01/30 -

FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2007
6:30 p.m.

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

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

Mr. Marstaller explained that this meeting was postponed from last night due to the weather. The item for the proposed retirement community has been put on the agenda for the 28th as there was not enough time to notify abutters.

ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the January 10, 2007 Project Review Board meeting.
Mr. Goodall / Mr. Gorman moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the January 10, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 2 Ayes / 0 Nays / 2 Abstentions (Goodall and Benson)

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson stated that she has done Staff Approvals for new signs at Reebok, Freeport Knife, Gritty McDuff’s, Olivia and Company, and Norway Savings Bank.

ITEM III: Design Review
Georgetown Pottery – 148 Main Street
The applicant is seeking approval for a Design Review Certificate for exterior alterations and new signs at 148 Main Street. Class C property. Tax Assessor Map 13, Lot 18. Jeff Peters, Georgetown Pottery, applicant and owner.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant is proposing new signs, and replacing 4 windows on the front (2nd) story, 4 windows on the side of the building, and installing a ramp with railing on the front of the building. The existing windows are single pane with bars on the inside and the new windows will have 2 over 2 mullions (as recommended by the Freeport Historical Society) between the glass. All windows will be vinyl. The four windows on the south side of the building will be replaced with two large (72” x 60”) glass plate windows, similar to those existing on the front of the building. Interior mullions will also be added to the upper portion of the glass on these windows and to the glass on the front doors.

The applicant is proposing one two-sided ground sign (approx.16 s.f.), a building sign (approx. 31.5 s.f.), and a sign noting parking (1.5 s.f.). The ground sign will be illuminated from the top with a total of 4 compact fluorescent lights. The sign will have a sculptural pine tree pole made of black steel with the small parking sign located on the bottom half. The building sign will be located on the south side of the building. All signage lighting will be in the style of gooseneck fixtures.

The applicant is proposing a new accessibility ramp off the front of the building. The ramp will be relocate to the right of the door. The ramp will be constructed of cedar and have a black, non-skid surface. An additional sign and new windows are also proposed to the rear of the building, however those alterations are not visible from the public right-of-way and therefore Design Review approval is not required.

Steve, representative, stated that the applicant is just trying to spruce up the building and will occupy the entire building. The sign post will be made of steel (he presented the Board with a photo). Ms. Benson noted that there has been an effort to improve what is there and keep it historically correct. Ms. Larson noted that the applicant did work with the Freeport Historical Society.

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.
Proportion of the building’s front façade will not be altered.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The four windows existing on the southerly side of the building will be replaced with two glass-plate vinyl windows.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The four windows existing on the southerly side of the building will be replaced with two larger glass-plate vinyl windows. Four windows on the upper story on the front of the building will also be replaced with windows of the same size.

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

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The new windows will be vinyl. Mullions will be installed on the inside of the glass plate windows located on the side and front of the building and will be installed in the glass on the front doors. The new ramp will be made of cedar and have a black, non-slip surface.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The site layout will not be altered.

9. Site Features.
The site layout will not be altered.

10. Signs.
The applicant is proposing one two-sided ground sign (approx.16 s.f.), a building sign (approx. 31.5 s.f.), and a sign noting parking (1.5 s.f.). The ground sign will be illuminated from the top with a total of 4 compact fluorescent lights. The sign will have a sculptural pine tree pole made of black steel with the small parking sign located on the bottom half. The building sign will be located on the south side of the building. All signage lighting will be in the style of gooseneck fixtures.

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

Ms. Benson / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Jeff Peters at 148 Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, plans dated 01/23/07, 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 sign permits from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Department.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM IV: Final Approvals
1495 US Route One – Site Plan Review
The applicant is seeking final approval of a new 10,929 s.f., four-unit office building on US Route One. A new entrance off Route One is proposed. Tax Assessor Map 18, Lot 17. Saltnan Properties, LLC., applicant; Nancy Baker and Michael Snowman, owners; Art Colvin, P.E., Associated Design Partners, engineer and representative.

Mr. Marstaller stated that wetland issues were identified at the last meeting due to the fact that the applicant is maximizing the use of the site and it abuts wetlands. A few studies have since been done, but no other changes to the plan have been made. Ms. Larson stated that studies have been done and a letter has come in from an abutter regarding the location of the road. The Board did look at this and all State permits have been issued; this is something the Board might want to keep in mind if further development is proposed.

Mr. Art Colvin, representative, stated that the issues with the application are the abutter’s letter, the Tier 1 Permit, columns, and wetlands. The applicant presented conceptual plans to the Board in June for residential and commercial development on the entire parcel. The applicant then proceeded with the commercial development and came to the Board with a similar conceptual layout with two entrances. In October, the Board did not like the building design. The applicant revised the plans and returned to the Board in November, and were then asked for more information on the wetlands. They have since done that and Mark Cenci has been to the site. There is no significant wildlife habitat on the property. They have also submitted a plan for a turning template which shows the need for the area of pavement, as proposed. The issue of the two entrances was discussed at length and approved in concept by the Board. The impervious surface requirement for the district is 50%; 25% is proposed. Mr. Colvin presented the Board with a sample site design from the DEP and noted that when developing a site with wetlands, you should try to use most of the uplands. In this case, they have also increased the slopes to decrease the wetland impact. They are using a state-of-the-art stormwater design which meets the new DEP standards. Buttresses have been added to the building at the request of Mr. Donahue. The letter from the abutter referenced another property owned by the applicant in another town. The applicant will not retain ownership of this property as this is a condo project. A wetland study has been done and the Tier 1 Permit has been approved.

Mr. Goodall stated that he is the one who raised the issue of the wetlands and he feel that the issues have been addressed and the permits have since been obtained. He thanked the applicant for doing the further studies as every wetland has some value and he was concerned that the impact be minimized.

The Board asked about landscaping and signage. Mr. Colvin noted that those plans were included with the previous submission. Mr. Marstaller noted that the Board did not conceptually approve two entrances. He is happy with the way the issue of wetlands has been addressed and there is a consensus that the impact will be minimized. In addition, the minimal amount of pavement needed is proposed, and the façade of the building is an improvement over the original.

Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape.
Existing vegetation will be retained where possible. Landscaping is proposed around the building and around the sign near Route One.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment.
This parcel is not within the Design Review District. The building has four commercial units on two levels. The building will be sided with fiber cement siding with vinyl windows and trim. Trim boards have been added to the building to break up the expanse of the façade. Peaked roofs with buttresses are located above each of the entrances on the front façade. Each unit will have an entrance on the front and rear of the building. The garages will be located on the rear of the building.

c. Vehicular Access.
Vehicular access to the site will be from a driveway off Route One. The MDOT approved the entrance permit on July 19, 2006.

d. Parking and Circulation.
The plan shows 36 parking spaces meeting the requirements of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance. Each of the four units will have two interior spaces and there will be 28 exterior spaces. The applicant intends to construct all of the spaces at this time. There will be one entrance of Route One. There will be a walkway connecting the parking lot and the building entrances.

e. Surface Water Drainage.
The Town Engineer has reviewed and approved the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans (see memo dated 11-07-06). It is his recommendation that the applicant enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Freeport, to be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds prior to any site work.

f. Utilities.
There will be a community well and septic system on-site. Mark Cenci Geologic has completed a Nitrate-nitrogen Impact Assessment (dated August 21, 2006). The analysis concludes that the proposal meets the Town of Freeport requirements for groundwater quality. There will also be reference in the condominium association documents regarding the upkeep and maintenance of the well and septic. Utility connections from Route One will be underground.

g. Advertising Features.
There will be one kiosk sign along Route One. The sign will be made of painted plywood and have a shingled roof which will contain recessed lighting. There will be landscaping around the sign. Each business will also have a business identification sign near the individual entrances on both sides of the building.

h. Special Features.
There will be one dumpster on-site located to the rear of the buildings. The dumpster will be enclosed with a standard 6-foot cedar stockade fence. The location of the dumpster has been relocated to the rear of the building and out of the wetlands, as requested by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

i. Exterior Lighting.
Full cut-off fixtures are proposed for all lighting. The applicant has submitted a photometrics plan which has been reviewed for its compliance with the Freeport Zoning Ordinance.

j. Emergency Vehicle Access.
All Public Safety Department Heads have reviewed the plans.

k. Landscaping.
The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. Existing vegetation will be retained where possible and plantings are proposed abutting the building and near the ground sign.

l. Environmental Consideration. A site plan shall not be approved unless it meets the following criteria:
This project is not within the Marine Waterfront District or the Shoreland Zone. The applicant has submitted Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control plans which have been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. There will be a shared septic system and well on-site and a Nitrate-Nitrogen Analysis has been completed. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (see letter dated October 2, 2006). The applicant has received approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for a Tier One Permit (dated 10 Jan 2007) and approval from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection for a Tier 1 NRPA Wetland Alteration Permit (dated 01/04/07). Mark Cenci has been to the site and submitted an environmental narrative (dated 01/24/07) that states “The wetlands disturbed are of the most common variety in Maine and offer no significant habitat or other functional value.”

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. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Finding of Facts and Site Plan for Saltnan Properties for a 4-unit office building at 1495 US Route One, to be built substantially as proposed, plans dated 09/20/06, revised 10/23/06 and 02/06/07, finding that it meets the standards of the Section 602 of the Freeport Zoning 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 any site work, the applicant do the following:
A. Establish a performance guarantee in an amount of $243,000.00 to be approved by the Town Engineer, to cover the cost of all site improvements, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.
B. Pay to the Town of Freeport, a non-refundable administrative fee of 2% of the performance guarantee, in an amount of $4,860.00.
C. Set up an escrow account ($ 3,700.00) to cover the cost of inspection of site improvements by the Town Engineer and legal fees associated with the project.
D. Enter into a Maintenance Agreement for a Stormwater Management System be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds.
E. When a building permit is issued, pay a pavement maintenance fee based upon the building size of 10,920 s.f. and current impact fee effective when the building permit is issued.
3) The applicant submit a copy of the recorded legal documents to the Town Planner.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays

Change of Use – 37 Bow Street
The applicant is proposing a change of use from residential to residential and professional office. Exterior building alterations, a second story addition to an existing garage, a new sign, and a parking area expansion are proposed. Site Plan Review and Design Review are required. Class C property. Tax Assessor Map 13, Lot 70. Kenneth and Judith Koenke, applicant and owner; John Houghton, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the change of use is from residence to residence and office (1st floor). Plans have been revised to incorporate comments from the last meeting. The site plan has been revised so that the existing driveway will remain and provide access to the site and four parking spaces, including one accessible space, have been shown on the plan.

At it’s closest point, the existing driveway is five feet from the side property line and the driveway is about 13.5 feet wide. The Board agreed to the reduced width at the last meeting as the design will provide adequate access based upon the nature and use of the property. In addition, the ordinance does allow the Board to waive the requested driveway setback if there is an existing structure and the standards of Section 602 are met.

The ordinance requires two parking spaces for the residence and four spaces for the 1,100 s.f. of office space (one per 300 s.f) as shown on the plan. The accessible space is shown near the side entrance to the building. The other three spaces have been shown towards the rear of the property. The Town Engineer has reviewed the parking plan and suggested that the three parking spaces be moved over closer to the side property line and aligned with the edge of the existing driveway. This will allow for more space between the end space and the corner of the garage and will allow for more room for maneuvering in and out of the parking spaces.

The standards of the Freeport Village Overlay District have buffering requirements. Due to the size of the lot, the applicant could not meet all of the buffer requirements and still develop the lot. The applicant has shown an area of buffering along the rear property line. An existing willow tree near the rear of the property has to be removed to accommodate the required parking. The buffer includes cedar board fencing with scalloped panels and landscaping. This area will also be used for snow removal in the winter. On the side property line near the driveway, the applicant is not developing any closer to the property line and will maintain the existing vegetation and will also add the fencing for about 30 feet to screen the parking spaces.

The building elevations have been revised so that the second-story addition (640 s.f) to the existing garage meets the setbacks. The balcony on the rear has been removed. Existing doors will remain on the front and side and new garage doors will be installed. The siding on the new addition will be vinyl and the roofing will be metal (dark green/brown) to match the remainder of the house. The applicant will be replacing 13 wood windows on the first floor and another four windows in the kitchen so that all windows are the same size and are all vinyl. The windows will be 2-over-2 with mullions between the glass. A new accessibility ramp will be installed on the side of the building and will be constructed of composite materials.

Existing lighting fixtures will remain and the applicant will replace the existing clear globes with frosted globes to comply with the ordinance. A sign is proposed for the front of the property. The sign will be made of wood and have black lettering on a white background. The size will be approximately 30” in height and the sign face will be 18” x 10”.

John Houghton, representative, stated that a total of 13 windows are being replaced and the four in the kitchen will go back to their original size. Mr. Marstaller noted that a waiver is needed to allow the driveway to be 5-feet from the side property line. He noted that a 6-foot cedar fence with a scallop top is proposed and asked about the length. Mr. Houghton stated that the fence would be for 75 feet along the rear property line and for about 30 feet along the side property line. Mr. Goodall stated that the waiver request seemed reasonable and asked if the applicant has spoken with the abutter regarding the fence. Mr. Houghton noted that the abutters had submitted a letter and suggested the fence.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The second story addition to the garage is in the rear of the building. No other changes affecting the scale of the building are proposed. There will be no change to the building footprint.

2. Height.
The addition to the second story will be on the back of the building. The addition will match the height of the existing roofline on the remained of the house.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The proportion of the front façade will not be altered.

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

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The applicant will replace existing windows however proportions of openings within the facility will not be altered.

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

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The addition will be sided with vinyl with a metal roof to match the materials used on the remainder of the building. All new windows will be vinyl, 2-over-2, with mullions between the glass. The ramp and railings will be made of a composite material.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
Access to the site will remain the same retaining the rhythm of spaces to buildings on the street.

9. Site Features.
The driveway will remain in its current location and width. The parking area located to the side of the building towards the rear of the property will be reconfigured. There will be an access ramp on the side of the building.

10. Signs.

The applicant is proposing one sign for the front of the property. The sign will be 30” in height with a sign face of 18” x 10”. The sign will be made of wood and have a white background with black text.

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

Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape.
Existing vegetation will be preserved where possible. An existing willow tree needs to be removed to make room for the parking area. The applicant will add a fence along the rear of the property and along a 30-foot section of the side property line. The fence will screen the parking area from the abutting properties. In accordance with the standards of the Freeport Village Overlay District, the applicant has added a landscaped buffer along the rear property line.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment.
The building is existing and a second story addition (640 s.f.) will be added to the garage in the rear. The addition will align with the height of the existing structure. There will be no change to the building footprint. The building is Class C in the Freeport Design Review District.

c. Vehicular Access.
Vehicular access to the site will be through the use of an existing driveway. As a condition of Approval the applicant will be required to get a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Freeport Public Works Department prior to the start of any site work.

d. Parking and Circulation.
The ordinance requires two parking spaces for the residence and four spaces for the 1,100 s.f. of office space (one per 300 s.f) as shown on the plan. The accessible space is shown near the side entrance to the building. The other three spaces have been shown towards the rear of the property.

e. Surface Water Drainage.
Due to the size and nature of the development, information on surface water drainage was not submitted.

f. Utilities.
Utilities are existing.



g. Advertising Features.
A sign is proposed for the front of the property. The sign will be made of wood and have black lettering on a white background. The size will be approximately 30” in height and the sign face will be 18” x 10”.

h. Special Features.
There are no special features associated with this project.

i. Exterior Lighting.
Existing lighting fixtures will remain, however the applicant is proposing to replace the existing clear glass globes with frosted globes.

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

k. Landscaping.
Existing vegetation will be retained where possible. The applicant has added landscaping along the rear property line to provide the buffer as required by the standards of the Freeport Village Overlay District. The applicant is also proposing a 6-foot cedar board fence with a scalloped edge. The fence will be installed along the rear property line and for 30 feet along the side property line and will screen the parking area from the abutting properties.

l. Environmental Consideration. A site plan shall not be approved unless it meets the following criteria:
This property is not within the Marine Waterfront District or the Shoreland Zone. This parcel is in the Design Review District. The property is connected to the public sewer system.

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

Mr. Gorman / Ms. Benson moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve a waiver of Section 512.D.7 to allow a driveway to be within 10-feet of a property line in that the applicant will be occupying an existing building and using an existing driveway and the applicant meets the criteria and standards of Section 602, Site Plan Review.

It was further ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact, a Design Review Certificate, and Site Plan Amendment for Kenneth and Judith Koenke at 37 Bow Street, to be built substantially as proposed, plans dated 10/19/06, and as revised 01/23/07 and 02/18/07, finding that it meets the standards of Section 602 of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance and 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 any site work, the applicant obtain a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Freeport Department of Public Works.
3) The three parking spaces toward the rear of the property be constructed so that the first space is aligned with the edge of the existing driveway, as recommended by the Town Engineer.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Gorman recused himself and left the room.

ITEM V: Conceptual Presentations
LL Bean – Hunt/Fish Store
The applicant is presenting conceptual plans for a new addition to the LL Bean Flagship Store. This new 33,000 s.f. addition will be used for the Hunt/Fish Store. Design Review and Site Plan Review are required. Class B property. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 64-ETC. LL Bean Inc., applicant; William Conway, R.L.A., Sebago Technics, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that addition will be located in the same location which the Board just approved for the new Factory Store. The Factory Store will no longer be built, and the Factory Store will now occupy the existing Hunt/Fish Store (former LL Kids) once this new addition is complete. The applicant is no longer proposing and addition to the existing Hunt/Fish Store. The site plan and layout is very similar to those plans previously presented and will only be modified slightly. The applicant will need to get their Site Location Permit from the DEP amended. They will need to submit revised detailed site drawings with stormwater and erosion control plans to be reviewed by the Town Engineer. The applicant has submitted building elevations for the proposed addition and is looking for feedback so they can make any needed changes to the building plans before returning for final approval. Details on signage and building materials will need to be included with the final submission. The applicant will also need to work out the issue of providing parking for the project as they no longer have a parking surplus. There is parking available for lease through the surplus parking pool overseen by the Town of Freeport. If the applicant is going to be leasing parking, they need to have arrangements for the parking leases to be activated by the time of the store opening.

William Conway, representative, stated that the plaza area is more unified with this proposal than with the previous as the two stores will both be retail stores and the two buildings will be connected. The loading area configuration will be different as both areas will be combined and a third loading dock door will be added to the rear of the flagship store.

Sean Selby, Arrowstreet, showed the Board plans from the last meeting and compared then to what is currently being proposed. Plans have been revised due to traffic concerns from the past proposal and due to the needs of LL Bean. He presented renderings which showed the new addition in relation to the existing building. They have tried to keep the lodge feeling of the existing store. This building will have a different layout than the existing Hunt/Fish Store but they have tried to take some cues and incorporate them in to the two-story design. The design also addresses LEED environmental concerns and incorporates gables and porches. On the interior, the stores will be connected but on the outside of the building the porch will be retained. Mr. Marstaller clarified that the proposed building would not go further back into the parking area than the previously proposed building. Mr. Selby stated that the building has a similar footprint but has been square off and the parking will remain exactly the same as with the previous proposal. Mr. Goodall asked about the porch and if the colors would be the same as the existing Hunt/Fish store. Mr. Selby stated that the porch will go around the building and along the Flagship Store to the area where the big boot is located and then can be accessed from the plaza. The material will be the same as proposed for the Outlet Store and it will be similar in color. Ms. Benson noted that the design of the Outlet incorporated features of the Flagship and Hunt/Fish Store and she asked if the exterior of the existing Hunt/Fish Store would be altered. Mr. Selby stated that they tried to incorporate a second story onto the previous design for the Outlet Store, but it appeared out of scale and did not have the lodge feel. The new design will use an infill piece to transition between the buildings and will break up the mass. Ms. Benson asked if the total square footage fit into the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Larson noted that there are no size limitations in the ordinance.

Mr. Marstaller stated that this addition looks similar to the addition that was previously proposed for the existing Hunt/Fish Store. Mr. Selby stated that it was not as easy as taking the other building and moving it here due to the footprint. The roof peak and the slope over the entrance will be the same. It will also incorporate some smaller gables and dormers. Mr. Marstaller stated that this approach makes more sense to have the Outlet be freestanding and this will not encroach on the Bartol Library.

Mr. Benson noted that the existing Hunt/Fish Store was a mis-located building and she was not sure if it could be added on to. Mr. Conway noted that the mis-located building was due to a construction error and the building was located too close to Nathan Nye Street.

Mr. Goodall stated that the “lodgey” look is consistent with the requirement of the 1930’s type architecture and lodges of this time. It is also consistent with the rest of the campus. Mr. Marstaller stated that the liked the design of the Outlet, but this fits well with the rest of the building and the porch is great.

Exit 20 LLC – Commercial Office Building – Desert Road
The applicant is presenting plans for a new 31,750 s.f. office building and approximately 80 space parking lot. Tax Assessor Map 22, Lot 27 & a portion of Lot 26. Exit 20 LLC, applicant; Ann Archino Howe, Sustainable Design Studio, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that there will be two driveways to the site; one connecting to Hunter Road and the other connecting to Desert Road. The entrance on Hunter Road will be for emergency use only. There is an existing house with outbuildings on the site, with the remainder of the site being wooded. The existing structures will be removed.

The applicant has submitted elevation drawings of the building. The building will be three stories with a footprint of about 10,000 s.f. and has been designed to meet the LEED Certification requirements. The design shows two wings of the building connected by a transparent center. The exterior of the building will be sided in primarily stucco with a curved metal roof. There will be an entrance on both sides of the building as well as a parking lot on each side.

The ordinance requires 106 parking spaces for a building of this size and use (1 space per 300 s.f.). The applicant is proposing to construct only 75-80 spaces at this time but has submitted a plan showing that all of the parking can fit on site should it need to be constructed. The Board has the ability to waive the requirement that all of the parking be constructed; if the applicant demonstrates that all of the parking can fit on-site should the Town determine that there is a parking problem. The applicant also intends on using off-site parking for employees with a shuttle service. The intent is to encourage car pooling and alternative modes of transportation to the property. The applicant is still working on stormwater and erosion control plans. These plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to returning for final approval.

Peter Taggart, applicant, stated that he owns one of the parcels and has a purchase and sale agreement with the Town of Freeport for the other parcel. He described the building which will be three stories and have two wings connected by a center glass atrium. The space will be for small businesses and will provide a corporate feel. The building will be made of a Durasol wall system which consists of blocks which are made of wood and concrete. The blocks have a R-28 value. The exterior will be stucco. The building is designed to maximize the daylight and will have a metal, arched roof, with an area of green roof on the lower level. There will be a water feature in the atrium which will be part of the heating and cooling system. There will be patios on the outside of the building and an area for employees to recycle. The windows will be fiberglass. They are trying to make systems that are reusable and sustainable over time.

Ann Archino Howe, representative, stated that the project has been designed to reduce impact to the site. The site is wooded, except for the existing house and there is a small area of wetland created from the runoff and small areas of wetlands along the road. The utilities are in Desert Road. They have tried to reduce the parking on-site and will have spaces for bikes and scooters. They are considering having some parking off-site with a shuttle service since pedestrians cannot walk over the bridge. They will have on-site parking for handicapped, visitors, or carpoolers. They are trying to retain as many trees as possible which will also be good for stormwater management. They would like to ask the Board if they can narrow the parking area and the driveway width and provided grass shoulders with a gravel sub-base. The building will sit lower than Desert and Hunter Roads. On the south side of the building there will most likely be a water feature which will also be used as a treatment facility. They have talked to MDOT about getting rid of the mound on the site and the pocket wetland. They are okay with that as long as they still treat the runoff. They do show a dumpster on the plan, but the solid waste and recycling will be inside the building. They need to work out details on lighting and signage. It is possible that the site could have a pedestrian connection with the abutting lot if that is developed.

Mr. Goodall asked for more information on the parking requirement and if there were any plans yet for the off-site parking. Ms. Howe stated that the plan does show that they can fit all of the required parking on-site. There are no details yet on the off-site parking or shuttle. There are places to park nearby, but there are issues with pedestrians crossing over the bridge. The hope is that the tenants will want to carpool. Ms. Larson stated that these issues will need to be resolved but are not part of the review. The applicant does need to show that they can fit all of the required parking on-site. Ms. Larson suggested that they may be able to look into providing parking at the Public Works site.

Ms. Benson asked if the applicant has considered pervious pavement and questioned the reduced aisle width. Ms. Howe stated that they will look into a permeable surface. They would like to have an aisle width of 22 feet and a driveway of 18 feet, understanding the need to provide for emergency vehicle access. Ms. Larson stated that the Board has approved a width of 22 feet before. In addition, in the new proposed mixed use district, the standards would allow an aisle width to be reduced even more. Mr. Goodall asked about the size of the parking stalls. Ms. Howe stated that they would keep with what is required, but could do some that are 18.5 feet in length and some that are 18 feet if the Board is okay with that. Ms. Howe noted that the calculation of the parking requirement does include the mezzanine and atrium areas; however there is actually only 20,500 s.f. of rentable area. They also need to fit the required handicapped parking spaces on-site, which is about four spaces. Ms. Larson noted that the parking requirement is based on the gross square footage per the exterior dimensions.

Ms. Howe asked if the Board was okay with parking on both sides of the building. Mr. Goodall stated that the Board would look at proposed landscaping to see that the visual impact is screened. Mr. Taggart noted that the area of development would be set back and is lower than the roads. Ms. Howe stated that the existing driveway to the property will be used and they will retain trees there. She asked what the next step was. Ms. Larson stated that she will work with the applicant and if the Board is okay with allowing some flexibility in the design, they can work on a revised plan to bring forward. Ms. Benson asked about a site walk. Ms. Larson noted that the site is small and could be seen with a drive-by. Mr. Taggart stated that if any of the Board members want to access the site near the house, they can contact his property manager, as there are currently tenants occupying the house. The site can also be accessed from Hunter Road.

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

ITEM VII: Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier.