pressure treated wood, with composite planks and decking. After it weathers, the pressure treated wood will be painted to match the building. No other changes are proposed.

Steve Sotiropoulos, applicant, stated that they will use pressure treated wood because it is more durable and stronger. The new door will match the existing door on that side of the building. The railing will also be made of pressure treated wood and they will paint the wood in the spring after it is given time to dry. The composite material comes painted and all of the colors will match the remainder of the building. The new entrance will provide access to the upstairs. Mr. Donahue asked about egress and lighting. Mr. Sotiropoulos stated that the Codes Officer has been to the site; there are no issues with egress and no other changes are required. There is already a lot of light, but if they need more they will add the same fixtures as the existing ones.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The scale of the building will not be altered.

2. Height.
The height of the building will not be altered.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The relationship of the width to the height of the front façade will not be altered.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The applicant is adding one new door and the rhythm of solids to voids in the front facades will not be altered.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The shape and size of the door will match the existing door located on the lower level.

6. Roof Shapes.
The roof shape will not be altered.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The door will be metal. The porch and stairs will be made of pressure treated wood with composite
material on the steps and decking.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The porch and door will be added to the side of the building facing Varney Road. That are is currently
grass covered.

9. Site Features.
The abutting properties on Varney Road also have wooden decks on the second level. The porch and
door will provide egress from the second level and directly to the parking area.

10. Signs
No signs are proposed.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Mr. Donahue / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Antonia’s Pizzeria for a new door and porch, to be built substantially as proposed, application dated 09/19/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review Ordinance with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
2) Prior to construction, the applicant obtain a building permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Gorman recused himself and stepped down and joined the public.

Freeport Village Station – Mill Street/Depot Street
The applicant is proposing new signs. No other changes are proposed. Class A & C properties – Design Review District I. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lots 112-ETC, and 114. Berenson Associates, applicant; Sean Selby, Arrowstreet, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that a Design Review Certificate is required for all signs visible from the public right-of-way. The applicant is proposing general project signage and individual tenants will need to return to the Board for approval of their signs. All signs have been reviewed by the Codes Officer for their compliance with the Freeport Sign Ordinance. The Primary Identification Signs will be located at the gateways to the site. All signs will be made of aluminum and each letter will be illuminated with individual LED lights (about the size of a finger tip) which will be shielded with a light cove. The signs will be located on metal arches which will be connected to lampposts (with the exception of the two signs near the Mallet building). There will be a sign located on each side of the Mallet Building and connected to the new structure. The ends of the arched sign holder will be about 12 inches away from the Mallet building. Three kiosks are proposed, although only the one at the Main Street entrance will be visible from the right of way. This sign will be a painted MDF sign which will be three sided and have a granite base. The store directory and layout will face Main Street. The kiosk is 7 ½ feet tall and the sign face will be about 12 s.f.

There will be four Garage Entrance ID signs in two entrance locations. This includes standard vehicular traffic flow signs, a round halo lit “P” blade sign with a metal mounting bracket which will be the same color as the Town of Freeport directional signs, and a “Freeport P Village Station” sign. The applicant is also proposing elevator signs, restroom signs, and metal brackets to hold either plants or future tenant signs.

Sean Selby, representative, explained that the sign ordinance is clear on the allowances and the proposal is within the standards. They have a plan designating signage for each building and even if the actual location and types of signs are different, the tenants will not be able to exceed their allocation. In addition, they will be reviewing all signs before they are presented to the Town.

Mr. Selby gave an overview of the proposal which includes project identification signs, kiosk signs, entry signs, and miscellaneous pedestrian movement signs. He explained that the Mallet building will have arches near it, but the signs are kept 12 inches away and will not be attached to the building. The arches used here will be similar to the other arches. They are presenting a bracket which will be used for either signage or to hold plants. With the kiosk, the map of the project will face the street with promotional information on the other sides.

Mr. Marstaller asked about the free parking sign and noted that there could be a visibility issue. Mr. Selby stated that the “free” would be about 6 inches with metal letters which will make it stand out. The “P” will be halo lit and the light will spill out on to the “free parking.” People will see the “P” and the crescent shape will tell people that there is more to see. Ms. Larson noted that the other parking signs in town are made of reflective tape. The bigger issue is getting people to the garage and the Traffic and Parking Committee is working on this. Mr. Donahue suggested that this could be reinforced on the buildings, that the parking is free. Mr. Selby noted that there will be no gate at the entrance. They could add “free parking” to the top of the clearance sign. Mr. Marstaller suggested that something be put on Main Street to indicate free parking.

Mr. Donahue raised the issue of height and asked how they were going to keep people with things on top of the vehicle from trying to enter. Mr. Selby stated that if a vehicle does not clear the sign and if it is hit, the sign is on a chain so there will be no damage and indicate to not go any further. The area above the sign is wood trim with steel behind. The entrance can accommodate a handicapped van.

Ms. Benson stated that she is concerned for the proposed archways (for the project identification signs). She thought that the development was suppose to be an extension of Freeport and the village, but the archway seems to isolate it and does not fit into Design Review. The arches are also close to the Mallet building and from a distance it will seem like they touch. Mr. Donahue stated that the signs make a bold statement about being there. Mr. Selby stated that they are trying to brand the development and mark it as a new extension of Freeport. They tried to make it transparent and incorporate some of the same materials into the posts. Ms. Benson stated that she understands the posts, but the issue is the archway. Mr. Donahue agreed and suggested that since the architecture has a lot of character and is distinct, that something more subtle would be appropriate. There is too much of a distinction between the inside and outside. Ms. Benson suggested something could be done on the entry posts.

Mr. Selby stated that they took this as a start of this part of Freeport Village and a collection of things within the village; they look at this as a threshold. There is no physical presence on Main Street and this is a way to have a presence there without a building. He gave an example of a stairway to entry to the lower level of the Denney Block and suggested that the archway over the entry would have a similar effect. Mr. Marstaller agreed that the proposed archway separates the project too much and they are trying to be a different neighborhood from the rest of Town. Ms. Benson suggested that the sign indicates that they are all the same kinds of stores and people would be more curious if they did not see this right away. Mr. Selby stated that they did not like the design with just the post and no archways, as it is similar to something see at a suburban strip mall; he does take the criticism to point. The Board discussed how to proceed and agreed to take action on the proposal presented, with the exception of the project identification signs for which the applicant would need to return to the Board with something that does not seem like a barrier.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.10.
Signs
The applicant is proposing general project signs including project identification signs, kiosks, garage
identification signs, parking signs, elevator signs, restroom signs, and metal sign brackets. Most of the
signs will be constructed of aluminum and either be illuminated with LED lights or be halo lit. The
signs near the Mallet Building will not be connected to the Mallet Building and will be about 12
inches away. Individual tenants will need to return to the Board for approval of their signs.

Mr. Donahue / Ms. Benson moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Berenson Associates for a kiosk, garage entrance signs, elevator and restroom signs, parking garage signs, and sign/plant brackets, at Freeport Village Station, to be built substantially as proposed, submission dated 09/26/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review Ordinance with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
2) Prior to installation, the applicant obtain a sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
Vote: 3 Ayes / 0 Nays (Gorman recused)

Mr. Gorman rejoined the Board.

74 Bow Street – Site Plan Amendment – Exterior Alterations
The applicant is proposing a change to the previously approved driveway and is proposing to change the exterior siding on the building. A site plan amendment and Design Review Certificate are required. This parcel is also in the Freeport Village Overlay District. Class B property - Design Review District 2. Tax Assessor Map 13, Lot 85. William Creighton, owner and applicant.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant is returning to the Board for approval of a revised driveway location and for changes to the exterior siding on the building. A site plan amendment and Design Review are required. In addition, this building is located in the Freeport Village Overlay District.

The applicant came to the Board in July for approval of the site changes. The applicant got approval for a change of use from residential to residential and office. The issue of parking for the office use still needs to be resolved as the Board had concerns for the current layout which would require vehicles to back out onto Bow Street. The applicant is working on finalizing paperwork with the abutter to the north for a land swap which would give him the land needed to provide a larger area for parking and a turn around. It was stated that the office use could not go in until this issue is resolved and approved by the Town Planner.

The applicant will also be shifting the residential driveway (there is no setback requirement) closer to the abutting property line so that they can retain an existing lilac bush and two maples.

The applicant was proposing to side the new structure with cedar clapboards and to remove the existing vinyl and also replace that with cedar clapboards. Based upon the recommendation of the Freeport Historical Society, there was discussion at the last meeting that it would be appropriate for the applicant to install shakes on the top portion of the building and clapboards on the bottom. The applicant has explored this option, and due to the increased financial cost ($3000) has decided that it is not an option. Therefore, the applicant is seeking approval to side the house and addition with red cedar clapboards. He would also like approval to side the existing shed in the same material. The clapboards would be allowed to naturally weather and the trim would be painted white. The recommendation of the Freeport Historical Society remains unchanged.

Bill Creighton, applicant, stated that to install shingle siding instead of all clapboards added an extra $3,000 plus it is hard to get red cedar shingles now. In addition, there are not many residential structures in town with shingles above clapboards as they mostly have one style of siding. He intends to side the building with western red cedar which will be dipped with a gray weathering stain. He does not want to use white cedar because it does not last as long. Ms. Benson stated that she is glad to get rid of the vinyl and she feels comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Marstaller stated that this is a Class B building and no others around it have the mixed shingles or flares.

Mr. Donahue added that there is a mixed language on Bow Street with a mix of historical styles. It is better to have wood, but the right thing is to find an economical way to meet historical facts. He does not support a plan for all clapboards. There needs to be a transition between the top and bottom, but not necessarily a flare. Mr. Gorman stated his agreement with Ms. Benson, that this proposal is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Marstaller asked the applicant, if they have to do clapboards above, if they will just use vinyl. Mr. Creighton stated yes. The material cost of shingles is not much different, but the labor cost is double and they are trying to do the entire project at once. Mr. Marstaller stated that he would like to see the building restored, but given the reasons and this location and site, he agrees that this would be better than vinyl. Ms. Larson stated that this seems like a situation where if something changes and the option becomes viable, that if the cost is not different, the applicant would do it. She suggested that the Board leave the option open to do both types of siding, so if the opportunity arises the applicant will not have to return to the Board.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C. changes to the previously approved findings are underlined if they are being added, and struck through if they are being deleted. All other findings of the previous approval are unchanged by this proposal.

1. Scale of the Building.
A portion of the new addition will be visible from Bow Street. The new addition, house, and shed will be sided with red cedar clapboard and painted white trim.

2. Height
The height of the building will not be altered.

3. Proportion of Building’s Front Façade.
A portion of the front will be altered with the new addition, which is visible from Bow Street. The new addition, house, and shed will be sided with red cedar clapboard.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
Three new windows in the addition follow the same pattern or rhythm of the existing windows of the front façade of the building. One additional window proposed for the second floor is located so as to not disturb the pattern or rhythm of the existing windows on the second floor of the building.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
Three new windows in the addition are the same style and size of the existing windows on the front façade of the building, and follow the same pattern of the existing windows. There is one additional window on the second floor of the new addition, which is smaller than the other proposed windows and existing windows.

6. Roof Shapes
The roof shape of the existing building will not be altered. The roof of the addition will be made to appear as an extension of the existing roof.

7. Relationship of Façade Materials.
The façade materials will be red cedar clapboard and the trim will be painted white. The existing building façade material is vinyl siding. Applicant wishes to convert the existing vinyl siding with cedar clapboard within 5 years. Previously the house had clapboards on the bottom portion and shakes on the top portion. The shed will also be sided with red cedar clapboards.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The open space will be altered with the addition of a driveway and two parking spots. An existing gravel parking spot will be removed. By shifting the residential driveway closer to the property line, the applicant will be able to retain existing vegetation including a lilac bush and maple trees.

9. Site Features.
A 10’ wide driveway is proposed on the east side of the property, leading to a small turn around in the rear of the building. The small turn around will not be visible from Bow Street.

10. Signs.
No sign is proposed.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of the Design Review Ordinance.

Mr. Gorman / Ms. Benson moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact, Design Review Certificate and Site Plan approval for 74 Bow Street, to be built substantially as proposed, or with a combination of cedar shakes and clapboards, submission dated 09/19/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Freeport Design Review Ordinance, with the following conditions of approval:
1) This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
2) All of the conditions of the original July 11, 2007 approval are still applicable.
3) The applicant has a choice of trim, either painted wood or composite material, with a sample brought in for a Staff Approval when the decision is made.

Mr. Creighton stated that he may use white composite instead of wood trim and some of the trim on the windows mat be vinyl or aluminum. Ms. Larson stated that any material change would require approval from the Board. Mr. Creighton stated that he may wrap the corners with aluminum and he said it would be white, not painted. It was noted that the issue is the use of wood or composite on the corners, as the windows are existing. They current siding and trim is yellow and white.

Ms. Benson stated that she thought that they were talking about all wood siding as this is a Class B building. They assumed that all of the vinyl was going to be replaced with wood. Mr. Creighton stated that he has pricing for composite or aluminum corner boards with a metal roof on the entire structure, as shown on the previous plan. Mr. Marstaller stated that they do not want to see corner boards that are rounder or to see non-wood with cedar board siding. Ms. Benson stated that she would be okay with wood or composite but not aluminum. Ms. Larson stated that all wood materials were being discussed, so it was assumed that there would be wood trim and therefore there was no discussion. If the materials are going to be changed, there needs to be a discussion. The Board indicated that they were okay with the Town Planner doing a staff approval for wood or composite material.

Vote: 3 Ayes / 1 Nay (Donahue)

Maine Sailing Partners – Noble Drive
The applicant is presenting final plans for a 9,600 s.f. building and parking area on Noble Drive. Tax Assessor Map 21, Lot 32A. Patco Construction Co., Inc and Maine Sailing Partners, applicant; William S. Bennett, owner; Kylie Mason, Sebago Technics, representative.

Ms. Larson stated that the applicant is returning to the Board for final approval of a new 9,600 s.f. building at the end of Noble Drive. The general layout remains the same as presented last month during the conceptual presentation. No changes to the building design have been made. One question the Board will need to answer, is based upon the site walk and the building design, does the building meet the standard for “relation of proposed buildings to the environment”, or are some modifications needed. The applicant has included a landscaping plan which includes vegetative buffering between this building and the neighboring residence.

There will be a private well and subsurface waste water disposal system on-site. The plan shows the location of the passing test pit where the system will be located. Electrical service will be provided via aboveground utilities on Noble Drive and then underground on-site.

The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow the width of a two-way residential driveway to be 18 feet wide instead of the 26 feet required by the Ordinance. The Town Engineer has reviewed the request and suggested that a reduced driveway width of 20 feet would be more appropriate as no shoulders are proposed. Based upon the size and nature of the development, a reduced driveway width may be appropriate as the proposed driveway should provide safe and adequate access to the site. The Board will need to act on a waiver if they agree to a reduced width.

The applicant is also seeking approval to not build all of the required parking spaces at this time. The applicant is proposing to only build 8 spaces; 11 are required. The applicant has showed the three additional spaces on the plan, to show that they have the room to build them should the need arise.

The applicant has submitted stormwater management and erosion control plans which have been reviewed by the Town Engineer (see memo dated 10/05/07). He has recommended a few minor change to the plan that the applicant has agreed to. It has been added as a condition of approval that these changes be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System with the Town of Freeport.

No signs are proposed at this time. If the applicant wishes to install a sign in the future, they will
need to return to the Board.

Kylie Mason, representative, stated that she has new building elevations for the Board. They have made the change to a driveway width of 20 feet, as recommended by the Town Engineer. They are proposing 8 parking spaces. This is an isolated site with evergreen vegetation and it is about 960 feet away from the nearest intersection.

Greg Patterson, Patco Construction, stated that they are proposing an industrial building. He presented the revised drawings and stated that the color has been changed to gray with white in the middle. They will make the doors look like barn doors and there will be double hung windows with a transom at the entry with a clapboard design and columns. There will still be masonry by the door. They are hoping the design will be more harmonious with the neighborhood. Ms. Mason added that there is a substantial amount of landscaping to help break-up and soften the façade.

Mr. Donahue stated that the masonry by the door is not needed and is a distraction. He is glad to see that they have made an effort. Mr. Marstaller asked about the reason for the high windows. Mr. Patterson stated that since this is a warehouse, they need the wall space to put stuff against. They have added the upper windows for natural light and there are windows on the low eave side with a similar pattern.

Mr. Marstaller stated that after the site walk, and looking at the site from I-295, it will be very visible coming from the south. The design is an improvement, but they could go a few steps further. He suggested vertical material on the upper with horizontal siding on the lower portion, with a few other details also being added. Mr. Patterson stated that he does not like how the vertical looks because it looks like a trailer. The side wall with be 160 feet. Ms. Mason suggested that they could add more vegetative screening. Ms. Larson suggested that since they just got the revised building design and if they want to add more landscaping, then the applicant should return to the Board. Mr. Patterson stated that they did not get direction from the Board at the last meeting on how to change the building. Ms. Mason noted that they focused on the concerns of the neighbors and the view from I-295.

Mr. Marstaller noted his concern of the visibility to from the highway, proximity to Route One, and for the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Gorman stated that he thinks they did a great job with the changes. Mr. Donahue stated that this proposal raised questions of the harmony of metal buildings in rural areas.

The Board and the applicant discussed the features of the building, and the Board made the following suggestions in regards to the design: change the doors to make them more attractive; adjust the headers of the windows and doors to better align them and make them more uniform; add windows on the lower level; look into window trim.

The applicant asked if the Board would be comfortable making the suggestions for the building design as a condition of approval. The Board was not comfortable with this and stated that they would need to see new elevations to look at.

Mike Kennedy, asked the Board to remember the neighborhood and the access to the site which is on Noble Drive and through a residential neighborhood. He is concerned not for Maine Sailing, but what will happen next. This is an industrial building and it should be in an industrial park. He is concerned for this style of building in a neighborhood and the doors that it is opening.

An anonymous member of the public stated that they have concerns since the MD-B District starts here. The building design does not go with the landscape and it abuts residential properties which have clapboards and shingle siding and barns. There is not a metal building in this part of town and this will set a precedent. It would make a difference if access to the site was from Bennett Road which already has a commercial use.

Jennifer Dealaman, Noble Drive, stated that the issues are for the neighborhood and what putting up a metal structure means. There are large areas of acreage. The first drawing was offensive and they have done a wonderful job with the changes and making the building more visibly friendly. There is a neighborhood here and this is setting a precedent.

Rich DeGrandpre, stated that the issue for him is the buffering and the protection of the visibility from the neighbors. This is a permitted use in this zone, and the applicant is here for Site Plan Review and not Design Review. This is not the worst thing that will be seen from the highway.

Ms. Benson stated that there should be additional buffering requirements if the area were changed to an industrial zone and it is worth pursuing the change or more regulations since there is some additional acreage in the MD-B zone and it is so close to the V-I Zone. This is an acceptable use and material now since it is not in Design Review.

Win Fowler, applicant, stated that he wants to be in Freeport and not be an obtrusive neighbor. He has made some changes which will add to the building expense and cannot move ahead and let the builder move forward with the foundation until the project is approved.

Mr. Marstaller stated that this zone is relatively new and the former zone would not allow commercial uses. The problem is that there is no industrial park in Freeport and the Board needs time to come to terms and grasp the impact of the architecture. There is nowhere for the use to go other than an individual site and to incorporate screening and a buffer. He asked about access to the site from Bennett Road and if there was the ability to reposition the building. Ms. Mason stated that there are wetlands between this property and the abutting road, and they would need a bridge to get across, plus there is only a certain portion of the land that the owner was willing to sell.

Mr. Gorman stated that this is an allowed use in this zone, there will be little impact and it is not within Design Review. Mr. Donahue suggested that there may be a way to introduce repetition in the spacing of the windows and maybe the windows are not needed below. He suggested the use of a wider panel on the lower section and a narrower panel on the top. Mr. Patterson stated that there is a maintenance concern with the different panel sizes due to leaks and the structural support. A 12” panel has been added to the top of the siding to break it up.

Ms. Larson suggested that the Board would need to see elevation drawings for all sides of the building. Mr. Donahue suggested that the building be shifted westerly to drop the elevation. Ms. Mason noted that the smallest side of the building is facing the neighbors and the building is situated to avoid the wetlands. The knoll on the site is in front of the building and the intent of the design was to buffer and screen the building to pare down the side. The majority of the building façade will be broken down with plantings. Ms. Benson suggested adding buffering along the highway. Ms. Larson stated that the landscaping plan would need to be adjusted in relation to the new overhead doors. Mr. Fowler stated that the large opening abutting I-295 may not be on this property, but is on the Bennett Engineering Property.

Ms. Benson / Mr. Donahue moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board table the review of the application for Maine Sailing Partners until the November meeting.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays

American Eagle Self Storage – 215 US Route One
The applicant is presenting conceptual plans to renovate the existing motel into 40 self storage units and to add a new building with 20 units. Part of the existing structure will be used for retail/office space and the applicant would also retain an existing apartment on the second level. Tax Assessor Map 25, Lot 3. Two Eighty One South Associates, owner and applicant; Tom Farmer, Terrence DeWan and Associates, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the central part of the existing structure (hotel registration area) will be used for retail on the first floor and the applicant will retain the existing apartment on the second level. The new building in the rear will be 30’ x 100’.

There is an existing loop driveway with two curb cuts onto Route One. The applicant is also proposing a 25 foot wide driveway and parking area along the rear of the building. The new driveway would connect to the existing driveway on the ease and west side of the former motel. The applicant wishes to retain both curb cuts. The Board typically encourages limiting curb cuts onto Route One and reducing impervious area.

The Planning Board is discussing amendments which would make this use not allowed on this part of Route One unless it is 300 feet back. They are also considering making these provisions retroactive and will be holding a public hearing on this. They applicant is aware of this.

There are existing utilities on site. The applicant will need to submit statements from the Freeport Sewer District and the Freeport Water District stating that they have the capacity to serve the project. The applicant has not submitted details on the appearance of the building. That should be included with the final submission. Details on landscaping, lighting, and signage will also need to be submitted. The applicant will need to submit Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plans to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. The applicant should consider the Performance Standards for Commercial Districts (Section 527 of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance) when designing the final plans.

Paul Kozell, representative for 281 South Associates, stated that the former motel closed in 2003 and they have been trying to come up with a viable use for the property. He has met with FEDC and different realtors and they have come up with this idea as a temporary or transitional use. They will need to add a new building behind the existing and will add doors to the rear of the existing building. They have been good neighbors and have been maintaining their property.

Tom Farmer, representative from Terrence DeWan and Associates, gave an overview of the site and features. He explained that they are proposing to clean-up the front of the existing building and leave it relatively as is. From the front it will not look that different and they are proposing to add a paved/gravel area in the rear. They are doing a minimal amount of earthwork. Mr. Kozell stated that they will actually block the rear of the windows facing the road and they will use doors on the rear to access the units. The north side of the building will be broken up into 3 units and the middle will be used for retail with an apartment on the second level. They have talked to neighbors and the goal is that you would not see the new building from Route One or I-295. The new building will stick building and have storage units on each side. This would not be climate controlled storage and they would be similar to the units located on Route One North. There will be a variety of unit sizes. There is a crawl space under the existing building and there will be a slab under the new one. Ms. Benson asked if this would be the third self-storage place in town. Mr. Kozell stated yes.

Mr. Gorman asked Ms. Larson about the proposed zoning amendments for this district. Ms. Larson stated that the Planning Board will discuss the item at their November meeting and will be discussing the retroactive language. The ultimate decision on the proposal is up to the Town Council. The applicant is aware that the amendments are being discussed and knows that there could be various outcomes. Mr. Kozell stated that they are aware of the possibilities and the process, but this is a permitted use now and they are trying to come up with a compromise.

Mr. Gorman stated that this is a creative use of the property. Mr. Farmer stated that that this is a benign use of the property and it is an underdeveloped site as it is vacant. Mr. Donahue asked if there would be issues with securing the site. Mr. Kozell stated that there are no requirements, but there will not be intrusive lighting and they are not sure on fencing. Two small storage buildings that are on site will be removed.

Kenn Mann, resident, stated that he has been following the Route One zoning proposal and the idea of sending the proposed ordinance changes to the Town Council is something that has never been discussed with the public. The Board should not find fear with the proposal. This does not seem like something that should be excluded and we should make it work.

Mr. Kozell stated that they are looking for an indication from the Board so they will know whether or not to move forward with the plans. Mr. Donahue stated that this is an enhancement of the property and he will have questions on lighting. Mr. Gorman stated that it looks good.

174 Lower Main Street – Exterior Alterations
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing wood clapboard siding with Hardie Plank (composite) siding. No other changes are proposed. Class B property – Design Review District I. Tax Assessor Map 8, Lot 4A. Thomas Wilbur, applicant and owner.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant recently purchased the building and plans to convert the property from residential to commercial. Someone came to us, as the siding was gone and could only be replaced with the same material. The applicant was proposing a material change, so they needed to come to the Board. There are other unanswered questions beyond the siding. She has set up a meeting with other Department Heads to discuss the use, since there will be impacts on other aspects of the property and if everything is not done comprehensively, more issues usually arise.

The applicant is only presenting information on changes to the siding at this point. Since there is going to be a change of use down the road with further building renovations anticipated, it would be my recommendation that the Board wait to review the application until all the details on the change of use and building alterations are submitted so that they can review the comprehensive proposal at one time. If the Board does wish to proceed with the review as requested at this time, the details are as follows:

The applicant is proposing to replace the existing wood clapboard siding with Hardie Plank (composite) siding. The existing siding was only 10 years old, but was deteriorating and has been removed from the building. The applicant is proposing a 4 inch reveal; the same reveal as the wood siding which was removed. The composite material will have a smooth surface, as opposed to a wood grain appearance. The applicant is proposing to paint the building “Pumpkin”, from the California Paints Historic Colors of America paint line. The trim has been painted a pale yellow and the accent color on the doors will be brown.

The Freeport Historical Society has reviewed the project. Their recommendations include maintaining
an appropriate reveal on the entire structure, using quarter sawn wood clapboards on the primary facades and composite on only the secondary elevations, and using the “Select Cedarmill” finish as opposed to the smooth finish. The Society would consider all three sides of the front portion of the building as primary facades and would consider the ell and the building to the side, as secondary facades. A building from this period typically had a 3’ reveal, with a range of 2 3/4 to 3 ¼. The applicant would like to use the smooth side of the clapboard and use composite material on the entire structure, due in part to its longevity and low maintenance.

Cathy Wilbur, applicant, stated that they did not come to the Board earlier because they had been sent comments from the Project Development Team and was not aware that he had to come to this Board. They are only here to talk about the siding now and will talk about the other steps later. Tom Wilbur, applicant, stated that they may do the windows later, but if the cost is too high they will leave them as is. He showed the Board the proposed colors and materials. Ms. Wilbur stated that they have talked to the Anne Ball of the Freeport Historical Society and she has an email stating that they are okay with the Hardie Board.

Mr. Marstaller asked about the applicant not being aware of the Ordinance and the requirements for a change in materials. Mr. Wilbur noted that they have talked to the Freeport Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) about the project and FEDC is part of the Project Development Team. Ms. Larson noted that a memo that Mr. Wilbur is referring to is a memo from FEDC and not the Planning Department. The Project Development Team is just a group of Department Heads sharing information and they have no authority. They talk about proposals without details, and a memo was sent to Mr. Wilbur without her review. The applicant has been through Design Review issues in the past and she was not aware of what was going on until she talked to them.

Mr. Wilbur clarified that they had gotten a memo from FEDC with comments from the Project Development Team and then they met will Anne Ball about the color and materials and she okayed them, so they proceeded and then went to the Fire Marshall. Ms. Wilbur stated that they had planned on bringing everything in at one time. Mr. Wilbur stated that he had consulted with the Planning Department and Mr. Reeder had advised him to hire an engineer so he did. The Town Planning Office is not a friendly place for him, which is why he was using Stephanie as a buffer, which is one of her roles.

Mr. Marstaller stated that someone having an issue with Ms. Larson is unusual and this is a large project. Mr. Wilbur stated that this will be a change of use from restaurant to retail in the front and remain residential in the rear. He has hired an engineer and Back Bay Surveying has done the survey and the parking plan. Ms. Benson asked if the engineer would make the presentation to the Board and Mr. Wilbur stated yes. This is not a complex project. Mr. Marstaller stated that he would like to see the entire plan and noted that there will be a lot of siding on this place. Mr. Wilbur stated that they thought they could take the siding off and they followed the directions given to them and thought that the Historical Society could approve the material and color. Mr. Marstaller clarified that the Historical Society gives input, but has no authority. Ms. Benson noted that Ms. Ball still says that the applicant can use the same material, but her comments are more detailed now. Ms. Wilbur stated that she is concerned that if the issue is not addressed now, they will not be able to side it this winter. There is Tyrek on the building now and it would be less intrusive to the residents to do it now.

Mr. Gorman suggested that the Board discuss the siding, noting that since the windows were not also being discussed, it may cost the applicant more down the road. In the future, the applicant should get help from someone they can work with. The Board agreed to proceed with the review of the request to just change the siding.

Ms. Wilbur stated that there are five styles of trim boards on the building now, and they are not proposing any changes. The larger building will be pumpkin with yellow trim and the smaller building will be yellow with pumpkin trim. Siding samples were presented to the Board. Mr. Marstaller asked about the reveal. Ms. Benson stated that the Freeport Historical Society recommendation is a good one and a 3 inch reveal would be more appropriate. Ms. Larson stated that Ms. Ball recommended a 3 inch reveal and quarter sawn clapboards. Mr. Donahue stated that it would make sense to line the siding up with the windows.

The Board agreed that they were okay with the use of the Hardie Board and they would be okay with a 4 inch reveal if it were in-line with the tops and bottoms of each window. Ms. Larson clarified that it would be okay if there were some variation in the reveal, with no more than a four inch reveal.

Ms. Benson noted that in some cases the Board has required wood on the front. Mr. Gorman stated that there would be fading over time with the wood. Mr. Marstaller noted that in cases where the Board has required wood on front, vinyl was proposed on the remainder. Ms. Benson questioned the trim and casing. Mr. Wilbur stated that it was five quarter; Mr. Donahue noted that it should not be an issue. The Board agreed that they were okay with the use of Hardie Plank on the entire building.

Mr. Mann stated that he is here to support the Wilbur’s and this is a siding issue. The have the right to apply for a change at any time and should not be required to pull everything together. The Board is making a good decision tonight. It is hard to make the boards match the windows. Mr. Marstaller stated that ideally they will match the boards on the top of the windows and on the bottoms if they can.

Mr. Gorman / Mr. Donahue moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve a Design Review Certificate for Tom Wilbur for new siding at 174 Lower Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, application dated 09/21/07, with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) The reveal of the clapboards be such that they match with the very top of the windows and the very bottom of the windows, provided that the reveal not exceed four inches.
2) The smooth finish of the Hardie Plank rather than the textured side is acceptable.
3) Hardie Plank on the entire building is acceptable.

Ms. Larson stated that she will have Findings of Fact for approval at the next meeting. She advised the applicant to contact the Planning Office if there are any changes so that there is no confusion in the future.

Edna Rosengren, resident, stated that Ms. Larson has always been very helpful and she feels bad for the comments that were made. Ms. Larson has always tried to get any of her questions answered. She is one of the best Town Planner’s that this town has ever had. The applicant had not been through the right process and people can get into trouble for assuming.

Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM IV: Discussion of color and the Freeport Design Review Ordinance
Tabled until the next meeting.

ITEM V: Persons wishing to address the Board on non-agenda items
None.

ITEM VI: Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier