Search

ICON

ARCHITECTURE

101 SUMMER ST
BOSTON MA
02110

ICONARCH.COM
617.451.3333

May 24, 2021

REV October 26, 2021

Kelly Parkinson
Purchasing Manager
City of Nashua

229 Main Street,

Nashua, NH 03060

RE: Proposal for RFP 0022-052421

Architectural Design Services for Nashua Millyard Concept Plan

Dear Kelly:

ICON is pleased to submit this proposal for your Concept Plan at the Nashua Millyard.
We have assembled a team with the expertise, local knowledge, and experience-
based understanding of the regional development community to position the City well
for realization of a plan that will optimally benefit the community.

Why ICON

ICON Architecture, Inc., is a women-owned, Boston-based firm of 40 staff with award-
winning work focused on sustainable urban development—creating new paradigms
for living and working in numerous transit-oriented developments. The firm’s projects
mix uses—market-rate housing with workforce units, artist live/work communities
with retail/office incubator environments, and mixed-use developments engaging
their neighborhood edges. ICON has been responsible for the design of over 18,000
units of multifamily housing throughout New England. We bring the right experience
to move this project forward expediently and within budget:

e Positive working relationship with City Planning Agencies — ICON has a long and
successful relationship developing designs with City Planning Departments, and is

currently working with the City of Nashua on several exciting projects. Our
concept designs are based in our experience and the realities of spatial and
construction requirements, while promoting an engaging vision. Most of our
projects require zoning relief, and we are experienced negotiating needed relief
provisions.

e Deep experience designing large developments on multi-acre sites — ICON has an
enviable record designing multiple mixed-income developments on multi-acre
sites, blending an array of building types and uses. We understand the nuances of
building in multiple phases, establishing a street and circulation network, and
creating a desirable living environment “whole cloth”. Our Maverick Landing re-
established the East Boston waterfront neighborhood with 496 mixed-income
apartments and condos; our Washington Beech transformed a multi-block section
of Roslindale into 216 apartments in a mix of LEED Gold low rise and mid-rise.
Maxwell’s Green reinvigorated an abandoned 5.5 acre industrial site into a linked
community of 200 units while Oak Grove Village imagined a 15-acre site for 550
units within a 5 minute walk to transit. Additional example projects are provided
later in our proposal.

e ICON has a proven track record “right sizing” developments to get them built —
ICON excels at designing striking buildings that employ efficient and cost-effective
design to meet realistic budgets. We understand how to make the most of
construction typologies to fit within your budget and how to design buildings to
improve efficiency ratios while providing the mix and the amenities to meet the
market and the proforma.

At the heart of ICON’s practice is the belief that great design begins with
collaboration, so we work well with neighbors and city officials to understand the
nuances of a site, and to balance community concerns for development. We can’t
always please everyone, but we do try to help everyone understand why the choices
are made and build consensus around them. It’s that mutually engaging vision behind
each of our designs that allows us to create memorable places—we’re making better
places for the people who build their lives there.

ICON would be delighted to be a part of creating and securing a mutual vision for the
Nashua Millyard. We hope that you find this proposal appropriate to your needs on
this project. Please do not hesitate to call to discuss any questions you might have
regarding this proposal.

Sincerely,

ft con Card Hebel
ICON Architecture, Inc. ICON Architecture, Inc.
Ned Collier, AIA, LEED AP Kendra Halliwell AIA, LEED AP
Principal Associate Principal

Education + Institutional Practice Leader Housing Practice Leader

1.

Core Project Team

ICON Architecture is a 40-person, Boston-based, women-owned (WBE) architectural
practice focused on sustainable, transformative projects that create new paradigms
for living. Our designs range from infill transit-oriented development to innovative
adaptive reuse, creating sustainable communities that energize residents and
communities. Our projects creatively reposition aging buildings and sites to celebrate
their rich history while embracing contemporary life. A leader in innovation, ICON
work engages sustainable building practices, such as Passive House and Fitwell, and
efficient construction methods, such as modular and mass timber.

ICON delivers projects that not only meet program and budget goals, but deliver
enduring value. Regardless of size, each project demonstrates sensitivity to context
and displays our ability to work thoughtfully with residents, neighbors, and
administrators to achieve quality planning and design with superior lasting value. We
have extensive experience working with public agencies and both public and private
developers (sometimes together!) throughout the northeast, and we have designed
and built over 18,000 housing units. We have deep experience designing for unique
sites and programs, with an appreciation for the rich architectural fabric of New
England downtowns.

ICON’s projects have been case studies for nationally distributed books on urban
housing, published by the Urban Land Institute, Harvard University Press, and Global
Green. Our work has won numerous awards, multiple Builders Choice Design Awards,
a Governor’s Smart Growth Leadership Award, and multiple Preservation
Achievement Awards from the Boston Preservation Alliance and the Massachusetts
Historical Commission.

Key Staff:

ICON Architecture’s Design Team will be led by Kendra Halliwell AIA, LEED AP.
Kendra has extensive design and permitting experience in communities across New
England, with depth of knowledge in mixed-use and sustainable, cost-effective
construction and will be the point of contact throughout the project. Ned Collier, AIA,
will collaborate throughout the design process, providing insight into design
opportunities and facilitating communication in the programming and concept
phases. Michelle Apigian, AIA, AICP will bring her knowledge of sustainable design
and construction into discussions of the site options, preferred option refinement and
the final document.

Board of Aldermen — 9/12/17 Page 44

R-17-129
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson
Alderman Don LeBrun
FOR THE CITY TO RESEARCH THE FEASIBILITY OF PURCHASING THE FORMER
DANIEL WEBSTER COLLEGE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, the
NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD and the BOARD OF EDUCATION by President McCarthy

R-17-130
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED
THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($23,955,000) FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE FORMER DANIEL WEBSTER COLLEGE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 20 UNIVERSITY DRIVE

Given its first reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF R-17-130 BY ROLL CALL,
ASSIGN IT TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD, THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE, AND THE NASHUA BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND THAT A
PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2017, AT 7:00 PM IN THE
ALDERMANIC CHAMBER
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Ald. Deane, Ald. Cookson,

Ald. Schoneman, Ald. LeBrun 4

Nay: Ald. Wilshire, Ald. Clemons, Ald. Dowd,

Ald. Caron, Ald. Siegel Ald. Melizzi-Golja

Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Lopez, Ald. McCarthy 9
MOTION FAILED

Alderman Cookson

If you’re not going to allow for a public hearing of a resolution, why are we wasting our time doing a feasibility
study?

President McCarthy
Would you like to move for indefinite..
Alderman Cookson

I’m just curious. The Board of Education is supportive of it. They are interested in, again, potential opportunity for
their admin building since they can’t move into Burke Street.

President McCarthy

Alderman Cookson, the vote has been taken. The debate is over on that motion.

ICON has assembled the following team for the proposed Nashua Mill Yard Concept
Study:

e Real Estate Development Consultant: Abramson & Associates -- Barry M.
Abramson will provide real estate evaluation of the market and financial feasibility
and highest and best use, estimation of potential disposition revenue and net
benefits to the City and collaborate in concept planning.

e Cost Estimating Team: Harvey Construction Company — Carl Dubois will assist the
team through the early study phases to help guide informed decisions regarding
construction methods and costs.

e Civil Engineering + Site Layout: Hayner/Swanson —Jim Petropulos is currently
working on several similarly scaled projects in the Nashua area, and he and his
team will provide insight in understanding site constraints.

e Legal Consultant: Prunier & Prolman, PA — Andrew A. Prolman will support the
team.

Approach to the Scope of Work

The goal of the Concept Study is to create an inspiring and realistic vision for the reuse
of the 3 % -4 acre Nashua Mill Yard, providing a basis for a future Developer RFP. This
process will involve an iterative development of the site plan, financial evaluations,
conceptual building plans, and imagery. The following proposed approach to scope
and interim deliverables are subject to development through discussion with the City.
They represent what we understand will be needed to develop the final deliverable,
but can be adapted to fit the City’s needs and expectations. More broadly, we will
provide a very high level master plan for the ancillary property owned by the City in
the Mill Yard.

For the sake of cost-effectiveness and given our general understanding of the
development market and site appropriateness, the proposed scope assumes that the
most likely highest and best use will be some form of multi-family residential, with the
analysis focusing on variations of that general use category in terms of:

e Rental versus Homeownership — Market analysis may imply different unit
sizing and parking treatments.

e Building typologies, forms and magnitudes — We will consider wood frame,
podium, modular, townhome, or midrise types of structure, each reviewed for
cost-efficiency and use.

e =©Parking strategy — Always a primary topic of conversation, what are
minimums required for a marketable development? Is surface parking versus
alternate forms of structured parking viable? The team will review options to
include variations for parking on the site, including surface parking, under a
residential or mixed-use building or in a free-standing deck.

e =©Mix of Uses — We will explore the possibility of including ancillary other uses
such as ground floor commercial.

Three alternative development concepts shall be formulated for highest and best use
analysis which shall be evaluated from three perspectives:

e Community benefits - focusing on non-financial considerations such as design,
contribution to open space, expansion of the City’s housing or business
options or non-profit community-supporting services and amenities and
amenities, Pedestrian connections to downtown and to riverside open space
will be paramount to the success of this development. Are there any city
agencies or ground level program elements that the City would like to see?

e Real estate financial benefits - in terms of financial feasibility, potential land
disposition revenue and marketability, timing and risk

e =©Public financial benefits - integrating the above plus real estate tax revenue
and any indicated required public investments.

Scope of Service Deliverables and Project Schedule:

1. Concept Planning (4 weeks; January/ February, 2022)

Three Development Concept Site Plan Options — including code
considerations, unit count/ program use, connectivity & parking count.
Working with the real estate professional and civil engineer, the design team
will test program and building massing options, establish design character,
and review approaches to pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Space and
program requirements will be reviewed for civil/ legal feasibility.

ICON’s team will be led by the Principal and Associate Principal, anticipating
approximately 150 hours for Concept Planning Phase and approximately half
staff time.

Refining the options, the civil engineer will prepare parking analysis based on
the existing and two proposed development options, including emergency
vehicle and loading access to the site. Site plan diagrams will convey street,
curb and intersection upgrades if deemed necessary. Extents include
adjacent intersections for traffic lights or other mitigation. The design and
engineering team will look to the city for coordination with utility providers.

ICON’s team includes one Site Walk to review the site with city stakeholders.

The design team (Arch/ Civil) shall participate in weekly conference/zoom
calls for a total of 6 coordination meetings.

ICON shall lead three meetings with stakeholders during the exploration of
options.

One (1) Virtual Meeting Is Proposed w/ staff in which findings of
alternatives / evaluation shall be presented & One preferred concept
selected and refined as discussed.

One (1) Presentation / Meeting with Public Boards and/or Elected
Officials to Present Preferred Scheme

Design sketches and massing studies will initiate discussions regarding
the project.

Preferred Scheme -- One Site Plan Option will be refined and
illustrated after review. (2 weeks; February, 2022)

o Building Unit and Area Matrix — Provided calculating the unit mix,
unit NSF and building GSF.

o Initial Zoning Analysis — Prepared for review. Nashua Land Use
Code and NHDES regulations shall be reviewed to determine
their impacts to the proposed development plan.

© Based on the Preferred Plan, the civil engineer shall prepare a
Preliminary Site Plan of the intended development. The
infrastructure analysis shall include grading, utilities (electrical,
water, sewer), a preliminary stormwater design and other
elements usually included in a site design. Recommendations for
changes to the layout due to site conditions shall be brought to
the Client’s attention and the necessary adjustments made to
the plan.

© Preparation of a design and permitting timeline will be prepared,
including detailed scope of work.

o 6 street view renderings, one aerial view over google earth,
primary elevations to be provided.

Flip Book - Summarizing the Concept study process and the findings.
The community and stakeholder process and recommendations based
on public feedback will be included in brief.

Design Guidelines — The design team will develop a document that will
provide a framework for the architectural character of future
redevelopment of the Mill Yard. Including diagrams and annotated
photographs, the Guidelines will convey a unified vision for the Mill
Yard’s public realm, preserving the qualities that make it unique, and
allowing for contemporary development to succeed.

Cost Estimate — (Ongoing) Pricing for the Preferred Scheme. Initial
concepts shall be priced based on industry expertise, construction cost
from the Cost Estimating team.

Real Estate Evaluation and Technical Memo for Feasibility/Highest &
Best Use Analysis, Estimation of Potential Disposition Revenue and
Benefits to City (4-6 weeks; January/February, 2022)-The real estate
component of the highest and best use analysis shall entail the following
tasks:

Review background information, tour the site and environs and meet
with City to ensure full understanding of issues and objectives.

Conduct a market assessment focusing on multi-family residential,
drawing on data and insights from the consultant’s recent work in the
market and conducting new research focusing on the opportunity at
the subject site, primarily in the form of high-level interviews with

developers and other knowledgeable sources active or potentially
interested in the local market. This will include a review of supply,
timing/pipeline, market acceptance/performance and other relevant
characteristics of comparable/competitive existing properties and
proposed projects, views on competitive position of potential
development at the subject site, potential interest in the opportunity
by and project preferences of potential developers and bases for
estimates of market rental and condo pricing and other terms, typical
operating expenses and development costs, financing and investment
return parameters and market land pricing experience and
expectations.

This task shall also include limited research on potentially appropriate
non-residential use to inform its possible inclusion as an ancillary
project component or to flag any unanticipated greater potential. If
significant potential for such non-residential use is identified, we
would inform the City which would determine whether to engage
additional services for a more in-depth analysis of such use which
could be better scoped and budgeted at that time.

Research with City tax assessor per unit or per square foot property
tax assessments and tax revenues attributable to potential uses and
development types.

Based on the above and evaluations conducted by other team
members, collaborate with Icon to formulate three preliminary
alternative development concepts and programs.

Coordinate with cost estimator, ICON and other team members (as
well as input from research) to determine typical construction cost
estimates on a per unit or square foot basis to apply to alternate
development concepts as well as any non-construction costs.

Estimate feasibility and supportable land/shell cost/potential
disposition revenues, marketability, timing, risk, real estate tax
revenues, required public investments (if any) and non-financial
community benefits for the alternative development concepts.

For the preferred development concept, integrate detailed
construction cost estimate and any refinements in program and
design in a detailed financial feasibility analysis yielding estimated
supportable land cost/potential disposition revenues, marketability,
timing, risk, real estate tax revenues, required public investments (if
any) and non-financial community benefits.

Summarize process, findings and recommendations in a brief
executive summary level memorandum or report.

Participate with team in presentations/meetings over the course of
the study to present preliminary findings and facilitate determination
of alternative and preferred development concepts and present final

conclusions and plans.

ICON ARCHITECTURE 101 SUMMER ST BOSTON MA 02110 617.451.3333 ICONARCH.COM

4. Community Engagement & Stakeholder Outreach

(lanuary/ February 2022)

e «Three virtual meetings are proposed with stakeholders.

e One virtual meeting is proposed with staff in which the findings of
the alternatives evaluation shall be presented and one preferred
concept will be selected and refinements discussed.

e One presentation/meeting with public board(s) and/or elected
officials to present the Preferred Scheme.

3. FEE PROPOSAL

Scope:

Concept Plan Options, Preferred Scheme, Flip Book

@ = Architectural DeSIGN.......ccccessesessesecscessesessessensenseseeeereaees $23,000
e «Real Estate Consultant 0... cc cccscseesssscsscssecsceseeseretesteestenee $3,000
© — COSt EStimate ccc ccccescescesesscscsseseessessersersevseesceseesearecarsarsarsas $2,000
© Civil Engineer occ ccccseccssecessesscsssesscsenseecsseseesenenenseeieens $10,000
© Legal On-Calll.c.ccccccccscsesscsessssscsessseescsetscsenseessasensesecerensensees $2,000
Subtotal: $40,000
Deliverables:
Street View Renderings (6)......ccscccsessesessscscsssscsessetscssesseseeetsesseans $12,000
Rendered Aerial VieW (1)...cccccccccscsessssscsesssscscsseescssesscseencatscssenereaees $3,000
Design GUIGelIN€S.........ccccsscssscecsceescssesseseencacscssensecsensansensecseereatsestenses $10,000
Subtotal: $25,000
Real Estate Evaluation and Technical M@M0..........cccseeesesersesecen $13,000
Stakeholder MeeCtings........ccccscssscssescessscscsscssscseescseensacsesscssencetscenenees $24,000
Expenses (Travel, Printing).........:ccsssssssssscssssssscescessssacsesscsrssessesesesersens $3,000

Total $105,000

Additional Services:

Additional Services:

Additional In-Person Meetings:

Additional Virtual Meetings:

ICON: $2,000*
Abramson: $1,000

ICON: $1,200*

ICON ARCHITECTURE

101 SUMMER ST BOSTON MA_ 02110 617.451.3333 ICONARCH.COM