Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

Agenda Historic Preservation Commission

April 10, 2019 City Hall Conference Room (First Floor)

Regular Meeting 4:00 PM

1. Call to Order 2. Review Minutes of Previous Meeting: March 20, 2019 3. New Business

a. Application Review & Public Hearing (pending finding of complete application): 75 Beach Street (Map 32 Lot 65) – Application for Certificate of Appropriateness for 30’ by 30’ expansion to current dog park for a small dog park area Applicant: Saco Parks & Recreation Department

b. Application Review & Public Hearing (pending finding of complete application): 103 Beach Street (Map 32 Lot 64) – Application for Certificate of Appropriateness to construct 7 condominium units within three buildings with associated site improvements Applicant: Collin Homes Inc.

c. Discussion – HPC Regular & Associate Members, Vice Chair & 2 potential new applicants

4. Other Business a. ZOR – Historic District Ordinance: Consultants Tom Morgan and Liz Durfee to

discuss project with the Commission b. 90 Temple Street – RFP of Preservation Consultant/Fundraiser (1/7/19 City

Council Workshop – Council consensus to move forward) c. 2019 CLG Grant Update d. Historic Preservation Financial Reports e. Inquiries & Additional Discussion

5. Old Business 6. Tabled Items 7. Adjournment

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Maggie Edwards Administrative Assistant

MEdwards@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.353

Minutes Historic Preservation Commission Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:00pm

Members Present: Kelley Archer, Chairperson; Katherine Gaudet; Ernest Lowell; Julia May.

Member Rob Biggs came in late at 4:27pm

Members Absent: Diana Huot, Stephen Ryan

Board Representative: Emily Cole Prescott, City Planner, and Roger Gay, city councilor, Ward 2

Kelley called to order the HPC meeting. She appointed both Ernest Lowell and Julia May as

regular voting members, in order to make quorum.

Kelley made comment that all the same members at the March 6 meeting, are the same

tonight.

• Review Minutes of Previous Meeting: March 6, 2019. Kelley made mention of 2 corrections on page 2 & 3. Visible within 75ft of a public way. The

75ft should be removed. Katherine moved accept the minutes with corrections, seconded

by Julia, and so moved 4-0.

• Continued application review: 7 Vernon Street, Tax Map 39, Lot 22. Zoned R-2 & Historic District. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of siding. Applicant is Shawn Googins

Kelley: This is a continuation of the review of the March 6 meeting for 7 Vernon Street.

Emily: Applicant, Shawn Goggin’s has requested review to replace the siding on his building at

7 Vernon Street. The applicant provided a description of work. Due to the rot of the current

wooden shakes siding, it had to be removed for tenants. Vinyl siding to be replacing. The

applicant was asked to consider the siding materials for the structure and bring samples for

review. He was asked to also provide quotes on Installing vinyl siding vs. clapboard siding,

which he has and are part of your packets. Mr. Googin’s has also installed a metal roof, which

he will have to provide an application for.

Kelley opened the public hearing.

Shawn Googin’s, applicant: the vinyl siding is high quality and looks like wood.

Kelley closed the public hearing and then opened to the Board.

Katherine referred the Board to page 4 of the Preservation Brief under “Historic Buildings” and

the 3 items that they reference, that the Board should review.

1) the existing siding is so deteriorated or damaged that it cannot be repaired;

2) the substitute material can be installed without irreversibly damaging or obscuring the

architectural features and trim of the building.

3) the substitute material can match the historic material in size, profile and finish so that

there is no change in the character of the historic building. In cases where a non-historic

artificial siding has been applied to a building, the removal of such a siding, and the application

of aluminum or vinyl siding would, in most cases, be an acceptable alternative, as long as the

above mentioned first two conditions are met.

Kelley: a good many houses on that street are clapboard. We need to keep the integrity of

the historic architecture. If the applicant wants to prove hardship, the HPC does not rule on

the financial aspect. The HPC is charged with 225 assets in the city. We need to educate the

public.

Brett Kilcalling – He did submit a quote and there is $12,000 worth of rot repair. There is a

significant difference in cost with clapboard vs. vinyl siding.

Kelley: the HPC is charged with Federal and State quidelines. Looking at #2 from the

Preservation Brief. Undertake routine materials. The Board agreed. #3 Repair historic

materials and features. #4 Replace severely damaged or deteriorated historic mat’ls and

features in kind.

Julia: we need to uphold the ordinance, but at the same time give consideration.

4:27pm. Kelley acknowledged the late arrival of board member, Robb Biggs.

Katherine: are we opening up to the people wanting to take clapboards off and wanting to

add vinyl siding?

Kelley opened to the public for comment.

Doug McKray, 8 Vernon Street. He owns a house that is over 150 years old, and its clapboard.

They have worked very hard to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. He has nothing

against Mr. Googin’s, but he is not in agreement of the vinyl siding. The cement board is not

good product. The Board should not allow him to add vinyl.

Kelley brought it back to the Board.

Emily: it’s hard to know what the siding was before. There is no documentation of surveys to

know. Maybe the two sides that are visible from the street could be clapboard, and the back

wall that is not visible from the street be vinyl?

Katherine: we don’t want to set a precedence, but in this case, she would agree to vinyl.

5:00pm Katherine had to leave.

Kelley appointed Rob Biggs as a regular voting member, so the board still had a quorum.

After much discussion, the Board was in agreement that the building should remain wood, in

order to preserve and maintain the character of the structure.

Motion:

Julia: I move that the HPC deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for vinyl siding for 7

Vernon Street, per the application materials submitted March 6, 2019 and March 20, 2019

that was reviewed and discussed tonight by the Board, seconded by Ernest, and so moved.

4-0.

Meeting adjourned at 5:20pm

Respectfully submitted by,

Maggie Edwards

Board Secretary

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

TO: Historic Preservation Commission CC: Ryan Sommer, Parks & Recreation Director FROM: Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner DATE: April 1, 2019 RE: 75 Beach Street (Map 32 Lot 65): Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for 30’ by 30’ Dog Park Expansion for small dog park

Overview: Applicant Ryan Sommer, Director of the Parks & Recreation Department, requests review of a Certificate of Appropriateness application to expand the existing dog park located at 75 Beach Street. The proposed expanded area will be about 900 square feet, for small dogs to enjoy the park. This project would be an expansion to the existing dog park previously approved by the HPC in 2013. For reference purposes only, this material is attached to this memo. Lastly, for the Board’s reference and review, the Vision property record is included. 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.

☒ 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.

☒ Photograph of the building involved and of adjacent buildings.

☒ A site plan indicating improvements affecting appearance, such as walls, walks, terraces, plantings accessory (sic) buildings, signs, lights and other elements. In staff’s opinion, the application is complete. If the HPC agrees, then a suggested motion is: “I move to find the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 75 Beach Street complete.” Public Hearing

2

Per section 230-413(J)(2), the Commission holds a public hearing on applications. Notice of this hearing was published in The Journal Tribune on April 3, 2019, and the agenda was posted at City Hall in compliance with notice requirements. Suggested motions: “I move to open the public hearing to receive public comment on the COA application for 75 Beach Street.” After public comment is received: “I move to close the public hearing on the COA application for 75 Beach Street.” Review of 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.

Additional visual compatibility factors for consideration, per Ordinance Standards:

(a) Height. In addition to complying with the height standard of Table 412-1 and the height waiver standards of §230-412E, the height of a property building or addition shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures when viewed from a public street.

(b) Width. The width of the building shall be compatible with buildings, structures and open spaces to which it is visually related.

(c) 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.

3

(d) Relation of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade of a building shall be compatible with that of other buildings to which it is visually related.

(e) Rhythm of spacing of buildings on streets. The relationship of the building to the open space between it and adjoining buildings shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related.

(f) Rhythm of entrance and/or porch projection. The relationship of entrance and porch projections to sidewalks of a building shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related.

(g) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of materials and texture shall be compatible with that of predominant materials used in buildings to which it is visually related.

(h) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a building shall be compatible with that of buildings to which it is visually related.

(i) Scale of buildings. The size of a building, the building mass in relationship to open spaces, the windows, door openings, porches and balconies shall be compatible with those characteristics of buildings and spaces to which it is visually related.

(j) Directional expression of front elevation. A building shall be compatible with the building, squares and places to which it is visually related in its directional character, whether this be vertical character, horizontal character, or nondirectional character.

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. If the Commission agrees with the proposed findings, a suggested motion is: “I move to adopt the following findings of fact for the application for a COA for 75 Beach Street.”

Proposed Findings of Fact Saco Historic Preservation Commission

Certificate of Appropriateness 75 Beach Street April 10, 2019

The Historic Preservation Commission finds that: 1. The applicant is Saco Parks & Recreation Department, 75 Franklin Street, Saco, ME 04072. 2. The property owner is the City of Saco, ME, 300 Main Street, Saco, ME 04072. 3. The applicant proposes 30’ by 30’ fenced expansion of the existing dog park, for a small dog

area. 4. The property is located in the R-3 zone and the Historic District. 5. Property is identified as Tax Map 32 Lot 65.

4

6. The applicant has submitted the COA application, narrative, plan showing existing and proposed dimensions, photos of the surrounding area(s), and quote for fencing following application submission requirements outlined in section 230-413(I)(4) of the Ordinance.

7. The application was accepted by the Planning & Development Department on March 27, 2019. The application was first heard by the Historic Preservation Commission on April 10, 2019, which meeting was noticed as a public hearing in The Journal Tribune on April 3, 2019, 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):

(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: No use change to the property is proposed with this application.

(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 HPC had approved this the original dog park in 2013, and this is only an expansion of the existing.

(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 create 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: This property has changed over time, and does not deter from the overall Historic District. This proposal does not plan alteration to any property feature of historical significance.

(e) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved: No changes proposed to architectural features on site.

(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 does not plan any restoration/repair with this application.

(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: This application does not propose use of any chemical or physical treatments.

(h) Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken: No significant architectural features will be altered per this application.

(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 proposes extension of the existing dog park and a walkway, which is in character and scale with existing conditions at the site.

(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: This applicant proposes additional fencing and walkway on site only.

5

The Commission, finds relative to the following standards in section 230-413K(4): (a) Height. In addition to complying with the height standard of Table 412-1 and the height waiver standards of

§230-412E, the height of a property building or addition shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures when viewed from a public street: No change proposed.

(b) Width. The width of the building shall be compatible with buildings, structures and open spaces to which it is visually related. No change proposed.

(c) 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. No change proposed.

(d) Relation of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade of a building shall be compatible with that of other buildings to which it is visually related. No change proposed.

(e) Rhythm of spacing of buildings on streets. The relationship of the building to the open space between it and adjoining buildings shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related: No change proposed.

(f) Rhythm of entrance and/or porch projection. The relationship of entrance and porch projections to sidewalks of a building shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related: No change proposed.

(g) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of materials and texture shall be compatible with that of predominant materials used in buildings to which it is visually related: Applicant proposes materials which will be relative to existing materials for the dog park fencing.

(h) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a building shall be compatible with that of buildings to which it is visually related. No change proposed.

If, after receiving public comment and further reviewing the application, members agree with the information herein provided, a suggested motion is: “I move that the HPC grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to applicant Ryan Sommer, Director of Parks & Recreation and the City of Saco, at 75 Beach Street for the work specified in the application materials, with the following conditions of approval.”

Proposed Conditions of Approval Saco Historic Preservation Commission

Certificate of Appropriateness 75 Beach Street April 10, 2019

1. All work shall be in compliance with Saco’s ordinance standards. 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 required to provide the Planning & Development Department with photos of the completed work on the site, showing completion of the work for the City’s records.

2013 Approval

For reference purposes only

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

TO: Historic Preservation Commission CC: Gary Collin, Collin Homes Inc. Andy Morrell, BH2M FROM: Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner DATE: April 3, 2019 RE: 103 Beach Street (Map 32 Lot 64): Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for 7- Unit Residential Condominiums in Three Buildings with associated parking and utilities

Overview: Applicant Gary Collin, Collin Homes, Inc., requests review of a Certificate of Appropriateness application to construct a 7-unit townhouse condominium to be used as a rental property behind the existing two-family residential structure located at 103 Beach Street. The conceptual plan shows the townhomes developed toward the rear of the property, with a division of the property into two lots. The structures as proposed will be visible from Pepperrell Park. For the Commission’s reference, a photo of the area from the City’s GIS system, the Vision property card, and the architectural survey of the existing structure are all included with this memo. Also included is a map of the Historic District with this property location called out. This will be the first step of a several-step application process, that will require Planning Board’s review of both subdivision regulations and site plan ordinances. 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.

☒ 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.

☒ Photograph of the building involved and of adjacent buildings.

☒ A site plan indicating improvements affecting appearance, such as walls, walks, terraces, plantings accessory (sic) buildings, signs, lights and other elements.

2

Staff has found the application to be complete. If the HPC agrees, then a suggested motion is: “I move to find the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 103 Beach Street complete.” Historical Significance The existing structure was surveyed in the 1990s. The property was known as the Dr. Goodwin House, and at time of survey, was a two-family structure, Queen Anne-style house with 1-1/2 stories. At the time of the survey, the siding material was labeled as “aluminum/vinyl.” Estimated date of construction is 1890, with a major renovation in 1983 and sunporch addition in 1986. While it is estimated that this property had been constructed in 1890, there have been changes made to the structure since that time, such as adding vinyl/aluminum siding. Below is a GIS photo showing the property relative to other properties in the area:

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 on April 3, 2019, and the agenda was posted at City Hall in compliance with notice requirements. Suggested motions: “I move to open the public hearing to receive public comment on the COA application for 103 Beach Street.” After public comment is received: “I move to close the public hearing on the COA application for 103 Beach Street.”

3

Review of Standards & Discussion The Commission should discuss this potential infill as proposed per the below ordinance standards. Staff has provided the following findings of fact for the Commission’s consideration. The Commission may consider asking the applicant questions related to any of the below ordinance standards. Some of the below standards more aptly apply to existing structures, and it is important to keep in mind that the applicant does not plan changes to the existing structure, but rather new construction behind the structure. It will be helpful to refer to page 41 (and other sections) of the Historic District Guidelines. For quick reference, here is a link to this document: 2010 Historic District Guidelines. Because this property is so close to the end of the Historic District (or the beginning, depending on direction of travel), it will be reasonable to consider properties both in the Historic District and around the existing structure and lot. The Historic District Guidelines has the following statement: “ . . . the new construction should not damage the historic district’s character-defining features, including important landscape features and open space . . .” 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.

Additional visual compatibility factors for consideration, per Ordinance Standards:

4

(a) Height. In addition to complying with the height standard of Table 412-1 and the height waiver standards of §230-412E, the height of a property building or addition shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures when viewed from a public street.

(b) Width. The width of the building shall be compatible with buildings, structures and open spaces to which it is visually related.

(c) 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.

(d) Relation of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade of a building shall be compatible with that of other buildings to which it is visually related.

(e) Rhythm of spacing of buildings on streets. The relationship of the building to the open space between it and adjoining buildings shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related.

(f) Rhythm of entrance and/or porch projection. The relationship of entrance and porch projections to sidewalks of a building shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related.

(g) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of materials and texture shall be compatible with that of predominant materials used in buildings to which it is visually related.

(h) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a building shall be compatible with that of buildings to which it is visually related.

(i) Scale of buildings. The size of a building, the building mass in relationship to open spaces, the windows, door openings, porches and balconies shall be compatible with those characteristics of buildings and spaces to which it is visually related.

(j) Directional expression of front elevation. A building shall be compatible with the building, squares and places to which it is visually related in its directional character, whether this be vertical character, horizontal character, or nondirectional character.

Additional consideration for construction of new buildings: In addition to the standards above, the construction of a new building or structure or an addition to an existing building or structure within a historic district or on an historic site shall be generally or such design, form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, and location on a lot as will be compatible with other buildings in the historic district and with streets and open spaces to which it is visually related and in keeping with (sic) area. 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

5

Certificate of Appropriateness 103 Beach Street

April 10, 2019 The Historic Preservation Commission finds that: 1. The applicant and property owner is Collin Homes, Inc., 574 Walker Road, Lyman, ME

04002. 2. Right, title and interest have been established by deed filed on the York County Registry, Book

17891 page 484. 3. The applicant proposes new construction in the Historic District, in the rear of the property of

103 Beach Street, for 7 residential townhouse units in three buildings with associated site improvements.

4. The property is located in the B-7 zone and the Historic District. 5. Property is identified as Tax Map 32 Lot 64. 6. The applicant has submitted the COA application with supporting application submission

requirements outlined in section 230-413(I)(4) of the Ordinance. 7. The application was initially accepted by the Planning & Development Department on March

27, 2019. The application was first heard by the Historic Preservation Commission on April 10, 2019, which meeting was noticed as a public hearing in The Journal Tribune on April 3, 2019, 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):

(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: This proposal would increase the existing multi-family use (two-unit structure) at the property, having 7 units on the parcel in the rear, proposed to be split from the existing parcel. While this involves a change to the existing site, it does not involve any changes to the existing structure on site. This property is near other properties that are both in and out of the Historic District, some of which are multi-family.

(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 existing structure will not be changed. This proposal will split the rear of the parcel to develop seven residential townhomes. This property abuts open space, and therefore the removal of this portion of the rear property will not substantially alter the structure or its environ.

(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: The proposal showing design of the townhomes does not include features that would create a false sense of history.

(d) Most properties change over time; those that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved: This property has been sided in vinyl for a number of years, has served as a two-family structure, and is surrounded by properties that are both within and outside of the District.

(e) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved: No changes are proposed to the existing structure.

6

(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: No changes proposed to existing structure.

(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: No chemical or physical treatments are proposed with this application.

(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 existing structure will be maintained, and will be protected through construction process.

(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 new townhomes are proposed to be two stories above grade, with duplex style entries, vinyl siding, and asphalt shingles. The Commission can discuss materials with the applicant, asking for additional information about any of the proposed exterior finishes.

(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: This development is proposed in the Historic District, behind an existing structure. The land included with the existing structure will be altered permanently with this proposal, but the existing structure will not be altered.

The Commission, finds relative to the following standards in section 230-413K(4):

(a) Height. In addition to complying with the height standard of Table 412-1 and the height waiver standards of §230-412E, the height of a property building or addition shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures when viewed from a public street: The existing structure is 1-1/2 stories. The townhomes are proposed to be two stories above grade. The total proposed height is 26’4”.

(b) Width. The width of the building shall be compatible with buildings, structures and open spaces to which it is visually related. Proposed width of duplexes is 36’ according to the plan. The existing structure on site is approximately 30’ in the front with visible portion in the rear of about 15’. (These dimensions are approximated from the included Vision property record).

(c) 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. The Commission should review and discuss this standard with the applicant.

(d) Relation of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade of a building shall be compatible with that of other buildings to which it is visually related.

(e) Rhythm of spacing of buildings on streets. The relationship of the building to the open space between it and adjoining buildings shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related: A GIS photo of the surrounding area is included with this memo, for the Commission’s review.

(f) Rhythm of entrance and/or porch projection. The relationship of entrance and porch projections to sidewalks of a building shall be compatible with those of buildings to which it is visually related: The Commission should consider and discuss this standard with the applicant.

(g) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of materials and texture shall be compatible with that of predominant materials used in buildings to which it is visually related: The applicant has proposed asphalt shingles for the roof, and vinyl siding for the structures. The existing structure on site has vinyl and aluminum siding.

7

(h) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a building shall be compatible with that of buildings to which it is visually related. The existing structure has a unique roof. The Commission should discuss this standard with the applicant.

If, after receiving public comment and further reviewing the application, members agree with above findings and make revisions to those findings after discussion, a motion is: “I move that the HPC grant (deny) a Certificate of Appropriateness to applicant Collin Homes Inc., at 103 Beach Street for the proposal specified in the application materials, per the above findings of fact and with the following conditions of approval.”

Proposed Conditions of Approval Saco Historic Preservation Commission

Certificate of Appropriateness 103 Beach Street

April 10, 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.

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 required to provide the Planning & Development Department with photos of the completed work on the site, showing completion of the work for the City’s records.

Scale: 1/4":1'

ELE-FR

1

CO

LLINH

OM

ES

,I

NC

.

QU

AL

IT

Y H

OM

ES

SIN

CE

1

98

7

Scale: 1/4":1'

ELE-REAR

3

Scale: 1/4":1'

ELE-FR

2

Scale: 1/4":1'

ELE-REAR

4

UP

DOWN

25'-0"

36'-0"

2668

3068

2868

9 LITE

A A

BB

C

C

2868

2668

DOWN

36'-0"

3068

5068

3068

3068

3068

5068

KING

27'-0"

BB

A A

2668

5' TUB

DOWN

2668

5' TUB

WINDOW SCHEDULE

TAG QUANTITY ROUGH OPG

A 4 73

1

4

"H X 61W

B 4 37

1

4

"H X 61"W

C 2 40

1

4

"H X 39

1

4

"W

D 2 29

1

4

"H X 42

1

4

"W

Scale: 1/4":1'

1ST FLOOR

5

CO

LLINH

OM

ES

,I

NC

.

QU

AL

IT

Y H

OM

ES

SIN

CE

1

98

7

Scale: 1/4":1'

2ND FLOOR

6

13'-3

1

2

"11'-8

1

2

"

3'-7"

2x6 PT SILL PLATE

2X6X8' STUDS

16" O/C

1

2

"OSB SHEETHING

VINYL SIDING

TYVEK HOUSWRAP

2 X10 HEADERS

2X10X14' FLOOR JOISTS

16" O/C

2X6 PLATES

VINYL SOFFIT

2X6 FASCIA

ALUMINUM WRAP

8" WHITE

ALUMINUM WRAP

ICE & WATER SHIELD

5

8

OSB SHEETHING

FELT PAPER

25 YEAR ASPHALT

THREE TAB

ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSS

24" O/C

COBRA RIDGE

VENT

4'-10" X 8"

FOUNDATION

16"X8" FOOTING

3

4

"ADVANTEK

1X3 STRAPPING

7'-11

1

4

"

7'-11

1

4

"

(3)-2X12 GIRDER

6'-7

3

4

"

2X6X8'

RAFTERS

2X6X10'

JOISTS

1X3 BRIDGING

1X3 BRIDGING

2X10X14' FLOOR JOISTS

16" O/C

R-21 INSULATION

R-42 INSULATION

3'-4

1

4

"

26'-4"

1

2

" SOUNDBOARD

SOUNDCHANNEL

5

8

" SHEETROCK

1" SPACE FROM

FL.1-FLOOR TO

TOP OF ROOF

TRUSS@ PEAK

ROOF TRUSS

2X10 FLOOR JOISTS

NO SOUNDBOARD OR

SOUND-CHANNEL IN ATTIC.

5

8

SHEET-ROCK ONLY

2X4 PARTY WALL

BASEMENT

FLOOR 1

FLOOR 2

ATTIC

36'-0"

28'-0"

18'-0"18'-0"

8" POURED CONC.

4" POURED CONC.

3

4

STONE TYP

4" PERIMETER

DRAIN PIPE

6" LOAM

SAND FILL PERIMETER

7'-10"

Scale: 1/4":1'

Section-1

7

CO

LLINH

OM

ES

,I

NC

.

QU

AL

IT

Y H

OM

ES

SIN

CE

1

98

7

Scale: 1/4":1'

PARTY WALL

8

Scale: 1/4":1'

FOUNDATION SECTION

10

Scale: 1/4":1'

FOUNDATION PLAN

9

Lym

an, M

aine

93

Mck

enie

Way

Col

lin H

omes

, Inc

.FO

R

2 D

UPL

EX &

1 T

RIP

LEX

BU

ILD

ING

CO

NC

EPT

PLA

N

BEA

CH

STR

EET

SAC

O, M

AIN

E

Date

1"=20'

19013

1

A. Morrell

Dept.

-----

Gorh

am, M

aine

040

3828

Sta

te S

tree

tFa

x (2

07) 8

39-8

250

Berr

y, H

uff,

McD

onal

d, M

illig

an In

c.

BH

2MEn

gine

ers,

Surv

eyor

s

Tel.

(207

) 839

-277

1

20'0 40'20' 10'

Scale: 1" = 20'

I-195 SPUR

CUMBER

LAND A

VENUE

ROUTE #1

Rte 5

Brook

Ross Rd.

Rd.

Park

Ocean

Site

Beach

Goosefare

Rte 9

St. Old Orch

ard R

d.

Main

S

t.

James

StW

inter

St