01/30 -

FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
6:30 p.m.

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

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

ITEM I: Election of Officers for the position of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Secretary.
Mr. Marstaller was re-elected as Chairperson; Mr. Gorman was elected as Vice-Chairperson; Ms. Benson was re-elected as Secretary. All votes were unanimous.

ITEM II: Approval of the minutes from the July 11, 2007 and August 8, 2007 Project Review Board meetings.

Ms. Benson / Mr. Gorman moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the July 11, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays /1 Abstention (Whitmore)

Mr. Gorman / Mr. Whitmore moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the August
8, 2007 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM III: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson stated that she has done Staff Approvals for the following: sign and laundry room at the Econo Lodge; sign at Georegtown Pottery: temporary RV Parking lot for LL Bean to replace the RV parking lost from the re-development of the Factory Store lot.

ITEM IV: Design Review Certificates
13 Middle Street - Addition
The applicant is seeking approval for an addition at an existing building on Middle Street. Design Review District I – Class C building. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 97. Mark and Annette Evans, applicants and owners.

Ms. Larson explained that the building is a “u” shape now, and the addition will be added in the center in front of the existing entry way. The new addition will be used for retail space. The addition will be one story in height and will be flush with the left ell of the building. The roof of the addition will come up to the height of the existing railings on the second story. The second story porch will be enclosed to create a sun room. The siding, trim, windows, and roof shingles of the addition will match the remainder of the house. In addition, a second door will be added to the right ell of the building for egress purposes. All of the doors on the first level will match; a cut sheet has been submitted. The applicant has also submitted cut-sheets for the skylights on the addition and for the new windows which will be added to the building. An ADA ramp will also be added to the retail entrance. The ramp will be made of wood and constructed to meet the building code. The applicant is proposing to use the signs that currently exist at the Main Street store. The location of the “Tourmaline” sign is shown on the plan. The location of the other two signs has yet to be determined and could be added as a condition of approval to be approved by Staff.

The change of use for this project has already been approved by the Staff Review Board. The applicant has been working with the Codes Enforcement Officer on egress. The Freeport Historical Society has raised the issue of the proposed glass plate windows on the first floor and suggested that the configuration could maybe be different to match what is already there.
Mark Evans, applicant, stated that the proposed windows would be for display and to let more light in to the store. The store did not need windows that would open, and they thought that having 9 smaller windows across would look crowded. The roof over the addition would have a 4/12 pitch, and would come up to 6 inches below the existing deck rail. Sky lights would allow to ventilation of the store, which is needed due to the heat from all of the lights. Two new egress windows are proposed on the residential side, but if they are not needed, they can keep what is existing. The color and trim on the building will remain the same and they may put on fresh vinyl if needed.

Ms. Benson asked if there was room for the proposed doorway on the left. Mr. Evans stated that there is plenty of room in front of the building before the parking area. Mr. Marstaller asked about the proposed trim. Mr. Evans stated that the trim would match that on the existing windows and would be brick casing.

Mr. Donahue asked about the uses in the building. Mr. Evans stated that there is a one unit apartment on the first floor along with the retail and a three bedroom unit on the second floor. He has been talking to the Codes Officer about egress and separation of uses, and the Code Officer suggested a fire escape in the rear.

Randall Thomas, Freeport Historical Society, stated that the proposal seems reasonable however 2 new big plate glass windows are proposed and there are other styles existing on the building. She suggested that there may be a way to smooth out the appearance of the building.

The Board and the applicant discussed the proposed window style and decided that the applicant could leave the windows that are already on both ends and add the similar window configuration in the middle. There would still be room to add the door on the left. It was noted that the windows may need to be moved to maintain proportions.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The addition will be one story and will be built to be flush with one of the existing ells of the building. The addition will fill in the center of the “u” shaped building. Most of the other buildings in the area also come close to the road and therefore this building will fit with the scale of the neighborhood.

2. Height.
The addition will be one story and the remainder of the building is two stories.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The width of the building is not being altered. The height of the addition is one story and the height of the remaining building is two stories. The building is compatible with the neighboring buildings which are a variety of styles.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The applicant is proposing to install new windows on the front façade of the first story. Windows will be added to the second story to create a sunroom from an existing porch. The pattern of solids to voids is compatible with the commercial building across the street which also has multiple large openings in the façade.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
The new windows on the residential section of the building are standard rectangular double hung
vinyl windows. The new windows on the commercial section will be large, solid glass sheet windows.

6. Roof Shapes.
The roof to the first story addition will not have as steep of a pitch as the remainder of the house. The
roof will connect with the sunroom below the location of the new window.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The addition will be sided in vinyl, have vinyl windows, and will have trim and shingles to match the
existing building.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The addition will be added to the center of the existing “u” shaped building and will be flush with
one of the ells. The addition will not come any closer to the road than the existing structure and the
existing parking in front of the building will be retained.

9. Site Features.
The applicant will remove or trim two trees near the existing dumpster enclosure. No other site
changes are proposed.

10. Signs.
The applicant will be using the signs from their Main Street store. The location of the “Tourmaline”
Sign is shown on the plan. The location of the other two signs has yet to be determined and has been
added as a condition of approval for the location to be approved by staff. No lighting is proposed.

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

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Mark and Annette Evans for exterior alterations at 13 Middle Street, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 08/20/07, 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 any site work, the applicant obtain a building permit from
the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
3) The location of the signs be reviewed and approved by the Town Planner.
4) The windows on the addition be similar and in proportion to those existing on the house.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

20 Morse Street – Addition
The applicant is seeking approval for a new 15’ x 32’ addition. Design Review District I - Class C building. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 57. Tom Whitaker and Maureen Holland, owners and applicants.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant will be removing an existing garage and deck, adding a 15’x32’ addition, and adding a 5’x17’ porch. The addition will be placed on the rear and side of the dwelling with the porch on the façade facing Main Street. The addition will be two feet from the property line which is permitted because the wall will be of fire rated construction.

The addition will be sided with white vinyl clapboard style siding. The siding on the existing dwelling is aluminum. The new windows will be vinyl; those on the existing house are wood. A solid glass sliding patio door is proposed on the rear of the addition. Most of the windows will be rectangular; however there will be one octagonal window on the front. The front porch will be constructed of wood. The roof shingles and trim details with match those of the dwelling. New lighting fixtures are proposed.

Tom Whitaker, applicant, stated that the addition and house are one story and the pitch of the roof would be lower than the existing house, and similar to that of the existing mudroom. The addition will be on the right side of the house which abuts a parking lot.

There were no comments from the public.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The proposed addition will only occupy a slightly larger footprint than the existing porch and garage which are to be removed. The same setbacks will be maintained. The building abuts a parking lot and another single-story residential dwelling.

2. Height.
The height of the addition will be slightly lower than the existing dwelling and is compatible with the other single family dwellings in the neighborhood.

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The building abuts a parking lot and a single story residential dwelling which is similar in size and height.

4. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Front Facades.
The rhythm of solids to voids in the front facades is visually compatible with the abutting single family residences which as similar in size.

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
There will be one small octagonal window on the front of the building near the porch. All of the
other windows and the doors will be rectangular in shape.

6. Roof Shapes.
The height of the roof will be slightly lower than the existing house however will be similar in shape.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The existing house is sided in white aluminum; the new addition will be sided in white vinyl
clapboard style siding. The existing house has wood windows; the new addition will have vinyl. The
roof shingles on the new addition will match those on the new house.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The building footprint will be similar to that of the existing garage and porch which are being
removed. The same setbacks will be maintained from the side property line and the new porch and
addition will be set back slightly further from the road.

9. Site Features.
No changes to any site features are proposed.

10. Signs.
No signs are proposed.

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

Mr. Gorman / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact, and a Design Review Certificate for Tom Whitaker and Maureen Holland at 20 Morse Street, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 08/27/07, 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 any site work, the applicant obtain a building permit from
the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

23 South Street – Addition
The applicant is seeking approval to add a new sunroom and make exterior alterations to an existing dwelling. Design Review District II – Class C building. This property is also located in the Freeport Village Overlay District. Tax Assessor Map 10, Lot 4. Laurie Collard, owner and applicant.

Ms. Larson explained that a 12’x12’sunroom will be added to the rear of the dwelling and will be partially visible from the right-of-way. The addition and the entire house will be sided with subdued yellow vinyl siding (it is currently aluminum), have new vinyl double-hung windows, and will have 30-year architectural roof shingles in a dual black color. The existing garage is sided in wood and will be painted to match the house. The existing bulkhead will be repaired and will also be painted to match the dwelling. The applicant is also proposing to install a new front door and storm door, and to make a front porch. The porch will be constructed of wood and will be 8’x11’ in size. The creation of the porch is supported by the Design Standards of the Overlay District which encourages porches by allowing up to a 3 foot setback from the sidewalk. A new lighting fixture will be installed on the front of the house; a cut-sheet has been submitted.

Mr. Donahue asked about the details of the front porch and suggested that it may be more attractive if the pressure treated posts were painted white. Laurie Collard, stated that the white would match the trim of the house and it would not be a problem to have the porch posts be white. Ms. Benson asked about landscaping, windows, and if the existing shutters would be removed. Ms. Collard stated that the shutters would be removed and she had not yet decided on landscaping. New windows would be put on the entire house and would be the same size. The Board commended the applicant on good documentation.

Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The 12’x 12’ addition will be added to the rear of the dwelling. The front porch will be 8’x11’ and will comply with the space standards of the Freeport Village Overlay District. The existing windows and front door will be replaced, however the sizes will remain the same.

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

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
A small covered porch will be added to the front façade. The porch will be slightly wider than the existing covered entry and will be compatible with the scale of the dwelling.

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

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

6. Roof Shapes.
The roof shape of the dwelling will not be altered. The roof over the porch and the roof of the
addition will blend with roof style of the main dwelling and all have a 8/12 pitch.

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The existing siding on the house is vinyl and the windows are wood. New subdued yellow, vinyl
siding and vinyl double hung windows will be installed on the house and addition. The front porch
will be made of wood. The roof of the house and garage will have 30 year architectural shingles in a
dual gray color.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The rhythm of spaces to buildings on streets will not be altered.

9. Site Features.
No site features will be altered.

10. Signs.

No signs are proposed.

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

Mr. Donahue / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Laurie Collard for an addition and exterior alterations, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 08/24/07, finding that it meets the standards the standards of the Freeport Design Review Ordinance with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
2) Prior to construction, the applicant obtain a building permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Gorman recused himself from the review of the next item and stepped down and joined the public.

LL Bean Boat, Bike, and Ski – Alterations
The applicant is seeking approval to add a railing to the parking area at the Boat, Bike, and Ski store at 57 Main Street. No other changes are proposed. Design Review District I – Class C building. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 40-ETC. LL Bean, applicant; William Perkins, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant is seeking approval to add (4) 10-foot sections of railing to the rear of the parking area which is on the side of the store. The railing will be installed on the mulch area and prevent vehicles from backing up over the wall to the loading area. The rail will be made of a gray composite material. The posts will be 52” in height and the rail will be 38”. No other changes are proposed.

Bill Perkins, representative, stated that there is no rail there now and there are safety concerned because cars are backing up too far and getting stuck on the concrete lip. They have tried other things, such as putting plantings there, but people have still been backing up over them. The railing will go between the existing pillars and will be dug into the mulch. The material will be a gray composite. Mr. Donahue asked about the height of the rail and pillars. Mr. Perkins confirmed that the posts are 52” and the rails are 38” and stated that the distance between the top of the rail and the posts are minimal, but they can adjust them to be aesthetically pleasing.

There were no comments from the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The façade materials will not be altered.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The rhythm of spaces to buildings on streets will not be altered.

9. Site Features.
Four ten-foot sections of railing will be added in the mulched area in the parking lot located to the side of the building. The railing will keep cars from backing into the loading area. The railing will be made of gray composite material.

10. Signs.
No signs are proposed.

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

Ms. Benson / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for LL Bean to install a railing at 57 Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 08/22/07, finding that it meets the standards the standards of the Freeport 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.
Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Gorman rejoined the Board.

Pedro O’Hara’s - Exterior Alterations
The applicant is seeking approval to remove the existing lattice on the building and to replace it with wood clapboards. No other changes are proposed. Design Review District I – Class C building. Tax Assessor Map 8, Lot 13-ETC. Shamrocks and Peppers LLC, applicant; RDB Inc, owner; Peter Therriault, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that one section of lattice has already been removed from the building and the clapboard will be put on that section right away. The applicant intends on removing the remaining lattice, which has been painted green, and will replace it with clapboards most likely in the spring, unless the remaining lattice deteriorates before that. No other changes are proposed.

Peter Therriault, applicant, stated that they think that cedar clapboards are the way to go. The building has all been painted green and they did check with the Town before that was done. Mr. Donahue stated that this is a complicated building due to all that is going on with the windows and the lattice provided a distraction. The windows will be more prominent with the clapboards and will not blend with the woodwork. Mr. Donahue suggested that they paint everything green including the windows and that the trim would be important. The windows are going to need a treatment to make them work. Mr. Therriault noted that the windows on the right side are metal and colored, but they will keep the existing color. They are not looking to change the windows at this time, and know that if they want to they will need to return to the Board. Mr. Donahue stated that when the applicant replaces the clapboards, if they come up with something for the window trim, he should bring it in to be reviewed.

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 Façade.
The proportion of the building’s front façade will not be altered.

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

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

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

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
The existing lattice will be removed and those portions of the building will be sided in wood
clapboards to march the remainder of the building.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The rhythm of spaces to buildings on streets will not be altered.

9. Site Features.
No site features will be altered.

10. Signs.
No signs are proposed.

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

Mr. Donahue / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for Shamrocks and Peppers LLC (dba Pedro O’Hara’s) for exterior alterations at 175 Lower Main Street, to be built substantially as proposed, proposal dated 08/20/07, finding that it meets the standards 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) The applicant return to staff for approval of window trim in the effected areas.
Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays

Belcher House (Reebok) – 31 Main Street – PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is seeking approval for exterior building alterations and new signage. Design Review District I - Class A building. Tax Assessor Map 11, Lot 21. 31 Main Street, Freeport, Maine LLC, owner; David Merrill, TFH Architects, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the applicant has been working with the Freeport Historical Society and the Town on the proposed changes. She thanked the applicant for being very responsive to feedback, as this is a very important building. The proposed changes will improve the condition of the property and provide for increased visibility from Main Street.

The following changes are proposed to the exterior of the building:
Repair existing trim, roof shingles, shutters, and windows as needed, using the same
materials
Restore porch entrances with wood materials. A simple picket and rail system will be
installed. This includes installing a new porch on the north side of the building which
will require the area currently being used as retail space to be converted to a porch. They will also replace two front porch entrances, and make improvements to the porch on the south side.
Install a new aluminum storefront system and ADA ramp on the section of the
building connecting the main house and the carriage house.
Add lights along pedestrian paths
Screen utility areas, egress areas, and dumpsters
Add detail to the bay windows to make them better blend with the historic structure
Add a raised parapet to further screen equipment on the roof
Add a paneled clerestory to the rear section of the building

The following site features are proposed:
New stone wall along Main Street. The wall would be 18”-20” and provide a place for
seating.
Add some granite curbing and an area of a granite wall near the side entrance
Clean-up existing landscaping and supplement as needed

The applicant will also add new signage with illumination as shown on the plans. The signs will be made of wood or plastic and be painted letters. The existing ground sign on the property will be relocated. The applicant is also proposing to add a weathervane which would consist of the tenant icon.

The applicant is talking to the abutter (LL Bean) about installing a pedestrian way to connect to the nearby parking lots. They also want to paint the fence which was recently installed between the two properties. If agreed to, the fence would be painted white. These improvements are part of this proposal, however would not be done unless the applicant and LL Bean come to an agreement on these changes.

The site changes have been Staff Approved. This includes things such as pruning the lilacs and changes to landscaping to bring down the scale and open up the site. There are a few outstanding items to be resolved: wording of the signs; lack of detail on the proposed weathervanes; and the covered stair on the entry; and the proposed back lit signs in the clearstory (the Board has no authority over the interior signs).

David Merrill, TFH Architects, stated that he is here representing the owner who is out of state. AB Glickman, the applicant, came to him seeking away to give the building more prominence, He has been working with the owner, the tenant, the Freeport Historical Society, and the Maine Historic Preservation Commission to come up with the proposal. They are proposing a weathervane and two lightning rods on top of the house which were icons used in earlier times. They are planning on an abstract weathervane, with sports equipment, which will be appropriate and draw attention to the top of the building and add value to the monitor. The intent is to have something eye-catching, but the details are not final yet.

The monitor is a prominent piece of architecture which will let light in during the day. At night it will be illuminated and they are proposing to put imagery in it to help the tenant. An aluminum storefront system will be installed on the new connected section of the building to differentiate between the old and new portions of the building.

The entry over the front is not really a cover, but is an archway with a depth of 12”-14” and will draw attention to the front entrance as they do not want the side entrance to be the focal entrance anymore. The archway has freestanding columns with a pediment and is about 6 inches away from the porch, so that it does not impact the old architecture. Mr. Donahue asked about the proposed vestibule at the front entrance. Mr. Merrill stated that is the vestibule is there to provide an airlock and will have a slender aluminum frame which will be about 2 inches. It will be on the back third of the porch and at the rear entrance. They have tried to make them as transparent as possible.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to open the public hearing. 6 Ayes / 0 Nays.

Ms. Thomas stated that it was pleasure to work with the Planning Office and Mr. Merrill on this project. This is a fabulous building and their only issue with the proposal is the pediment with sign, which is located off the front porch. It is clear from the parking lot where the entrance is, and the pediment is a distraction. She encouraged the Board to deny this aspect of the project and suggested that an actual sign on the porch would be more appropriate. It is good that the applicant is proposing to light up the monitors, and she understands that the Board does not have authority over what is put on the inside. She suggested that if the applicant replaces any clapboards for repairs, that they used the same reveal. Installing the path between the Gal, this property, and LL Bean would be an excellent improvement and the Historical Society is willing to help. The sign piece of this project is important and the wording is a bit confusing. The weathervane is a great idea, but the Society needs more details before they can comment on it and she suggested that the applicant return to the Board for approval of this. The real issue they have is with the pediment and sign being 6 inches off the porch.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Gorman moved to close the public hearing. 6 Ayes / 0 Nays.

The Board discussed the issue of the signs and the pediment. The Board was in agreement that the signs were a bit confusing and maybe they were not achieving what they were meant to do, which was to guide people to the new entrance on the front of the building. The suggestion was made that maybe the applicant should consider a smaller sign in the middle of the building and either a clearer or more bold sign on the pediment, and maybe a smaller sign on the canopy located on the center of the building. Ms. Larson noted that if the signs were made smaller she could do a Staff Approval; otherwise the applicant would have to return to the Board for approval.

Mr. Merrill agreed that maybe the signage is something that the applicant needs to take another look at, noting, that the applicant wants signs and the most visibility due to new competition in town. The front entrance will now be the primary entrance to the building and there will be more security there. The middle entrance will be for accessibility, and the ramp was put there to diminish the presence on the building.

Mr. Marstaller stated that he has no issue with the pediment and signs. Mr. Merrill noted that the columns on the pediment will be similar to those on the house, but will not mimic them.

The Board indicated that they were okay with the ground signs, however suggested that the applicant return to the Board for approval of the signage and of the weathervane.

Mr. Donahue asked about details of the proposed granite wall. Mr. Merrill explained that the intent of the wall is to terminate on each end through the use of a larger column with a cap. The design preserves the roots of the existing tree and discourages the use of skateboards. The posts are 42”-48” off the wall. Mr. Donahue stated that the height is too much and has concerns for the height of the posts above the height of the bench. The landscape architect representing the applicant stated that this could be changed so that there is less of a height difference. The Board agreed that a column height of up to 12” above the bench height would be appropriate and the applicant could see what looks best.


Design Review Ordinance: Chapter 22 Section VII.C.
1. Scale of the Building.
The scale of the building will remain similar to how it currently exists. The porches on the north side of the building and on the front will be restored closely to how they previously existed.

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

3. Proportion of Building's Front Facade.
The proportion of the building’s front façade will not be altered. A porch will be added to the north side of the building and will be visible from the front façade, however there was originally a porch in this location and an existing addition will be removed.

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

5. Proportions of Opening within the Facility.
A new door and windows will be added to the north side of the building but will match the
existing styles and sizes of the doors and windows on the remainder of the building. A new
aluminum storefront will be added to the section of the building connecting the main structure
and the carriage house.

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

7. Relationship of Facade Materials.
Any repairs to the building including siding, windows, doors and shingles will be wood components to match the existing features. The new aluminum storefront is being added to the addition connecting the house and carriage house.

8. Rhythm of Spaces to Building on Streets.
The site features will be cleaned-up but the general site layout will remain the same.

9. Site Features.
The applicant will be repairing and re-striping the existing asphalt parking area. The applicant will
also be repairing and expanding the pedestrian walkways which are constructed of brick pavers.

10. Signs.
The applicant is proposing a series of new signs and will be relocating the existing ground sign. The sizes of the signs have been reviewed for their compliance with the Freeport Sign Ordinance. Not all of the signs will be illuminated, however those that are will be lit with either gooseneck or ground fixtures. The signs will be constructed of wood or plastic. The lettering will be either dark blue or black. The logo for Reebok may also contain some red.

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

Ms. Benson / Mr. Donahue moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and a Design Review Certificate for 31 Main Street, Freeport, Maine LLC for improvements to the Belcher House, to be built substantially as proposed, with the exception of the two south entrance signs and the weathervane which will return to the Board for approval, plans dated September 6, 2007, 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 any site work, the applicant obtain a building permit and sign permit from the Freeport Codes Enforcement Officer.
3) The lower cap of the columns on the front wall on Main Street, are to be up to no more that 12 inches off the seat height.
Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays

ITEM V: Discussion of color and the Freeport Design Review Ordinance
Mr. Marstaller asked what the Board thinks about this issue and wanted to know if members felt that color should be added to the ordinance as criteria to be reviewed and if this Board should make a recommendation to the Planning Board to amend the ordinance. There was talk about a letter written by Clifford Goodall to the Codes Enforcement Officer (CEO) about the recent color change at the Pet Pantry on Lower Main Street. The CEO responded to Mr. Goodall by stating that color is not regulated and the Board has not required anyone to get approval for paint color in the past.

Ms. Larson presented the Board with some draft changes to the Design Review Ordinance which would clarify the review of color. The suggested changes include the allowance of a color included on a historical color pallet and review of colors that are not on the pallet. It was noted that there has been a long history with color, and that it has not been something that has been regulated in the past.

Each Board member gave their view on the issue, with agreement that the issue of color in the Design Review District needs to be addressed and this Board should make a recommendation to the Planning Board. The Board liked the idea of a color pallet so that people would still have options. Color should be reviewed in both Districts and apply to all uses. Ms. Larson gave the example of the Benjamin Moore color pallet which had 174 color options. The Board indicated that they wanted to look at some different color pallets.

Ms. Thomas stated that the Freeport Historical Society would like to participate in discussions on this issue. The support the suggested proposal and noted that the actual color pallet for Freeport would be too narrow. She urged the Board to move forward with making a recommendation to the Planning Board and to provide clarity to a weakness in the tool.

Paul Kelley, property owner, stated that color is a glitch in the ordinance and he wants this Board to take a stand on color and to bring this issue forward to the Planning Board and Council. Property owners in Freeport understand the value of maintaining an image and meeting the vision and he does not want that to deteriorate. He thinks that color standards should apply to businesses and not residential uses.

Joann Garber, Flying Point Road, thinks that if there is an issue of color, then the Board should also think of signs because there are some that are awful.

George Denney, Chairman of the Freeport Community Improvement Association (FCIA), read a letter dated September 11, 2007, written to Town Manager Dale Olmstead, on behalf of FCIA. FCIA disagrees that color is not currently not interpreted as being part of the standards and they support amending the ordinance to clarify that color is part of the review process.

The Board asked about the process for amending the ordinance. Ms. Larson stated that this Board could make a recommendation to the Planning Board. That Board would then review the request to look at the issue, and if they decided to proceed would hold a public hearing before making a recommendation to the Town Council. Due to the Planning Board’s schedule, the earliest they would be able to discuss it would be November. Ms. Larson suggested that there be a workshop with this Board, the Planning Board, and Town Council to discuss this issue before a public hearing.

Chris Parker, Pet Pantry, stated that color is a personal preference and when he painted his building, he did talk to Fred Reeder and went to discuss it with the Town Planner, however she was on vacation. He does not think that color should be restricted to a pallet.

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

ITEM VII: Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.

Recorded by
Caroline Crean Pelletier