Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[4:06] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Recording, we are live and recording in color. We'll
[4:13] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): call this meeting to order of Portland, Maine's Historic Preservation Board. Today is Wednesday, May 20th, 2026. It's 5 0 1 a.m. We'll start the meeting first for the roll call and declaration of quorum. Mr. Sheffield.
[4:28] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Yes, Mr. Chair. Hillary Bassett here. Kip DeSerre here. Michael Hutchins, yeah. Dina Sovereignty here.
[4:38] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): We have a quorum, full table today. That's right, skeleton crew last. We're going next to item number two on the agenda. This is report of attendance at the meeting held on April 15th, 2026. We had two public hearings. The first was a review of a recommendation to the Minister of Preservation Commission regarding the National Register nomination for the Little Diamond Island and Casino. Members DeSeres, Hutchins, Miller, and Pickman-Bold were present. Members Bassett, Sidery, and Norton were present. Any changes to that? The second public hearing was review of alterations at 279 Congress Street. Members DeSeres, Hutchins, Miller, and Pickman-Bold were present. Members Bassett, Sidery, and Norton were present. We also had a workshop at the last meeting. On April 15th, this was reviewed in construction at 30 Atlantic Street. Members De Serres, Hutchins, and Miller were present. Members Basset hit the gold salary, hearing no changes to the reports of attendance. And number three is reports of decisions at that meeting held on April 15th. The first again was a review recommendation to MHPC regarding the inter-nomination casino. The board voted for in favor, none opposed, to recommend that the Main Historic Preservation Commission support changes to the decision. And then the last reports and decisions was review of alterations at 297 Congress Street for St. Paul's Parish Church. The board voted four in favor and none opposed to table consideration of the average and changes to those reports. We'll move on to item number four, which is communication. No communication and reports. Mr. Sheckler, any?
[6:55] Unidentified speaker (Applicant/Owner): No communications or reports. Okay.
[7:01] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Next item on the agenda is our public hearing section. We have two public hearings this evening. First is review of alterations. This is for 28 Waterville Street. So if the applicants are present, would like to come up to the table. Mr. Sheckler, is there an introduction to
[7:24] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): This application, yes, I will just pull up a quick orienting presentation. So yes, this is a public hearing for proposed alterations to 28 Water Bill. Here you can see the location in the east end, as shown on the overall aerial of Portland. This is the citywide designations map, and you can see where the star is, kind of between the Montjoie-Dill Historic District and the Portland Company, 28 Water Billets and individually listed landmark, just outside of the Montjoie-Dill Historic District, though it was designated at the same time as that district. It is a very modest mid-19th century cake building. Here you can see the 1924 tax photo on the left, and on the right is a view of the building in 2019. Again, one of the older buildings on the east end, having been built around 1859, so in advance of and having survived the Great Fire of 1866. The building has experienced some alterations, as you can see on that sort of gabled end visible in this view, which is south-facing. That elevation has experienced some alterations with a sliding glass door and a deck that were added prior to the designation of the district. And then the building is also at some time in the mid-century was resided with asbestos shingles I believe, covering presumably older copper or you know the sheeting. But overall the building retains its fenestration pattern and form, especially on the front elevation along Waterfield Street. And then this is a view looking south at the north elevation of the building, where you can see a porch addition that was added in the 1970s, as well as a non-historic accessory structure there. So the porch there that you can see is kind of the subject of the proposed alterations, and with that I'll turn it over to Chelsea Lipham, the architect on the project, who will give you the rest of the details. If I can remember how to stop you should be able to throw up your okay
[10:05] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): So this is a really simple little project. The idea is to enclose this existing covered deck for use as a mudroom, without adjusting any of the size or shape of the existing structure. So as you can see, this picture here has been pointed out to the location of this existing covered porch, and I included a little plot plan here, so this is on the northwest side of the house
[10:41] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): along Waterville Street. Some
[10:46] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): More photos of the porch in question. It's got a funny little angle back side I think due to this pretty large retaining wall that's angled along the side. But the intent is to keep the roof as is and keep all these posts as is and enclosed with new walls all the way around for extension of the existing space. So one entry door, the existing electrical meter is here on this corner. The idea is to leave it in place so that front wall has to be inset slightly to allow that to happen. One small window on the side here for the elevation. So we've got a view from Waterville Street of the new entry door and then a view from the side of the new window and then the rear with that funny angled wall and existing roof line above it of the addition. So existing roof in case you have to remain and then on the street side because of the intent will have a new rate before
[12:39] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): we go on to explain the process that we want to just ask if any members of the board have anything to like to disclose about past conversations [Unidentified speaker (Board Member): or relationships so] This is a public hearing so we'll first begin with clarifying questions from members of the board then going to public comment on the application and then we'll move into the liberations of the board so first any questions from members of the board okay
[13:19] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Is the existing deck framing to remain ideally yeah and your thought was just to put sheeting over that take the decking off and put sheeting correct were you going to insulate that floor is this a three season room yes it's like is there heat in this place [13:46] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): Most likely not because I don't think we'll be able to get to correct our values that the city would require if we were to is
[13:58] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): There a way to I'm not really I know exactly where the site is up in there 's no way to just square off that corner you've got to keep that
[14:08] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): Yeah it's really hard to tell what's happening there this there is this huge old retaining wall so the back side of the house is actually has a basement that is a walkout and there's a big retaining wall right on that corner and I'm not sure exactly why that is inset like that but I was looking at some old plot plans from old permits and it shows that point that's right on the corner of the lot so I would be hesitant to try to mess around with using that at all so you know there's no
[14:48] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): existing survey no but I think actually in the permits that I have included in the package that
[14:54] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): showed that the that deck was added in the 70s. I don't know if you can show your plan at the beginning. Yeah, so i think actually in that in those permits there was actually a reference to the owners at the time and they started building that deck without any permits. And so it was actually an enforcement case. They were made to submit for the permits and i think as a part of that they realized they crossed the line and had them adjust the form.
[15:23] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): that wouldn't need the setback anyway you could square it up right okay. Other questions? Oh, and then for siding, sorry. The asbestos siding remains on the existing structure. What's the new siding?
[15:42] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): The new siding is orange copper, which mimics what that used to be.
[15:48] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): You don't want to put asbestos on there? Okay. Orange.
[15:53] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): Yeah. And the asbestos is at the edge, so it should really align nicely. That's all for me. Sorry. All right, thanks for your questions.
[16:08] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Yes, member Bassett.
[16:09] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Question about, is there one panel glass in the room?
[16:15] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): Yeah, so we're showing here a full light door. I think that, like the curtain doesn't fall on that, because you have some flexibility in that. If there, you know, it is right on the street. so potentially a half light might work better for privacy sake but if that if i if the board has any concerns about either or that
[16:48] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): would be great to know other
Public Comment
[16:56] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): questions we'll move on to the public comment period so if there's anyone in the public who would like to speak this application either here in the room or virtually. We'll first start in the room. So if anyone is wanting to speak to this application, get your name and address.
[17:25] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Yes, and you'll be afforded three minutes to speak.
[17:30] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): I think we're all on this though. I'm seeing nobody wanting to speak in person. Let's check this one online.
[17:39] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): We do have some people attending online. So if you are attending remotely and would like to offer public comment, please use the raise hand icon to indicate your desire to speak. Once called upon, you'll be allowed to unmute yourself and afforded three minutes to speak. We have one person who has raised their hand. I believe this is George. So George, you should be able to unmute. And if you can open with your name and address, you'll have three minutes. Great. Can you hear me? We can hear you.
[18:17] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): All right. So it was a little hard to hear discussion, and some of the questions were a little muffled. So I may be covering ground already covered, but I have a couple of questions. There's this window that appears to be, I think if you're just looking at the porch, sort of looking downhill, I guess towards the water, I guess that's the eastern, looking east. The, there's the existing porch has like two little windows, and one is going to be infilled on the right, in that window, entire window will be covered up. It wasn't exactly clear what's happening to the asbestos siding on the inside, because I don't know if anything's going to be disturbed on the inside side of the porch, if it's just going to be left alone, or with that infill of that window, there'll be some disturbance, hopefully with a asbestos demolition contractor who does it all safely for all involved. But it wasn't clear what's going on with that window, because in the survey, the inventory that I included in my public comment, the one pitch about making this a historic house, despite all of the changes that have been made, in fact, I don't think the basement was habitable until it may be in the 90s. And so this house has been worked over on many levels to turn it into sort of this gentrification beauty that it is now. And so the big question is, as the surveyor said, basically this house could be, quote unquote, restored back to its original state with modest measures. And there should be some concern about reversibility if we're infilling windows that may or may not be historic. And I guess when you start doing demo or whatever, you might uncover whether there's original framing there or not. But what's going to be interesting is, are we disturbing something that's important? I mean, you guys destroyed the Preble Chapel, which was older than this and much more significant. You didn't even give it, you know, a hearing about whether it was worthy of a local landmark status. But this, little house, which doesn't tell much of a story other than the people, you know, in the 18, late 1850s had four walls and a roof as habitation, you know, this is supposed to be considered literally up there with all of the other far more significant structures in our city. But we don't care if we poke holes in it, and we don't care if we, you know, modernize it to an inch of its life. It's supposed to still reflect some kind of historicity that we care about, that's important to our city, that's worth having historic preservation board meetings about. So if you could just help me understand the process of maintaining that integrity, or it's at least its reversibility, thank you. Thank you for your comment.
[21:32] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): And one last call for anyone attending remotely, if you would like to offer public comment. Being done, thank
[21:44] Unidentified speaker (Applicant/Owner): you, we'll close
[21:46] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): the public comment period of meeting. It would be useful for the board just to explain a little bit about what's happening, that elevation in terms of what will be once it's enclosed, what
[21:59] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): will be there, and how it would change in terms of the size, elevation. Yes, yeah, like what degree around the enclosure, the interior, the interior. Yes, yeah, I mean, ideally
[22:17] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): we don't have to mess around with the framing at all, we can just infill what's there. I mean, interior, it will align with the interior finish on the mudroom side. We haven't necessarily discussed exactly what's happening finish wise there, but because we have to get through this process first, but I don't see that the opening would need to be completely removed and or changed.
[22:45] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Is it worth confirming that any asbestos work would be properly evaded under all local and state regulation? Will it be asbestos still inside
[23:00] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): the porch still? We're not gonna, we're not gonna go ahead and remove all of that, probably it may be covered up in a way, but again, I haven't, we haven't gotten to that level of detail on the interior area since we want to get through this process. I think a layer or two of paint.
[23:37] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): So that takes us to board deliberation. Staff has prepared preliminary finding the facts, which can be edited at our discretion, should reflect how we feel about the application, how it meets the standards for review, alterations to contributing buildings. Any member of the board would like to begin with comments, systematic run down the line also
[24:22] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): as usual, I have a working copy of the draft findings that I can pull up if any edits are desired.
[24:30] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): I think from the staff report there is a particular emphasis on reading through the review standard I, which is differentiation inside, so this refers to the enclosed enclosure of the porch and how the approach and design of that is both different and a design at its own time, as well as standard J, which speaks to the reverse stability work that is proposed for
[25:16] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I'm just going to start just so we have a point of departure. I appreciated the staff report, the two standards, and having walked around the property, around it, by the property, feel that the main facade and the main form of the building would still be prominent because it's taking away from the character-finding side porch, and particularly since that element is still there [Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): and] the existing form won't be changed and in fact it sounds like the interior basic form will be retained, so I think that it would be standard I and J, one on the use of clavard to differentiate from the existing asbestos and lighter shingles. And the question of reversibility, where it's framing, the fundamental framing is still going to be there, so if they're in a future duration and someone desired to take off that fill in. In addition, you could go back and have a strong field, clear glass. Initial thought that it's just very simple using the existing space to differentiate it and also be very similar to what's there, which is important.
[27:23] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Yes, that's best. Thanks for that. Everyone else who would like to add comments.
[27:32] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): I don't know. Well, I just want to have a question. Are you planning on leaving the existing window in place when you do so? Do you know the vintage of the window? Were there replacements? I think
[27:56] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): that's what's recorded in the designation survey. Vinyl with those for some sort of workplace, it
[28:14] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): seems like a pretty straightforward simple project. My background is in public health, so maybe probably not within the purview of this, but I get concerned when the specialist turns from outside to inside, if that stays as a specimen, I suppose there's different permits you get for that. I don't really
[28:35] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): know, yeah, I mean, okay so let me, one option would be, you know, bird health just put my travels
[29:00] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Yes, I agree that I and J are addressed by using new materials, clearly a new door of its time. It's obviously working with a previous addition of the porch, but it's, in a sense, by making a better use of that porch, you preserve other portions of the house from being altered. it so it in effect is a kind of preservation by moving ahead to the infill in the porch, so I find it and it's very consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and buildings, but it's sort of small-scale informal things, originally working class community, it just makes it feels like it fits in the blocks any
[29:52] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Other final comments? No other comments. I would agree with the members that have spoken. I should have also emphasized a little bit about standard B, which is the retention of historic features. Kind of established that over vast dimensions, the general form of the house continues. And this would be in filling existing, limited to the existing portion area, standards I and J, obviously. Used to collaborate is differentiated from the society, even though that is not historic, but is a nod to what used to be there. And I agree that the open door contains a little bit of the openness of the existing porch. It's very much a modern door, and it's standard J in terms of reversibility. A great little house that's already been altered a little bit with siding and windows. This enclosure could obviously be approached in the future as part of a larger restoration project, trying to bring back to the house things that wouldn't be off the table in the future. For that reason, I would propose some alterations are keeping the standards with the I and J. And other comments look
[31:44] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): For a motion on the application. I'll make a motion. I move to approve application HP 00080 2026 for alterations at 28 Waterville Street on the basis of submitted documentation plans and specifications information provided in the staff memo and the attached findings by the Historic Preservation Board as written. Then the project meets subsection 16.6.3 standards for review of alteration for contributing properties is
[32:19] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): There a second?
[32:25] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Any discussion on the motion, Mr.
[32:31] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Chair? Hillary Bassett, yes. Kick this air, yes. Michael Hutchins, yes. Christina Sarin, yes. Rob Whitten, yes. Valerie Pickett-Gould.
[32:41] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Yes. And Brad Miller, yes. Motion carries. All in favor? Thank you so much. Good. Hope we can get it done before snow falls. Yeah. First hot day already. We move on to the next item, public hearing section, the second of two public hearings tonight. Hi, this is for review of new construction at 30 Atlantic Street is public hearing. We have heard a workshop project. Applicants are here. They could join us at the table. Mr. Sheffield, what is their introduction to this application? Yes. Well,
[33:48] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Again, just pull up the slide. [Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I just got-] Says we're looking at proposed new construction at 30 Atlantic Street. There is the location on an overall view of the city, an aerial format. Here is the map of the Monjoy Hill Historic District, and there you can see the property along Atlantic Street, several parcels up from 4th Street. And then just a quick contextual image, the plot is currently vacant between two contributing properties at 28 Atlantic landing street and 34 landing street. The board held one workshop on march 15th, april 15th, thank you, and we're joined this evening by the owner of the property, dylan jones, and the architect, lauren rosenberg, that i'll turn it over to you to update the board on how this project people.
[35:25] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I'm just going to run through the overall project screen replacement in the workshop and really kind of focus on the two items that were overall projects and the image that Evan just showed, and then a little bit to the reluctance of the property versus a big plot with a three-story multi-unit building on the left. This is a rendering that shows a few of the changes that we also made. One thing that was my last time with the location, so we have a gate that separates or that connects the garage house let the dog roam through the yard, but the gate was lowered to around four several different lines which provides the privacy that the client needs but also cable, [Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): roof, two] -story bump out on the right side which is the kids, which is the district for each other, and then the stacked windows on the right, the rhythm of the street and the consistent setback, the main house by block garage with a subordinate structure pulled back so the hierarchy. These are just some present images that mainly show the cable roof precedent, the subordinate side entrance that exists in the neighborhood, not really seen from any areas one on the left, that's the side entrance in the bottom, same thing here, and this one also has this double height bump out space on the right that also side entrances on the top and the side entrance at the bottom of the side without an overhang, and then the bottom two, these two structures, one is heavily modified and one is demolished, but these were historic images that So this side entrance, two-story height, cable road, and with the one on the right house. And so some alterations that we did, we really, for the comments that were made in the workshop and wanted to address having the entrance be more inviting to the neighborhood. And so for us, it's really about like the entry to the property, which is at that gate. So lowering the gate, you have a clear view to the front door and actually the property through that sliver between the garage and the house and actually through the house. In the workshop, we presented the driveway connected to the house through that path, so there was no connection to the house. And so an alteration that we made was to really invite. So having that connection goes directly from the sidewalk. These are some other landscape elements, lighting, some granite steps. The plan of the house, let's see how this fits back a little bit to the main house. We still wanted to maintain these two courtyards, which is really important in the design, which is this entry courtyard that's created between the gate and then quickly go through the elevations but go into the renderings, so you can see now that this gate from the top goes over down through the neighborhoods and then a few other renderings which show this new connection. You can't really see it, but it will have address element on the gate, mailbox at the end of the gate, it's going to be very obvious that this is where it is, and packages, the door, and the other piece that was discussed was the material for the facade. So it's going to be in this tile. Out. It brings this
[42:51] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): First. So just there's
[43:12] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): A half shuttle that runs across the building and it runs it'll mimic the look of the shingle with a very deep shadow line. It's masonry gears. It's a very durable product. And then these are just a few images of this tile option. It really does mimic if
[43:52] Unidentified speaker (Applicant/Owner): I could add just two things from an owner perspective so we've lived in the neighborhood previously the reason we started this project because we love neighborhood and to task Lauren with a challenge is a very narrow lot and so the creativity required to try to give us a house that we want to spend the rest of our lives living in a very narrow space which is inviting to the community but also creates some privacy for us we've just been incredibly thrilled in the process further
[44:27] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Again, through kind of the process. Well, first give an opportunity for members of the board to ask any clarifying questions, then move on to public comments and to deliberations of the board. This is a public carrying. I had one workshop where we were in down on our numbers a little bit, but again, first just wanting to ask if any members of the board like to disclose any conversations with eyes.
[45:04] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Yeah, I'm an immediate neighbor. I think my property line comes within three feet of this property and rumors to a garden party we hold every year last weekend. I could reveal that I also was not here for the workshop, but I had reviewed the video. I feel like the board did the heavy lifting challenges the questions about how the building presents to the neighborhood and the historic districts and who participate if someone has
[45:41] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): an objection here, but I do not object any other objective or any other comments to the witness excluder. Should I clarify your staff as well? There's any precedent for that? No, I think
[46:04] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): I mean, maybe it's just worth clarifying there's no financial connection between you and the property owner and you seem to be stating you feel you can still be objective in your view. I think it's appropriate for Member Whitton to retain his role on the board for this review. And if there were concerns from other members of the board, we could hold the vote. Any others?
[46:33] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): First, two clarifying questions. I think just to frame a little bit of the conversation, and by no means to misstate to that great as the applicants pointed out some of the points of conversation at the workshop revolved around the primary entrance which is on the side and its visibility or invisibility in the neighborhood and how that relates to precedent within the historic district and we also focused in on conversations around material, proposed material for siding, particularly the masonry shingles, but there are other new materials proposed that we would, you know, are tasked with reviewing for the compatibility. And with that, who would like to start with questions?
[47:33] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I appreciate the lowering of the walls to a gate, changing the wall to the gate. It look, it really does everything. It's quite a couple feet can change everything. But I don't even think we talked about providing a connection to the sidewalk, but I now that it's there, I think it's super important. Did we bring it up? You didn't. Yeah, you know, it does, it strengthens the case, it ties it together, it creates the inviting field that we thought was missing. I had a question about the garage. Are [Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): there any] garages with no fenestration in the front of them in the neighborhood, and is that something that we as a board have ever approved or seen before? I'm just, it stands in contrast to the house. The only thing tying them together would be the color of the siding, but it, 's hard for me to see because the image is kind of small, but I think you'll, I if I recall from last month's meeting, you kind of didn't really want to see the door. It'll be there, but you kind of wanted to make it disappear. I don't think we commented on that, but, so
[49:19] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): I don't know what other members have to your question, maybe more directed to this side of the table. Yeah, it was kind of both here and here. But yeah, so there's other examples. That's what you're hoping to get to. Are there a person not aware? I'm
[49:41] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): pretty confident that there are a number of single car garages in the district that are just a single car garage, and so therefore have no room on their front facade other than the door. I think those doors are probably a bit of a hodgepodge of some maybe old carriage doors or garage doors, probably a lot of newer roll-up doors, some of which may have fenestration, but I think it's not uncommon for small accessory structures that are serving as garages to just have the garage door on the front, whether or not that has to do with the
[50:22] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): height of the wall before and now it's four feet yeah I think I'm just being too picky. It doesn't feel like a garage, feels like a speaker, like a large shed, but I guess that doesn't really matter. The I love the overall all designed and I think it works much better now and it answers all the concerns that I had from the last meeting. Other questions from the university question as having listened to the discussion last time on the table on this, the sidewalk level is how much lower, in other words, how much are those stairs going up to get up to the fence, just to get an idea of the event for street experience what we'll receive? It's going to be significant, like five feet, those Are like four inch risers? Do you say you change the where the gate is as well to get a little relief from the garage element show that in the drawing I was just trying to understand because it's very clean and undifferentiated. I think it's with the side of the garage, which is a cool look, but I think you know just what is it really going to look like? I guess I think it'll create a shadow line and it'll kind of help distinguish okay here's the garage here's the house that's the yeah. And then thinking about the gate is it a post structure does it express itself on the exterior just I was having trouble seeing the renderings
[53:10] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): sounds like what you were thinking so it does not accept itself so the goal it was just a splash
[53:17] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): yeah and so on both sides is that
[53:25] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): like a vertical feeder or something and
[53:31] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): how do you open the gate or reach over this and the number would be next to it. I
[54:42] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): have a question about the actual front door. I know it's hard to tell in the renderings, it's just simplified renderings, but the way it's shown depicted here it looks exactly like the glass up above. There's really nothing saying the door. I don't see hardware or thresholds or anything, so I'm just wondering how you're differentiating that piece of glass as front door. You could be looking over the fence. But it doesn't like visually say I'm you know, it's the front door. Yeah, so do you know what you're gonna plan for hardware it's just maybe subtle and Just kind of blending into the frame
[56:08] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the door on the window yes so the window above will be a very smooth frame that holds the door
[56:21] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): it'll be very tricky because
[56:25] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): of the rendering because she was hearing what I thought I was hearing curious
[56:40] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): to understand after hearing our comments what type of study did you do in terms of altering making simply alterations to the building itself to address the problem
[57:13] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the reason behind this. So, we have the entrance, the house, very adjacent to the entrance. And the way that the floor plan is set up is, if you come in, there's a modern space here. And if you turn left, there's private spaces. Laundry, bathroom, bedroom. Then to the right, that's the public space. So we really wanted to make a sense between want to create this courtyard space the kitchen will have a more intimate space but those elements were really trying to consider other ways and
[58:53] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): the board obviously per view is on the exterior we don't really review anything obviously we consider interior programming all of our decisions are driven by this visit any
[59:09] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Other questions, I just wanted to come, I appreciated the examples of other buildings using temporary windows and the wind area. Great use of space, as you did, and I appreciate your response to the previous workshop that not just, you know, lower the gate, but you also created a little entry to the sidewalk, so made it even more welcoming. Make further
[59:48] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): questions, I'll move into public comment and there's, for those joining virtually, there's no one physically in the room section.
[1:00:00] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): But let's check with anyone. Yes, we do have someone attending remotely, so it's George. So, you know the drill, I will allow you to talk and you'll have three minutes to provide comment. Please begin with your name and address.
[1:00:17] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Yes, just confirming you can hear me still? We can hear you. Okay, thank you. So again, I think the staff know my view, and maybe some of the older board members know my view of the Munjoy Hill Historic District. It was a unique moment in the city of Portland's history, but it had very little to do with historic preservation, and the district itself is just such a crazy hodgepodge of sort of, you know, anyway, nonsense, if you want to be honest, that's my view. A lot of misrepresentations were made about even the historical integrity of a lot of the buildings there. So, you know, it's really painful to even know why we're even here because the district probably shouldn't even exist. But one of the things that I think historic preservation conservation has tried to be honest about when it's not very honest about a lot of things is that new architecture and contemporary architecture should reflect the era in which it's made, right? And so a lot of, arguably, a lot of the houses in the Munjoy Hill Historic District are from the 19th century or the early 20th century, and people lived differently then. People had coal furnaces. People didn't have insulation in their walls. There was no sort of consumer culture like we have today. But the point is, that the interior program of a house has huge implications for its exterior. And so I think it's extremely relevant that a contemporary piece of architecture reflecting a contemporary lifestyle that is a blank slate. They're building a brand new, really expensive house, a really expensive piece of property in a really expensive place that has gentrified in incredible ways in the past 30 years. And now is this really exclusive, fun place, and they wanted an exclusive, fun house that probably is more like the Hamptons than what Portland was in 1970. 70. But anyway, that is reflected in their architecture. And the idea that they should be shoehorned in because, you know, a large proportion, I'm not sure anyone's done a scientific analysis, of the houses in this neighborhood built 100 or 150 years ago had a front door on the street or near the sidewalk is sort of a silly reason to say that their contemporary architecture has to be completely designed around this concept because it's a fake concept. It was not material to anybody building out Munjoy Hill in 1899. It just happened to be that's the way it was. It was easy to do that, and that's how people lived because they didn't have cars. And, you know, it just it is what it is. So give this applicant the flexibility they deserve. It's contemporary architecture and they have a contemporary lifestyle that they're trying to build around this exterior. And they made some good choices and it's cool and you have no reason not to let them. Thank you.
[1:03:27] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Thank you for your comment.
[1:03:33] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): That was only there's only one person on frankly. Okay, we will go ahead and close the public comment section hearing. I'm going to move on final section deliberation. Some things to keep in mind, so staff has prepared a draft funding effect that addresses the standards for review of additions in construction of a historic district similar to the previous book hearing looking at standard B composition of principal facades also discussed in the workshop. The workshop was standard B3, which is rhythm of entrances and for relationship and materials. Again, talking about proposed new materials, which I think those are worthy of comment from members of the board. I would also which is some members have already expressed how much they feel that the applicants addressed the comments from the workshop in the revised submitted application. So with that said, anyone would like to begin with their comments?
[1:04:58] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Well, could you pull up the right exterior render, just as we discussed? You'd like to begin, Mr. Hutchins? No. My comments from the question answered section were kind of, that's all I have. I think that the revisions that were made are really improved the sight lines and visibility of the entry from the point of view of a pedestrian in the neighborhood. I like the decisions that were made, so I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, but I think
[1:05:57] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): it meets all the standards you want to ask a follow-up question. So we had to, you mentioned about hesitance of changing the interior program of the property and the floor plan for the considerations given to not changing the floor plan or the layout of the interior, but changing exterior features that would better connect the side entry in the sidewalk with
[1:06:31] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the building if it's
[1:07:07] Unidentified speaker (Applicant/Owner): okay for me to add, I like we did consider doing something different with the roof of the function, but in order to do something different it required us to compromise the function that the roof was put there for, which is to cover the space between the garage and the door. And so at the end of the day we had hours of deliberation and thought on it and just couldn't get comfortable compromising the function in that case. Other
[1:07:43] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): comments, yes, I think the composition is a very good fit seems historic district, the maps, the scale, the solids and the voids, the narrower and taller, it's quite honestly more of an older looking house than the standard list. I think we've looked at a previous design for this site, it presented a very broad face to the street, which this one presents a street courtyard and then a private back courtyard, and I think that's very gentle. So the design does a lot for the neighborhood and I think the scale of the materials is very consistent with other materials in the neighborhood. Yeah the, well I can always help you in terms of the other standards, I can with the other standard was signed already and you took care of the number three rhythm of methods portions and other projections and you went beyond that and had that nice little path there, so I think that answers all my concerns. Remember
[1:09:09] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): to say did you mention anything about materials? I didn't mention anything about materials. Any comments on the proposed use of new materials or the use of new materials that are different than traditional materials? Yes
[1:09:42] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Well I think the materials. So I was really interested to see that ceramic material because I just heard the comments in the last on tape. And just to understand that in hand, it just has a different feeling that the look should be the shape of the building with that surface. I mean, I think the general form fits into the neighborhood. So the fact that it's a material that still carries forward sort of feeling the shape of the contemporary windows and I do think that the new approach to so getting to materials at the door of gate with the differentiation the numbers and the box and the handle the path leading directly to it and the door that has a wider as you're describing a wider kind of more hefty mounting element resolves my concerns that you couldn't tell where the door is because there are lots of side entrances but usually you can tell where that door is. I think it's very creative. Architecture point of view. I
[1:11:37] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): think overall like the materials are very interesting. The great interesting pool so for the materials and the overall design but I just you know I feel like that front door needs some sort of differentiating element to really say I'm not just a glass wall because yeah you do have the elements on the fence with the numbers and mailbox and such but actual architecture of the design of the door just to indicate because you do have the overhead which is black but that kind of blends in the area which is something that gold
[1:12:27] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): urine changes something to the door or mainly
[1:12:33] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): that the door does not stand out yeah the entry right and I mean it's there's not a lot of space you know it's
[1:12:40] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the glass the door fills the facade you don't have a lot of glitter
[1:12:49] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): or hardware just something that would lend it to you know being clearly showing that it's the entrance I assume you're going to have a light somewhere in there so you need to probably have a light you know I'm not sure how you would plan on making sure if it's going to be down light Do you know what you're going to do with the lighting for that? But
[1:13:29] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the trim will be dark, but you can kind of see underneath, which you would definitely see on the sidewalk. The
[1:13:51] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): final selection of the lighting could be essentially illuminated. So in the evening.
[1:14:09] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Any other comments? Well, I Guess I agree with a lot of what the fellow members have said, I think from the workshop. Shop and I'll kind of reiterate some of those thoughts. I think that the new house and it's designed to hide the widths, proportionate principle facades, as well as proportionate opening of solid to voids. I think this does a good job of looking to the historic district and responding to this design. I also feel that the new materials, while not present in the historic district are relate particularly in kind of mimicking traditional cedar shingle while adding a material that will kind of belong I guess where I do depart from my other members is I do not think that the changes presented address our comments that's in a substantive way that invites the entrance or connects the entrance to the public railway. I think another side entry buildings that you see that there's a roof that's also connecting something with the building that signaling that it's an entrance. And so I appreciate that the current roof as it exists provides the function of connecting the garage to the house. There's nothing that's connecting on the building in the side entrance to the public brand which is also a function I think that's present throughout the district but not here so I wish I wish I would have seen that kind of change and that study would have come through whether it was continuing this canopy up to the gate as also a way to create a more comfortable entrance for guests but also as a way to connect to connect the side entry to the second wall. And so I think that's something that I would like to see in order for it to meet all of the requirements, particularly standard B3, which is where the road entrance is. Anyone want to add any other comments to that? I think that would be, I think as it exists right now, it's too long of a form between the side entries and the house might be loyal I
[1:16:59] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): Wonder just to expand on your item is you know that to have that overhang come forward just be very solid and dark but I wonder if maybe like a trellis or something that some structure that would kind of bring you to that door and could be decorative plants or just, you know, staying travelers that might give you that visual path there.
[1:17:32] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Yeah, I mean, I've seen kind of cantilevered canopies that are just the frame, and therefore it's letting light through. But again, it's pretty much the same across the design, but rather to address the standards that we passed in the beginning. I can see that there's one avenue that's expressed in that view. Others don't agree, that's totally okay as well. I do think for me that is something. I do not think that it needs any
[1:18:34] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): other comments. Would we leave it up to staff to resolve this with them, or would they come back in front of board again? Well, I guess, but I actually don't. I think that what is here is completely acceptable. I, this is the precedent that I could probably walk on Joe Hill and show you some modern architecture that probably is gives you less of an indication with. Andrea is, I feel like they've, you know, kind of complied with the concerns we brought up last time and even kind of went a little bit further with the connecting it to the pedestrian sidewalk. I think that directly is window above, you're going to have a couple inches there around the window, and below that where the door is, you're going to have a jam, then you're going to have like probably at least like four inches all the way around. It's definitely going to read as an entry to me, to me. I know what everybody kind of looks at things differently, but I just know that there's newer architecture up there that doesn't even give you this much of a clearness to where the entry is. So my opinion is that maybe we're diving into the weeds a little bit, but that's just how I see it. And I agree with you. I think it's been completely defined. It's protected by lowering the gate, even like visual participation with the entry from the street. The sidewalk adds a path to the gate, very clearly establishes this into the front door. That overhang is gonna say this is the front door, so there's no overhang above the window above. I think go to the triple-decker next door, it's got a little porch overhang that says this is the engine. Yeah, I think that'll read as this is. I think the subtle clues of the overhang, the thickness of the styles of rails of the door, they'll be, you know, there will be a light at night somewhere, whether it's a downlight in the underside of the canopy or whether it's a wall mounted sconce on the left, that will definitely make it read its history. I'm not sure that, yeah, I guess that's all I want to say. Yeah, I agree. A six-foot wall with a visual barrier seeing the front door. It's not there anymore, so I'm fine with it. And I think Hillary brought up asking about the sidewalk dropping down was a good question that I had overlooked, but I think I THINK EVEN IF THE SIDEWALK IS DOWN A COUPLE FEET FROM THE ENTRY, THE FINISH GRADE AT THE ENTRY, I STILL THINK YOU'RE GOOD BECAUSE IF I RECALL, THAT DOOR IS PRETTY TALL, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE AN 8, 10-FOOT DOOR. 10-FOOT DOOR. SO I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO, WITH THE LINE OF SIGHT, YOU'RE GOING TO STILL READ THAT 'S A DOOR THERE, EVEN IF YOU'RE A COUPLE FEET BELOW ON THE SIDEWALK. I think a comment, this is more of a general architecture thing, thinking about how these properties with these side entrances are in the neighborhood. And one of the things I noticed was that a lot of the buildings are raised up, you know, up floor level is quite a bit from architecturally, not just landscape. Right. So, and it's a strategy to separate the private space from the public space. And so this is kind of, this, in a way, maybe I'm not getting quite right, isn't quite as raised up as some of these houses up where they're five feet above the ground level. So this is kind of a contemporary strategy to deal with the same thing we were dealing with in the 19th century, where it's how do I keep the entrance visible, but also somewhat private. You know, it's just interesting. I think the key factor for me was disability, you have to really tell what's there. It seemed like it was addressing it, and just more broadly, something that was happening in the earlier architecture, that it was really getting you above the plane of the street because you're right there on the streets. If I
[1:23:34] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): may just also as a reminder, obviously the Board's decision does not need to be unanimous. And either way in the draft finding the fact there is a standard that was left for the board to set the language so if there is a maybe I'm actually stepping on the chair so here a little bit but if there is a consensus or maybe not a consensus but a direction for me that standard you all need to provide language for that standard and I'm happy to pull that up or at least present it for you all to chew on. And of course, all the evidence in the findings is for debate. This one, staff did not fill in because of the nature of the discussion in the workshop, so.
[1:24:23] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Can we suggest something? Just a provider plan showing increased visibility of the front door and a walkway or pathway on the street. Anything else? Is this where we would talk about some of the things Michael was talking about, dimensionality of the door, you know, there's not too much in the weeds, I should, I think that's going beyond. Yeah, I do too. I mean, if anybody has any questions, we should, we could talk about that now, but I feel comfortable hole with the visibility of the entry and you know the gates got the numbers it's going to have a mailbox the entry will have some kind of lighting the canopy is there the door will be will read like a door it will so I think everything in terms of the visibility of the entry for me that stuff has been I'm satisfied does
[1:26:24] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): anyone have any other comments on any of the other staff provided finding that point out that was the only one that was drafted any other final comments thanks for sharing are you done drafting you're sending us the next one there if yeah anyone is since there's no really no further discussion discussed
[1:27:29] Unidentified speaker (Architect/Designer): discussed. Okay, sure. I will move to approve application HP 006 8-2026 for new construction and 30 Atlantic Street on the basis of submitted documentation and plans and specifications. Information provided in the staff memo and the attached finding by the historic preservation board as amended during the meeting on May 20 2026. The project meets sub subsection 16.6.4 standards for review of additions and new construction I
[1:28:06] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): second that second from other questions any discussion on the motion Mr
[1:28:16] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Shepard yes Mr Chair Valerie Bassett yes Michael Hutchins Christina sorry Rob Whitman yes Valerie Pinkman Gould yes and Brad Miller no motion carries six in favor one opposed
[1:28:32] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): congratulations you know where to find Mr Sheckler community help with questions moving forward but best of luck on your project
[1:28:42] Unidentified speaker (Applicant/Owner): thank you for the time thank you thank you
[1:28:52] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): gotta give them up Michael good luck with everything and construction and getting equipment on our site like yeah okay we're starting tours of the western cemetery if anybody's interested
[1:29:07] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): they want to post this somewhere we can put some up in our office
[1:29:19] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): that was the last public hearing tonight there are no workshops on tonight's agenda
[1:29:26] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): to check with anything further discussion I did not have anything
[1:29:33] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): thing I will note next meeting is June 3rd correct and it's awesome is this meeting your last or June 3rd [Unidentified speaker (Board Member): well congratulations] Yeah, thank you for your short amount of time from the board when you could stay. Yeah, thank you guys. Yes, hopefully I will start this over with that. I will look for a motion to adjourn. Okay, make a motion to adjourn. Second.
[1:30:23] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I can't remember when. Good luck.
[1:30:28] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Yes. Well, if you hadn't been chit-chatting over here in the corner, you would have heard that this was Christina's last meeting. She has to leave the board.
[1:30:38] Unidentified speaker (Board Chair): Oh, you are? Oh, sorry. I was going to say, people who are not going to like talking to me. Chit-chat.
[1:30:43] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I don't know who it is. Do we have somebody?
[1:30:47] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): The opening was posted a while ago, and I'm not sure where the process is. But hopefully we will be back in full force again.