7-11-22 BRIEFING - South Portland Historic District Design Guidelines

From: James Gardner

Sent: Mon Jul 11 00:33:47 2022

To: BDS Hearings Clerk

Cc: Spencer-Hartle, Brandon

Subject: Testimony for Landmarks Commission hearing on July 11, 2022

Importance: Normal

Please accept the following as written testimony for the Historic Landmarks Commission hearing on July 11, for the agenda item “South Portland Historic District Design Guidelines”

My name is Jim Gardner, 2930 SW 2^nd Ave, 97201

I’ve been a Lair Hill resident for 40+ years and am currently Chair of the Land Use Committee of South Portland Neighborhood Association (SPNA). I’ve been chair for 9 years and a member for several years earlier. So I’m very familiar with the 1980 Lair Hill Conservation District design guidelines and the ways they’ve been applied in historic reviews of many renovations and additions over the years, and with several new structures in the district. I believe those guidelines have served the city and residents well. Evidence of this is that in the past 10 years, you can count on one hand the times SPNA has needed to come before this Commission. The majority of those was for one project, which I’ll explain later. But I agree those 1980 guidelines can be improved and made more relevant to current city practices and policies.

I actively participated with BPS staff, the consultants, and the Community Advisory Group in the process of developing these new guidelines. In general, I think they are clear and well thought out, and will be effective in guiding future improvements in the district. However, there is one concept and one guideline that I strongly believe is misguided. I hope this Commission will agree and will work to revise or even delete that one guideline.

To explain why I cannot support Guideline 3.5, titled Tall New Buildings, it would help to look at the basic purpose of the guidelines, found on page 4. I’ll summarize: To retain and enhance the architectural, cultural, and historical qualities that make the district significant, informed by the unique attributes of the district. I feel the other guidelines here, which I do support, are consistent with that purpose.

But I believe the “Tall New Buildings” guideline ignores one of the obvious defining characteristics of the district, its modest scale. Structures in the district are one and two stories, with a very occasional three-story institutional building. The 1980 Conservation District guidelines recognized the importance of this modest scale and strictly limited building heights to three stories or 45 feet. While recognizing that fact, this new “Tall New Buildings” guideline then rationalizes that taller buildings can be allowed if they somehow “minimize the appearance of height” by employing “architectural features” and that by doing so, the additional height will not “overwhelm the historic patterns in the district.” Frankly, I find that argument lacks merit. Putting architectural theory aside, and with apologies to Justice Stewart, people know a tall building when they see it.

The impetus for allowing taller buildings in the district is Portland’s perceived housing shortage and the idea that we can’t increase density without building tall. But done right, much greater density can happen even within the current height limits. One example is the project that brought me before this Commission several times a few years ago. This was a 62-unit apartment building on a mere ¼ block site - and it even provided a generous amount of tenant parking! Located on the edge of the district, this L-shaped building will be 4 stories along Barbur and 3 stories as it extends into the district along Hooker St. The 4-story wing will be right at 45 feet tall. In other words, even meeting those prior guidelines, it achieves a density of nearly 250 units per block. Maybe not high-density by downtown standards, but certainly dense for a residential neighborhood.

So, exactly what am I asking you to do? Very simply, to revise the guidelines so that there remains a defined height limit that is truly a limit. This would be clear recognition of the importance of maintain the district’s historic scale. If the current “3 stories or 45 feet” is ambiguous, then just say 45 feet. That would allow buildings a bit taller than any existing in the district. We all know that no rule is absolute. Applicants can seek and be granted exceptions to guidelines when they can show exceptional circumstances or unique needs. But these cases should truly be exceptions. We shouldn’t have an actual guideline that allows very tall buildings so long as they include a few fancy articulations or visual tricks.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Jim Gardner

Chair, SPNA Land Use Committee

503-227-2096