01/30 -

FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007
6:30 p.m.

PRESENT: David Marstaller (Chairperson), Jane Benson, Jason Donahue, Cliff Goodall, Dale Whitmore, and Donna Larson (Town Planner). Erik Anderson and James Gorman 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 February 28, 2007 Project Review Board meeting.
Mr. Goodall / Mr. Whitmore moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the February 28, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson noted that she has received quite a few submissions for the April meeting, but they should all be able to be reviewed at one meeting. Several applicants are returning to the Board.

ITEM III: Design Review
Antonia’s Pizzeria – 193 Lower Main Street – New Sign
The applicant is seeking approval for a new externally illuminated ground sign. No other changes are proposed. Class C property. Tax Assessor Map 23, Lot 56. Sotirios and Antonia Sotiropoulos, applicants and owners.

Ms. Larson explained that the ground sign will be 4’ x 8’, 8 feet in height, and located near the Lower Main Street entrance of the property. The sign will be black with white fluted decorative columns. The sign itself will be made out of aluminum. The applicant is proposing to use the existing shielded lighting from the “Blue Onion” ground sign and the sign will be in a similar location as the previous one.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.10
In addition to the requirements of the Freeport Sign Ordinance, signs in the Freeport Design Review District shall be reviewed for the following: materials, illumination, colors, lettering style, location on site or building, size and scale. Minor changes that do not alter the dimensions or lettering style of an existing sign need not be reviewed, i.e. personal name changes for professional offices, or changes in hours of operation. See Special Publication: "Sign Application Requirements".

The applicant is proposing a 4’x 8’ ground sign near the entrance to the property. The sign will be eight feet in height. The sign face will have a black background with white text and will be made of aluminum. The posts will be decorative wood fluted columns which will be painted white. The applicant will use the existing lighting.

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

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Donahue moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Antonia’s Restaurant for a new ground sign at 193 Lower Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, submission dated 03/13/07, finding that it meets the standards of the 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: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM IV: Site Plan Review
Freeport Village Park – Bow Street
The applicant is proposing a new 8.16 acre park on Bow Street. There will be a small 9-car parking area which will be accessed from Bow Street. The plans include a trail system, open space, and picnic shelters. Tax Assessor Map 13, Lot 82 & portions of lots 81B, 79-ETC, and 63-ETC. LL Bean, Inc, applicant; LL Bean, Adam and Sheila Nappi, and Dover Properties, owners; Stephen B. Mohr, Mohr and Seredin, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the park incorporates portions of four parcels of land: two owned by LL Bean, one owned by Dover Properties, and a property owned by Adam and Sheila Nappi. At this time, the applicant is only presenting information on the portion of the property they own and will return with later with final details on the remainder of the property. The applicant has been working with the Freeport Recreation Committee, Freeport Conservation Trust, Freeport Conservation Commission, and Town Department Heads to finalize the details of the project. The applicant is developing a management plan and it will be the town’s responsibility to decide how they want to take care of the park. The same site plan review standards apply even though there are no large buildings.

John Oliver, VP Public Affairs for LL Bean, stated that this park will be a gift donated to the Town of Freeport and will include the land, a fully developed park, and a maintenance fund for the ongoing maintenance. LL Bean owns 6.6 acres, Dover Properties owns the portion where the stormwater pond is located, and the Nappi’s own the space in-between. They have been working with both property owners and with different groups in town for input. They have a rapid timeframe and the objective is to have the park open around July 1st. The town will be developing a management plan regarding the use, management, and maintenance; all which will be up to the town. They are proposing pedestrian access which will connect to the area near the school.

Steve Mohr, representative from Mohr and Seredin, gave an overview of the land in relation to the village and explained the abutting uses. This parcel has important natural features and is a hub of converging areas in town which could provide trail linkage in various directions. The existing stormwater pond was designed as part of the Hilton Garden Inn project and has the capacity to handle water from other development in the village. There are trees on the site with an open area near Bow Street. They do not have final agreements with the abutting property owners (Nappi or Dover Properties) and need to work on the civil engineering for the pond, so they are only seeking approval for the development on their portion.

There is a ravine on the property which has invasive plants and there is a small garage and house which will be removed. It is important to remove the invasive plant growth and leave the ravine along with the wetlands and slopes. They have pushed the parking to the side and are proposing to clean-up the property and develop a trail network which will connect to the north and south sides. They are trying to leave the existing open area available for free play. They have met with neighbors and have tried to incorporate the future plans for neighbors and abutters so this will all fit-in in the long term. A pavilion is proposed in the area of the existing house and in the other area of development near the pond. This will be a light impact park and they have tried to minimize the impact on abutters. They have the framework for a management plan, but are trying to match it with other management plans that the Town of Freeport already has.

The development will create a minor amount of stormwater as the trails will be new impervious area. They are proposing two water quality basins and an area in the middle of the parking lot, to catch and detain water. It is important to have good water quality entering the ravine.

For the buildings and structures, they are looking at materials that are environmentally smart. They are considering stone and wood for the benches and guardrails, and buildings that have a simple rustic style and are made of local resources. The picnic benches and pavilions will be made of logs which will have planks that are easily replaceable in years to come.

The applicant will need to apply for a NRPA Permit from the DEP for the crossings over the ravine. The largest crossing will span 50 feet and be six feet wide. There will also be six smaller bridges in other locations along the trail with handrails as needed. There will be picnic areas along the trail that overlook the ravine. There will be no outdoor grills and trash cans will be limited to the walk-in and drop-off areas.

In the top area of the park near School Street, they will use granite blocks for the for the fire pit, and to create the two skating pavilions and amphitheater with seating. Granite blocks will also be used for the guardrails in the parking area. They still need to work on the details of the use of the pond for skating. There will be a seasonal restroom and they are looking at different options.

They have talked to Adam Nappi about the possible use of future parking which would be created in association with the future development of the Bow Street Market. They have also been talking to Dover Properties about parking. Parking standards estimate that 18 parking spaces would be needed. They are proposing to have 9 parking spaces on-site and are still discussing options with neighbors, but still have land to create spaces if they are needed.

They are still working on some details including: the gated entrance; signs; dawn to dusk hours; motion censored lighting; the pavilions; and a hydrant to provide for the flooding of the skating pond. In regards to landscaping, they are trying to preserve what is there and are proposing some buffers along abutting properties in part to screen vehicle headlights.

Mr. Marstaller asked about lighting for the skating pond. Mr. Mohr stated that there will be fixed lighting for the skating pond which will be fairly intensive. Mr. Goodall asked about the elevation of the embankment behind the Nappi property, what would be visible, and asked about improvements to the existing culverts. Mr. Mohr stated that the elevation of the embankment is 97, to a high point of 112 and there is a 14 foot rise throughout. The improvements would not be visible from the rear of the Nappi property, but the light will bounce off the ice. Improvements will be made to two existing culverts.

Mr. Goodall asked about the appearance of the logs used for the pavilions, sidewalks, a crosswalk in the area where the trail connects to Bow Street, and the issue of dogs. Mr. Mohr stated that the logs used for the pavilions will not be milled and will therefore look like tree trunks with the bark off. The posts will be made of cedar. No sidewalks on Bow Street are proposed at this time. Future plans for the Bow Street Market show sidewalks and if that project is done, they may add a small area of sidewalk at that time. For a crosswalk, the applicant would have to petition the Town of Freeport to petition the State. In regards to dogs, the rules will be posted in the kiosk, but ultimately the management is up to the Town of Freeport.

Ms. Benson noted the location of the walking trail and area of proposed parking off Bow Street, and stated that since it is in a separate place, it may make sense to have it closer to other areas of the park. Mr. Mohr stated that the connectivity of the trail to the Mast Landing School was a compelling reason for the location and they feel that there will be a lot of foot traffic. They do not want the trail near the parking area due to the narrow frontage, the utility pole, hydrant, and trees. There will also be an area of overflow parallel parking in that area. They have tried to make the layout fit in and integrated with the neighborhood. Ms. Benson asked what would happen to the park if the applicant did not get the land owned by Dover Properties. Mr. Mohr stated that those improvements (stormwater pond) were done as part of the TIF, and part of that agreement was that the portion of the land be conveyed back to the Town. Ms. Larson noted that they are working on having this land conveyed to the Town, and it was always the intent, but a minor shift is needed in the deed. She also noted that there is also a walking trail over the existing sewer easement.

Ms. Benson asked about the amphitheater. Mr. Mohr stated that it will consist of rustic granite blocks with a series of ring seats and will allow for multi-season and multi-function use.

Mr. Marstaller asked about the granite blocks shown in the parking area and how the applicant would accommodate parking on their remaining land, if they could not work out an agreement for parking with abutters. Mr. Mohr noted that there are some granite blocks in the parking area to prohibit parking in certain places, specifically on the south side. They also do not want people parking on the west side of Bow Street. If they were to put parking on their remaining land, another access drive would be added and there is adequate site distance. They want to maintain buffers from the abutters and will infill existing buffers with Birch and Norway spruce. Mr. Goodall noted that the land on the other side of the gulley, near an abutter to the north (Stewart property), seems more open and suggested that the applicant talk to the abutter about a buffer or fence. Mr. Mohr stated that they have not talked to the abutter, and the trail going by the abutting property will be set lower than the floor of the house to maintain privacy. They will look at the buffer in that area as they work on plans for that portion of the park.

Mr. Marstaller asked about the water levels in the pond. Mr. Mohr stated that the summer elevation of the water is much different than the base level of 91, and the pond can store up to an elevation of 97. The as built grades do not match the approved plans, so they need to work out the details and changes may be needed.

Mr. Whitmore asked about the bridge height, noted that there is an urban impaired stream on the property, and asked about the existing water and sewer lines. Mr. Mohr stated that the bridge has been designed to meet ADA standards so that it is flush with the grade across and they have also tried to make it flush with the landings. Some portions of the trail will not be accessible, but there will be some trails, a pavilion, picnic area, and pond area that will be accessible. They have tried to avoid the sewer lines on the property and do not need much equipment for construction and have tried to keep the site accessible for long term maintenance.

Mr. Whitmore asked where the sewer line would be located if the applicant connects to the Public Sewer System. Mr. Mohr stated that there is an existing sewer line connection to the property and they are hoping to have a composting toilet or some other alternative facilities.

Mr. Donahue asked about the materials of the driveway and paths, and whether or not the applicant had considered pervious pavement. Mr. Mohr stated that the driveway would be reclaim. A portion of the trail would be paved, and then some stonedust over gravel, and then the rest would be wood chips over gravel. The pervious pavement would not work well here with the turning of wheels and they will get better results with reclaim asphalt. Mr. Marstaller asked about trail width. Mr. Mohr stated that they are looking at 5’ or 6’ wide trails.

Mr. Donahue asked what the applicant would do to the loop trail in Phase I. Mr. Mohr stated that they would start construction in April or May, and then return to the Board in May or June for approval for the remainder of the park, so he believes that the entire loop trail would be in by July 1st.

The Board agreed to a site walk of the property on April 11, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. meeting at the existing driveway on the property. People can park on-site and the public is welcome to attend.

Mr. Marstaller questioned the bridge materials. Mr. Mohr stated that the bridge would have hemlock stringers, and either hemlock or cedar planks, with cedar posts and rails. The bridges will have rails as required by code and will be 6 feet wide, with the exception of the long bridge which will be 8 feet wide.

An anonymous speaker noted that the sewer lines over the property are old and suggested that this may be a good time to replace the lines before the site is developed. Mr. Mohr stated that the sewer line is an old clay pipe which is why they are proposing to stay off it. A portion of the line was replaced when the pond was put in. There are no funds available now to replace the lines. Ms. Larson noted that the Sewer District is aware of the project and it is their responsibility to maintain the lines. The existing easement will remain.

The same speaker suggested that the applicant consider the following: the location of the pond in relation to the parking since users would need to walk from the parking lot, through the dark park, to get to the pond; that the amount of parking does not seem adequate for skating, multiple activities, or if the amphitheater is being used; there is a lack of trash cans throughout and with dogs, they need to make allowances for this; the replenishment of the maintenance fund over the years and when the park would become a burden to tax payers; seasonal bathrooms with winter skating; and snow removal for the parking lot. Mr. Mohr noted that there is not a night accommodated route from the parking lot and the plan would only work if there is other parking. Mr. Goodall stated that parking for access to the pond area, the skating pond, and restrooms would all be addressed when the applicant returns for approval for the remainder of the park. Ms. Larson noted that there will be issues to work out with the management plan and if there is not adequate parking, then people would not be able to schedule events there. They are working on the answers to some of the issues raised and they are all good points.

Mr. Oliver stated that they are only proposing the development on their portion of the property tonight. In terms of parking and the pond, there are issues to work out for the next plan and they will not be proposed if they practically will not work. There will be a maintenance fund which would be an endowment fund as part of the gift and the details still need to be worked out. July 1st is their requested timeframe because they would like to have the park open as part of the LL Bean 95th anniversary and have it operating by the summer.

Mr. Mohr stated that the warming hut near the pond may have facilities in it. There are issues with the reclaim asphalt as it is hard to plow. They have discussed snow removal and would wait until it is really frozen to plow the property. They have incorporated a snow shelf for snow storage. These issues will be addressed in the maintenance plan. Mr. Whitmore asked if the applicant has looked at the cost difference between reclaim and asphalt. Mr. Mohr stated that it is not that great of a cost difference, but the issue is with water quality and runoff and the appearance and look they are trying to maintain for the park.

Rachel Mills, abutter, stated that the applicant will have issues with runoff, this is a wet area, and the culvert in the street cannot handle the runoff. She has issues with the proximity of the driveway and parking area to her property and has safety concerns for her family. She would like the driveway to be moved over more and for the applicant to utilize the remaining property. She would prefer that the restrooms be moved behind the existing commercial development and to the other side of the park. It would also make sense to condense the parking where other future parking might be. She is against any night time activities even with town approval. She suggested that if the National Park Service recommends 16 parking spaces, the applicant should build it now and not piece it. If the parking lot remains where it is, there are not enough trees and she would prefer a fence along the property line. Mr. Goodall asked for clarification on the fence location. Ms. Mills stated that she has an existing fence on her property that is actually mislocated due to the understanding of the property line among neighbors. She would like a fence along the Bean and Blackstone property line which is a property she mows and maintains and enjoys using at this time. Mr. Goodall noted that the restrooms are 80 feet back from the boundary.

Mr. Mohr stated that the issue of the existing culvert would be addressed in the stormwater plan and they would bring water on to the Bean’s property and then to the stream. They will incorporate the use of a manhole in the driveway and are working on the plan details. The buffer is planted heavily, but they can increase the buffer and will talk to Mr. Blackstone about the fence. They have thought about having parking on each end to distribute it throughout, and have shown the parking in the one usable flat area. They are aware that they will need parking in place for the skating area, but when that area is taken out, 7 or 8 spaces are needed, which is why they have dedicated 9 spaces with 5 overflow spaces.

Greg Unfricht, resident of 90 Bow Street, stated that he has concerns about the parking lot and asked if there was a way to mitigate the curve more towards the lawn area. He is concerned that there may not be enough parking spaces and that users will begin to park on Bow Street or in people’s driveways. He encouraged the applicant to put more parking near the commercial area if possible. Mr. Marstaller stated that it makes sense in ways to use the lot behind the Bow Street Market as parking since it is more central to the rest of the parking in the area which is more likely to be developed and it is less wet. He wonders if there is a compelling reason not to make that area parking now.

Mr. Oliver stated that Adam Nappi needs the lot behind the market to make his plans works and they have attempted to try to make this park fit in, whether or not other projects go forward. Mr. Nappi has stated that parking for the park will be created as part of that possible future project.

Ms. Mills suggested that the applicant talk to Mr. Stewart (abutter to the north) about the location of the clay pipes sticking out and about the trail proximity. Ms. Larson noted that the Town has no control over the sewer lines and it is the sole responsibility of the Sewer District to maintain the lines.

Mr. Unfricht stated that his family would enjoy the skating park and he would like to thank LL Bean for the park. He questioned the potential impact School Street extension may have on the pond, aesthetics, and the environment. Ms. Larson noted that when the pond was designed, it was designed accordingly for the road. There are no plans or design done, but the idea was that the design of the bridge would have an arched culvert. This was envisioned as a public area, but no one ever thought that it would happen this quick, and a lot is going on in this area to improve the water quality going in to the river.

Mr. Mohr thanked everyone for their comments and noted that he would be in contact with Mr. Stewart.

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

ITEM VI: Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier