From: 	HUGH NAZOR <hughn@mac.com>
To:	<dmwarch@comcast.net>
CC:	Helen Donaldson <HCD@portlandmaine.gov>
Date: 	12/29/2013 4:16 PM
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
>  
> dmwarch@comcast.net
>  
> <TypSec_09‑20‑13.pdf><p5.pdf><p6.pdf><p1.pdf><p2.pdf>