Historic Preservation Board reviews 57 St. Lawrence Street condo proposal

[9:36] Brad Miller: Mr. Chair, can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you now, and we can hear you. Great, we're at five and everyone's here and we're running and everything, so great. All right, well, I will call this meeting to order. Today is Wednesday, July 1st, 2026, at 5:00 1 p.m. This is the Historic Preservation Board meeting for the city of Portland, Maine. We'll begin first with a roll call and declaration of quorum. Mr. Sheckler, please. Mr. Chair, Hillary Bassett here. Tessa Carty here. Kip Desair here. Michael Hutchins here. Rob Whitten here. Valerie Paquin-Gould here. And Brad Miller here. We do have a quorum. Great, thank you, Mr. Sheckler. I'll move on to item number two of the agenda. This is report of attendance at the meeting held on June 3, 2026. There was a public hearing for a review of new construction at 8 Garrison Street Extension. Members Hutchins, Miller, Pickering-Gold, and Winton were present. Members Bassett and Deserres were absent. Any changes to that report? Hearing none. Moving on to item number three. This is reports of decisions at the meeting held on June 3, 2026. This is a review of new construction, again, at 8 Garrison Street Extension. The board voted unanimously to approve the project. Any changes to that report from June 3? All right, great. Moving on to item number four. This is communication and reports, and it looks like Mr. Sheckler does have a communication for us this evening. Yes. And actually, before the agenda communication, we'll just note that we are joined this evening by Tessa Carney, who is the newest appointee of the Historic Preservation Board. This is her first meeting. So, welcome. Yes, welcome. Welcome. Thank you. And then the agenda communication is just sharing some news from the Victoria Mansion here in Portland, which has announced the third in their series of preservation training workshops. So they're now hosting a workshop on flat plaster restoration that will take place August 3rd through 7th and August 10th through 14th. This is really a training designed for people who are working in the trades and are interested in learning more skill sets around preservation kind of trades practices. So they're still accepting applications through July 10th. So I just communicate this to you this evening to try to help spread the word. If you know of anybody in the trades who's interested in growing their and preservation skill sets, they should consider applying. Also note that Victoria mentioned through some of the funding and fundraising they've done, is able to provide a stipends for the participants. So showing some respect for the skills of the people who will be taking part in that training. Great. I'm glad to hear that. Continue to grow this program. I think, yeah, this is the third iteration, is that right, Mr. Sheckler? Did you just say yes? They previously did one on windows and one on exterior woodwork, and it seems like they're going to keep moving forward as long as they have other items to cover and interest in support. Awesome. Any other communication and reports this evening? I don't have anything else for you. Looking at tonight's agenda, there are no public hearings. So we'll move to the last item for this evening, which is a workshop. Shop. This is for review of new construction at 57 St. Lawrence Street. Before we begin, I just want to ask members if anyone would like to disclose any financial ties or relationships to the applicant or the applicant team. [14:10] Public commenter: I would like to say I live at 23 St. Lawrence Street. I'm familiar with the neighborhood and familiar with the property. I don't think have any involvement with 57, but I'm a neighbor in many respects, and if anybody on the board feels that comes close to that, we should make sure it's [14:31] Brad Miller: discussed. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, member Whitney. Yes, all right, hearing that others or no one else, we'll move Mr. Sheckler, if there's a introduction to this application. Yes, I have a couple slides. I'd also like to at this time invite the applicant team to come and join us at the table. So will we join this evening by Chris Delano, who's gonna, who's the architect on the project, and we'll present the application. You're welcome to sit if you prefer, and then you can be on the screen. I don't know, but I'll just quickly, I have a few slides, giving high-level presentation. So, 57 St. Lawrence, before this evening is an application for new construction. This is a site within the Munjoy Hill Historic District. Here you can see the location indicated about midway on St. Lawrence Street. It's just a few parcels north of Gilbert Lane, which some people may be familiar with from a previous application. And then we just note a kind of eccentricity of this parcel is it is a sort of a double parcel with an existing building and it is actually a corner parcel because it sits on St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence Place which is an unpaved right-of-way partly unpaved right-of-way that serves as surface parking so just a little historical background 57 St. Lawrence on the left there as pictured in 1924 that is the contributing building that is still extant on site, 55 St. Lawrence, no longer extant, but just for your interest in building in 1924. And then here are more so the existing conditions, again, 57 on the left and 55 on the right. And there you can see the curb cut and the unpaved right-of-way of St. Lawrence Place. So with that, I will end my introduction and turn it over to the applicant, Chris Villanueva. [16:52] Public commenter: First problem with 10 is I did not get that Zoom invite. Okay. And is there another way to connect? If you have my iPad, that makes it easier. [17:04] Brad Miller: For the sake of expediency, I'll just pull up your application and we can move forward from there. [17:13] Public commenter: It always seems to be yes the so yeah the application is fine if you have the pdf that I sent you two days ago that would be all of it stay to be there so thank you for taking our application we are excited about this building so my name is Chris Delano I'm with Delano Architecture and representing A Fafner LLC both of them are behind me and we are proposing a four-story seven-unit condominium building on this empty site here a note of clarification the Fafner has purchased this property which includes 57 and 59 of St Lawrence the parking lot that we're developing is actually 55, 53, as I understand it. So there's emerging number of corrections there, but that serves us [18:34] Brad Miller: to get us right there. [18:37] Public commenter: So figure ground, I always think that's, you know, that was asked in the submission and it's an important kind of first step to understand the scale of the buildings in the neighborhood the proportion of open space to solid and the building size the building shapes you notice a kind of a stacking of narrow buildings that are deep to the street it's important feature of the neighborhood that as you know it is our building which is very small up on that screen but it's wrapped in a red ribbon That is what we're proposing. Again, as Evan mentioned, right in the corner of that, St. Lawrence plus St. Lawrence Place. But first step feels like it conforms pretty well to the portions of it. You'll also notice, as you guys know probably better than anyone, the contributing buildings and the non-contributing buildings, we're going to be showing kind of a walk through the neighborhood in our subsequent slides, which are looking at some of those contributing structures that we have researched and analyzed in order to kind of develop a modern design yet sympathetic to the context and scale and how the buildings are developed. Site plan, St. Lawrence Place, again, dirt road right now off of St. Lawrence Street, is which is our main frontage if you go to the along St Lawrence Place to the back of the building we're proposing a private corrupt two private garages for it which will allow one covered space for each of these seven units in the building there's one unit up front on this floor in addition to the parking spaces for cars on the left side of that you'll see an elevator core and stair core, single story building, sorry, a single egress building, and a vestibule between those two on the left. There's also bicycle storage at the top, so that's a requirement that we're providing as an indoor access to buses. And St. Lawrence Place, we're considering the drive aisle for parking, whereas we're We're moving the entrance, main entrance to the building to the left, and you probably see that as an orangey pathway that leads to the side of the building back to the center of the building where that entry vestibule is. Is. That side entry is something that we'll go into in the subsequent slides, but is taking a lot of care in announcing that entry and making it a kind of wonderful sequence from the street back to that center side entrance to the building. We'll see that shortly. Also, we have a front porch element that's also serving that ground floor unit that's private with them. Also kind walking through the neighborhood we took a whole bunch of pictures of the buildings surrounding this area just to kind of immerse ourselves in the features of these existing building stock. Noticed a number of things. There's a lot of similarities I think in the form and features that we kind of took note of and I think in your historic analysis of this district you also kind of take note of those. For instance, upper left is a tower building. You see here, sorry, a tower element. Usually a projection off of a bay continues from a durable base often all the way to the cornice line. Cornices are usually flat-roofed in this area when they go above two, three stories. So notice that. To the right you'll notice some stacked porches that go from ground level all the way to the fourth or third or fourth level. You'd notice vertical proportions, whether it's the vertical proportions in the projections, those bay windows again, or it's the taller, thinner windows that are also part of that vertical proportions that you see over and over. So we'll kind of drill into a few of these buildings so 61 st lawrence 29 st lawrence and correction again 57 59 st orange which is our direct neighbor you see that stacking of windows you see that tower element that is that projection you see a durable base so a lot of the buildings especially around this area because of the topography in many ways for many cases you see that durable whether it's brick or some other material that is that basement level that rises out of the ground and that first level often is a significant number of stairs up so as a result you have this almost another size story that is your basement that climbs out of the ground And that's often a different material. We'll see that we've kind of captured some of those ideas in ours. So this is just going into a little bit of the mechanics and proportions of that. Dotted lines are the vertical proportion. Yacht arrows kind of show that vertical proportion. And then you often see the verticality not in the towers and projections, but also just in the general proportion and this is that other feature that durable base that a raised level with siding stacked on whether it's brick or some other material that is different from the upper for cladding you see in this one you see the stacked porches my top image again shows that tower element stacking the porches for the proportions portions, and up and above these two and a half storey buildings, but [Brad Miller: just] going into this a little bit more, this is kind of a zoomed in ground floor plan. We saw this, but you'll notice the entrance in particular, and that looking to be a side entrance was a challenge I think for these buildings that are narrow to the street and deep. It's hard to put a front entrance. You end up kind of circulating throughout your building in order to be able to get to a more comp or more central location. Circulation always seems to be the core of the first steps of developing a property so that a high percentage is usable and unsaleable. So that entrance typically falls towards the back. As we've talked about earlier, the right side is where the parking for, and so cars will go along with St. Lawrence Place. So we tried to get an entrance over there and we pushed and we pushed until it made sense, I felt, to go to the other side of the building. That's where the stair and the elevator were naturally placed for efficient circulation and we brought that side entrance all the way to the back putting landscaping component lighting component. We have a an eyebrow porch roof that wraps around to also kind of demarcate that entrance and you'll see this sculptural gateway that is also another layer of announcement to that entrance. These are these floors two and three there's each unit for each floor has two units. You'll see on the left the stair and the elevator and the core in between. You see that very little amount of hallway that separates the unit to the top and the unit to the bottom. These two floors are nearly identical and the upper floor is similar in the way that it's organized but it's a penthouse unit so it's a little different. 10 -House unit on the left, we're carving into it a little bit, giving them a little bit more outdoor space. Onejoy Hill, we're on nearly at the top, the views are incredible. So that unit in particular is a little bit different for a variety of reasons, but view being one. And then all the way to the top we are proposing a green roof for to kind of as a and a public very outdoor space for the people in the in the building so it's surrounded by green. It gives us some of our open space needs as well. It's just a great it was for community's sake and the have community within the building. So now moving into our proposal you see 50 55 53 which is our building to the right you see that tower element you can see the stacking of front porches you see that durable base. You can see to the left kind of that sculptural gateway that is part of the layering of announcement of that entrance, and at the top you see a kind of an indent, an eyebrow roof, which signifies that we're pushing in on that outside wall and we're announcing the view is spectacular. We'll go through kind of a little sequence of elevations of each as we kind of march around the building. Obviously the top one you see that we just looked at from the side, you see St. Lawrence Place to the right, you see the stacking of porches, and then on the bottom that St. Lawrence Place you see the garage doors on the on the bottom towards the back of the building, on the layer first level you see that durable base that wraps around the building similar to the context that we looked at, and then floors two and three we have a regular spacing of windows co-mingled with a two-story projection to give an outstanding amount of light to the dining room and kitchen, and that's the front unit, and then the back unit we're kind of doing the keeping those same proportions and repeating them except it's a needy gives them a little protection, gives them a little sculptor, gets the building lingual sculptural enrichment, and gives them outdoor space. And then at the top, we're posing that penthouse unit, it's different, calls for something different. It calls for taller windows, bigger views, and a little bit of a lighter material where it kind of diminishes the scale of the building as it pushes in and gives it a little bit more of a lantern quality. These quickly, this is the back of the building, this is that penthouse wrapping around and terminating. Durable base again continues. This is the entrance side of the building. So this is the entrance, side entrance that leads you underneath the canopy. The overhead canopy drags you all the way to the entrance. That durable base also drags you to that entrance. You also have landscaping. You have a landscaping wall that's low alongside that guides you to that front entrance, and you have landscape lights that provide the safety and security of the high quality entrance. You can probably skip this. This is the corner perspective. It goes into some of the materials at the bottom. You see the clapboards and the vertical siding. We're playing a little bit with the proportions of those to give some kind of texture. The next one, which is the wood looking one that we're proposing, a modern mill, we've got a rice husks sustainable material, proposing maybe a stain on that to give it that wood look, but it also is a very durable material and again lighter for that line look. Then the next grouping is brick or soldier panels of what, maybe that rice panel again or cement board panels, not a lot of things but some sort of durable base. That's our go-to, that's also a dollar, so we're still managing those costumers. Next stage, we're closing both of those. More sleds. And this is that kind of main out, main front elevation stacking of the kind of that sculptural gateway, that canopy that wraps you around and gives you kind of clear, guides you all the way to the entrance. That sculptural gateway pulls out another layer of language that helps say hey I'm an entrance, but also some pavers would be different, so there's a very deliberate threshold off the sidewalk that says hey I'm private and I'm also filled with texture and care. It's also an opportunity for a local artisan to take advantage of that sculptural. What is about this is kind of an idea that we're going, but it's still a process, but that idea became it. [33:44] Brad Miller: Sounds like that's the end of the presentation. I might have missed it the last second there. Yes it was. Okay, all right, thank you. Just one, wanted to confirm that wasn't a lapse in audio there. Well thank you for the presentation. Just in terms of how the rest of the meeting will proceed, this is a workshop, so there will be no vote taken tonight. But we will begin first with questions from members of the board. I urge members to keep these to questions, and we'll have plenty of time for discussion and comments later. So any clarifying questions to help better understand the application from the packet and what was presented tonight. We'll then move into public comment for those who wish to comment on the application, whether in person or attending virtually, and then we'll move into deliberations of the board, which at that point will be encouraging everyone to provide their input again, since this is a workshop, so that feedback can be integrated into a revised submission if we feel that's appropriate. So we'll begin first with clarifying questions. We'd like to begin. I'll just speak up for Brad's benefit. [35:43] Public commenter: Brad, thank you. What are the plans for St. Lawrence Place? It's currently a dirt path. Yes, you regrade it and likely paint it. So that will be your responsibility? I think the developers are working with the neighbors on that, but likely it will be their responsibility. I'm thinking of some other fairly dense projects on the hill that have had a paper-like pattern or something like that, so that the surface is both attractive, somewhat porous, and suitable both for both cars and pedestrians, as well as outside uses. So curious to know what your plans were. Yeah. At this point, it is it is paving the exact material hasn't been learned. But that's [36:30] Brad Miller: Thank you. Right. I have some questions. Yes, Miss Bassett. Thank you. [36:42] Board Member: I wondered how much space there is between the side that has the entrance, which is, I guess, the north side. How much space is between that and the building next door? And then can you go through how in this proposal, you just talked about it, I was 100% understanding how that entrance is called out as the entrance. You talked about sculptural elements, I'm looking and it looks like the building is actually set forward with the existing building, is that correct or is that just the way the view is? [37:25] Public commenter: It's just a way to view I think it may be maybe a foot but it's just not really the same so how [37:29] Board Member: Can you just go through that again so we're clear because I think that's one of the challenges as you said of this project it is how do you get the entrance to be noticed when it's on that [37:40] Public commenter: Very tight area on that belt correct so a couple things I think we're using a number of ingredients to bring the announcement clarity of an entrance. The first one is that canopy and that durable base and the canopy above it. That wraps, that corner guides you back. We were not able, we're not able to bring back to full coverage, which would have been our preference, but we don't have the room to do that. So we are using then a collection of things. So then from there below we're using the pavers and that are going to guide you to the back. Separation of sidewalk to now on a bedded entrance. We have a landscape wall to the left of that to also guide you back. Very low wall, but it then gets landscaped at the top, [38:43] Brad Miller: And it will come under there. [38:47] Public commenter: So those are the major ingredients. I think one of the things that we looked at significantly was, okay, we can bring that front porch zoning capability to this entrance and maybe extend that eyebrow roof out [Brad Miller: To that entrance.] That was really challenging for a number of reasons, one being that we can't extend over the forages. It then also, in order to make it large enough and important enough, and we ran into the front porch of the unit that's to the right. So then it was a little bit more confusing than clearing, because there's this, there's now two things, and if they get too close they feel like one thing, and they lost that identity. That's when this, well what about if we still want that gateway, we still want to be here And celebrating this is the entrance, so this sculptural idea came, you know, on the table, and so we were able to pull that out, or we felt it needed a three-dimensional house through, so that is something that gives you an announcement that you passed in this something private or something called public into something private, and then there's the vegetation that all started on the house worked in that set of ingredients that a wonderful experience [40:17] Board Member: When you're talking about this cultural element, it's dark, the copper colored [40:22] Public commenter: And it's not a metal thing, or you're just still working, it's definitely still working on it, 's it is shown as a as a metal fabrication. Sometimes the numbers, which is hard to see in that image right at this distance, but it says 55, there is an announcement to it. Yeah, the exactness of what this is in development, but the idea of pulling it from the building, giving it a three-side subtraction of the mass over 100, and gives you some texture that's still [40:55] Brad Miller: Of what we would search for. [40:57] Board Member: So your guess is like the shape of an entrance. Okay, correct. That's what I was not understanding. And that it would have some, it would have enough heft to it that it would read as a true building element rather than like a trellis, you know. How much does that, eyebrow overhang on the left, on the entry side there, That like three feet of it? It is. [41:28] Public commenter: Okay, so it's two feet beyond the building on the upper story, so we can get a projection of that two feet. We're using all of it, and then we're insetting the building as much as we could on the ground floor, and we're going to be able to get a great unit on the ground floor, but a little bit more space and breathing room for that piece. I have a question about the ground floor. Is that a balcony indoors or outdoors? I can't tell them. On the right side, it's a balcony outdoors, the building is pressed in, you give a little bit more space to it, but it also extends out beyond the building towards the center. Is that raised from the street there? Sorry, [42:21] Board Member: go ahead. I wanted to ask about the material of the ground level. In the report it talked about the debate eternally whether to use a panel or a brick material. material. And just to extract a little bit more of your thinking behind that and what kind of texture and how it would reinforce the idea of the base, you know, the building having a base that's somewhat like the contents. [42:51] Public commenter: yeah brick is the first choice there's less than all from portland of course and it's durable and it's textual and it's it's gives mass and heaviness it's different than the other materials and so let's we can kind of pause there and say that 's our goal but there's where we don't live in a world that has all the money in the world so we're always looking to find second options that could support the goal of a durable strong coachable face so the other material that we're proposing is soldier females that don't have horizontal seams in them. They're strong that way. They're strongest when they're frowned to candy. And that strength is part of what we're after. So I think that's our fallback material that still leads into the strong and well-detailed and durable material. [44:05] Board Member: And then in terms of color, are you showing the type of colorway that you're thinking? [Public commenter: We are, yeah.] So not the typical red brick? [44:14] Public commenter: It's not a typical red brick. A light color. Something lighter. Something kind of purple. [44:22] Board Member: And then in the report it talks about how you had done iterations with it being at a lower, you know, typically the building is maybe five or seven feet, you know, something smaller than the typical floor. height how did that go we'll talk a little bit about how that process yes it was a [44:44] Public commenter: right to get here as you know it takes you go through iterations of success and failure and hopefully that invented about the failures when we did the kind of lower base that was maybe more of an apron like some of the other buildings it felt you know especially wouldn't mind maybe going back to one of the other slides that shows maybe it's just the street section that has two elevations yes so you see those other buildings are often that durable base which is basement and then there's Three stories on top, so for us to, and that was the context that we saw repeatedly throughout the district. When we did an apron, we're three and a half stories, so that this, we're kind of retaining the same scale relationship of the base and the three stories, but now we're a four-story building. Those other ones are really not four-story buildings, that are tall basements or a raised basement than three stories. So it, we kind of captured that same proportion and it allowed us to grow another floor. Which that relationship was, I felt, kept, whereas the apron really felt like the base was squashed and now you have three and a half stories and you're a little bit confused as to what one story and what is not. [46:28] Brad Miller: Story that was the story, excuse. [46:39] Board Member: Me, I wanted to kind of go through your thought process on that entry path, because I know you say it's like it's a main entry to the door, but from looking at the layout, it's looking like a kind of a shared or public path where it's like continuing on and sharing what I'm assuming is like a back porch, a neighbor building, parking to adjacent areas. So I'm just wondering, it looks like it's very tight and narrow, about four feet in some areas. So I know you were talking about the entry aspect, but what are your thoughts about that circulation in that narrow space? [47:15] Public commenter: I mean, the narrowness has been a little bit of a challenge. I think the, so currently, Daffner owns both the empty lot and that other building. So there's the exactness of that sub to that plot line split is going to use some details to be worked out in that the back parking that we're showing for that other building that's still a living neighborhood negotiations as to how we're getting there. That pathway that continues from that entrance back to that parking lot or back to that green space is probably an acknowledgement that we don't really want a dead end up there. Even though we're bringing them back to that entrance, there's also a fluidity that we use that they might want to walk to that back garden area. And it also kind of opens up that as a, you can come from all sides. There's guests from neighboring buildings that can come back there and it opens up the possibility,, which makes it feel, contributes to its safety and [Brad Miller: universal access.] Like storage back there, too. So we want people to be able to walk back to the entrance and move further to be able to access the bikes [48:35] Brad Miller: inside the garage. That's about it. What [48:44] Board Member: Was your motivation behind putting the mailboxes outside rather than the inside of the lobby? Of course. [48:52] Public commenter: The vestibule has a bunch of doors that are taking up wall space, I guess, since that's [49:02] Board Member: a large part of it. But it looks like they're not recessed. You're showing them projecting out of the building onto an already extremely narrow walk. [49:16] Public commenter: Off a larger floor plan maybe a couple, yes, that one right there, yeah, it needs the exactness of those. You're, you're right, and that if they're projected and now we're, that's eating into it, could be a shoulder knock, we wouldn't want that. We are having a package place beyond this one of the doors beyond the stair, so that might be, as we, as we evolve this, that might evolve in a different way or a better way as we develop the drawings. [50:10] Board Member: show on the facade kind of like a grayed out projection on the room what is that if you go back to the front facade on the left yeah stair tower an elevator how visible will that be from the street i [50:32] Public commenter: it's pretty far back, it's set back on all elevations. I think it's probably not going to be visible until you maybe get around the promenade and look back. I think it would be pretty hard to see if you're down St. Lawrence because you're farther removed and the building becomes more prominent in that forefront. I think towards the, if you head up St. Lawrence, the buildings are going to get in the way of you being able to see back there, so I really think it's probably not. You wouldn't see a hint [51:11] Brad Miller: of it there from this perspective. They [51:23] Board Member: ask about elevation and they show that because of the north elevation you have something that's very much similar on all floors on this elevation, on the second, third and fourth floor, second and third are similar, but that fourth floor looks like it's all glass, or is it all glass? [51:49] Public commenter: It's a little deceptive. Yeah, it's hard to tell on that. It's kind of soldier panels, but there's a lighter wood looking material that when you put lights on from the inside they tend to merge together, and that's maybe part of the, part of the goal is to lighten that, light that story up. This is the main view over the ocean, so that's why we're kind of oriented our program to all living spaces on this side of the building, bedrooms on the other side, so inherently in that use there's larger windows, whereas on the bedroom side it's not looking towards the view, that's first, and then second is your bedroom, so don't have to walk away, older more frequent windows for privacy. [52:41] Board Member: So did you consider using the same material, or can that whole different, you know, you're [52:49] Public commenter: talking about differentiation, I'm just trying to understand, I mean, yes, we looked at a number of iterations of this, I think, but early on, we landed on the goal of, A, celebrating that incredible view that this course stories what story has so when we do that there's there's a call for more windows to be able to experience that view and those types of windows a number of things were different and also the presence of the building of when we had the darker color up those three levels on top of top of the base it you know becomes a very clear fourth story building and we kind of took designs strides in a few ways in order to reduce that and then [53:49] Board Member: just another clarifying is the and the balcony is longer up at that level it wraps around it's the same balcony [53:57] Public commenter: yeah but it is yeah we're pushing the exterior wall allowing that to wrap around [54:04] Board Member: two floors below that don't have that second part of the balcony that's right [54:12] Public commenter: and the same happens towards the back is that you push in that edge to your wall wrap [54:19] Brad Miller: that back around this [54:23] Public commenter: is looking from st lawrence place is that a door there next to the garage then that's the PDA space back there and it's also the main door to the garage. I [54:41] Brad Miller: have a couple follow-up questions from those from fellow members you had just mentioned the use of the wood paneling and the windows on the fourth floor on the side street elevation to lighten it what thought was given towards lightening the facade the fourth floor on the primary facade can you clarify that yes you did you to this to member bassett's question around the use of windows and wood paneling on the fourth floor to lighten the presence of the fourth floor what consideration was given to like to carrying that same design goal to the tower portion on the facade the fourth floor of the [55:35] Public commenter: facade on this front elevation in particular correct yes i that came back to context in a number of examples in the district so that's that three-story tower that projected bay stacking of windows and alongside the other vertical proportion in this case the stacked porches up front we went through a few options where we wrapped that penthouse around the corner and it took off the tower so we kind of shortened it down to three stories and it lost the relationship with the rest of st lawrence street when we did that felt that tower element and the three stories on that durable base juxtaposed with the stacking of those front porches is pervasive around the district so we really wanted to maintain that street repetition there's there's it was that portion of that and we it was kind of reinforced forced when you also consider why we pushed the elevations in, gave the wraparound decks taller windows, is because of that view and uphill that view doesn't exist like it does in other directions. I think there's a few reasons. [57:06] Brad Miller: And then back to the discussion around the side entry, I think you provided a pretty thorough explanation around the constraints on that side. Are there setback constraints on the opposite side because of the presence of the Saint Lawrence Place? In other words, it is, that is where the building plane is on that side constrained by setbacks from St. Lawrence Place? [57:40] Public commenter: Yes, we are using our full scope of the building, setback to setback, in order to maximize the livable space for these units. So there was those same constraints. There's different constraints because one's on the St. Lawrence Place. And we kind of went through a number of options to try to put that entrance over there. We still wouldn't have been able to get a, you know, full scope of canopy or a full scope of a front porch, and we'd be kind of co-mingling our pedestrian entrance with the in the drive aisle, and this is the private way for the private garages, so there it felt like there was competing ideas there. So I think that after pushing on that for a while, we coupled with the elevator and the stair not wanting to locate them on the view side of the building because those, once you enter an elevator, it has to obviously continue all the way through, and that gets in the way of kind of valuable, useful, usable space that celebrates that view. So I think a few of those ideas led us to push that circulation, vertical circulation, in the back side of the building, and then the entrance through the garages became even that much more of a challenge. Okay. [59:21] Brad Miller: Thank you for that. Other [59:30] Public commenter: questions? Yes? No, it's probably not fully [59:33] Board Member: designed yet, but I'm wondering on the roof, if you're planning on using a similar guard rail up there as on the other levels, are you thinking something different? You know what, we are trying [59:43] Public commenter: To push, we don't want a guard rail up there. We want the plants to be visible, and so we're pushing the green roof to the edges, putting in parapet condition, and suppressing that deck space so that you'll see green up there and a lot more. [1:00:05] Board Member: So you'll have to have the parapet a certain height for the guardrail, so do you envision that going up beyond what's rendered there? [1:00:14] Public commenter: There, no, that we've kind of done the section to understand our layers and our thicknesses of our materials, and so we'll just be setting that back and then we'll have the 36 inches, 42 inches again. That's correct. That's right, so [1:00:34] Brad Miller: the parapet is already sort of modeled at. Yeah, it is wider. Have [1:00:43] Public commenter: you tried [1:00:48] Board Member: to identify whether or not any rooftop equipment will be visible in the front of the building like this? [1:00:57] Public commenter: We have allocated a significant area just for the mechanical equipment with the goal of placing them all kind of close to center. [1:01:08] Board Member: Hmm. I know that sometimes they want to be on stands for vibration and all that, so that brings them up a little higher. It seems to be kind of, I understand what your approach is. I'm not sure that your exterior elevations, while they show the overrun of the stair and the elevator, don't show any rooftop equipment at all. I'd be interested to see what those [1:01:37] Public commenter: would look like. Yes, yep, don't know that whole scope. Yeah, because it'll be damaged, it'll be raised, there's no jerks on that. Yeah, I think you see the gray area, the bottom of the roof, that's our goal for where that equipment goes, so that we don't need to guard rail for service for those, that equipment, whether we can fit all of those there and how high they will be is definitely [1:02:03] Brad Miller: other questions. You certainly can continue to ask them as well as the workshop continues. I had one last question regarding your study of precedent buildings in the district. You had a breakdown of solid to void, and then it says mostly solid 15 to 20 percent. I just want to understand what the percentage is referring to, probably window openings. Okay, so the 15 to 20 is how much of the building is window openings, is that correct? Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. [1:03:03] Public commenter: === Public Comment === [1:03:19] Brad Miller: Okay, well, if there are no further questions at this time, we can move next into the public comment period. We'll begin first with those attending in person. Mr. Sheckler, if you'd like to Coordinate that effort, yes. So if you're joining us here in person and would like to offer public comment, you can please skew behind the podium when it's your turn. You'll start with your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes in which to offer comment. I'll time you. I'll give you a 30 second warning. If anyone here this evening like to offer comments, you can again start with your name and address. Hi. [1:04:20] Caitlin Mikhail: Everyone, I'm Caitlin Mikhail, the director of Favorite Florida Landmarks, and we're at Four Most Streets in Footland. I thank you for the opportunity to comment. This is a really interesting design, I think, and conversation about how to fit a modern interpretation of the module ideal context and character into the neighborhood, and I think a lot of really thoughtful design choices have gone into this, and so it's been very interesting to listen to the conversation as well. I think in terms of the height of the building, the four stories, we are thinking about that context of the taller triple-deckers that we see, so even with Quadruple Decker, I think it's still consistent overall with the character in Montjoy Hill. And I think it's doing some great things also to pick up on the elements of those, in particular, that asymmetry that you see with the bay, the projection, the recession. And I think, you know, it's clear from your context that 's what is going on at the face and what's happening with sort of projecting elements is being thought about at the time and so we're coming to a modern interpretation which is always great to see in a historic district. I think that there are some areas that we would offer suggestions and maybe come more into the context of Montjoie Hill in those triple dectors you do see those bays kind of being more consistently going all the way to the roof, for example, and so in the conversation about the fourth floor and the differentiation, I think you lose a little bit of that with those bays. There's more horizontal elements coming in that kind of cut off that expression of those bays going to the roof, and then I think the conversation around the entrance, of course, it is very much in the neighborhood character to have a visible entrance even when you have that higher element of the face. There's usually the porch or the steps or something. Of course, it's great to have a building you can walk into excessively and not have to maneuver a very steep porch, so I think just finding that way to make the expression more visible for a second, I think. [1:06:53] Brad Miller: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else joining us in person? Seeing none, we'll move on to those attending virtually. Great. If you're attending virtually and would like to offer public comment, please indicate your desire to do so by clicking the raise hand icon, which you should see at the bottom of your screen. screen. Once you're called upon, you'll be allowed to unmute and if you could again begin with your name and address, I will time you. You'll have three minutes and I will give you a 30-second warning. We have a few people attending remotely. So first up will be George. [1:07:56] Public commenter: Yes, can you hear me? We can. Okay, great. So I am very much in favor of this infill as my public, written public comment focused on, you know, there was a much more ambitious proposal here in 2019 that was killed by the historic preservation hysteria. And that was really unfortunate because it would have produced more housing, more people for this neighborhood. You know, you've had retail establishments a few blocks away closing because of the lack of foot traffic, the lack of people actually calling this neighborhood a real home. And it's that sort of devastating impact of a real neighborhood, having real people in it is going to continue unless this kind of infill happens. But I, you know, there are a couple of points that I think are important to highlight right now. I don't know the answer, but I think it's really important to understand it. The zoning for under recode for this neighborhood is it's the new RN4, and that has a poison pill in it now because of recode on building length, and I believe it's 70 feet, and this building is trying to be much longer than that, and so I wanted to ask since any kind of solutions that are being offered by this applicant in this process obviously will be impacted at the planning board level. So I don't know how we reconcile that. If there's an exception or there's some kind of a waiver that is being anticipated to being asked and granted by the planning authority, that would be great to explain now so we don't have to sort of come back here with a completely redrawn plan that addresses the limitation of the building length. I also just wanted to focus on, I think this building is a contemporary building, responding to contemporary needs, and that should be it. I don't think that this sort of silly worrying and pussyfooting really is necessary. Both ends of St. Lawrence Street have very contemporary buildings and there's contemporary buildings all along the length of it. And there are, you know, that has been completely erased from this discussion. And I think, you know, this is part and parcel of the whole Monjo Hill Historic District, which, you know, the context statement doesn't even use the words urban renewal or highways, which are key to understanding how Montjoie Hill evolved from the 1920s until today. But we're erasing contemporary everything after the 1920s, which is sort of absurd because we're then trying to say that this building has to respond to vernacular 1890s or 1910s architecture when that's just simply not the case. So I hope this board is much more humble than it appears to be going in that direction right now on reviewing of this building. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. [1:11:26] Brad Miller: One last call for anyone else who is attending remotely if you would like to offer comment on this item. Again, please select the raise hand icon. Seeing no other hands, we will go and close the public comment period for this workshop. Mr. Schreckler, I want to be careful with the purview of the board, but I just want to ask staff or the applicant if there is a brief explanation to whether this, the stated length, could be an issue or if not, then we can continue. One, yes, there. [1:12:10] Public commenter: We, there is that 75 foot language and I have forgotten the way that we found to get a longer building, but I believe Thomas Ward, who has a better memory than I apparently, of that exception that we found. In our consultation with our lawyers on this and informal conversations that we've had with members of the planning committee, our understanding is that their interpretation of that is that the 70 feet is limited to the frontage of the building and not the length of the building 90 degrees from the frontage. The width of this building along the frontage is 35 feet and the fact that it's 103 feet long is planned at that point in time does not seem to be in opposition to that code. It [1:13:05] Brad Miller: sounds like that's an ample explanation on how they're proceeding. On Mr. Checker, there's anything to add. If not, I would just encourage, I mean, obviously this project will also require a site plan review, which will conduct a full zoning analysis, you know, beginning those conversations with zoning. I think probably after this workshop, maybe some additional design work, that'll be the applicant's next step, is to start that, and that will add clarity on how the zoning team is gonna, you know, review those things. Great. Thank you. We'll move on next to deliberation, which is very much, this is a workshop, so it's very much a conversation. I want to emphasize and kind of tee up that this is an opportunity for board members to express how they feel the application meets or does not meet the standards. I think we should give direct feedback on all aspects of the design that you feel strongly about discussing. Looking at the staff memo, I think there are a few high-level things that we can kind of focus our discussion on, and if other members would like to add to that list, please say as much. I think from looking at this, the standards that the staff pulled out for more board discussion is the four-story height and its context within the historic district, the grouping of vertical windows, so obviously vertical windows are a precedent in the neighborhood. But they're being shown in this design as being grouped. In a similar light, the ratio of solids to voids in the design versus what is in the neighborhood. We've kind of already amply covered the side entrance, but discussion of the side entrance and how successful that is in meeting the standards. Materials. So we've had some discussion, an explanation around the brick base as the desired base material, and then a mixture of vertical and horizontal siding on the rest of the elevations. I think one thing to add is also discussion of our standards emphasize or focus their text on principal elevations. And I think in this case, this building, I think it's important to discuss, does this building have one principal elevation or two, and how that would inform our conversation. So with that, would anyone like to begin? [1:16:11] Public commenter: I'm happy to begin. I think this is definitely a contemporary interpretation of the triple-decker that we've seen all over the Moonsway Hill as characteristic of the historic district. I think it's a building with actually two principal elevations, given it's a corner building, given you have a public access of two sides. So I think it's important to consider those. I think the tower and bay element is effective and consistent with what we see and helps break up the scale, as do the vertical portions of the windows. I think on the solids to voids concern, it is a contemporary building, so it does use more glass. And I think portions of the glass panels and glass doors, again, reflects the vertical scale that we see in other buildings of more traditional window patterns. The materials themselves are a good fit. I particularly like the durable base, which makes it look like a base with a triple-decker sitting on top of it, which takes away from the impact of the four-story structure. I think the biggest shortcoming of the design is the entry, the entry sequence. This is described in several ways, and I think there's an opportunity that we haven't seen to utilize the other public Street, the St Lawrence Place Street. It could be accommodate both vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic and be more of a front door and a welcoming presence in a historic neighborhood, consistent with other buildings. And I think there are examples on Waterville Street, Monument Street side entries where the scale of the entry is consistent with the scale of the building, rather than being what looks like an afterthought or an expedient solution to a problem that hasn't been solved. So I think that's a real deal breaker where I stand. Thank you, everyone. As far as the door goes, I understand why you don't have space on the front of the building. Although it looks to me like people would go up to that first floor balcony and try to find out how to get in. So it needs to be part of the neighborhood as part of having a welcoming entrance. So since it is, since the St. Lawrence place is more visible, I think using that would make more sense and be more of a more welcoming experience. And people might not be going up to the first floor apartment asking to get in because it looks like it looks like that to me. [1:19:17] Brad Miller: I think that's the entrance so [1:19:31] Board Member: I think I'm I concur with a lot of what Rob here next to me said regarding the verticality, the use of the, I believe the brick at the base that separates it from the third, the other three levels above. I tend to look at this a little more. I try to put myself on the street as if I'm kind of, this neighborhood is such a walkable neighborhood, and if I were walking in the Southeast up St. Lawrence Street, I would be lower than the building, walking uphill. And this building at four stories, which I think works fine. As you approach the building, it's gonna read taller because you're gonna be below it. that's just kind of how I look at it and it's going to exacerbate the fact that 's already a little taller than the neighboring buildings also the lack of a clearly defined entry I think is a concern I see kind of two maybe two options. One would be to bump in the to make that path wider by maybe another foot. I think would help to define that as a entry. Thinking about there's a building on Carlton [1:21:51] Public commenter: the street where the trying [1:21:57] Board Member: to make it as if you could pass as if the door that's on St. Lawrence is a place that man door there that were just an opening that was open and you could pass through all the way to that to this paved entryway that could act as an entry from that street. Overall I really like it, and I do think however that if you could get far enough back from this building to see the stair and elevator overrun, I think it would be clear there that it is going to be taller. I think you would see those as well as the rooftop equipment, which this was another question I had too, was like a lot of these older buildings with the flat roofs, you know, Rob, if they have a lot of rooftop equipment on them, they're probably so old that they don't, unless it's been retrofitted with a heat pump later on, you might have a condenser up there, but yeah, you know, because this has the flat roof, but it's also going to have other stuff on it that the other flat roof buildings might not necessarily have. For example, the overrun or the large amount of equipment that you see in newer buildings today may not be on these older structures. Those are going to be things that are going to add height to it. I think when you can, when you can see them, I think up close enough to the building, I was doing my own little sight line studies looking at the elevations. I don't think you're going to see any of that stuff, but I think at some point you will. Also, one thing we haven't talked about is shadows. The smaller building, there's a kind of a real smaller lower lying building to on the other side of Saint Lawrence Place that maybe I'm not, I may be wrong, but I think late day that building will be cast in shadow, so has that been thought about at all [1:24:37] Public commenter: Can I comment on that? So actually, if you're looking at the map as it's shown right there, north is the way my arm is pointed right. Right, that's why. North is not this way, which seems like it would be. North is about this way, which effectively means that 49 St. Lawrence Street, the building on the other side of St. Lawrence Place, will not be in shadow at any point in time during the year. The sun will always be on this side of our building with respect to them. And I don't want to speak for him, but Bill Delvin, who is the owner of that, is the strongest [1:25:13] Board Member: support of the project. Yeah, I'm I'm pretty sure there definitely will be some shadow of that [1:25:17] Public commenter: at no time on no day from our building out to them. When the sun the sun will always the sun. The sun is always on the right-hand side of our building. We will in some moments of winter, in the deepest of winter, we may get some shadow from that. But they will never get some shadow from us. That's right. [1:25:38] Board Member: Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that. [1:25:45] Public commenter: The sun goes from here to here. [1:25:52] Brad Miller: I'd just like to interject that our Preservation Ordinance does not mention the word shadow, and so I would dissuade us from continuing this point of the conversation. If there's a comment that's regarding something in the standards, we can continue with that. [1:26:15] Public commenter: Your question about where retrofit HVAC units go, whether it's multi-split units or compressors, they tend to go in the ground. It's an old building, because there's more green space available and the roofs weren't designed for those that those equipment represents so [1:26:32] Brad Miller: they tend to be down there with the trash cans. Yeah, we do sometimes see them put on roofs, but there's a lot of other concerns because the often the existing buildings don't have an access to the room so that makes servicing them challenging. There is a hatch or something [Board Member: I also] think it's important to focus conversation on height with the integral parts of the building and how that's factored in with the rest of the design. Design. I fully appreciate the discussion of the mechanicals because sometimes they're an afterthought and then they go up and they weren't in the original design and they're kind of a surprise. So remember Hutchins, I just wanted to get clarity from your comments because you did say that it would appear taller but you are comfortable with height just to be sure. Yes, okay, yeah, okay, yeah, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Thank you so [1:27:57] Board Member: yeah let's make me some comments so just going through the standards so standard a one height i'm in agreement that it complies as far as the structure being the four stories tall and working with the massing of the bottom to the height so i'm in agreement with that the proportions of the principal facades you know that the main facade on St. Lawrence is, you know, narrower, definitely worse, but the side one is a very long expanse, so I do see, you know, you do have some different transitions through there, breaking up a little bit, so overall, you know, an agreement with that means that. And then as far as scale, I have no issue with scale. And then proportions of openings, I know there's a lot of glass on that side, but it is a contemporary building, and it is a great opportunity for these over there too, and I do appreciate the changing of the materials to the lighter wood at the top, just to have that differentiation at the top, but to give it a bit of a little different look. So I'm in agreement to all of the standards. The only thing I would like to see is of more study on the main entrance, because I'm just at first glance I get a little back alley feeling on that side, just because of the narrow nature of it. I know there's going to be a short retaining wall and some landscaping next to it, so I know it's 10 feet to the next building, but I'm not sure exactly, you know, that little retaining wall might make it feel very narrow, so if there could be more investigation on that, and you know, you're very tight to set backs, but I do like Mr. Whitney idea, you know, the discussion of potentially, you know, having it come out to the side if possible. I know it's very tight with your programming, your 88 grab and everything in the garage, but if there could be more study on that, I'd appreciate that. And then even, I know HVAC equipment isn't sized yet, but even if you on the render he's had just a grade box what you think the height may be like, you have the stair tower and the elevator towel on there's just so we can see on those street view sight lines just if it may poke up above or it may not, but just like a light gray little box, nothing dramatic, just to show reinforce that. [1:30:35] Brad Miller: Those would be the cheap [1:30:43] Board Member: Okay so going through the categories, I think the height, I'm comfortable with the height, maybe suppress that a little, and also comfortable with the idea of its two elevations. Since you do have a street with Saint Lawrence Place corner, I think that the front, right, let's say the St. Lawrence Street Elevation, generally, I like the design. I think that's working for the project. The St. Lawrence Place Elevation, I personally would like to still see some acknowledgement of that more verticality engaging that fourth level. And it may be [Brad Miller: I'm not sure] quite how to accomplish it, but I feel that horizontal band, to me I feel like the verticality is part of the neighborhood, so I would guess I'd give that feedback to perhaps look at that, and it may be that material as I'm seeing it in the rendering is looking like it's a solid [Brad Miller: glass wall] wall, which I know it isn't, but it's just to have it read those. I'm just thinking that part, that's the middle part that's in the second floor bay where you've got the balcony areas. And it's sort of like done on the St. Lawrence street side. To pull that up visually. So it reads us those two vertical lights. So you reinforce that vertical element on that elevation also knowing that you're probably going to see a little less of that elevation as you're walking down the street so that's that would be my feedback that's for you all to consider so otherwise i think that the solids are looking the material i guess i think that you talked about it sir delano talked about the need for weight the feeling of weight and reinforcement that's the base so you 've been studying that and so i would think that's it, that's it, okay, the entrance as everyone has said would benefit from further evaluation. Ideally, it could be on that St. Lawrence Place side would be first choice. I do think that the concept that we talked about with creating an element, that sculptural element, planting box, something that calls it out forcefully, but in keeping with the design, let's put it in that light, would be a big help if the only practical C is that side entrance. I think Member Hutchins talked about the potential for a wider path, something that defines that really as a way. Comments about ADA and the practicalities I think are important in this neighborhood, it's fair. It doesn't make sense that it's strongly identified. by the moments so generally yeah so those are my comments the materials i'm comfortable with thank you very much for a very detailed Just one more thing as I'm kind of looking at these elevations, I don't know if there's a precedent for that much garage door altogether in it, kind of looks like a storage facility in a sense, it's what it's reminiscent of to me. Had you given any thought to just not having those overhead doors there, just having the parking be [1:35:04] Public commenter: open? We did, yeah, early on that was a part of the direction to go, going, I think when we became, when it was open, however we wanted it to be open all the way through. As soon as we opened it up all the way through, we lost a number of components for the opening with that egress and elevator vestibule, the bike storage, you know, room, sprinkler room, some of those kind of key elements that we found a happy place in the back side of the garage. So I think at that point [Brad Miller: we realized] along with some desire of clients to want a parking covered space, for me that was certainly a desire, so we're thinking about this saleability as well, so a number of those things last from an open thing to a closed garage. I think Michael raises an interesting question, maybe it's not all of them, but there was a sense of ferocity and openness that might relieve and the connections through to both sides of the building, it might give you a resolution to an entry that could potentially come up in our St. Lawrence place and still link to the back to the side. And I also looked quite honestly, plan, and the garages are really tight, I don't know how you open a car door in that garage, and so I think trying to squeeze seven and barely six will fit, it's asking a lot. I think you get something by giving up a part of the space potentially and opening a sense of a void that is a passageway. I mean, in this illustration on the street side elevation, there's the passage to the side entry of the house directly opposite your project. [1:37:06] Brad Miller: And as I walk the street, [1:37:08] Public commenter: I see that as a pleasant experience and I'm very clear with the front door is, it's also as if we put this front entry on the St. Lawrence Street side, it's the sunny side of the entry sequence. So you're not entering a narrow passage that's in shade all day long. And in winter, it would be really, fertile. [1:37:31] Board Member: Thank you for articulating what I completely agree with. How wide is that widest of overhead doors? I mean, if that's a three foot wide door, I mean, I like Rob's idea, maybe, that one has no door that's open, and then the other two small ones, they have doors, maybe be so lazy in them that too, yeah, I don't know, yeah [1:38:17] Brad Miller: I mean That's another thing to cover is obviously that the parking standard traffic is all covered in pretty great detail behind the site plan, right? I think [1:38:46] Board Member: that this is a secondary facade though, right? This is like there's the primary facade on the street. I think we need to pay attention to this as a facade, yep, of a building, right? So as a facade, I'd be interested to know if there are any 22 foot wide openings in the Montjoie Hill Historic. I'm not sure there are. I can't think of any. Other stuff I have been grouping it, grouping them all together just kind of goes back to what I was saying, it kind of looks like a storage facility not very residential. There's an overhead door in a past project that probably just gave me where it had some frosted like glass elements and it made or made it look less like a solid panel [1:39:27] Brad Miller: the head of the street or you see that, yeah. I think there are other buildings that are covered. I'm trying to think, I feel like there was a particular project it was a wide opening then [1:39:39] Board Member: they couldn't get away from it because it was the only way to get it's like a double [1:39:42] Brad Miller: way in and out, right? I mean, I think either way the there's like again the width of the parking stall, some of the traffic stuff, site plan things, the overall composition is fair game I think, like this comment about the nature of the garage door is also like fair and could [1:40:00] Board Member: certainly be discussed, yeah. So if they're like essentially glass or even frosty glass to make it look a little more right, break up with that one massive plane into something well more consistent yeah i mean other structures if you just look at the solid void language on the first level of that one side i don't think those huge solid doors do you any favors or help you know i think they heard, I think they heard that beside on that level in particular. [1:40:36] Brad Miller: How do other members feel about that? I just want to, I think that, I think it's important to frame what members Witten, Hutchins are also, that's one thing, but it's also connected to other comments others have raised around the entry, because that might be a solution. So I just want to see if other members agree with what they're saying. [1:41:00] Public commenter: If that opening it up allows to put the entry door in there and a good visible entry door, then I think it's a good idea. What about you, Ms. Bember? [1:41:12] Board Member: I think, yeah, I kind of, in terms of the entry, I think the less strong approach of some of the people about the current arrangement of the entry, because I know that the preservation Reservation guidance is talking about the rhythm of entrances and we see that on other facades in the neighborhood that it's mostly the street facing facades that have the entrance. So I don't think necessarily moving the main entrance from one side facade to another side facade is really getting us that much closer. Like it would really gain that much in terms of being more compatible with the other contributing buildings. So, I don't feel as strongly about the lack of the strong entrance. Like what Rob pointed out, it's going to be, that entry will be kind of in shadow most of the time due to the other building to the left and in winter when it's cold and it's already going down at 4 and there might be ice. Yeah, no, I understand it's consideration, but yeah, obviously with, there's different constraints about they noted about not having the entrance on the St Lawrence Place so I don't I don't think it's as critical to maintain an entrance there when it's the side entrances aren't really consistent with the other contributing buildings anyway so I'll remind the board [1:42:48] Brad Miller: of our last meeting in a discussion around side entrances because as Mr Shuckler may be able to add there is a prevalence of a precedence of side entrance buildings on in the Munjoy Hill historic district but ones that are prominently signaling their presence so whether that's through stairs or porches or projections or recesses and so I think that speaks to the standards around where the entrance is it still needs to announce itself I think there's [1:43:28] Board Member: opportunity here in this particular view you know if that man door there that would be a very visible entrance to a building from anybody walking by whereas I think where it is now I'm not even sure you would see the door due to how close the adjacent building is. I do agree that it would be better to be on this elevation I'm thinking there's a building on modern building on Moody Street that has a door in the base of the principal elevation that's a essentially a van door on the garage that's the main entrance and it's a side entrance for the unit and it's called out by color you know [1:44:23] Public commenter: It's called out by you can do a canopy, you could bump the door. Yeah, I mean, typically in neighborhood there are lots of canopies and stairs, maybe glass, so that it reads as an entrance. Like here it reads [1:44:35] Board Member: like an exit door only. Yeah, I mean, I think it would be worth trying again. I know you've spent lots of time thinking, but I think, I think from a practicality point of view and visibility [1:44:51] Brad Miller: making the building more complete [1:44:58] Board Member: from this side and to solve some practical questions, because you're right about that being on the north side will be [1:45:11] Brad Miller: made, I would be allowed to [1:45:14] Public commenter: kind this to dialogue back and forth, or is this to the three? I think you're here when we're writing [1:45:21] Brad Miller: notes for the mission to work. Yeah,, I mean, it's your meeting if you want to, if you want to invite the applicant to offer a response. Thanks, Brad's meeting. Yeah, yes, we would appreciate a conversation. Yeah, great, I think you're bringing up all the great ones because [1:45:43] Public commenter: it's because that side entrance is challenging. St Lawrence places are pretty big, full side street that brings the important elevation to this side, small little strip of dirt right now, it will obviously be upgraded. I think if we, you know, talking about that entrance, talking about that front porch being right on the street, I think In order to bring people back to that entrance, the way that we're at it right now is we have a small little roof, perhaps, with a sidewalk that I'm not sure we have five feet to be able to get a sidewalk and cars up that drive. So then we're walking up the street to get to that side entrance, which doesn't feel right. So it sounds like we, you know, we've kind of pushed on because it feels like that side entrance, well, none of it was happening. And but the site features of that long elevation, putting a small little entrance to the building on the long broad elevation, is already almost in contrast to the Montjoie Hill language, and it felt further diminutive in this large long elevation to have this small entrance. It felt like a little bit of a pimple, or a little bit of a, and then we wanted to make it larger, and then the scale just didn't work to support the other proportional lines that we were going to bring about [1:47:36] Brad Miller: on the side of the building. [1:47:38] Public commenter: So I think there's some of that. I think then there is, okay, if you were to work that elevation to be able to get a substantial enough porch to feel like a historically driven and minded entry, now you're circulating from one side of the building to the other to get to a vestibule of an elevator and stair because that stair, putting it on the southeast side is just not, that's not the space plan. So we're losing leasable space to get over there. There. So there were some things kind of surrounding that, you know, in the beginning, it felt like there was, of course, we're going to put an entrance up here. And then we ran up against these obstacles long enough. And then we started to also then say, okay, well, yeah, it doesn't feel like the obvious solution to put an entrance to that side on this other, you know, it's worth west side until you start to look at vegetative gardening spaces of European mountains which have this kind of surprise wonderful smaller controlled entrance that leads you back to this kind of places for surprise garden or, and so that kind of inspired the maybe we need to refit this a little bit or maybe we need to add some more ingredients that contribute to making this thing a, you know, beautiful thing rather than a, you know, alley way that, you know, alleyways are troubled in our minds, right, we bad things happen in the alley sometimes, but there's a lot of precedent that tighter controlled garden spaces like this also leads us, I think that's where we're on and where we are now and I think [1:49:43] Brad Miller: kind of our role responsibility and process is around interpreting the standards and expressing how we think that the design as presented meets those standards. And I think it's very important for us to understand the process for you all who have spent a hundred times more with the design than we have. And so I think if I can speak for some members of the board, it seems like there's a concern around that entrance not being integrated enough into the building and being in relation to the rest of how buildings interact with the sidewalk in the historic district and that there is a desire for exploring how that can maybe be on the other side or better expressed on its current side in order to meet those standards remember [1:50:51] Public commenter: When, yeah, you know, it's interesting because we're dealing with a historic district where the period of significance is a broad one. It doesn't have a distinct architectural style, but it's about being a small livable neighborhood where people took precedence and cars were actually a later arrival. And when I look at that St. Lawrence Street elevation, I see car rolls people don't, and we're trying to make an evaluation of a building that buildings that were designed at a time when people were more important than cars. And so I think this has been lost, and I want to call attention to it. And so I don't say people need a 22 and a half foot door, but there should be a vestibule or something that says you enter with dignity here. You don't go down in that narrow dark alley. And I think the comment about shared alleys, I don't see that this alley is shared with the building to the to the north. I see a property line that seems to say this is the limit of the condominium development and this limit of the other structure. So I think the idea if I shared that's great, but I don't see it being shared, you know. So okay, again, that's philosophically Monjoe Hill's in a really livable neighborhood, and it's a historic neighborhood, and some other businesses that make it livable, but I've just tried to illustrate 24 foot wide door. Oh okay. [1:52:20] Brad Miller: Other comments on the entrance and approach? I kind of want to circle back a little bit and go through those highlighted points for discussion. I think everyone did a good job of covering most of them. I think it seemed like most folks were comfortable with the overall proposed height of the building. I think from my perspective, I think the height is fine, and given the existing heights in the historic district, I hope that maybe provide some breathing room or relief where that fourth floor can be more fully realized. I appreciated the public comment around and Miss a member of assets comment of carrying those vertical elements all the way up through the fourth floor, whether that's through enclosed spaces or posts like the rest of the triple deckers in the neighborhood where those bays do continue all the way up to the to the cornice line. I think I think as it's right now it's kind of this long garage first floor base, two big stories projecting out, and then shrinks back, and so it reads more horizontal than it does vertical, which is very much more the intent of those bay windows. I think staying to the St. Lawrence Place side, I think that the garage doors and the windows do kind of prompt this discussion around solids and voids. I think the opposite elevation does a good job of being compatible with the solid to void ratio of the neighborhood, which is 15 to 20% windows. On this side, I would say it's closer to 50% windows. And so how can that be better, into, a ratio with the existing precedent in the neighborhood because it does seem like members do think that this elevation is a principal elevation and relevant for discussion and so i do think that would be a way and maybe possibly integrated into that solution with the side entrance [1:55:08] Public commenter: on the St. Lawrence Place elevation. And just to add one thing to that tower going up on this [1:55:16] Board Member: facade, I wonder if there's a solution where it's just with the material color that match where it's not, you know, actually changing the line, maybe bringing that slate gray or that up to the [1:55:34] Brad Miller: the illusions, keeping lighter. [1:55:40] Board Member: It's you guys to go through. [1:55:45] Brad Miller: Maybe a little challenging because it's mostly glass. You want to really be changing. Yeah. [1:55:51] Board Member: And the center area has the lighter wood in between the smaller. Like you more prominent in that. [1:56:00] Brad Miller: Okay, yes, that makes sense. Thank you. [1:56:03] Board Member: But yeah, this side, this [1:56:08] Public commenter: elevation, you know, it's a pretty unique one I think in the district is normally the talked about in that 70 foot long width of these limiting that frontage, or the frontage. This is the side elevation in every other building in Pendulum Hill. So you have this long and linear building where normally on the street you have a taller, narrower building. So the vertical proportion complements the already proportion of narrower built, narrower, taller front elevation. This side elevation is everything but that. So the, we absolutely did not address the vertical on this elevation, and quite deliberately, River, actually, because I think what's, what's was on our, when we looked at the front elevation, the reason Munjoy Hill does highlights that vertical proportions because of that street branch would be narrow, whereas the side elevation, now I feel we actually want to turn that vertical proportion horizontal, because now the whole building is squatter and longer. So to have a vertical proportion in that already very horizontal proportion building mass means that you're just, you're kind of removing the energy out of that. So we very deliberately kind of cast more horizontal lines, although that's where the slotted windows came in, was to try of would get in horizontal, trying to bring that vertical back to tie into the front elevation. So that was some of the some of the wrestling that we went on, because that when we when we took that vertical proportion around the corner, that place in proportion is one of those things that is a relational dimensional attribute. You have a base proportion that then you want to either reinforce or you want to get in the way of. You have a horizontal building going because of that 100 foot length, 103 foot length, you wanted to reinforce it and lose some of that energy might [1:58:46] Brad Miller: be worth studying more of the corner condition, like to the comments I think the board is making, like yes this is somewhat unique because it's a it's not actually a full street that cuts through the block, but there are lots of triple deckers that sit at corners where they have a primary facade that's narrow and tall, and then they have a fairly long side facade that addresses that side street also. In a way I think the suggestion is, you know, thinking about how those buildings are addressing the core, you know, the corner condition, and I think the comment is somewhat that you'll I think you'll find there are many, you know, full height bays on -site facades of such buildings, and that may be, you know, more contextual, more successful in the board's view. Yeah, I think that the precedent images you provided are helpful, and I think looking, pulling a few triple-deckers with, that are on-corner lots would be helpful, given that these are you know you're dealing with the building with the huge lot also comes a lot of responsibility of handling that, and you know I would also like to see what percentage the solids avoid does break down on this elevation. If we're looking at precedent images, it'd be interesting just to compare apples to apples [2:00:16] Board Member: this idea right there but it's [2:00:21] Public commenter: got a vertical in the bottom left, yeah [2:00:25] Brad Miller: that one's not a corner though, actually to say more this place doesn't, but again [2:00:41] Public commenter: sorry, remember bassett, you're just going on that corner as you experience that building [2:00:46] Board Member: as a pedestrian walking on the street and the st. Lawrence place does not go through as you're not normally walking through there unless you're resident, so you are, and there's a building, so that I think to me that puts more emphasis on that corner because there is a wider open space between there, but not necessarily because I think you've got it shadowed in, that's kind of helpful of where that building is as a street. And I think that's, I mean, I think it's where maybe where Mr. Sheckler was getting at, was that corner itself is what we would be or at least I would, speak for myself, I [2:01:32] Brad Miller: think we're, we're slowly transitioning to the next phase of the conversation. We're going to be looking to Mr. Sheckler and the applicants and just want to make sure that did we leave anything that was any comments that were unresolved but you would appreciate more clarity around for next steps or other members of the board who feel that way. The issue was raised about [2:02:18] Public commenter: the third floor and the amount of glass there for the top floor, you know that was resolved [2:02:25] Brad Miller: out through people, you [2:02:33] Board Member: mean the fourth floor, but of course more, yeah, that I [2:02:40] Brad Miller: guess I was one that commented. I think my comment was more specific, more targeted to the first bay on the side elevation where it is primarily mostly all glass, and I think as you get farther away from St. Lawrence Street, right, there's a little bit more distance from precedent buildings. But it's primarily that first bay. And then the top windows too. I think just, you know, looking at the balance of that. [2:03:20] Board Member: Also is that, is that floor-to-ceiling glass on the fourth floor there? [2:03:26] Public commenter: It's shown that way, yes. So how tall, like 12 feet taller? No. [2:03:38] Brad Miller: And I guess to the chair's point, I did have a couple items I wanted to ask or like push on the board just to make sure I know how to try to support the applicant in revising the proposal. I think that this question relates to one of the items that I called out and that has been discussed a bit, which is that it sounds like there's kind of some mixed opinions on there's some willingness to see that fourth floor may be treated a little bit differently, but there was also some comments about maybe through siding or again like extending vertical elements, there's a way to tie it into the building a little bit more. So I guess the impression that has presented the change in material the Change in penetration is maybe differentiating that fourth floor too much on the side elevation in particular, so that was, I guess, a comment I was hearing. I also wanted to make sure the board addressed the base material. There's been a lot of, I think, compliments of the idea of the durable base as the African put it. I want to make sure that the board is considering the two kind of potential options that were presented, which were both brick but also maybe a panelized siding material, and I want to I guess is there a concern with that? Do as the board opens, either those could be successful, so I would just have a question and [2:05:07] Board Member: brick is, you know, pretty solid, but if you were to go with a panelized party, you can't have that down to the ground. You have to have it like six to eight inches depending on the product, but if you [2:05:17] Public commenter: did have that, what would be that thought? Yeah, that's one of the reasons why we kind of pivoted, I think, to that, rice husk panel. It's more inert than what some of our panels are. Wouldn't this composite material, let's say it's called Modern Mill, and it's a core of it is our, this mean that our rice husks, so it's and then there's other things, you know, that bond that together, but it is a kind of like it's got a vertical grain to it, so stain it. This is the first level of the case. This is the base Okay, so we're, but yes, also on the top level we were going to plank it to look like wood from the top level, but at the base it also [2:06:06] Board Member: comes with four foot by 25 panels, right? Plus this is really that splash back, so it is doubles you it, you know, just like clearing equipment, just wreck some of those things, so will [Caitlin Mikhail: the base look] similar to the top floor if that option is chosen or yeah, since it comes in four foot wide panels [2:06:30] Public commenter: very deliberately wall same material, but yeah, large big panels versus [2:06:41] Board Member: And would there be a big visual difference between the siding on the lower floors versus this? They look to be a little bit more similar versus like the brick versus the siding, which has more of the contrast. Would this be the contrast there with option B? [2:07:01] Public commenter: There will be. The colors are shown,, so one of the images I think we had, we have to the entry gateway that shows that it'd be pretty much the smaller color train. The idea is that we have some contrast and we have some warmer kind of earthen tones if a lot of whether that's brick or snipe board panels or the rice husk panels I [2:07:32] Board Member: Just I'm durable this rice husk are you going be able to bring in a sample that'd be great we'll pass around take a look at it just so I'm [2:07:44] Brad Miller: clear that what's being shown on the screen is an updated rendering from what we received [2:07:53] Public commenter: correct okay we showed the two images on the submittal that you had in front of you probably but we then said you know it's gonna be better to see this we're definitely gonna get question done so we added this rendering to the package or not to the package to our presentation [2:08:10] Brad Miller: just today so it sounds like there's some openness to it could still be successful although maybe there's everyone has an agreement that brick would be preferable okay it seems [2:08:26] Public commenter: what would mean is a durable material for the ability to fund the project no it should read as a durable material that comes to meet the ground right and we get decide whether the [2:08:38] Board Member: material as presenters doing that right hard to say not knowing this rice house material but I think character-wise I think the brick makes way more sense so that would be my [2:08:54] Brad Miller: certainly consistent with the language yeah I mean there's a tension always of like how durable the material actually is these are the weathering but then there's the like the sort of composition piece of the sense of a base even if it's the same material functionally as parts of the building right and I guess that's my question is like the board is open to still some sort of panel on like a panelized material could still work in providing a sense of a base I just want [2:09:27] Public commenter: to see what that bottom treatment is where it has to stop right further detail [2:09:31] Board Member: on. You know, is it concrete? Is it a brick? Is it a granite? Mallory, I think you bring up a good point, too, about shoveling or snow removal, going around the corner, whacking it. I think that's a very real thing that happens. I've seen so many of these newer buildings with new siding, and they're just beat up. You can tell what happened. [2:09:55] Public commenter: Well, it's exfoliating the corner of Waterville and 4th Street right now, the chunks are falling off. You can see the substrate, so it's an important consideration. So likely this brick would go into the ground. Just to be clear, this would not go into the ground. This would hover as a reveal above the ground. we would have that six inches that exists around buildings everywhere that transitions that foundation above ground and then we bring our panel down and we kind of score it to the topography so that it's as that consistent yeah [2:10:44] Brad Miller: So I guess I would tend to, I would just to agree with Member Hutchins. I think that brick would be a more appropriate choice, not seeing how the alternative paneling per the standards, which states the relationship of the color and texture of the principal facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the contributing buildings in the historic district. So I'm just, I don't see how they relate, how the other, the alternative materials relate to existing materials in the district. I'd [2:11:23] Board Member: like to bring up one more thing too. This is kind of a, when I looked at the elevations, it looks like because the base is lighter than the main structure, it looks like the structure is kind of floating. A lot of the other buildings in the Monjo Hill area have a darker base and a lighter building, and the darker, whether it's brick or painted brick, it seems to anchor the building where it really feels, when you, when you look at the whole building, it feels like it's kind of this gray mass floating above the ground. That may just be the way it's been rendered. I don't know if anybody else sees that or disagrees or one benefit to that though is calling back to the three-story buildings that are like around the district as well. [2:12:30] Brad Miller: Okay, maybe the only other thought I would have on the base too is there could be maybe even a third or other materials that might be more akin to the chair's point of like more reminiscent of masonry but not necessarily brick or not that same exact format, so [2:12:48] Board Member: maybe that's worth exploring. I mean, there's thin brick too, but that's not very durable. The other [2:12:53] Brad Miller: thing I wanted to specifically touch on was the, which I think also gets to the discussion around the side entry or whether or not the entry should be moved towards, I think there generally was encouragement of exploring moving the entry to St. Lawrence Place, but I specifically wanted to get the board's temperature on the success of the eyebrow canopy as a treatment, whether it's at this corner or the other, and then also the sculptural gate. I think we didn't really, no one really touched down the Sculpture gate, but I don't know whether if I'm over interpreting and saying that there was sort of a sense that wasn't enough. I specifically in the memo raised the question of that isn't a feature that I saw precedent for in the district, so whether the board was sort of discounting that as maybe, I don't know, I'd like to hear board members talk about that feature of whether it's successful, whether it shouldn't be included. [2:13:47] Board Member: Whether it should be massaged, I think it needs something. I'm not sure is the right one, right, but I think I think the architect I did identify it important you have to call that out somehow if it's not going to be evidence of. [2:14:17] Public commenter: Exactly. I think the fact you have to put a sign that says this way to the entry is an issue. The entry should be self-evident [Brad Miller: as it] is in most houses in the historic district. [2:14:31] Brad Miller: So whatever moves are done are more integrated into the building as opposed to a stand-alone [2:14:36] Public commenter: feature. This looks like a very modern design, so maybe there's something that could be designed that would look more period. [2:14:46] Brad Miller: Well, I guess that's if they came back with a arched arbor, would the board be satisfied by that? I know, I think that's something that's kind of what I'm getting out of the sense that a standalone [2:15:02] Board Member: site feature, this is this is an integral to the architecture of the building, this is a slide, all right, it's not, so it's it could be changed later, it could be removed okay those [2:15:27] Brad Miller: are the items I just wanted to make sure we specifically discussed some. I [2:15:35] Board Member: think too like what we haven't really seen here, but sight lighting could go a long way to helping, especially you know when it's not daytime to they mark the entry. I don't, we don't really have any light shining, guys, that top bright ones doesn't shine in dusk, maybe, and I think that eyebrow thing that wraps works well. I think it's a the way the way the entry is now where the bottom floor is set into the right one foot, that's like an a half measure, it's it's it's not enough, it 's ineffective, like I think if it were set in two feet or more, then it starts to it starts to be an entry, it starts to kind of call you in [2:16:39] Public commenter: but on most of the side entries it's a distinct porch, it's part of the architecture of the house. So it's, and you're protected as you leave the sidewalk and enter by entry. Yeah, this doesn't really give you that. Part of the trouble with that is the ADA accessibility is we certainly don't want to put stairs there and extending that covering up too far, even just a little bit further, is going to impact the enjoyment of the next floor building and those are capable of doing that as well as if they want to do it. [2:17:31] Brad Miller: Mr. Shacklett, it seemed like that covered your questions. Yes, I think I don't have any other questions. But look into the applicants if there was anything else that you were looking for comments on in particular or any outstanding questions from what was discussed tonight, no. [2:17:59] Public commenter: I think we had a good conversation, I think there's [Brad Miller: clear] direction for us to look at these things. I think what always the challenge is we is that side entrance, I think we've looked at a number of those things but and we will, I think what it comes down to is we'll continue to look at them and all things come with compromises and so our goal will be not to compromise on other things that are successful. I think that's that's always the balance, right, so this kind of dialogue is important and there's the right answer never exists, there's the better answer and the better answer in whose eyes is also so having standards to you know go against is why the standards to go against and I can definitely you have a clear list of what those points within the standards are not being that successful again that's all I don't question I could have hours of time but I don't think that's what the point of [2:19:18] Brad Miller: business well yeah as member Bassett said earlier thank you for a complete a complete submission it's helpful to discuss with a whole document set and it's very helpful Mr. Sheckler obviously is available and will help further interpret what was said tonight and look forward to seeing this come back before the board thank you thank you looking to back to the agenda this was our last item for this evening barring no further discussion I would look for a motion to adjourn maybe first Mr. Sheckler just confirming our meeting for July 15th that is our next meeting yes okay great all right so [2:20:25] Board Member: no so we have items on the agenda for that yes okay great [2:20:33] Brad Miller: nope with that finally deadline is next Monday so I can let you know on the 15th okay and we'll have that meeting great motion to adjourn anyone one a second was there a second yeah remember Bassett remember Whiton thank you meeting adjourned and take care everyone yeah [2:21:02] Public commenter: and we'll get comments from you I think more so I'm [2:21:07] Brad Miller: Available to meet, I think, if you want to discuss any of these comments, I'm happy to do so. We don't normally then like that I'm written, you know, the summary after the video. Yeah, it's been the video. [2:21:18] Board Member: Be available on. Thank you. Thank you.