From: 	Matt Thayer <mthayer777@gmail.com>
To:	Ethan Boxer-Macomber <ethan@anew-development.com>, Peter Bass <pbass@maine.rr.com>, Ethan Strimling <estrimling@portlandmaine.gov>, Belinda Ray <bsr@portlandmaine.gov>, Jeff Levine <JLEVINE@portlandmaine.gov>
CC:	"Daniel T. Haley, Jr. CIC" <danielthaleyjr@gmail.com>, "Daniel T. Haley, Jr. CIC" <danielthaley@gmail.com>, Gary Marcisso <gmarcisso@yahoo.com>, Justina Marcisso <jmarcisso1@yahoo.com>, Eric Stark <eric.stark@maine.edu>, Margaret Hazlett <mhazlett@fandm.edu>
Date: 	1/21/2016 6:17 PM
Subject: 	Quick Public Input - For Meeting - 65 Munjoy St

Hi all --

We submit these several comments in lieu of more detailed comments we
would share if we were able to make tonight's meeting.  We therefore may
follow these up with more detailed comments concerning your proposed design
in the coming week, or sooner, if you tell us that "sooner" is necessary in
order for our additional comments to be reflected in the record, and to be
helpful for public review and any possible public decision making.

Before turning to our comments, we ask that you please disregard a prior
e-mail that appeared to include some comments from us, sent by accident,
earlier this afternoon, as per my earlier note.  It contained some notes I
dictated into my phone the other day, but had not yet reviewed myself, or
reviewed with my wife, or finalized in any way, so pls pay no attention to
them, and please make sure they are not part of the public record.  Thank
you!

Our "quick" comments for tonight are as follows:

    1. *Public Process Concerns.*  We have many concerns about the
    "public" process re this project thus far, and esp. the lack of public
    process in the past nine or so months.  The comments we have provided to
    (the city and) the developer over the last 9 months about the basic design
    direction of this project have not resulted in the opportunity for a robust
    dialogue about it, or about design alternatives to it that would be more in
    keeping with the recommendations of the Adams School Reuse Committee, and
    the RFP, good design guidelines for urban infill affordable housing, etc.,
    so we hope that there is still an opportunity for real dialogue about your
    proposed design, & a real opportunity to consider alternative design
    directions, before you commit to a design.  We are concerned, however,
    because it seems as though you have somehow over the last few months very
    much solidified your design direction and your detailed designs, without
    reaching back out to us to engage us as you said you would, and you are now
    about to go before the planning board to get your "green light" on your
    design, without any real back-and-forth with us or other members of the
    public about your design concept, so it's not clear the extent to which
    tonight's meeting represents an opportunity for real public input and a
    real consideration of options.  In other words, we are hoping that this
    isn't just a formality to give your project the rubber stamp that it seems
    like you're looking for at this point, given that you have already
    submitted to the planning board.

    2. *Our Maine Voices Op Ed.*  I would like to ask that you incorporate
    our Maine Voices column that was in yesterday's *Portland Press Herald* into
    the meeting and public record, as we would have referenced the concerns in
    that column at the meeting tonight if we were there to speak for
    ourselves.  The column was entitled: "Portland needs more affordable
    housing, but appearance matters, too: A project proposed on Munjoy Hill
    should be redesigned because it fails to blend in with the neighborhood."  www.pressherald.com/2016/01/20/maine-voices-portland-needs-more-affordable-housing-but-appearance-matters-too
    <http://www.pressherald.com/2016/01/20/maine-voices-portland-needs-more-affordable-housing-but-appearance-matters-too>*

    3. *Maine Voices Photo.  *The on-line version of our Maine Voices
    column also includes a photo with caption that should be part of the public
    record.

    4. *Additional Photos of Projects that Provide Design Inspiration
    Consistent with Standards of Good Design for Urban Infill Affordable
    Housing.*  We would like to submit two photos for the public record,
    of multi-family affordable housing developments that provide better design
    direction for this project than your mock-up; we will send them in another
    e-mail.

    5. *Design Unresponsive to Prior Community Guidance.  *We do not
    believe your design is consistent with the recommendations of the
    years-long initiative and community input process of the City of Portland
    Adams School Reuse Committee, the City RFP for this project, and other
    guidance documents that would suggest that the design should be more
    traditionally inspired, better articulated, etc., consistent with the
    relatively traditional or traditionally-inspired neighborhood surrounding
    65 Munjoy St.

    6. *Design Inconsistent with Good Design Standards for Urban Infill
    Affordable Housing.  *Your design is not responsive to or consistent
    with good practice in urban infill affordable housing design as we
    discussed in our Maine Voices column.  Pls refer to the column for more
    specifics.

    7. *A Design "Fail:" Your Proposed Building Sits Too Low to Ground,
    Some First Floor Windows Too Small.*  You appear to have done your
    design to first and foremost accommodate cars in the house.  The
    unfortunate result of letting the "tail" of cars and parking wag the "dog"
    of designing for occupants is that the building sits very low to the ground
    for an urban neighborhood, as can be seen by reference to other buildings
    in the neighborhood.  In fact, it sits at sidewalk level, rather than above
    sidewalk level like other buildings in the neighborhood, which is
    apparently now creating concerns by your design team about privacy issues
    for 1st floor occupants.  As a result, you seem to be shrinking window size
    for the first floor units, which will be cutting down on daylight for those
    folks, and making the fenestration seem very weird and stand out for those
    viewing the building from the outside, while passing by on Munjoy St.,
    etc.  We believe this building sits too low to the ground, and with windows
    being shrunk to create a sense of privacy, represents an architectural
    design "fail."  There must be another way to design this building that
    works better for the occupants and the neighborhood.

We will try to forward those couple photos, for the record, in a few
minutes, or certainly this evening.

That's it for this quick round of public input.  We would like the
opportunity to submit more detailed feedback in the coming several days, in
part because Margaret may want to supplement these comments.  ** Pls let us
know the best mechanism for providing those comments, and when those
comments should be submitted in order to be considered during any public
decision making process. **

I should add that we know of other stakeholders in this project who are
unable to make tonight's meeting, and share our concerns, and urge you to
give them an opportunity to submit comments for the public record as well.

By the way, you are free to share these comments, our Op Ed, and our
photos with others at the meeting tonight.

Thanks so much.

Matt and Margaret

--
Matt Thayer and Margaret Hazlett
Owners, 62 Munjoy St.

Matt: Co-chair, former City of Portland Adams School Re-use Committee
339 Nevin St.
Lancaster, PA  17603
h 717-209-7007
m 207-899-5772