Portland Historic Preservation Board approves North Street addition

[5:50] Chair (presiding officer): to go i have a recording yes the historic preservation board meeting visited by the named order today is wednesday september 16th we meet o'clock by 26. first order of business is a roll call and declaration of quorum mr sheckler please yes mr chair hillary bassett [6:19] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: here tessa cardi here kip tassera here michael hutchins here rob witten here vice chair paquin gould has reported she would be absent and brad miller here at [6:31] Chair (presiding officer): the quorum we do in the absence of vice chair paquin gold we should elect the vice chair i would have spoken to remember bassett if you do want to serve as vice chair for us okay is there a motion to that yeah i'd like to motion to pass it will be vice chair okay second roll call just for today who are we doing [7:03] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: that yes hillary bassett yes as a cardi here yes kip to sarah yes michael hutchins yes rob [7:13] Chair (presiding officer): yes unanimously elected by those friends thank you remember bastions We'll move on to the second item on the agenda, which is a report of attendance at the meeting held on September 2nd, 2026. This was a workshop review of alterations at 32 Thomas Street. Members Bassett, Carty, Deseris, Hutchins, Miller, and Pickram-Gold were present. Member Whitton was absent. Any changes to report of attendance? Hearing none. 9. item number three is reported decisions at that meeting there were no decisions as it was just workshop item number four is communication and reports check are there any communications i do [7:59] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: not have any great [8:02] Chair (presiding officer): we'll move them right into the public hearing this evening number five this is for a review of addition at 100 north street before we begin just want to open the floor for any members of the board if they would like to discuss any relationship to or financial connection to the property or the applicants they'd like to disclose [Eric Richardson (public commenter): mr shakler] maloy will provide the staff presentation all [8:54] Applicant/architect presenting: right so our application can i hpu [9:23] Chair (presiding officer): so i'm dory i'm deaf homeowner with my wife kate connell we're we've lived in the location since 1997 we bought the house from our family that lived there for about 15 years both families on either side of us when we moved in had lived in those houses for about 50 or 60 years our goal is to finish out what we have left for time in that house in the intervening years since 1997 we've done a fair amount of work on the house we've taken about 60 yards of trash out of it we've removed asphalt Siding, we've re-roofed it, we've, we've sanded down the clabbered appropriately, and with lead mitigation, replaced soil around the building, did a lot of stuff. We also redid the front porch in order to mimic what we found in the 19, whatever, 1920s pictures. So we used the, you know, the baluster cutout and stuff like that. It's been a desire of my wife and I to maintain that house in the, or take it back to what it looked like when it was first built, because we really appreciated that and we wanted to keep that. So in doing this, we also wanted to keep this thing going with the idea that we would put in perhaps an apartment so we could create some revenue as we moved into our retirement years. We were both social workers in our career, so we're not inordinately wealthy, but so we wanted to be able to create a revenue stream to keep going. Either we would live in that house or vice versa. So we have two grown children who are living in the house, so the in-law apartment, and also Kate's dad is in the neighborhood, he's over at another place, so maybe we'd use the in-law apartment for that. So we're still trying to figure all those things out, but that's what we're, what we're proposing. So it, to that end, we've asked Matt to, from Sign Architects, to draw something up that would fit the neighborhood, need our needs, and so here we are. [11:35] Applicant/architect presenting: So yeah, this is, there's a good overview of what's current, but we also did a little study of what the neighborhood context for garage additions, so these are three examples. There's not a ton of them in the neighborhood, but they're always set back behind the home. 122 North Street is a good example of a similar scale project, but it maintains some separations between these homes. And then the other two were garages or a box. So this is the proposed site plan. The driveway would pretty much remain the same, with a garage at the rear, and an in-law suite on the first floor, so there's a stone-dose path that leads you around to the side entry. So that would be a secondary entry for the in-law suite connected to the main home, and then above is the apartment. And then we're creating a new porch between the new and the old that would create a separation and shadow between the two and a flat roof to the second story above that. That. Maintain the two distinct forms. Materially, this is what's on site currently. It's the brick patio, granite, stone dust driveway, there'll be granite edging, and then thinking of the cedar fence to separate and add some of the mechanical equipment that would be required. That's on the building. In terms of overall context, we're not trying to overwhelm the historic building. So this is set far back in the driveway. But also this is the smallest form of a block. So you can get a sense of that here. There's also a question from Walnut Street. So you can see minimally visible that this is just in front of the tree so won't be very visible except for in the winter but that's the rear porch and then we're also trying to limit the amount of the existing building I've touched so this is where I can fit around the rear corner into [Speaker G (unidentified): there so I] described the plan on the first floor and then second floor plan. It's a smaller footprint with the apartment. And this is the flat roof connecting the two. One thing we did step back, the second story above the garage, to add a little bit of a shallow sloped roof to mimic the porch on the existing building. We thought that was a nice way to sort of decrease that shadow line of the entry porch as well. And there's also a pump pad around the floor and the rear that connects the bay window. And then the rear of the second straight step back to the [14:48] Speaker G (unidentified): last straight step back. [14:55] Applicant/architect presenting: So these are the elevations, front and rear. We're going to match the roof slopes of this building, and also the slopes of the we'll have drummers on either side those drummers are stepped back three or four feet from the front of the elevation so we're not trying to maximize that there's some definition for the front sheet and then over here we have similar aesthetic with that porch and the garage doors are painted paneled with lights at the top. A lot of the trim detailing, we're pulling the dimensions from the historic building but simplifying it a little. This is the side elevation so the top one is the elevation where we'll have the secondary entry and then the other one is showing that bay window, rear living room. You can see here how the dormer is stepped back. So here are a couple views from the front and views from the rear. So there's just a walkout and then there you are on the first floor. Okay, so I have not mentioned the arbor printing in the exterior on this. So with the siding, we will be proposing a five percent board siding, but with a similar the written wall stops for the river tours, and along the side we would be posing a step light to help guide the block there, and on that cut off, and it's going to be a path leading to the secondary inbound. What's not shown here is the roofing where we were kind of proposed matching the material. [18:12] Speaker G (unidentified): What it's called, and here's [18:17] Applicant/architect presenting: an image of that. It's the same, so it'd be the same group material, and then these are all shared in the fact that 's just showing overall dimension. We're keeping the proportions staying there. [18:42] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you. Yeah, so the quick order of operations, we'll move next into clarifying questions from those of the board and open the floor for public comment and go to deliberations. The public carries, we will take a vote tonight, so that any members have questions for the applicant, but is the picture on the left, is that visit what's visible from the street? [19:14] Applicant/architect presenting: Yeah, okay, like [19:23] Speaker H (unidentified): a question, the distance from the front of the porch to the building leaving. I think it's 40 feet. [19:32] Applicant/architect presenting: I believe so. [19:35] Chair (presiding officer): The main part of the building is [19:37] Applicant/architect presenting: you mean from this? [19:41] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, from the from the front of the facade. Yeah. To this, to the front of the driveway. Yes. Yeah. And then and then is how does that relate to that little link area that collects it [19:54] Speaker I (unidentified): connects it to the existing l of the building here. Is this is about eight feet wide, so it's just directly, I know it's set, yeah, the room goes straighter. [20:28] Speaker G (unidentified): We can always [20:32] Chair (presiding officer): ask questions if you have a very thorough presentation. So thank you. We'll move next to public comment. So we usually begin with those attending in person, and then we'll move to those attending remotely. [20:51] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: of theme to check with the to provide some sure, so if you're joining us in person, I'd like to offer comment, you can come up, and would you like to offer? Yes, okay, sorry if I can give you then the rules, I just want to pick my part. You're welcome to step up and you'll be given three minutes to speak. If you can start with your name and address, I'll give you a 30 second warning. Sorry, sometimes they give the whole spiel and then they no one wants to talk off. [21:20] Eric Richardson (public commenter): Good place to stand. My name is Eric Richardson. I live at 96 North Street. I'm abiding in Kate's property. We are a historic house too with a third story, green, long, narrow structure. So it would be this guy right here. So I'm here just to learn your process and understand how historic preservation works. We're concerned about the size and the placement of this. It doesn't seem to be non-historic, but in terms of setbacks and the roofline and blocking our view, those are the kinds of things. I know it's not a concern of the historic preservation, but I'm here just to understand, you know, what happens next. And this is not, I know Tom is just starting this process with City of Portland and everything, so I appreciate getting informed and educated, and that's really all I have to say to you. Thank you. [22:34] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: Thank you for your comment. [22:39] Chair (presiding officer): There is no one else here in person. [22:41] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: There is someone online, so if you're joining us remotely and would like to offer comments on this item, if you could please indicate your desire to do so by clicking the raise and icon at the bottom of the screen. Once you've done so, I will allow you to unmute yourself, and you'll also be given three minutes to speak. We do have someone looking to talk, so you should be able to unmute yourself? I did it. We can. So you'll have three minutes. I'll give you a 30-second warning. [23:17] Deborah Shannon (public commenter): Thank you so much. I am Deborah Shannon. I live at 96 North Street and a budding neighbor and neighbor to Kate and Tom, appreciating all the work that they put into this and your time to review it. And I missed the first five minutes and I wanted to get clarification because looking at this picture, the street view, it looks like the new construction is smaller than the existing construction. And I wanted to understand more clearly if it is smaller than the new construction or larger. That [23:57] Chair (presiding officer): Include your comments? [24:03] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: Do you have anything else you'd like to offer as comment? We don't typically take this section as a sort of back and forth question and answer, but we can try to address that after if you're offered your comment. I'm sorry. That's all. That's okay. Okay. Thank you very much for your comment. Maybe just in... [24:25] Chair (presiding officer): Yeah, there's no other public comment. [24:28] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: Sorry. Yes, that was the only... Okay. [24:32] Chair (presiding officer): And we'll go ahead and close the public comment since no one else is present. But yes, if applicants could please go over maybe the heights of the existing and proposed [24:45] Applicant/architect presenting: Yes, so we're matching the height of the building, so that would be the same, but it is [24:51] Chair (presiding officer): a slightly wider and deeper than are there exact numbers for the heights and then the varied with the 24 inches to the center for the edge for the height for the height yeah and then [25:10] Applicant/architect presenting: and then we're at 58 foot nine length and then the main body of the building is 23 foot nine wide which is slightly wider than this building but to have a two-car garage The [25:33] Chair (presiding officer): way I read that, the elevation with all the other contextual abutters was that maybe in perspective that the new addition, because it was further away, it would look lower. That's my read on that. I don't know what you guys thought. This is a straight elevation. Exactly. Right. room right but if we go back to the cube yes yeah the way I read that is if you brought that addition all the way forward so that the facade was flush with the other facades it would look the same like but yeah you're right yeah Okay so we will move next to deliberation so I'll point out to members of the board that staff did prepare I provided a staff report, including all of the relevant design standards for consideration. Staff has found that the application as presented meets all the relevant standards, but I would like to discuss any in detail that may members may have questions about or comments about so anyone would like to begin everybody [27:09] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah I do appreciate the rigor of the package it's very clear about the dimensions of the spatial use and how the two structures relate to the existing it's interesting to note that with the sort of one and a half story eve that the eaves of line and yet there's a slight pitch to the property itself pitching from the new site towards the street we're dealing with a car so that keeps your floor elevation down a few steps from the current house so there is a little bit more volume in the house but the eaves to a line I think they're you know they're very consistent certainly in the roof pitch of the intent but I think it's it does meet all the criteria of our standards for an addition so I'm intrigued in the use that it's going back to being a multi-generational family house again which is we're going to see more and more yeah [28:14] Chair (presiding officer): I had a comment about the windows looks like most if not all of the windows in the addition are larger than the existing windows. Like I know for egress purposes you need to have larger windows. Would you be able to go back to the elevation of the contextual with the abutters? Yeah, so I was looking at this and I was looking at the solids and voids, and if you just look at like the three buildings at the end, the green, the blue, and the yellow, the openings are fairly small and I'm not sure you see three facing you so close together. This is just me being nitpicky, but I feel like the three windows on that gable facing the road, their size and the fact that they're not in a bay architectural element, I feel like that's a more contemporary approach. I don't think there's, I don't think that isn't allowed under our guidelines. But I it is one thing that kind of except to me, dude, was there anything that kind of prompted those three large windows in the front? I mean, [29:45] Applicant/architect presenting: Yeah, the front is that there's two rooms facing the second story, there's a small office and a bedroom. So I was trying to give like, more light to the bedroom. Take the most of that wall. So I was having to see, centering the window and then mirroring it. So, relevant to, so it feels really common. [30:33] Chair (presiding officer): I was going to say that, I think that's just a comment, I was going to say that, [30:54] Speaker H (unidentified): I was going to say that it's a very thoughtfully put together proposal and that this question of differentiation of historic temporary I think is satisfied while also not departing from the major shapes of that cable roof. I think that's having it sit back and deep into the loveliness so I felt that both with the historic standards and with the new construction standards this project didn't be [31:37] Eric Richardson (public commenter): Thank you this [31:43] Chair (presiding officer): Party of desires I hear the concerns the neighbors about the height but in terms of what our purview of this is that it's not as compatible so I don't have any concerns yeah [32:01] Speaker H (unidentified): I would concur with other members of the board that I believe it meets the standards I think the size of the structure would read really big but I think having it set in from the road and having that perspective litigate that issue so I believe it does meet the skills [32:31] Chair (presiding officer): Yes so I agree and the fixed consensus among members of the board around the application meeting the standards summer basset pointed out kind of broken out into two sets that we typically deal with which is standards B, which is retention of historic features, and standard E, distinctive features. And that's about existing fabric, and this project really isn't touching. And where it is touching, it's really out of view of the public way, and so things can minimize. And then design of the new structure, I think does meet standard [Applicant/architect presenting: I,] Which is a differentiated contemporary design. So very much lean more towards, How do we design a house? And differentiated with materials, so the smooth cladwards, simplified trim, and the trio of windows, as member questions pointed out. And that overall scale of the property, as member DeSere said, is compatible because it's the same height. And it's being set back on the land. Makes it severe. It doesn't represent a pattern that already exists in the historic district around ancillary structures, brushes, carriage houses, barns, all those comments. We are, yes. If there would be a motion for that effect. [35:02] Speaker H (unidentified): I move to approve application HP-00116-2026 for constructing a new addition at 100 North Street on the basis of submitted documentation plans and specifications information provided in the staff memo attached findings by the historic preservation board as it's written on September 16 2026 that the project meets subsection 16.6.3 standards for review of alterations to contributing properties 16.6.4 standards for review of additions of new construction period is [35:57] Chair (presiding officer): There a second to that. 's like any discussion of the motion check [36:07] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: Their roll call yes so chair Hillary Bassett yes Tessa Cardi yes Michael Hudson yes and yes motion carries all present [36:19] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay. Congratulations. Best of luck with moving forward. [36:26] Chair (presiding officer): Staff are here and excellent. And [36:28] Speaker G (unidentified): I'll be having a question this morning. [36:32] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much. [36:41] Chair (presiding officer): We will move on to number six, workshops, which are on tonight, but did want to set up a pact. I remember when I wanted to make an announcement. Any others who would like to add anything [37:02] Speaker G (unidentified): I'm not going to stand for another term, but I do wonder if it's great to leave on a positive note and it's been a pleasure to serve you and to watch projects come in and be improved to the staff important for the input and I think the applicants have been well served by the HP board as the city. So it's been a pleasure to be with you all. I will watch for the interest of what goes forward. [37:31] Chair (presiding officer): We'll see you around. And you can turn it off whenever you'd like. [37:36] Speaker G (unidentified): Enough for me. No, I don't think there has been that kind of an attitude. I think it's been very respectful and thorough and consistent and I think the staff has done an admirable job of bringing the applicants to a good spot to come before us some other things that are of interest or question great it's time to deliberate so it's a very successful process and it's been going since 1990 I believe so carry on [38:06] Chair (presiding officer): You know I'm going to be the long architect no more camaraderie well yeah no more yeah. [38:19] Speaker G (unidentified): I've enjoyed also just having that you know that knowledge as an architect I'm working with residential applications and a long time resident of the hill it seems like after projects we may have been on the hill so there. [38:35] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: We go will you be joining us for the last meetings of your term Yes, sir, I wasn't going to play all the way through, but I just, I just made sure. Oh, [38:45] Speaker G (unidentified): absolutely. Yeah, it's important and I do enjoy it. So, well, [38:52] Roll-call clerk/recording secretary: we thank you for your service as well. [38:54] Chair (presiding officer): Thanks to everyone. We'll continue to serve on the board. Do you want to give them the gold Rolex? Not yet. We have one in November. This is a swan. Yes, thank you so much. That's 70 bucks. I know I appreciate all of your comments and I've learned a lot listening to them so I appreciate it well great well we will we're glad that you're sticking on the rest of the year and hopefully you'll join us at the end of the year holiday yeah it's real to be invited so. So if Evan isn't, I'm not going to do it. I have to check the budget. Great. Well, if there's no other further business, I would look for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Me. Motion to the second? Yes. All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Take that.