planning and development emily cole prescott … › hpc_packet_2019_0814.pdfplanning and...

Planning and Development Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole Prescott City Planner

[email protected] Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

Agenda Historic Preservation Commission

August 14, 2019 City Hall Conference Room (First Floor)

4:00 PM

1. Call to Order 2. Review Minutes of Previous Meeting: July 24, 2019 3. New Business, Public Hearings & Tabled Items:

a. Application Review & Public Hearing: 111 Elm Street (Map 38 Lot 127): Replacement windows

4. Old Business & Other Discussion a. Discussion with Parks & Recreation Director – Project Update and Next Steps b. Discussion with Tony Scavuzzo – Project Update/Section 106 c. Historic Building Plaques – Update d. Financials – Update e. Zoning Ordinance Revision – Update f. 90 Temple Street – RFP of Preservation Consultant/Fundraiser (1/7/19 City

Council Workshop – Council consensus to move forward) g. Financial Update h. Inquiries & Additional Discussion

Main Street 5. Tabled Items 6. Adjournment

mailto:[email protected]


1

Planning and Development Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner


Minutes Historic Preservation Commission

Wednesday, July 24, 2019 City Hall Conference Room

4:00 PM

1. Call to Order: Chair Kelley Archer called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM, with the following in attendance: Present: Chair Kelley Archer; Ernest Lowell*; Kate Gaudet; Diana Huot Absent: Julia May (excused); Steve Ryan (excused); Rob Biggs (excused) Also Present: Roger Gay, City Council Liaison; Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner *Chair Archer appointed Ernest Lowell as a voting member for this meeting.

2. Minutes of Previous Meetings a. June 12, 2019 Minutes: Diana Huot moved to waive the reading of the minutes of

the June 12th meeting. Kate Gaudet seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Chair Archer noted the following amendments to the June 12th minutes: Item 3.a. – COA Application: Add more clarification about this discussion. E. Cole-

Prescott indicated that this was a discussion on the update to the existing COA application. Chair Archer asked that the revisions the Commissioners requested to the application be reflected in the discussion of this item.

Item 3.b. – Election of Officers: This item was not added to the July 24th agenda, and Chair Archer asked that additional discussion be added about this item in the June 12th minutes.

Item 4.b. – City Council Workshop: Chair Archer asked that additional detail be added about this workshop, with the link to the presentation included in the minutes.

Kate Gaudet moved to adopt the June 12, 2019 minutes with the amendments as indicated above. Diana Huot seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

3. New Business a. Nomination & Election of Officers: Diana Huot moved to add Nomination and

Election of Offices to this evening’s agenda as item 3.a. Kate Gaudet seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Commissioners discussed their time constraints, and Diana Huot suggested that a nomination for Kelley Archer to continue as Chair be made. Diana Huot nominated Kelley Archer to serve as Chair. The nomination passed, 3-0-1, with Kelley Archer abstaining from the vote. The Commission decided to wait to nominate a Vice Chair until Steve Ryan and other members of the Commission were present to discuss. Kate Gaudet moved to elect Kelley Archer as Chair of the Commission. Diana Huot seconded the motion, and it carried, 3-0-1, with Kelley Archer abstaining from the vote.

b. Staff Level Approvals: Chair Archer asked E. Cole-Prescott for the staff level review update. E. Cole-Prescott shared the process updates made within the Department over



2

the past couple of weeks to implement a new tracking software. Moving forward, all applications will be numbered. This feature will provide a mechanism for better accountability and an option for enhanced annual reporting. E. Cole-Prescott shared the list of staff level approvals, and the location on the website where HPC approvals will be published starting in September. Diana Huot moved to adopt the staff comments and staff level approvals. Kate Gaudet seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

c. Application Review & Public Hearing: 445 Main Street (Map 33 Lot 25): Exterior Staircase on Structure Nate Green, applicant, was present for discussion. Chair Archer reviewed the information presented by the applicant and the City Planner, referencing the overview section of the Planner’s memo, indicating that the Commission could consider this review outside of their jurisdiction as the proposed staircase is in the rear of the existing building. Chair Archer moved that the project is outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction because the staircase is proposed to the rear of the structure and will therefore not be visible from a public way. The application will be sent back to the Planning & Development Department for follow up with the applicant. Diana Huot seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

4. Old Business a. Historic Buildings Plaques – Update – Emily Cole-Prescott updated the Commission

that the purchase order was approved before the close of the 2019 fiscal year, and she has coordinated with both the City Administrator and the Facility Manager. The direction from the HPC was that the first plaques purchased for the historic landmarks will be from the 2019 FY funds, and a program for homeowners will be developed after that. Emily Cole-Prescott will follow up in September on a draft program for the plaques.

b. Financials – Update: Emily Cole-Prescott presented the 2020 fiscal year update. The Commission received $5,500 through the budget process. The non-lapsing account amount was also reviewed. Emily Cole-Prescott will follow up on the questions of the financial records, relative to a $75 interest revenue item and a $5,331 amount. There was discussion on the remaining funds owed by Saco Main Street for a previous joint fundraiser. Chair Archer will follow up with the Commission members to draft a letter of concern about the funds. Chair Archer asked Emily Cole-Prescott to check into the City’s fundraising policy.

c. Zoning Ordinance Revision (ZOR) – Update: Chair Archer indicated that she had provided her proposed revisions to Emily Cole-Prescott who was planning to combine her revisions with the consultants’ proposal to be discussed at a future HPC meeting. Emily Cole-Prescott stated that the first draft of the ZOR has been emailed to multiple committees for their comment, and HPC was included in that email. Chair Archer noted that she had not received that email, and Emily Cole-Prescott replied that she will check the email list to ensure Chair Archer was included and will re-send the material.

d. 90 Temple Street – Update – Emily Cole-Prescott shared the work done on the draft RFP to date, which was written by SMPDC. She read it for the Commission’s consideration and will follow up with the full draft for the next meeting. Chair Archer mentioned concern about the general appearance of the property.

e. Other Discussion i. Meeting Packets: Chair Archer mentioned concern about the fact that the

meeting packet was not received five days before the meeting. Diana Huot noted

3

that this was a light meeting packet so it was not difficult to review the day before the meeting. Emily Cole-Prescott replied that this will not be a common occurrence, as it has not been a common occurrence as she has been working with the Commission. The Program Coordinator is scheduled to start in August, so Emily Cole-Prescott will not be required to prioritize the administrative tasks of scheduling the meeting and sending abutter notices over the date the meeting packets are sent for the Commission’s review. She explained that the first priority it to meet the notice requirements in ordinance.

ii. Meeting Cancellation, Publication & Fee Schedule: Chair Archer asked if the July 10th meeting cancellation cost the City the publication fee because the meeting was required to be re-published. Emily Cole-Prescott noted that because there is no application fee for COA applications, the cost of notice is always handled by the City. She mentioned that in the past she had discussed possibly adding a small fee to cover the cost of publications.

iii. HPC Agenda & Online Meeting Calendar: Chair Archer indicated that this meeting was not shown on the online meeting calendar for the City, and Emily Cole-Prescott noted that she had personally scheduled the room but does not control the online meeting calendar and will follow up. Emily Cole-Prescott replied that the agenda was posted online in the HPC agendas section. Emily Cole-Prescott stated that since the HPC determined that they plan to meet on the second Wednesdays of the month at the June meeting, she will request that this be added to the online meeting calendar on repeat.

iv. Lecture Series: Chair Archer noted that there had been previous discussion about hosting education and outreach for homeowners on various topics specific to renovation and maintenance of historic properties.

v. Training: E. Cole-Prescott indicated that she will be reaching out to other communities to host some joint trainings for Saco HPC and neighboring historic preservation commissions.

vi. Procedures and Handbook: Chair Archer noted that some items that the HPC will be working on in the future include updated procedures, such as a public hearing script and a handbook for new Commissioners.

5. Tabled Items: None. 6. Adjournment: Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:44 PM.




TO: Historic Preservation Commission CC: Jens-Peter W. Bergen & Gui Yun Bergen, Applicants FROM: Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner DATE: August 7, 2019 RE: 111 Elm Street (Map 38 Lot 127)/Application #19075: COA Review for

Replacement Windows Overview: Applicants Jens-Peter Bergen and Gui Yun Bergen request a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing wood windows with H3 aluminum clad double-hung windows. In discussion with Jens-Peter, he has indicated to me that the windows cannot be repaired in place, and, additionally, he is planning to replace for energy efficiency. The applicants have also included other construction they plan to complete on the house, but these items are on the interior or not visible from a public way and are therefore outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The applicants have presented quotes for each of the windows to be replaced and have provided the Commission with a brochure from the window company. The full brochure is in the file, but a section of it is included in this meeting packet. Completeness of Application: Below is the application checklist per section 230-413(I)(4): ☒ The applicant’s name, address, and interest in the subject property. If not representing the owner, the applicant shall provide evidence of right, title, or interest in the property. ☒ The owner’s name and address, if different from the applicant’s, and the owner’s signature. ☒ The address and tax map and lot number ☒ The present use and zoning classification of the subject property. ☒ A brief description of the new construction, reconstruction, alteration, maintenance, demolition or removal requiring the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. N/A A scale drawing or drawings of the exterior architectural features, indicating the design, texture, and location of any proposed alteration, reconstruction, maintenance or new construction for which the certificate is being applied. As used herein, drawings shall mean plans or exterior elevations drawn to scale, with sufficient detail to show, as far as they relate, exterior appearances, architectural design of the building(s), including materials and textures, including samples of exterior materials. Drawings shall be clear, completed and specific. This application is for replacement windows, so Staff views this item as not applicable. ☒ Photograph of the building involved and of adjacent buildings. Staff has added some additional photos

from Google Earth to supplement this submission. N/A A site plan indicating improvements affecting appearance, such as walls, walks, terraces, plantings accessory

(sic) buildings, signs, lights and other elements. Staff has found that this item is not applicable for this review, and the applicant has provided photos to document the existing appearance of the site.

Staff has found that the applicant has fulfilled the applicable, above submission requirements for this review. A suggested motion is: “I move to find the application complete.”



2

Historical Significance: The existing structure was built in 1876, known as the Dorrance Littlefield House and later as the Milliken House. At the time of the architectural survey, the property was listed as a multi-family in good condition. Style of structure is 1-1/2 story Greek Revival Vernacular. This property is included on the National Register, added when the Downtown Historic District was listed. I have asked the Assessor’s Office to update the property card to reflect the date of construction of 1876. Public Hearing: Per section 230-413(J)(2), the Commission holds a public hearing on applications. Notice of this hearing was published in The Journal Tribune, and the agenda was posted at City Hall, both postings in compliance with notice requirements. Letters to property owners about the application to notify them of the hearing were sent in compliance with ordinance requirements. Suggested motions: “I move to open the public hearing to receive public comment on the COA application for 111 Elm Street.” After public comment is received: “I move to close the public hearing on the COA application for 111 Elm Street.” Review of Standards & Discussion: The Commission should consider this application per the below ordinance standards. The Commission has the following standards of evaluation, per Ordinance §230-413(K):

(a) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the

defining characteristics of the building and its site environment. (b) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or

alteration of featured and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (c) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false

sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

(d) Most properties change over time; those that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

(e) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

(f) Deteriorated historical features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and, where possible, materials, subject to §230-413L. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

(g) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

(h) Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

(i) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

(j) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

3

Additional visual compatibility factors for consideration, per Ordinance Standards:

Windows and doors. The relationship of windows and doors in a building shall be compatible with those windows and doors to which the building is visually related, particularly to adjacent historic buildings of the same period.

Four measures for application review from Saco’s 2010 Historic District Guidelines:

1. Protect, preserve and enhance the outward appearance and architectural features of structures within designated districts or designated sites or landmarks;

2. Prevent the demolition or removal of significant historic buildings or structures within historic districts or designated sites or landmarks;

3. Preserve, protect and enhance the essential character of historic districts by protecting relationships of groups of buildings and structures;

4. Accept new buildings and structures in historic districts that are designed and built in a manner that is compatible with the character of the district

Conclusions and Recommendations: Staff has prepared the proposed findings of fact for the Commission’s consideration. The Commission should review the proposed findings and make revisions where applicable.

Proposed Findings of Fact Saco Historic Preservation Commission

Certificate of Appropriateness 111 Elm Street

August 14, 2019 The Historic Preservation Commission finds that: 1. The applicants and owners are Jens-Peter W. Bergen & Gui Yun Bergen, 79 Portland Road,

Kennebunk, ME. 2. Right, title and interest have been established by Warranty Deed filed on the York County

Registry, Book 14773 Page 203. 3. The applicant proposes replacement windows from existing wood windows to aluminum clad

double-hung windows per application and supporting materials. 4. The property is in the R-3 zone and Historic District. 5. Property is identified as Tax Map 38 Lot 127. 6. The applicant submitted the Certificate of Appropriateness application with supporting

submission requirements outlined in section 230-413(I)(4) of the Ordinance. 7. The application was first heard by the Historic Preservation Commission on August 14, 2019,

which meeting was noticed as a public hearing in The Journal Tribune in conformance with ordinance requirements. During this meeting, public comment was received.

The Historic Preservation Commission, after review of the application, makes the following findings, relative to the standards of section 230-413(K):

4

(a) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site environment: There is no proposed use change. The property has been used as a multi-family for many years, and this use has and will continue.

(b) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided: The applicant has indicated that there is no alternative to replacing the existing wooden windows and has proposed this review with remaining wood trim and accents around the windows to be preserved.

(c) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken: There are no changes proposed that would add a false sense of historical development.

(d) Most properties change over time; those that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved: The applicant proposes replacement windows – aluminum clad double-hung windows, which are not anticipated to deter from the historic character of the site.

(e) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. This application preserves the exterior look of the trim around the windows.

(f) Deteriorated historical features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and, where possible, materials, subject to §230-413L. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence: The applicant requests the Commission’s consideration of aluminum windows, planning to retain the outside trim around the windows to preserve the character of the windows.

(g) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible: None proposed.

(h) Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken: The applicant does not plan other renovations to the exterior of the site visible from a public way.

(i) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment: The applicant is planning several renovations to the interior, and with the number of renovations, should be cautioned to ensure construction preserves the structural and architectural features.

(j) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired: The applicant does not plan exterior renovations that would alter the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment.

5

Proposed Conditions of Approval Saco Historic Preservation Commission

Certificate of Appropriateness 111 Elm Street

August 14, 2019

1. All work shall be in compliance with Saco’s ordinance standards. The applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals per Saco’s ordinances, and State requirements. The applicant is required to obtain a permit from the Code Enforcement Department to replace windows.

2. No deviations from the proposed application relative to textures, building materials, etc. as discussed in this application are permitted. The applicant will be required to resubmit per ordinance standards if any revision is proposed to the work outlined in this approval.

3. The applicant is asked to provide the Planning & Development Department with photos of the completed work on the site, for the City’s records.

If after the Commission reviews and revises the findings and conditions, a suggested motion is: “I move to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 111 Elm Street per the findings of fact and conditions of approval dated August 14, 2019.”

Location 111 ELM ST Mblu 038/ / 127/ 000/000

Acct# P4065R Owner BERGEN JENS W

Assessment $192,500 PID 2912

Building Count 1 User Field 4 15

User Field 5 topoTopography

Utility Public Sewer,Public Water Location Historic Distr

Street/Road

Owner BERGEN JENS WCo-Owner LIU GUI YUNAddress 79 PORTLAND RD

KENNEBUNK, ME 04043

Sale Price $241,000CertificateBook & Page 14773/0203

Sale Date 03/01/2006Instrument 00

Year Built: 1897Living Area: 1,978Replacement Cost: $205,041Building Percent Good:

60

Replacement CostLess Depreciation: $123,000

ildi ib

Building Photo

111 ELM ST

Current Value

Assessment

Valuation Year Improvements Land Total

2018 $123,000 $69,500 $192,500

Owner of Record

Ownership History

Ownership History

Owner Sale Price Certificate Book & Page Instrument Sale Date

BERGEN JENS W $241,000 14773/0203 00 03/01/2006

PURVIS KIRK J $112,000 9321/0198 UNKQ 02/16/1999

Building Information

Building 1 : Section 1

Field Description

Style Family Duplex

Model Residential

Grade: AVERAGE +10

Stories: 2 Stories

Occupancy 2

Exterior Wall 1 Wood Shingle

Exterior Wall 2

Roof Structure: Gable/Hip

Roof Cover Asph/F Gls/Cmp

Interior Wall 1 Plastered

Interior Wall 2

Interior Flr 1 Pine/Soft Wood

Interior Flr 2 Hardwood

Heat Fuel Oil

Heat Type: Hot Water

AC Type: None

Total Bedrooms: 3 Bedrooms

Total Bthrms: 2

Total Half Baths: 0

Total Xtra Fixtrs:

Total Rooms: 9 Rooms

Bath Style: Average

Kitchen Style: Average

Num Kitchens 02

Cndtn

Usrfld 103

Usrfld 104

Usrfld 105

Usrfld 106

Usrfld 107

Num Park

Fireplaces

Usrfld 108

Usrfld 101

Usrfld 102

Usrfld 100

Usrfld 300

Usrfld 301

Legend

(http://images.vgsi.com/photos/SacoMEPhotos//00\00\38\00.j

Building Layout

(ParcelSketch.ashx?pid=2912&bid=2912)

Building Sub-Areas (sq ft)

Code DescriptionGrossArea

LivingArea

BAS First Floor 1,431 1,431

FHS Half Story, Finished 1,093 547

FGR Garage, Framed 240 0

UAT Attic, Unfinished 320 0

UBM Basement, Unfinished 1,093 0

UEP Porch, Enclosed, Unfinished 210 0

UOP Porch, Open, Unfinished 54 0

4,441 1,978

Legend

Extra Features

Extra Features

Land Use

Use Code 1040Description TWO FAMILY MDL-01Zone R-3Neighborhood 310Alt Land Appr NoCategory

Land Line Valuation

Size (Acres) 0.17FrontageDepthAssessed Value $69,500

Legend

(c) 2019 Vision Government Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

No Data for Extra Features

Land

Outbuildings

Outbuildings

No Data for Outbuildings

Valuation History

Assessment

Valuation Year Improvements Land Total

2017 $119,800 $69,500 $189,300

2016 $151,800 $55,000 $206,800

2015 $149,900 $55,000 $204,900

2014 $149,900 $55,000 $204,900

Google Earth images for properties adjacent to 111 Elm Street:

Application Received by E. Cole-Prescott on 07/30/19




TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner DATE: August 12, 2019 RE: Section 106 Review – Train Station Tony Scavuzzo, Executive Director of BSOOB Transit and I have met to discuss completing a Section 106 review for this property. Because federal funding with the FTA is pursued, Tony Scavuzzo has been asked to complete a Section 106 review of the project. For the Commission’s reference, here is a link to a helpful guide about the Section 106 review process: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review. As the Commission is aware, this property is not located within the local historic district, and is therefore, not subject to a plan review per section 230-413 of the current ordinance standards. The Section 106 will be reviewed by the ME State Historic Preservation Office. However, whenever a Section 106 review is pursued, the local Commission should be involved to discuss the project and provide some feedback about how the proposal may or may not impact surrounding historic district(s). In this case, there is a local historic district in the downtown that is listed on the National Register, along with a federal district (not locally designated) with Biddeford that encompasses the mill properties. Tony Scavuzzo plans to attend the August 14th meeting, discuss the project, and obtain the Commission’s feedback about the proposal. His PowerPoint presentation is attached.



https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-04/CitizenGuide2015v4-spreads%20layout.pdf




Saco Transportation CenterElectric Charging StationHistoric Preservation Committee

August 14, 2019

Tony Scavuzzo

Executive Director – BSOOB Transit

Saco Transportation Center

• New hub of the Shuttlebus service.

• Started August 1.

• Buses now return there every 60-75 minutes.

Electric Bus Project Evolution

- BSOOB Transit taking delivery of 2 Electric buses in January 2021. Project has just kicked off.



- Buses are 100% electric, zero emission, carbon neutral, fully sustainable.




- Buses are fully funded – 80% FTA VW settlement, 20% ME DOT match.





- Part of VW settlement is sunsetting of diesel engines to ensure no future use.





- Part of VW settlement is sunsetting of diesel engines to ensure no future use.

- Buses will need an on route electric charging station to support daily operation.

Section 106 analysis

• FTA has asked for a Section 106 analysis for the electric charging station location and installation.

• Spoken with Emily Prescott last week on collaborating on effort needed.

• Do not need a full site analysis from this group, just looking for consultation, feedback and support for our submission to FTA.

• Grant request for electric buses has been sent to FTA without the electric charger piece. Plan is to chase the grant request with the Section 106 analysis documentation asap.

Location Analysis

For the group…..- What potential effect could this have on the surrounding historic area?


- Saco Transportation Center is adjacent to historic districts, not within



- Construction has minimal displacement impact




- Needed electric lines are already very close from windmill





- Similar aesthetics to former windmill, but not as large






- Leaning toward “No Historic Properties Effected” designation






- Leaning toward “No Historic Properties Effected” designation

- Looking for subject matter expertise from the group

Questions

Administration Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Kevin L. Sutherland City Administrator

[email protected] Phone: (207) 710-5002

City of Saco Request for Proposal

Historic Preservation – 90 Temple St. Feasibility Study

The City of Saco, a community of approximately 20,000 people located in Southern Maine and at the headwaters of the Saco River, is seeking professional Architectural services to assess a specific historic property in the City’s downtown core. The property is the Seavey property located at 90 Temple Street and is currently owned by the City of Saco. The City has a designated Historic District, however, this property is located outside of the district along with approximately 9 other properties. The property is on the National Register of Historic Places and has appeared on WCSH news as part of the history surrounding a vehicle (LaSalle) previously owned by Lenora Seavey, restored to its’ grandeur by Mr. Larry Tribble owner of Southern Auto Auction East Windsor, Connecticut

On April 1st of 2012, the property experienced a fire that has left the home exposed to the elements and only protected by tarps covering the roof where the fire had occurred. Maine Historic Preservation staff has been in to inspect the property in order to determine if it should be delisted from the endangered property list. At this time the state has decided not to delist the property in order to give the community an opportunity to rehab it accordingly.

The property is an 1890 Queen Anne style home originally designed by Josiah Littlefield a well know New England Architect.

Proposals must include responses to all requirements contained within this RFP, in a sealed envelope marked “RFP – 90 Temple Street.” Proposals will be accepted until 11:00 AM on Friday, ________ at the Finance Office, Attn: Emily Cole-Prescott at Saco City Hall, located at 300 Main Street, Saco, Maine, 04072. There will be a public opening of all proposals received at that time.

Any questions regarding the project specifications should be directed to Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner, by emailing [email protected].

The attached response form must be completed and included with your proposal. Failure to submit a complete package will nullify your proposal. The City of Saco reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or negotiate with a proposer following the public opening without right or recourse by vendors, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so.

The City of Saco is sales tax exempt.

Reviewed and approved by:

_______________________________ ___________________ Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator Date





2

City of Saco

Historic Preservation – 90 Temple St. Feasibility Study Project Specifications

The City of Saco seeks responses from consultants with experience working on projects of comparable size and scope as well as expertise in applicable best practices. This RFP is intended for qualified, experienced professional consultants whose firms have successfully completed similar feasibility studies and work for other municipalities in Maine in the past. Expertise in Maine historic preservation techniques is preferred.

I. Background Community Profile The City of Saco is a service center community within the Portland-South Portland-Biddeford Metropolitan Statistical Area (pop. 523,874). Access to Saco is convenient and multi-modal, via I-95, U.S. Route 1, the Amtrak Downeaster, and the Eastern Trail. Saco is a 20-minute drive from Maine’s largest city, Portland, and a one hour, 45-minute drive from Boston. The estimated 2017 population of 19,485 1, makes Saco the 10th largest community in Maine2 The Saco Industrial Park, Spring Hill Industrial Park, and the Mill Brook Business Park host a variety of office, technology, light industrial and distribution businesses. Plans are under way as of Fall 2018 for a new City-owned business park to be established off U.S. Route 1, within the federal Opportunity Zone established in May 2018. Saco’s historic downtown is one of many distinctive features that draw new residents and visitors. Two National Register historic districts encompass a variety of 19th and 20th century industrial, commercial and residential buildings in a downtown that borders the Saco River, easily explored via the City’s River Walk. The City’s coast features miles of sandy beach on beautiful Saco Bay, including the quiet wonders of Ferry Beach State Park and the Rachel Carson Preserve. The Saco Heath and Cascade Falls are unique natural resources accessible thanks to a City-wide trails network. Saco Main Street, a Main Street America organization, the Biddeford-Saco Chamber of Commerce, and the City’s Planning and Development Department are quick to point to all of the above and more as reasons why Saco – “Friendly by Nature” – is the community of choice for residents, new arrivals, and business relocations.

1 www.worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/saco-me.population/ 2 https://www.maine-demographics.com/cities_by_population

II. Project Purposes The HPC and City are seeking a feasibility study for this property, to better understand the costs of rehabilitation, to identify how best to rehabilitate the property, and to identify how the property may be re-purposed to meet the City’s historic preservation goals and the City’s growing community needs. It is anticipated that there will be a minimum of 3 meetings with the HPC to 1) kick off the process, 2) interview and discuss all issues surrounding the property and the HPC’s desired outcomes, and 3) final meeting to present all of the findings to the HPC; 4) completed feasibility study about the costs, challenges and opportunities to rehabilitate the property. The consultants should also plan on several meetings with the municipal staff and a presentation to the City Council upon conclusion of the study with conceptual designs which should include analysis in the following areas: • Structural integrity of the property including how to address the historic and

architectural issues surrounding the portion of the property which had burned. • Potential Brownfields analysis associated with the future rehab of the property

including asbestos, lead paint and any other issues that may be found during the investigation.

• Recommendations on the highest and best reuse of the property based on the internal layout, structural analysis and any expansions that could occur if needed.

• Conceptual drawings of the recommended rehabilitation by the architects. • Based on the architects recommendations provide a cost estimate(s) in order to

complete the rehabilitation of the property with and without the LEED option included.

The HPC is seeking to understand how this project may better fit into educational and historic goals of the City’s, and therefore is looking for the feasibility study to include recommendations about: • Fund raising for rehabilitation of historical properties which can be used for projects

such as the Seavey property. • Educational information which can be used to show the need and benefit of

preserving community historic properties and heritage.

III. Scope of Project The project is expected to include close interaction and cooperation with City staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the City Council to collect input and collaborate on the development of the feasibility study.

IV. Project Outcome Guiding Principles

V. Product/Deliverables/Timeline 1. Initial Review and Analysis. 2. Historic Preservation Commission Meetings. 3. Draft Feasibility Study and Presentation. 4. Deliverables. 5. Timeline.

4

VI. Submission Requirements Proposal Format and Required Contents The proposal package should consist of the following information:

1. Cover Letter. A cover letter expressing the firm’s interest in working with the City of Saco including identification of the principal individual(s) that will provide requested services. The cover letter must identify a contact person for questions during selection process and provide contact information including telephone number, e-mail and postal address. It should also provide a brief description of the firm, including number of years the firm has been in existence, range of professional services, office locations, and staff size.

2. Work Approach and Timeframe. A description of the approach to be taken toward completion of the project, an explanation of any variances to the proposed scope of work as outlined in this RFP, and any insights into the project gained as a result of developing the proposal. Include your proposed work program describing recommended tasks for the project's basic components, and a proposed schedule that indicates project milestones and overall time for completion. In addition, describe your proposed public participation program for the project’s components including how the staff and/or the Historic Preservation Commission will be included in the project.

3. Project Team. A description of the proposed project team (including any subcontractors), identifying each key member, their respective responsibilities and expected project role, and brief resumes describing their academic credentials, professional licenses or certifications, relevant publications, and experience on similar projects.

4. Qualifications and References. Provide descriptions of past experience relevant to drafting feasibility studies and working on historic preservation and architecturally-related projects. Descriptions should give the specifics of the services provided and include an explanation of why the project is considered similar. A reference, including name, title, address, and phone number, should also be included as part of the description of each project. Include a narrative statement providing information regarding the consultant’s knowledge and understanding of historic preservation techniques, projects specific to Maine or the Northeast, previous experience with federal programs for historic rehabilitation, and fundraising programs for similar endeavors.

5. Project Cost and Fees. A cost proposal consisting of: a) a composite schedule by task of direct labor hours; b) an overall not-to-exceed bid price for completing the project as described in your response; and c) an itemized schedule of all expenses, including both labor and direct expenses. If the use of sub-consultants is proposed, a separate schedule of expenses must be provided for each sub-consultant.

Submission Submit one printed proposal in a sealed package clearly labeled with the consultant’s name and address; and submit an electronic version in .PDF format. Proposals shall not be returned and will become property of the City of Saco. Your proposal must include responses to all requirements contained within this RFP. By submitting a proposal, your firm agrees to all applicable provisions, terms and conditions

5

associated with this RFP. This RFP, your submitted proposal, all appendices and attachments (if applicable), and stated terms and conditions may become part of the resulting contract. Submissions must be received hard copy / electronically by: Friday, _________ at 11 AM. City of Saco Finance Department ATTN: Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner Planning & Development Department 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072 [email protected] Questions regarding the proposal specifications should be directed to Emily Cole-Prescott at [email protected]. All questions must be submitted in writing no later than 10 days prior to the date for submission of proposals. Questions and answers regarding the RFP may be shared with all consultants known to be interested in submitting a proposal.



planning and development emily cole prescott … › hpc_packet_2019_0814.pdfplanning and...

Documents