From: 	HUGH NAZOR <hughn@mac.com>
To:	Helen Donaldson <HCD@portlandmaine.gov>
Date: 	10/15/2013 10:05 AM
Subject: 	Re: India Street activity

Well, if not articulation ‑ which would cost interior space, maybe some textural variation. While the entire project (and Phase One) looks more like something from a chain hotel pattern book, making the back side look the same (multi‑textural) would be an improvement. {Isn't there a saying about a pig with lipstick still being a pig?} Nonetheless, it would be less of a uniform assault to the eye for all of the units along Federal Street. The couple owing one of the Federal Street townhouses (which truly are townhouses) has put their place on the market after seeing the Phase Two drawings.

I do plan to be at the meeting, as do many of the others living on Federal Street. I hope they stay long enough to be heard ‑ given the place on the agenda.

I hope the roof metal has a low reflectivity surface. Metal roofs are great but can also be blinding if they are reflective.

The window matching is understood and the smaller balconies are probably not very significant ‑ depending on how they are finished and furnished.

Again, thanks for everything.

         _____Hugh
hughn@mac.com

On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Helen Donaldson <HCD@portlandmaine.gov> wrote:

> Yes, Hugh.  Those 'windows' are actually sliding doors onto balconies, and they had shown a mullion pattern there (and on the Newbury facade) that didn't match the other building doors.  We were looking for consistency here. 
>  
> All in all, they've made the balconies smaller on the rear, which (though it remains formulaic) reduces some of the 'hotel' impression (from our vantage point, at least).
>  
> The entire rear is in 'metal paneling.'  They modified that northwest corner to show paneling there.  The architect writes that "it is all metal [here], including the roof."  From our perspective, this corner is unresolved, and will likely be worked out post approval. 
>  
> Do you have other suggestions on the rear?  We've asked multiple times for additional articulation (e.g. in the windows, balconies), but haven't made much progress.
>  
> Nell
> 
>  
> _____________________________________
> Nell Donaldson
> City of Portland Planning Division
> 389 Congress Street
> Portland, Maine 04101
> 874‑8723
> hcd@portlandmaine.gov
> >>> HUGH NAZOR <hughn@mac.com> 10/15/2013 9:29 AM >>>
> The only difference I can notice on the back side is that they made the windows even less interesting and changed some small facing at the west end rear (oct 7 above oct 12 drawings).
> 
> <Mail Attachment.png>
> 
>          _____Hugh
> 
> hughn@mac.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Helen Donaldson <HCD@portlandmaine.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Hugh,
>>  
>> I appreciate this, and it will appear in my board report for next week's second hearing.  You are absolutely right that the B‑2b doesn't give us a whole lot of ground to stand on, but we have repeatedly tried to push (and the Board has been helpful) to improve the design.  Obviously, I think there is still some way to go in this negotiation (and it is, unfortunately, a negotiation)!  Specific comments from you or other neighbors with regard to design would be very helpful.  
>>  
>> In that light, I have some revised elevations in today, which I have attached.  Let me know your thoughts and I can include those, too, in the Board report. 
>>  
>> Will you be able to attend next week?
>>  
>> Nell
>> 
>>  
>> _____________________________________
>> Nell Donaldson
>> City of Portland Planning Division
>> 389 Congress Street
>> Portland, Maine 04101
>> 874‑8723
>> hcd@portlandmaine.gov
>> >>> HUGH NAZOR <hughn@mac.com> 10/11/2013 9:23 AM >>>
>> Hello all:
>> 
>> About a year and a half ago we had a meeting about planning for the India Street Neighborhood. An attempt at doing something quickly, because of development pressures proposing significant changes, had not made it past the Planning Board because they said that there should be a Comprehensive Plan for the ISN. We met and agreed that such a plan would go forward and that it should start in September (2012 ‑ or "the Fall") and take about a year in total. It was also mentioned that, in the meantime, there could be some methods of preventing development that would clearly not be allowed under such a plan.
>> 
>> Everyone understands the financing problem which was a large part in the shifting of timing of this project. September 2013 became December 2014, then April 2014, and now (approximately) July 2014. There is, at present no plan schedule. It is also understood that the staffing situation is such that such projects are not easily done in‑house.
>> 
>> My reason for writing is not to complain about the above but to draw attention to things that are being affected by the delay. The Bay House Phase 2 project is 230 feet of unbroken wall that, as mundane as it appears from the south and east looks even worse from the north (back) side. From that perspective, it closely resembled strip mall motels in Los Angeles. While it probably meets the requirements of the B2‑b zoning, it does not come close to any future form based code that would not allow such scale in that location. The Planning Board has commented on this appearance and has required another look at what might be built. While smaller units are a very good idea, cramming as many as possible in a continuous block of a building is just not in keeping with anything but the Phase One of the same project, and the two pattern book hotels in the neighborhood.
>> 
>> The small two story building at 48 Hancock, that is to be totally shadowed by the Phase 2 project, has a scheduled hearing before the Appeals Board. They wish to rebuild to add two additional stories and cannot meet the setback requirements of B2‑b. There has been an effort for more that three years to try to have a zoning change that would deal with these setback requirements. They are not appropriate to redevelopment in the ISN and totally prevent individual, fee simple townhouses from being built as a unit on multiple lots. This is exactly the kind of development that, I hope, the ISN comp plan will encourage. 
>> 
>> We now seem to have a situation in which one project, which will be seen as unfortunate, may be allowed while another that is very desirable will have to wait until some future time before it may begin. I do hope that you can think of some way to improve our situation before the ISN comp plan is finally achieved.
>> 
>> 
>> Hugh Nazor
>> hughn@mac.com
>> 
>> Copy to Nell for the Planning Board:  meeting re Phase 2 on 10/22/13
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Notice: Under Maine law, documents ‑ including e‑mails ‑ in the possession of public officials or city employees about government business may be classified as public records. There are very few exceptions. As a result, please be advised that what is written in an e‑mail could be released to the public and/or the media if requested.   ‑‑  
>> <p1.pdf><p2.pdf><p3.pdf><p4.pdf><p5.pdf><p6.pdf>
>