From: 	"David White" <dmwarch@comcast.net>
To:	hughn@mac.com; dmwarch@comcast.net
CC:	jacklucas@lucascompaniesinc.com; adasco@atlasboston.com; dasco@atlasboston.com; greger@regerholdings.com; HCD@portlandmaine.gov
Date: 	1/2/2014 11:22 AM
Subject: 	RE: Seaport Lofts
Attachments:	p5.pdf; p6.pdf

Hugh,

You are correct about the depth of the shadows at Unit 9. I have changed it,
it should only be half as shown. The shadows are not supposed to be a true
reflection of the sun, but instead an architectural means of showing the
relationship of the planes of the building.

I understand your concern about the openness of the first floor, but in
order to provide the parking as shown we have very little choice. In fact,
this new scheme changed the column locations and we ended up losing one
parking space. I did add a solid wall in the one area where we could, next
to the drive through. However, what I can do and what is shown on the
attached, is to drop the opening height for the parking spaces from 9’ 4 at
the highest space and 12’ 0 at the lowest space to approximately 8’ 0 at
each opening. With this change the highest opening is below the level of the
retaining wall. Given your fencing, the top of which is almost as high as
the  second floor windows of the new building, you will see very little of
this open area unless you are on your third or top floor or are in line with
the building’s drive through. Since your building has several jogs it is
safe to say that the units closest to the property line will have a greater
potential for seeing under these openings than the units closest to Federal
Street. I doubt if you will be able to see much of the vehicles located
between the building and the retaining wall. I hope this revision is a
positive reaction to this concern.

The breaking up of the rear wall and the diversity of heights for the
parapet are a direct result of comments coming from not just the Planning
Board, but specifically from the Federal Street neighbors. I believe these
revisions make a large difference in the massing and visual presence of the
revised rear elevation. The fact that the first level of our building is 12’
below the first floor of your units and with the height of your fence and
the dropping of the openings, with the exception of the drive under, the
“top heavy” concern will be minimized.

We have initiated the rendering process and wish to get it as accurate as
possible which is the reason we asked if it made sense to have a rendering
done from one of your decks. Is this something you would still like us to
consider? If so, please provide me a number our Portland rep can call you at
to coordinate taking the photos.

If there are any other items you wish to discuss please all me at your
convenience.

David

  _____  

From: HUGH NAZOR [mailto:hughn@mac.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 4:16 PM
To: dmwarch@comcast.net
Cc: Helen Donaldson
Subject: Re: Seaport Lofts

Thanks you very much for the information. We do appreciate the chance to
give some thought to the new proposal. Before any real opinion may be
formed, it would be necessary to see a color rendering of some sort. Ever a
computer colored version of the attached would be beneficial.I will show it
to the neighborhood who are interested and respond anon.

My only immediate specific comment are a small points about the shading
shown on the drawings. While the three other elevations display shadowing
that may be possible at certain times of the day in certain seasons, the
rear elevation would require sun higher and farther south than it would ever
be. You might wish to change that. Another very minor question has to do
with the inset at unit 9 which is shadowed to the same depth as the others
but is drawn as much more slight inset than the rest.

I hope that you can understand that a major objection to the appearance has
to do with the open garage structure at the base of the back. Such a facade
would not be tolerated in the front and is no more appealing at the rear.
Once the spaces accumulate the usual assortments of bicycles and sundries,
they will be even more of an eyesore. The structure is left with a top‑heavy
but massive feeling. Its mass and form do not match ‑ only at the rear.  I
know that alternatives are difficult to imagine but the rear facade, while
better in some ways, is far from pleasing on the whole.

We have regularly requested of the city and the developer that we might talk
with you to examine possibilities while you are thinking about alternatives.
We have done so cooperatively with others and have come to agreement before
the staff has to present an opinion and things must become adversarial. Here
again, we are in the position of not having our point of view listened to
while there is a chance to work cooperatively ‑ a chance for possible
helpful input or to understand that other possibilities are unrealistic. We
are shown a decision and must respond only to what is shown. The city may
not force you to try, even once, to work with us. Neither can we demand
that. I am asking again if that might be possible.

Sincerely,         _____Hugh

 

On Dec 29, 2013, at 1:51 PM, David White <dmwarch@comcast.net> wrote:

Hugh,

To bring you up to speed we have revised the rear of the building to provide
additional breaks in the rear wall, created height variety in the parapets
and selected painted clapboards as the “other” material to go with the brick
work which is primarily on the Newbury and Hancock Street façades. The brick
will be a darker gray and the clapboards will be two shades of gray. The
forward most siding will be a lighter gray with the setback siding being the
darker shade. Both shades will be lighter than the brick.

I t has taken us a while to get the approval of the Owners for these changes
and subsequently the initial approval of the staff. I thought it was
important that we were headed in a direction which is acceptable to the
staff before we shared this with you and other interested neighbors.

Please review what I am sending and if you have any questions or comments
please do not hesitate to contact me.

We will be working on revised renderings and, if it of interest to you, we
could arrange to have a rendering done from the vantage point of one of the
Federal Street townhouse units. If you are, we would need to have photos
taken from one of the units. Let me know and I can have it arranged.

David

David M. White, Architect

54 Todd Farm Lane

PO Box 817

New London, NH 03257

(603) 763‑1335

 <mailto:dmwarch@comcast.net> dmwarch@comcast.net

<TypSec_09‑20‑13.pdf><p5.pdf><p6.pdf><p1.pdf><p2.pdf>