Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddenda - RFP - 8458 REVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICIES8458 Review of Historic Preservation Policies, Codes & Processes Addendum 1 Questions & Answers Page 1 of 4 ADDENDUM NO. 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of RFP 8458: Review of Historic Preservation Policies, Codes & Processes OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) February 24, 2017 To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of this addendum: Exhibit 1 – Questions & Answers Please contact Ed Bonnette, CPPB, CPM, Senior Buyer at (970) 416-2247 with any questions regarding this addendum. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED. Financial Services Purchasing Division 215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6775 970.221.6707 fcgov.com/purchasing 8458 Review of Historic Preservation Policies, Codes & Processes Addendum 1 Questions & Answers Page 2 of 4 1) Is there a specific reason for undertaking this project, such as questions about landmark procedures or a controversial COA; or is this more a reassessment of where the City’s historic preservation program is at this point? Answer: This is a reassessment of where the City’s programs are at this point. While there have been some recent code/policy issues that will be reviewed in this project, there is no expectation that the core functions and responsibilities of the historic preservation program need to change. Instead, this is an assessment of what we are doing well and what can be improved upon and how, as well as an opportunity to refine code language to better serve existing programs. 2) It appears you have many individual landmarks but only a limited number of local landmark and National Register districts given the size of the city. Is part of this process to identify other eligible areas, or does the City feel you have sufficient survey data and contexts for this already? Answer: No additional contexts or survey work is anticipated under this RFP. 3) My expectation is that Fort Collins has numerous ca. 1945-ca. 1970 subdivisions. Has there been much focus on the historic preservation merits of these areas? Answer: Fort Collins has a local historic district composed of midcentury modern residences, and the City recently completed a historic context and survey of representative examples of post-WWII properties. Staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission recognize the merits of post WWII subdivisions as historic resources. We hear from citizens who love these buildings for their modern architecture as well as those who do not yet see them as historically significant. 4) Has the City looked at other historic preservation tools in the past such as Conservation Zoning and Form Based Codes, or will these types of options be part of the proposed project? Answer: Conservation zoning, historic overlays, and form based codes are not currently part of our tool kit. The City is interested in exploring these, along with other options, as part of this project. 5) We typically have a very robust outreach to the general public and stakeholders for these types of projects. What will be the expectations of the City staff to facilitate meetings and identify stakeholders, versus the Consultant? Answer: Each firm’s proposal should spell out its full capabilities and approach to outreach as well as expectations/needs for staff assistance with those efforts. Staff is available to assist the consultant team with identifying stakeholders, as well as with arranging and helping to facilitate outreach events. However, this project is to be an impartial third-party assessment of our programs. 8458 Review of Historic Preservation Policies, Codes & Processes Addendum 1 Questions & Answers Page 3 of 4 6) Addressing properties 50 years old: The RFP notes that the review will include consideration of strategies for addressing buildings that are more than 50 years old, which have not been designated as historic resources. What have been some of the issues related to the current system that addresses these resources? Answer: Fort Collins has strong protection mechanisms for those buildings 50+ years old which are not designated but which have been determined to be individually eligible for designation. This becomes an issue for development projects proposing significant alteration or demolition of existing structures. Some of the issues that have been raised include whether such a determination should occur at all; if the determination should be expanded to include “younger” properties; the criteria for determining eligibility (the City currently uses the higher threshold of “individually eligible” rather than “contributing” before protection mechanisms apply); and what the outcome of a determination should be, both for eligible and not eligible properties. An associated issue is the larger number of properties that are or will soon be meeting the 50-year threshold. 7) Design Review: The RFP notes that the evaluation will include current design review procedures. What are recent issues that have occurred? Answer: The issue with design review is primarily identifying and defining appropriate infill development within existing historic commercial districts, and differing interpretations of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 8) Non-consensual Designation: The RFP notes that non-consensual designation will be addresses. To what extent has this been applied recently? Answer: Recently, a citizen’s group brought forward an application for the non- consensual local designation of a State Register property. Some of the questions raised are if the length of the process is correct (delay of demolition is too long/not long enough); and if the process itself can be better organized and improved upon. 9) Areas of Adjacency: The RFP notes that one area of concern is addressing “areas of adjacency”. What have been some of the recent issues in this regard? Answer: New development is reviewed in part for its potential effect on individually eligible and designated historic properties, which can then drive changes to the proposed development. The primary issue is developing consistent criteria for determining which properties should be included in the review. 10) Does the maximum page limit of 25 mean 25 faces or 25 double-sided (for a total of 50)? Answer: 25 faces. 8458 Review of Historic Preservation Policies, Codes & Processes Addendum 1 Questions & Answers Page 4 of 4 11) Team Profile: Please clarify how this differs from the information requested in Section 3B. Answer: Team Profile is more of a summary of name & title of who is going to be assigned to the City’s project. 3.B. is more detail about the firm’s expertise, experience, and brief resumes/biographies. 12) My firm has an existing Professional Services Work Order Agreement awarded off a different RFP. If selected for this project, we are wondering if this project could be done as a work order under this existing Agreement as opposed to signing a separate Professional Services Agreement with the City for this project. Answer: The existing Work Order Agreement has a different Scope of Work than this project. If selected, your firm would be expected to sign a separate Professional Services Agreement with the City for this project, similar to the one found in the RFP.