The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200216 Alvaro Residence SSPF 5-13-20 Preservation Foundation May 12, 2020 Ms. Tamie Ehinger, Chair ��' Design Review ComTnission F o k��%l/-G� City Hall [�R�s E kvAT[o tv 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 � ..�'; �:;�- � "�' RE: 206 Nelson Avenue—Exterior Alterations&Addition � ;�� Dear Tamie: The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has reviewed the application for exterior alterations and rear addition at 206 Nelson Avenue. The vernacular Greek Reviva) style residence, c. 1850, is a contributing building to the National Register of Historic Places listed East Side Historic District. Board of Directors adam N.Fa�o The project proposes exteriar alterations to the ariginal 1850's house, including an Presiaent addi�ion to the primary fa�ade, changing the window fenestration, and replacing the windows and front door. lt also proposes to relnove the rear portion of the existing house �ames Go1d and construct a new addition. v;ce Presiaent t,�„aa xa��y-op�c��k While the primary historic structure is clad in synthetic siding, which may be obscuring se°reta� historic detailing; the windows have been replaced; and a bay window was added to the Un�icriy Y�rmot�yev primary fa�ade,the properiy still contr�butes to the historic district. Treasurer �atthew veitch The Foundation feels that every effort should be made to restore the historic character of Past President the original 1850's building. Unfortunately, the applicant is proposing to make a number Ja�me sut�er-s�„�ey of changes to the original 1850's structure that do not follow the Standards outlined in the c�ro�ine ca�aone Historic Review Ordinance or the Historic District Design Guidelines. The proposed G�ovanna�°orazio changes significantily alter its historic form and are not in keeping with the original ste�en DoddS vernacular Greek Revival st le. Brennan Dral:e Y Sandra Fox �onn Hauer The foilowing Histaric Design Guidelines for New Construction, Additians should be Liz Israel sam�,tl,a xe«uu considered when reviewing the proposed addition to the primary fa�ade: DoU�t�xen x;o�,ard k;ng An addition should be located where it is least visible and desi ned to ininimall Stephen Kyne � g �' w�u�aro Mocaany affect the perception of the original structure. °°`°rny R°�e`S-B°I�`S . Additions should not obscure, damage or destroy the character-defining features Cindy Spence of the primary building or streetscape. • Additions should be constructed so that, if removed in the future, the historic James kerrle�ett inte i of the buildin or its materials would not be irre arabl dama ed. emeritus $►�tY g 1� Y g • Materials and details should be similar tQ, ar complement,the primary structure. F,xecutive Director samantna sossnan Also,the following Historic District Desigll Guidelines for Porehes should be considered: Me'°n�rs''�p& �ver effort should be made to ieserve an ori inal or historic orch includiii Programs Director � Y A � P g N;oote Bab;e the original size, design and materials. Demolition of an existing porch is to be avoided. <<� s�« _ s«zr�, s�,;�z ��= S��ira�og.i Spring;. NY 1'_8Gfi P �I S-��-�il;n • A porch and its elements, replaced due to severe deterioration, should match the original in size, shape, rhythm, dimensions, material and quality. Duplication is preferred. Keep original elements to use as a pattern. If duplication is not possible,try to locate features at an architectural salvage location. • Reorienting a porcl� entrance and relocating front stairs is discouraged. • If replacing a previously removed porch, it should replicate the original in size, design and materials, or be based on historical documentation. • The use of natural materials is preferred. The use of pressure treated wood is appropriate for concealed substructure. Exposed or painted pressure treated wood is discouraged. Lastly, the following Histaric District Design Guidelines for poars should be considered when reviewing this application: • The location, size and shape of original or historic doorway openings should be maintained. • Relocating or altering an original door openii7g is discourages, particularly on a primary fa�ade. • The addition of new door openings on primary facades is discouraged. • Replacement doors should match the existing in material in design or should be based on historic evidence. If no historic evidence is available, the doors should match the design and material of the architectural style and period of the historic building. • Contemporary inaterials and design are discouraged on historic and contributing structures. Based on the guidelines outlined, the Foundation strongly objects to the proposed addition to the primary fagade. The e�sting porch should be retained, possibly with a mare historically appropriate support, or the wrap-around porch that historically existed should be reconstructed as shown on the 1900 Sanborn Map, Corrected 1948. The proposed Colonial Revival style front entry porch and door are not in-keeping with the historic style ofhouse. The Foundation supports the reinoval of the bay window and replacement with two windows and �he addition of the first floor window of the south fa�ade. However, it objects to the proposed changes that alter all but one of the historic window fenestration— the primary facade second floor window below the gable being removed and replaced with two windows; the alteration of the size of the second floar window above the existing porch; the removal of the south fa�ade second floor window; and the removal of the existing windows of the north fa�ade and the addition of two small windows. The following Historic District Design Guidelines for Windows should also be considered when reviewing this application: • Original window size and location should be preserved. Do not replace units that alter the original size of the window opening or trim detail. • Restoration of original window configurations and openings that were previously altered or removed is encouraged • Replacement windows should match the existing in material and design anc� should be based on historic evidence. In total, the proposed exterior eha�lges to the existiug historic primary structure will remove its historic integrity and render it no longer a contributing building to the East Side Historic District. The Foundation does not object to the removal of the rear addition because it has been altered over time and does not retain any architectural significance. The Foundation does not object to the rear addition since it will be distinct from the historic building and a statement of its own time. Wlule typically the Foundation would object to an addition that does not step down in height, it does not in this instance because the exisring historic building has low floor to ceiling heights that do not meet current code. The Foundation recommends that the two west fa�ade doors be windows and that the proposed patio shed roof not extend as far as south. The Fouudation appreciates the investment that owner wants to make into this property. However, the Design Guidelines need to be followed before the Foundation can fully support this project. Sincerely, .'�� -. � , � � � � �_, ��,.��,,'`;�. �� Adam N. Favro ,�Samantha Bosshart President Executive Director Cc: Sue Davis, Architect Bradley Birge, Administrator of the Office of Plailning and Economic Development r �� • P N � �"^'�, . ` � * � �...mm�� . M ��—�t�r � � -�-�_ �' � ! •�� _ � � .� --.,�.� R � r,j � � Y � I� �.",p�� . . . . � � � kns i.M~t � `N - _ � pa 0 � �� `�—'^"�,-�� j � 4`�1 � !N�` �! �; �__ r y r J� ��`^�..,.,..�.� `` ,�, i �r —;. ��,►�, ,� , ,�-.�, � � � - � .� # r _. .. . . � . . ,. r r �"""— ,►r . � ��^��`"�_ � � � v�� JM ��__ � y f i� � a � ��.r��M"— � � � � �, `,. � � �� r. � i rw t � ,�,�� a � � n * �, �' P U,p� 1 �� .�� „ w�� . � � ... . � �' � # �� +... �'�"-il�._ .. i -- y I � � �� . . . . .. � . .. �y� ' J ��I�'A�� -! � �1 i � � ��:�.,� I . �V� � . ..._. � � �_ � r I ,,. » ___� e .,.�. . �� 1 J F �',- M� ' A � "_._..".-«. R Ir� �r� . r I/ydN�1��,�, . V/ I ' i. ,�� dA�r*+�r..+�yi . , . � � ,�'� . � .. I.� � � * 9 ,��.�� N� I 1yr ��'- 1 � � 7 � _ ° i e , t ea �, "�..___-•.e �,:.�.... ;� . w(�,�.. 3r �y«..�...d► .�,�..__� A .� ,,�s - , � �' ,'� � r. -�-� r -�` r M w Ili m^pi�"'.. s �'1 sr !J m' 30 r +w wF .� ��. 11, �F # i � �i R i �. � '! '� i Yl i �w �il ic � ,�y aY. �� R � +ry ,� . . .. ..... �w+11" � N � � � �/� � � N��.W " * M �g � �� 'T� r � � .a . r �. 's �y '/' . .. � 9 N $ This is the 1900 Sanborn Map, Corrected to 1948. The structure appears on earlier maps, but notearlier Sanborn Maps— at least the Sanborn Maps that I currently have access to electronically. The Saratoga Room at the Saratoga Springs Public Library is not open to the public at this time, preventing me from being able to check other Sanborn Maps. The east side of Nelson Avenue was not included in the 1900 map, most likely because there was not much den- sity on that side of the street.