01/30 -

FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2007
6:30 p.m.

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

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.

ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the December 13, 2006 and December 19, 2006 Project Review
Board meetings.
Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Donahue moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the December 13, 2006 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays / 1 Abstention (Goodall)

Ms. Larson noted that in the minutes for the December 19, 2006 meeting, the revision date of 11/22/06 needs to be added to the motion.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Anderson moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the December 19, 2006 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed with the correction to the motion. Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays / 1 Abstention (Donahue)

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson stated that she has done a Staff Approval for a new sign at Reebok. The Staff Review Board recently approved a change of use for from hotel to office and/or retail, for two of the buildings on the Econo Lodge site. She noted that the Board will have a workshop on January 23, 2007 with the Town Council at the Freeport Community Center. The workshop begins at 7:00 p.m. but the Council thought that it may be helpful to have Board members there for the earlier workshop with the Planning Board.

ITEM III: Design Review Certificates
LL Bean – Chimney Removal – West Street
The applicant is seeking a Design Review Certificate to demolish an existing chimney at the David Warehouse building on West Street. The requirements of the four month notice period have been met. Class B property. Tax Assessor Map 9, Lot 41. L.L. Bean Inc., applicant; Randy Reynolds, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that no parties have been interested in taking the brick and as stated at the last meeting, due to the poor condition the bricks will be brought to a landfill. The chimney will be removed in sections and the debris will be hauled away.

Carl Dodge, LL Bean, stated that the chimney will be removed in February by Crooker and it will take about three days to remove.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Anderson moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve a demolition request from LL Bean to remove the chimney from the Davis Warehouse on West Street which is a Class B property, submission dated September 5, 2006, in that the requirements of the four-month notice period have been met, and an alternative use for the chimney and/or brick have not been found. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

When Pigs Fly – New ground sign
The applicant is seeking approval for a new ground sign at 21 Main Street. Class A property. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 6. Richard and Karen Bruson, applicant; When Pigs Fly Inc., applicant; Andrew Siegel, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the sign will be 15.2 s.f. and in the same location as the existing UPS sign. The sign will be either 3 feet or 6 feet in height. The sign will have a wood core with an aluminum face. The applicant will use the existing lighting. She has spoken to both the applicant and the landlord about some sign consolidation on the property. Although we can ask them about doing such, we cannot require it. Sign consolidation is not an option at this time, as one of the tenants is not willing to change the previously approved sign.

Mr. Siegel stated that he is willing to put up a combined sign if the other tenants are willing. The existing UPS Store sign is 48 inches wide with 5 inch posts and this sign will not be that much wider. It will be 12 inches taller than the existing UPS Store sign which is 24 inches in height. It will be in the same location and should not block the other signs too much. Mr. Goodall stated that he had concerns that the other signs would be blocked, but he thinks it is because of the way the photo-rendering was done.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.10
Signs:
The applicant is also proposing a new 15.2 s.f. ground sign in the same location as the existing UPS Sign. The sign will be either 3 feet or 6 feet in height and have a wood core with an aluminum sign face. Existing lighting will be used.

Mr. Donahue / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for When Pigs Fly for a new ground sign at 21 Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, submission dated 12/26/06, finding that it meets the standards of the Design Review Ordinance, with the following Condition 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

It was noted that the representatives for the proposed Village Center Project had not yet arrived. Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Goodall made a motion to move the item until the applicant arrives. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays.

ITEM IV: Approvals
Total Concepts Inc. - Site Plan Renewal
The applicant is seeking a renewal of a site plan for a 9,200 s.f. building to be used as an office for a modular home construction company on US Route One North. Tax Assessor Map 21, Lot 27-1. Total Concepts Inc., owner and applicant.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant’s site plan approval expires in February and the applicant is now seeking a renewal for a 9,300 s.f. office building to be located on US Route One North. This will be the third renewal of the approval and no changes to the plan are proposed. No town ordinances effecting this proposal have been amended during the past year, however State of Maine rules regarding stormwater management have changed since the plan was designed. Albert Presgraves, Town Engineer, has reviewed the plan and has recommended some changes to the plan (see memo dated February 1, 2006) to make the plan comply with the new DEP Chapter 500 Stormwater Rules. He has also recommended that the applicant enter into a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Freeport. Both items have been added as conditions of approval, with the plan revisions to be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the start of any site work.

Kassi Pitassi, applicant, stated that no changes are proposed. They were going to build this project but are now trying to sell it for someone else to build for their own use.

Mr. Whitmore stated that changes would be needed due to the stream and changes may also be needed for mitigation. Ms. Larson suggested that any changes needed could be done as a Staff Approval to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. If significant changes to the building or site are made, then the applicant would return to the Board. Mr. Goodall suggested adding to the motion, that changes would be approved by staff.

Proposed Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape.
The proposal will keep with the character of the abutting properties and will include the required 25-foot landscaped setback.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment.
Entrance to the site and the parking areas will abut the neighboring commercial use. Stormwater management facilities will be located to the rear of the building. The façade of the building will mimic that of the abutting commercial property.

c. Vehicular Access.
There will be one access point off Route One. The driveway will serve two-way traffic and have a turn-around area at the end. All public safety heads have reviewed the plan.

d. Parking and Circulation.
Interior drives and parking spaces meet the space standards of the Zoning Ordinance. A pedestrian walkway will abut the building.

e. Surface Water Drainage.
The applicant has submitted plans for stormwater management. The Town Engineer has reviewed the plans and has recommended that a few changes be made prior to the start of construction.

f. Utilities.
The applicant will have private water and wastewater disposal system. The location of the test pits and the septic system have been shown on the plan. All utilities will be underground.

g. Advertising Features.
A kiosk sign is proposed with the location being shown on the plan. Once occupied, individual tenants might place business signs on the building. Any signs will need to be approved by the Codes Enforcement Officer for their compliance with the Freeport Sign Ordinance.

h. Special Features.
There will be a dumpster to the rear of the building. The dumpster will be screened with a picket fence and plantings.

i. Exterior Lighting.
Lighting is shown on the plan. The applicant has submitted spec sheets on the proposed lighting fixtures.

j. Emergency Vehicle Access.
All public safety department heads have reviewed the plan.

k. Landscaping.
The applicant intends to preserve some of the existing vegetative buffer. Additional plantings are proposed abutting the front of the building and placed on island and drainage areas in the parking lot. There will also be plantings as part of the screening of the dumpster.

l. Environmental Consideration. A site plan shall not be approved unless it
meets the following criteria:
All of the above conditions have been met.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of Section 602 Site Plan Review.

Mr. Goodall / Mr. Donahue moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the site plan for 1183 US Route One, dated 10-10-03, revised 12-10-03, to be built substantially as proposed, finding that it meets the standards of Section 602 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. A performance guarantee, in an the amount to be approved by the Town Engineer, to cover the cost of all site work, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, be established prior to construction. The performance guarantee shall cover the cost of all site work, including the driveway, parking areas, landscaping, erosion control, and stormwater management. Along with the performance guarantee, a non-refundable administrative fee of 2% of the performance guarantee, in the amount of to be approved by the Town Engineer, be paid prior construction.
3. Establish an inspection account, in the amount of $1,000.00, for inspection of the site improvements prior to construction.
4. The applicant and the Town enter into a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement, to be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds, prior to any site work.
5. The recommendations made by the Town Engineer, in a memo dated February 1, 2006, be changed on the plan and approved by the Town Engineer and the Town Planner prior to any site work.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

LL Bean – Data Center – Stonewood Drive
The applicant is seeking final approval for a new 19,600 s.f. building and 19 space parking lot on an undeveloped parcel on Stonewood Drive. The building will house computer equipment and associated mechanical systems. Tax Assessor Map 23, Lot 70C. L.L. Bean Inc., owner and applicant; William Conway R.L.A., Sebago Technics, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant was going to present plans for final approval, however building elevations are not yet ready and there are still a few site details to work out. The applicant will return with plans for final approval in February.

Mr. Goodall / Mr. Anderson moved to table the review of the application for the LL Bean Data Center until the applicant is ready to return to the Board. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM V: Design Review
Village Center Project – Depot Street
The applicant is returning with revised elevation drawings for a new building which will include 118,500 s.f. of retail/restaurant space and a 529 space parking garage. Class A & B properties. Design Review and Site Plan Review are required. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lots 112-ETC & 114. Berenson Associates Inc., applicant; L.L. Bean Inc., owner; William Conway R.L.A., Sebago Technics, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that this review will focus on the Design Review aspect of the project. In the last submission package, the Board also received information on lighting fixtures, outdoor furniture, planters, and vendor carts; this would be an appropriate time for the Board to comment on these items, as when the applicant returns again, it will be for final approval. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the issue of signage and lighting for signs.

All tenant signs will need to be reviewed for a Design Review Certificate and therefore the amount of signage permitted should be predetermined in accordance with the ordinance. Any kiosk or general signage could be approved with final approval, if the design, colors, material and location will remain the same and just the tenant name will be altered. However, tenants will need to return for individual approvals. All lighting fixtures for signs will also need approval. If all signs will have a uniform lighting fixture, then that information should be included with the final submission.

Mr. Conway informed the Board that they should have the approval of the permit from the Maine Department of Transportation in a few days and the applicant will be presenting plans to the Traffic and Parking Committee next week. The configuration of the loading area has been resolved with Mr. Denney who owns the abutting property. They also have agreed to a concept with Mr. Leighton, abutter, about a pedestrian connection to Bow Street.

John Cole, Arrowstreet, presented the Board with revised elevation drawings incorporating comments from the last meeting. The corner of the building on Mill St. / Depot St. has been changed to be a brick and glass element to signify entry. This area will be illuminated and look as obscure glass with light behind. The tower element near the Mallet building has been removed since it detracted from the Mallet building. The issues of grading near the Mallet building and common access to the service area have been worked out. The side on Depot Street has been changed to incorporate more brick and the wood siding, and is similar in concept to the former Cumberland Shoe Factory. The façade of the interior tower has been revised and the tower element has been retained for the Balzer clock. An entrance on to Bow Street will be added with stairs and an elevator near the Leighton property.

Mr. Donahue stated that he was pleased with the revisions to the Depot Street façade and the tower on the corner. He questioned the elevations of the inside facades and the split face CMU. He asked about the colors that may be used, noting that he would like to see samples of the colors and brick. Mr. Cole stated that ground face is used in areas in touch with pedestrians, which unites the tenants on the bottom of the façade. For the interior facades, some split face may be used near the entries and the colors will be muted (Old Port blend), since there will be brighter colors in the storefronts and signs.

Mr. Marstaller stated that the changes are a big improvement and the design looks more unified. It is nice to have something along the idea of a tower in the corner since the hose tower is nearby. He suggested that something dramatic could be done to the corner, as it looks a little plain now and it would be nice to have something to compliment the hose tower. He asked about the height of the corner tower. Mr. Cole stated that the tower is between 35 and 40 feet. There is an issue with the corner being able to pick up the scale of the façade on the two sides. The tower has been designed with the motif to mark entry to the building.

Mr. Anderson asked what was inside the tower. Mr. Cole stated that there is no tenant yet, but they would like to see the stairs behind the glass. He asked if the Board is okay with the material of the tower and suggested that maybe it could be skinny and have a cap added. Mr. Donahue stated that he likes the way it rounds the corner. Mr. Cole stated that the tower rounds the corner at close to 90 degrees. The design is a modern version of a past industrial building and they are trying to avoid being cute. The side on Depot Street is 35-39 feet and is a different scale from the other sides. Mr. Donahue stated that the Mallet building and hose tower should retain their character and there should be something unto itself here.

Mr. Whitmore asked if the garage would be all enclosed, how air would circulate, and if there would be fire suppression units. Mr. Cole stated that technically this is two separate buildings with fire separation at the plaza level. The garage will have 2-hour fire rated materials with sprinklers, carbon monoxide detectors, and mechanical ventilation.

Mr. Goodall asked about pedestrian circulation and a resting area on the plaza level. Mr. Cole stated that they are still working on the plan, but there will be seat walls and they are looking to get a food service tenant in the first pavilion with seating nearby. There will be some benches in the center with plantings, with Adirondack chairs around. The restrooms will be on the Mill Street side on the lower level, and on the plaza level.

Mr. Goodall asked if the purpose of the lighted towers was to draw people to the building and asked how the features of the historic mill building have been incorporated. Mr. Cole stated that the towers are to draw people in to the building and towers were incorporated into the former Cumberland Shoe Factory building along with the brick and clapboard siding. Mr. Goodall stated that it adds a human scale and the building has a similar roofline to the old factory.

Randall Thomas, Freeport Historical Society, stated that she likes a lot of the changes including the simplicity of the tower which will also be a clock tower. She would not like the tower to match the hose tower across the street since it is not the original location and this building should be distinct. She struggles with the loss of the granite foundation on the Mallet building and understands it is a grading issue, but the building loses it’s “ankles” and appears lower. She suggested that 28”-30” should be showing. She noted that the seat benches will create an issue with skateboarders. She asked if the park/garden area near Polo would remain as it could be problematic. Mr. Cole state that it is not on their property.

Mr. Cole stated that the issue with the Mallet building is handicap access and since it is three-feet off the ground, ramps are needed. The proposal includes building up the grade and setting the steps out from the face of the building. The sidewalks will be ramped to meet at the entrance, therefore creating a plaza around the Mallet building. They could hold back the paving to expose a granite band. The steps will be granite and the issue of access is the same on the front and rear of the building. Mr. Goodall suggested that some of the plinth could be granite.

Mr. Whitmore asked if there is a standard in the Design Review Ordinance (Ordinance) pertaining to grade. Mr. Goodall stated that from the perspective of the Historical Society and the Design Review Ordinance, the issue is compatibility with the architecture in the village. He asked Ms. Thomas if the Society thinks that the plan is compatible. Ms. Thomas stated that due to the size, it is hard to relate this building to the rest of the village. The Mallet building is key to driving the exterior, and from that point of view, and given the scope of the project, the answer would be yes. Mr. Goodall asked if the view from Main Street is compatible with the Ordinance. Ms. Thomas stated that from Main Street, you do not get the feeling of a tall building looming over. Mr. Whitmore noted that the Ordinance does state that a permit is needed to change the grade (Section V). He noted that at the last meeting the applicant stated that the contractor would use the Mallet building as on office. There is an old fireplace in there and they should be careful of it if they are going to use the building for storage.

Gary Vogel, representative for Grove Property Trust, stated that he sent a letter to the Board (dated 01/08/07) regarding traffic and loading and will be attending the Traffic and Parking Committee meeting next week. This is a good project, but they need to think about the loading dock and the proposed location because it will cause issues with pedestrian traffic and trucks turning and backing. If the loading area were moved, it would affect the design of the building. Mr. Conway noted that this loading dock will serve three buildings and the location eliminates the need for another curb cut on Mill Street. It has been designed with a truck staging area to let vehicles by. This dock will serve 25 percent of the project with the main dock being located on Depot Street. At the request of the Traffic and Parking Committee, a pedestrian sidewalk has been added on Mill Street and it will incorporate the use of bollards and changes. This is a steep road and this sidewalk will be safer than the one on the other side of the road. The loading dock would be able to accommodate a smaller tractor trailer truck.

Sean Selby, representative from Arrowstreet, gave an overview of the proposed signage which includes the following four types of signage: tenant signs; kiosks; project identity; and directional signs. They have reviewed the project as six separate buildings and determined the square footage of signs allowed per building. They are proposing fewer signs than permitted and only three two-sided kiosk signs are proposed. The project identity signs are to direct people through the entrances. Directional signs will lead people to the parking and toilets. In addition, information on lighting has been submitted. All lighting fixtures will be full cut-off and a modern version of the gooseneck fixture will be used. Images of signs have been included. The traditional signs in town are painted with gooseneck fixtures. They tried to respect this, but since this project will extend business hours, they are trying to add excitement. They are proposing halo lit signs which will have lighting behind the letters. None of the signs have been designed and the tenants will return with designs.

Mr. Donahue asked about lights in the garage, the footcandles, and lighting along the street side of the building. Mr. Selby stated that lights on the building will include post lights, gooseneck lights, and ground level lighting under trees. The interior of the garage will be lit with the basic idea for a light in each structural bay and the light will be pointed in the direction of travel with an extra light at the elevator. He is not sure about the level of footcandles in the garage. Mr. Donahue noted that on Depot Street, people will notice the difference in lighting on the sidewalk once they pass the property line and the garage.

Ms. Larson noted that tenants will have to come to the Board to get their signs reviewed since they will all be new signs. The square footage will be pre-determined. This may require the Board to have a separate meeting to just review signs. Mr. Selby noted that on other retail projects, tenants have to get their stamp of approval stating that the sign meets the design criteria of the building design, and then they can apply to the building department for a sign. Ms. Larson stated that the Board would also need to discuss changes on the interior facades since there may be changes due to different tenants and some of the facades would not be visible from public streets; the Board will need to decide how to handle this. Mr. Cole stated that the Mill Street and Depot Street facades are under their control, but they do not yet know the tenants and how much space will be needed and this may result in some changes to the façade. It may be up to the tenants to pick their signs and storefront systems. There will be standards in every lease.

Mr. Anderson stated that the signs with the halo lights are edgier than what is in Town now, and there may be the need for such a move, but the Town is conservative for a reason and a more conservative direction for the signs may blend better with Freeport. Mr. Selby stated that they are trying to attract tenants that are not already here, and they need to let them bring their branding while respecting the standards of Freeport. They are trying to add nighttime activity and need to activate it and give it life. Also, there would be long facades for all gooseneck lit signs. Mr. Donahue asked if they could design a hypothetical sign for a hypothetical client and bring it to the next meeting to give the Board an idea. Mr. Selby stated that they are working on the branding now and will have it for final approval.

Ms. Thomas stated that she has issues with the signs near the Mallet Building and with the project identification signs. She urged the applicant to find another way to do the signs in this area and suggested that they could be attached to the stairway. Mr. Cole stated that the idea is for metal framework with the sign suspended from it; it is a nice way to attach a sign near a historic structure. He can bring a photo of a sample and will give more detail.

Mr. Fred Leighton, abutter, asked the Board to be aware that whatever is done here would be allowed elsewhere and people would want to do. Mr. Selby stated that he talked this over with Fred Reeder and asked if this kind of sign (halo lit) was within the code/ordinance and there is a distinction between internally and externally illuminated. This is an exterior illuminated sign and not light shining in ones face and Mr. Reeder agrees.

Mr. Goodall stated that the Board does need to consider that others may want similar signs to what is done here. Mr. Marstaller stated that in some ways, the When Pigs Fly sign is edgy for the district due to the color and design. Mr. Anderson asked if the Board could get a memo from Mr. Reeder regarding the halo effect and the back lit signs. Ms. Larson stated yes. Mr. Goodall stated that the Board needs to look at what is allowed. Mr. Marstaller requested that the Board be given larger versions of a sign plan. The applicant noted that they will return for approval in February. Mr. Whitmore asked about stormwater and the DEP permit. Mr. Conway stated that they hope to have that for the February meeting and the permit is being reviewed as an amendment to the Site Location Permit.

ITEM VI: Conceptual Presentations
LL Bean – Addition to Hunting and Fishing Store
The applicant is presenting plans for a two-story 9,500 s.f. addition to the LL Bean Hunting and Fishing Store. Design Review and Site Plan Review are required. Class C property. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 36-etc. LL Bean Inc., owner; William Conway, R.L.A, Sebago Technics, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that due to the location of the building addition and plaza expansion, some existing parking will be eliminated. In addition, the connection between the Puffin Park and parking lot behind the Bike, Boat, and Ski Store will be eliminated. The applicant is now proposing a roadway which will go behind the Boat, Bike, and Ski Store. Details on the roadway and traffic will need to be submitted as this will result in changes to traffic flow in this area. She asked the Board to consider whether or not they want this plan to also be reviewed by the Traffic and Parking Committee.

The applicant will need to submit revised plans with details on landscaping, lighting, and building materials prior to returning for final approval. The applicant will also need to submit stormwater and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. This project will also require the applicant to get approval from the DEP for a Modification to their Site Location of Development Permit for the Campus.

Mr. Conway explained that this would be a two-story, 9,500s.f. addition to the Hunt/Fish Store. The addition will be 60’ x 100’ on the ground floor. The addition would extend towards Main Street over the existing gable end. He showed an overview of their parking lots and stated that they will need to study traffic issues further. The existing porch on the building will wrap around and extend to the addition. The building will be more visible from Main Street, there a pedestrian plaza in front, and they plan to improve the pedestrian connection with Main Street.

Mr. Goodall asked about changes to the island near the Bartol Library. Mr. Conway stated that there is a property line there, so no changes other than the driveway in the rear are proposed. Mr. Anderson encouraged the applicant to bring this plan to the Traffic and Parking Committee and questioned if it would have an impact on the outside expo area. Mr. Conway stated that they would still have the expo in the same area in space near the building. Mr. Marstaller questioned the material of the plaza. Mr. Conway stated that it would probably be brick.

Mr. Donahue noted his concern regarding the proximity of this addition and the Bartol Library and stated that there is not enough room between the two due to the scale. Mr. Whitmore asked about the loading dock. Mr. Conway stated that is would be in the same location but there may be some interior renovations to the back-of-house area. Mr. Marstaller asked about the total square footage of the store. Mr. Selby stated that it would be about 27,500 s.f. when complete.

Ms. Thomas that that there is an issue with access and cars going behind Starbucks and the side of the Bartol Library where there is no sidewalk. She is concerned of convergence here.

Mr. Cole stated that the addition will extend the existing architecture and the roof will incorporate dormers on the side as the gable appeared to be too much. The addition goes toward Main Street due to the location of existing infrastructure and to preserve the open space of the park. They could maybe drop the scale of the corner near the library and it was noted that there will be egress stairs in this corner. Mr. Goodall asked about landscaping. Mr. Conway stated that they have not worked out the details yet.

Ms. Thomas suggested that people go to the site to look at the scale. She suggested stepping the roof to pull the distance back. She would like to see an elevation drawing showing the abutting buildings. Mr. Donahue suggested that the dormers looked out of place and suggested that a change could be made to incorporate the roofline of the front and back of the building.

An anonymous member of the public suggested that the parking lot near the Boat, Bike, and Ski store could be made into all handicapped parking to limit the number of people entering to park.

The Board took a five minute break before reviewing the next item.

Freeport Living Retirement Community – Stagecoach Road
The applicant is presenting conceptual plans for a retirement community on Stagecoach Road / Pine Street. The proposal includes adding 155 living units in a variety of housing types, a lodge, and amenity building. This project requires both Subdivision and Site Plan Review. The location of the Retirement Community Overlay District was approved by the Freeport Town Council in October 2006. Tax Assessor Map 23, Lots 43, 45, 49, & 64. Freeport Living LLC, applicant; Terry DeWan, Terrance DeWan and Associates, representative.

Mr. Marstaller read the announcement which is read prior to the Board beginning its review of any new subdivision.

Ms. Larson asked the Board if they wanted to go on a site walk and suggested that if the Board wanted, they could have a site walk of both proposed retirement communities on the same day. The Board agreed to have a sitewalk on Saturday, February 3, 3007 at 8:30 a.m. meeting at the property on Pine Street (with the white house) and then to proceed to have a sitewalk of the other proposed retirement community (Freeport Heights on Old County Road) immediately after (approximately 10:30 a.m.)

Drew Wing, Freeport Living, explained the history of the project which they have been working on for over 1.5 years. The plans being presented incorporate feedback from town Boards and neighbors, and includes a diversity of housing types and services which will also serve the community. This is a unique site due to the proximity to services and natural beauty.

Terrance DeWan, representative, explained the location of the 47.5 acre parcel which is between Route One and Winston Hill. It is a heavily wooded site with a ridge through the property. It was originally three different parcels in multiple zoning districts. The parcel meets the requirements needed for a retirement community accordance to the ordinance. He showed the Board a site analysis plan indicating the nearby properties and uses, easements on the property, location of utilities, the natural features of the site, and the areas proposed for development. He indicated the drainage patterns on the site and noted that Sevee and Maher is working on the stormwater plans. There are 28.1 acres of net residential acreage compared to the requirement of 14.5 acres of net residential acreage. Access to the site will be from the DiMillo’s property on Route One. There will be 55 independent living units, 30+ units of assisted living, a main lodge (with assisted living), 65 cottage units, and common facilities with amenities. There will be a buffer along Pine Street with a gated entrance for emergencies only. There will also be a buffer along the Winston Hill neighborhood and no building in the area zoned as Resource Protection II. He presented a rendering of what the main lodge may look like, noting that Gawron Turgeon Architects are designing the architecture of the project.

Mr. Whitmore asked about stormwater management noting that this is an area with an urban impaired stream. John Kennedy, Sevee Maher, stated that they are limited to four methods of treatment by state regulation. Treatment may include ponds and buffers along with swales and storm drains but they still need to work out the details. Mr. Whitmore asked about blasting. Mr. Kennedy stated that there are some outcrops, but intense soil and bedrock profiling has not yet been done. They will try to avoid drilling and blasting as much as possible.

Mr. Marstaller asked about the size of the lodge. Mr. Wing stated that is was originally a 90,000 s.f. building, but now will be about 60,000 -65,000 s.f with a 20,000 s.f. footprint. Due to the strong tree-line and the wooded lot, it allows for the building for the most part to be out of view from the roads. Mr. Marstaller asked how far above Route One the property was. Mr. DeWan stated that there is about 30 feet of elevation between the Route One and the base of the lodge.

Mr. Goodall suggested that walkways be established for pedestrian connections with Route One. Mr. Wing stated that they too would like to see walkways established and the goal is to make it more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Donahue asked about traffic. Mr. Kennedy explained the numbers of trips during peak times and noted that the project does not meet the threshold of 100 peak trips which would require a permit from DOT. They will need to get an entrance permit from DOT.

Mr. Donahue asked about the number of staff. Mr. Wing stated that there would be no more than 30 workers at a time between the lodge, amenity building, assisted living units, and the maintenance staff. Mr. Donahue asked about storage space for trucks and equipment. Mr. Wing stated that this needs to be worked out, but there would probably be space under the lodge.

Mr. Goodall asked about the use of the lodge. Mr. Wing stated that there would be 55 units in the lodge, along with dining, housekeeping services, and the recreation facility. Mr. Goodall asked why the lodge is so isolated from the residential units and not pedestrian friendly. Mr. Wing stated that the lodge was moved closer to the commercial zone due to comments from the Planning Board and neighbors. The residents of the cottages are more active and will not want dining and meals. There will be internal and external transportation. Things such as wetlands, locations of the easements, and steep areas were also taken into consideration. The location of the lodge allows for shorter distance for deliveries and less noise from the building. If the location of the lodge was moved, they may need to go back to the Town Council. Ms. Larson noted that the location of the lodge was a big issue based upon feedback from the Planning Board. She suggested that this is something that the Board would want to look at on the site walk. Mr. Goodall suggested that pedestrian ways could be added to allow people to cut across the open space.

An anonymous member of the public stated that the location of the lodge seems logical since it is near the main entrance and older people who may have emergencies are closest to the entrance. In addition, it keeps parking and deliveries away from the residential area and satisfies the wetland, parking, and pedestrian issues.

Mr. Whitmore asked about gathering areas or a community center. Mr. Wing stated that there would be space in the lodge and in the amenity building which would have units above.

Mr. Anderson asked who would operate the facility. Mr. Wing stated that it is undetermined at this time and that they are still interviewing operators.

Bob Santomenna asked if there would be public access allowed on the trails. Mr. Wing stated that some of the buffer area will be offered up as a public conservation easement with trails. They need to work out who will take the space, but the intent is to open the trail to the public. The NET easement creates a natural trail system along the ridgeline. It would be great if the trails connected to Pine Street and then to the trails at Concord Brook. Mr. Marstaller asked about the trails at Concord Brook. Mr. Wing stated that there is a small trail there with an easement over the property to land owned by LL Bean. Ms. Larson noted that the cost to construct a trail in that area (behind the properties on Main Street) would be about $350,000.

Mr. Goodall asked about the Resource Protection Zoning on the parcel. Ms. Larson noted that the zone is an aquifer protection zone due to the location of the well in South Freeport. The design of the project keeps most of the runoff out of this zone.

An anonymous member of the public stated that from a neighbor prospective this plan is more palatable. They have given feedback and the lodge is in the commercial district and development is out of the resource protection area. There is an issue of concern with water and runoff in the area and most houses on Pine Street have standing water from water pouring off the ledge. A lot of neighbors are concerned about this and the blasting and the impact on the wells and septic systems.

Carter Becker suggested that if the treatment for stormwater was put under the road, they would take water out towards the commercial zones rather than towards Stagecoach Road. This would go against DEP and move the water away from the neighbors. Mr. Wing noted that the runoff issues on Stagecoach Road are existing and suggested that the large impact fees paid by this development could go towards the roads nearby.

Mr. DeWan noted that after the sitewalk the applicant would return on February 14, 2007 for conceptual sketch plan review. He suggested that on the sitewalk the Board could look at access, the location of the lodge and the water line. Mr. Marstaller suggested that they could also look at the location of a few of the buildings and a section of the road.
.
ITEM VI: Persons wishing to address the Board on non-agenda items.
None.

ITEM VII: Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier