The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181133 2018.115 Spa Hotel_SSPF Corr_11-5-14_9-18-17_10-24-17_1-7-19Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation F 0 R` l/ear PRESERVATION FOR YEARS Board of Directors Matthew Veitch President James Gold Vice President & Secretary Adam N. Favro Treasurer Caroline Cardone Brennan Drake Sandra Fox Liz Israel Samantha Kercull Douglas Kerr Richard King Michelle Paquette-Deuel Cindy Spence Dmitriy Yermolayev James Kettlewell emeritus Samantha Bosshart Executive Director Nicole Babie Membership & Programs Director January 7, 2019 Ms. Tamie Ehinger, Chair Design Review Commission City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: 19-23 Washington Street — Demolition & New Addition Dear Tamie: The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has reviewed the revised concept plan for the proposed new addition at 19-23 Washington Street. The circa 1840 stone Greek Revival house is listed as a contributing building to the Broadway Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is in the vicinity of several of the city's oldest structures dating between 1840 and 1887. In letters submitted to the Design Review Commission and the Planning Board dated November 5, 2014; September 18, 2017; and October 24, 2017 the Foundation stated that it has significant concerns regarding the project (see attached). Those concerns were the removal of the rear addition of 23 Washington; Street; retention of the stone wall; and the height, scale, mass and design of the proposed new construction. Following the submittal of the letters to the Design Review Commission and the Planning Board, at the Foundation's request, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) provided two advisory opinions about the proposed project which included comments about the removal of the rear addition, the proposed new construction, and the historic stone wall (see attached). The revised concept plan indicates that the rear of the historic building will be removed. A first portion of the rear addition may be original to the structure or was added prior to 1853, as shown on the 1853 Bevan Map (see attached maps). The first room of the first floor has the same ceiling height and treatment, flooring, molding, and foundation that match the original house (see attached images). While other portions of the rear additions are historic, they were more utilitarian in nature and have been modified over the years and do not retain a high degree of historic integrity. The Foundation does not object to these utilitarian and modified portions being removed. However, the Foundation continues to strongly advocate for the preservation of the first portion of the addition, which has been part of the building for over 160 years. It does not appear to be in poor condition to the point that it cannot be reasonably repaired and preserved. Per the SHPO letter dated January 2, 2018: the rear addition that is proposed for removal may be a significant historic feature of the building. We recommend further research and physical investigation of the structure to determine age and best approach to preservation/ restoration. It 112 Spring Street, Suite 203 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-587-5030 �ccw.caratogapresereatton. org appears that there may be several reversible alterations obscuring the older addition structure. The Foundation respectfully requests that the Design Review Commission require the applicant to meet the requirements of demolition for structures with architectural or historic significance per the historic review ordinance before approving the project. The Foundation's greatest concern remains the scale, mass, and height of the proposed addition. While the revised concept plan has a reduced number of floors from six to five, it retains nearly the same scale, mass, and height (70 feet) as previously presented. Since the scale, mass, and height are nearly the same, the SHPO comment that "the facade appears to be inappropriately large and monolithic, threatening to overpower the parish house and nearby historic buildings" would remain true. The Foundation feels that this addition will loom over the 1840s structure and will negatively impact the natural light of the Great Hall of Universal Preservation Hall. The Foundation strongly recommends that the overall height of this structure be reduced or the upper floors should be set back. A recommendation that also was made by the SHPO in regards to the previous concept. As presented this proposed addition to a historic building does not meet the following New Construction Historic District Guidelines: Additions: • An addition should be smaller in scale than the original building so that it does not overshadow the existing building. It should complement the original building's roof form, massing, floor heights, proportion and window and door fenestration. • An addition should be located where it is least visible and designed to minimally affect the perception of the original structure. • Additions should not obscure, damage or destroy the character -defining features of the primary building or streetscape. • Additions should be constructed so that, if removed in the future, the historic integrity of the building or its materials would not be irreparably damaged. • Materials and details should be similar to, or complement, the primary structure. Should this new building be physically separated from the 1840 structure, the following New Construction Historic District Design Guidelines should be followed: New Buildings: • Architectural styles for new construction should reflect and represent the period in which it was built. The style of new construction should be compatible with surrounding buildings, but should not give the false impression of being historic. Construction methods and materials can differentiate new construction from historic structures. • The placement and orientation of new buildings should be consistent with neighboring buildings. Maintaining a consistent streetscape and facade setback is recommended. • Building mass should be appropriate to the size of the lot. A large lot can generally accommodate a larger structure, while a small structure is more appropriate for a smaller lot. • Building height and scale should be consistent with the existing streetscape and neighboring building patterns. Historic streetscapes often have a variation in building scale and massing that contribute to the visual interest and unique historic character of the street. Variation is promoted, but extreme difference should be avoided. • Buildings with large, uninterrupted massing should be broken into smaller visual components consistent with neighboring buildings. • Rooflines and shapes should be consistent with surrounding historic structures. • New construction windows and doors should complement the window and door sizes, patterns and rhythm of neighboring historic buildings. • Facade rhythm should maintain the vertical or horizontal emphasis that is prevalent on the street. • Porches are a significant architectural feature and typical of residences in Saratoga Springs. Porches, appropriate to the mass and scale of the building, are encouraged in new construction. • Primary entrances to the building should orient to the street and be well designated. • New construction materials should be compatible with and complement the surrounding historic buildings. Contemporary materials may be used provided they do not negatively impact historic character of the neighboring buildings. The use of vinyl is discouraged. The Foundation appreciates the investment that the applicant is making to develop the site and is pleased that the revised concept has more visual interest on the east and west facades — a concern previously stated. However, it is not pleased with the architectural design of the revised concept plan. It is not consistent, appropriate, or compatible with the context of the 1840s structure or the other neighboring buildings and character of the historic setting. The Foundation prefers the architectural style of the previous plan should it be constructed as a separate distinct building since it related and took design cutes from the other historic buildings on Washington Street, specifically 41 Washington Street. In addition, to fully understand the visual impacts of this proposed project, the Foundation respectfully requests that the applicant provide a 3-D model of the site that includes all the adjacent historic properties on Washington Street. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, 1410ft—/Ar— e rj;itt. Aufae.—. Matthew E. Veitch amantha Bosshart President Executive Director Cc: Toby Milde, RBC Construction, Inc. Dominick Reneri, Project Architect Bradley Birge, Administrator of the Office of Planning and Economic Development Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation F` PRESERVATION Board of Directors Jere Tatich President Seth D. Finkel) Vice President Cynthia Corbett Treasurer Linda Harvey-Opiteck Secretary Christopher Armer Katie M. Carroll Sue Hensley -Cushing Liz Israel Maryanne Moe Schell Michelle Paquette Nicole R. Rodgers Michael Tuck William Willard Cheryl M. Gold Emeritus James Kettlewell Emeritus Executive Director Samantha Bosshart November 5, 2014 Mr. Steve Rowland, Chair Design Review Commission City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: 19-23 Washington Street — Demolition Dear Mr. Rowland: The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation reviewed the application forl 9-23 Washington Street to demolish the rear addition, a detached two -car garage, and three sheds. The stone Greek Revival house was built circa 1840 and is listed as a contributing building to the Broadway Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Foundation does not object to the demolition of the garage and the sheds at the rear of the property. However, the Foundation has significant concerns regarding the removal of the rear addition. A portion of the rear addition may be original to the structure or was added prior to1853, as shown on the 1853 Bevan Map (see attached maps). The first room of the first floor has the same ceiling height and treatment, flooring, and molding, and foundation that match the original house (see attached images). The Foundation strongly advocates for the preservation of this portion of the addition which has been part of the building for over 160 years. This portion of the building does not appear to be in poor condition to the point that it cannot be reasonably repaired and preserved. While other portions of the rear additions are historic, they were more utilitarian in nature and have been modified over the years and do not retain a high degree of historic integrity. Therefore, the Foundation does not object to these portions of the rear addition being removed. The Foundation respectfully requests that the Design Review Commission require the owner to preserve this portion of the building. In addition, the Foundation requests that the rear addition be documented before its removal. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Siincerely, (ele Tatich L Samantha Bosshart President Executive Director Cc: RBC Construction, Applicant Brad Birge, Administrator of the Office of Planning and Economic Development 112 Spring Street, Suite 203 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 P 518-587-5030 F518-581-1448 ww w.,aratoga pros erva tion. org 1 f .f.v r y,- -, " t .c, + 1 '' '+ f .1 �. rl' : ,3 5 J -4' • - : - L' ..2" , • , 6 : t yIP 4 1 . •} " . -* • 1.1 '• rte r.. . ,...17 M iJ i y * •-'t� �i f `YS .5F 1, *-4 ' y♦ '. J I 1. _ •"L 'Yj •• tty • µ J 1 r X853 3 AN 1 -AAP D. 1 o m 4 g I/ Page 1 of 1 (Aar APPY ; l 1 di i 34 741 AIWA' Std• d Fast 0 i DIVISION . jam' m 4 1.� •Sr; rOfSt .s� 1; http://sanborn.umi.com.dbgateway.nysed.gov/sanbom/image/fetchimage?state=ny&reelid=ree109... 11/4/2014 Page 1 of 1 http://sanborn.umi.com.dbgateway.nysed.gov/sanborn/image/fetchimage?state=ny&reelid=reel09... 11/4/2014 S.— 6.... Httar,. .11.1.4,9afe Ain t Riff -[bs YAC w 71...+.r 1_'M t n+s .. a...e .w....e.,, ,ete R p W Page 1 of 1 r e9 CM1.VC ffily4WilfAs- ... (G Ir Jrnoiv - 4 - 1 1 a'I 16 9 O�`• g http://sanborn.umi. com.dbgateway.nysed.gov/sanborn/image/fetchimage?state=ny&reelid=ree109... 11/4/2014 s AY.Nee+.w......r-Yhf�wrr. nw4.wp.•sr.rer-R., n,. frx-a4. O,�..we. wp.w..AYw�4 As.- .-.. Ks ..A -m ttln.r4e...t.,.4.1 -41.1• de •.4-4.1.Ma, 1%4 Ogg. Page 1 of 1 111 a r r R p W F� 1 4 r bard i7o, BlrAie 1 !� r 1,.J 1 Y IFi atfr 9 q,..v.e ren,Se : ..f or ! r 112 r00 Ia41-11W-0 Mme!' 41W IL. kis BROADWAY http://sanborn.umi. com.dbgateway.nysed.gov/sanborn/image/fetchitnage?state=ny&reelid=ree109... 11/4/2014 • • 19 544.61- 10 cLaro ti �r maw http://sanborn.umi.com.dbgateway.nysed.gov/sanbornlimage/fetchimage?state ny&reelid=ree109... 11/4/2014 Page 1 of 1 4 6t iltis.,..„....-..3 9131 rA, y �y`• �• 0^--*rtN r+n`__ ..fi ''1 1iY{_i —O --_---...d... 1-- ,�,+r.'� .. - ► _ �: .. 1 :-.!'w _ F J ill...... _�..1-J' Ii F! 1 , 1pP,1�R ..1-i-...-11_ ` : �_ _- J s i j /_. .�.' 4.-.�' j ��' '''i i 4' 9 0 01 it � igcb v_0011$7 Ili yerft http://sanborn.umi.corn.dbgateway.nysed.gov/sanborn/image/fetchimage?state=ny&reelid=ree109... 11/4/2014 111 Ly ea Page 1 of 1 r +1011 MVP Of! ritti 4r;E RIP VAN Lill"' Dim 'PIG I wtySiS. f q; { a 0 ' h n 10 2 — s s --- (11(2-0v4 CIrLS,� 6 1 d } -a d � http://sanborn.umi.com. dbgateway.nysed.gov/sanborn/image/fetchimage?state=ny&reelid=ree110... 11/4/2014 I F48,1, 471711.- RIP I" al° 11" • r" hill / -- 1 1 9 ..mtkopar0-7;7- .1 "1 • • • • A' 07- . pi • • ,M•••••,. k i 6154 -t-t-rd- 1 DIIZc*& Ap 112 Page 1 of 1 23 ss • ,41-1 • Art :Pr • http://sanbom.umi.com.dbgatevvay.nysed.gov/sanborn/image/fetchimage?state=ny&reelid=ree110... 11/4/2014 • ip,1 23 Washington Avenue Parlor, Main House Please note the molding above the fire place that matches the molding in the first room of the rear addition. 23 Washington Avenue First floor, first room of the rear addition Please note the molding above the fire place in the parlor that matches the molding of the rear addition. 23 Washington Avenue Second Parlor, Main House Please note the molding above the fire place in the parlor that matches the molding of the rear addition. 23 Washington Avenue First floor, first room of the rear addition Please note the flooring that matches the main house and the ceiling that matches the second parlor of the main house. 23 Washington Avenue Basement of Main House Please note the stone laid foundation is similar to the stone laid foundation of the rear addition. 23 Washington Avenue Basement of Addition Please note the stone laid foundation is similar to the stone laid foundation of the main house. Saratoga Spring,' Preservation Foundation FOR PRESERVATION R. FO ; YEARS Board of Directors Matthew E. Veitch President James Gold Vice President Linda Harvey-Opiteck Treasurer Alicia Czwerwinski Secretary Caroline Cardone Shane Cassidy Cynthia Corbett Brennan Drake Adam N. Favro Liz Israel Samantha Kercull Douglas Kerr Richard King Michelle Paquette-Deuel Cindy Spence Bill Willard Meredith Woolford James Kettlewell emeritus Samantha Bosshart Executive Director 112 Spring Street, Suite 2113 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-587-51130 October 24, 2017 Mr. Mark Torpey, Chair Planning Board City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: 19-23 Washington Street — Demolition & Addition Dear Mr. Torpey This letter echoes the previous Letter dated September 19, 2017 that was sent to the Design Review Commission and was copied to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation reviewed the application for19- 23 Washington Street to demolish the rear addition and the detached two -car garage and the proposed addition. The stone Greek Revival house was built circa 1840 and is listed as a contributing building to the Broadway Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Foundation does not object to the demolition of the garage. However, as stated in the letter dated November 5, 2014 that the Foundation submitted to the Design Review Commission, the Foundation has significant concerns regarding the removal of the rear addition of 23 Washington Street. A portion of the rear addition is either original to the structure or was added prior to1853, as shown on the 1853 Bevan Map (see attached maps). The first room of the first floor has the same ceiling height and treatment, flooring, molding, and foundation that match the original house (see attached images). The Foundation strongly advocates for the preservation of this portion of the addition which has been part of the building for over 160 years. This portion of the building does not appear to be in poor condition to the point that it cannot be reasonably repaired and preserved, which is required to be demonstrated per the Historic Review Ordinance. While other portions of the rear additions are historic, they were more utilitarian in nature and have been modified over the years and do not retain a high degree of historic integrity. Therefore, the Foundation does not object to these portions of the rear addition being removed. The Foundation respectfully requests that the Design Review Commission require the owner to preserve the rear portion of the building that may be original to the structure or predate 1853. In addition, the Foundation requests that any removals be documented before its removal. The Foundation also has concerns about the dismantling of the historic stone wall. The stone wall in front of the house should remain. It should be repaired, not reconstructed. In addition, the electrical transformer box that was installed in front of 23 Washington Street without Planning Board or Design Review Commission approval should be relocated. The transformer is not in an appropriate location as it is highly visible and obstructs the view of the primary facade. Landscape screening is not an appropriate solution. As far as the proposed addition to the structure, the Foundation is pleased with the proposed materials and the architectural style as they do relate and take design cues from the other historic buildings on Washington Street, specifically 41 Washington Street. However, the Foundation has concerns about the potential negative impacts of the project's scale, mass and height. The proposed addition will loom over the circa 1840 structure. In addition, the Foundation is disappointed that the east and west facades have no visual interest. The project narrative indicates that the proposed structure is setback 5' from the east and west property lines, which would allow for up to 25% of the area of the building facade to have windows, per the International Building Code. The Foundation is pleased that there is a coordinated review with the adjacent proposed new construction project at 353 Broadway so that the public and all of the City land use boards can have the best understanding how these two large projects will relate to one another as well as neighboring properties on Washington Street. Should both projects move forward they will permanently change the context of that portion of Washington Street. The Foundation also recommends that the applicant be required to provide a 3-D model of the site that includes the adjacent structures on Washington Street. In addition to the 3-D model, the Foundation recommends that the applicant provide elevation drawings that include the adjacent structures from various viewpoints. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. incerely, )444441‘ Matthew E. Veitch amantha Bosshart President xecutive Director Cc: Jeff Ward, RBC Construction, Applicant Kate Maynard, Principal Planner Steve Rowland, Design Review Commission Chair Brad Birge, Administrator of the Office of Planning and Economic Development Bill Moore, Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Susan Barden, Senior Planner Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation F` PRESERVATION 7FORV YEARS ?r Board of Directors Matthew E. Veitch President James Gold Vice President Linda Harvey-Opiteck Treasurer Alicia Czwerwinski Secretary Caroline Cardone Shane Cassidy Cynthia Corbett Brennan Drake Adam N. Favro Liz Israel Samantha Kercull Douglas Kerr Richard King Michelle Paquette-Deuel Cindy Spence Bill Willard Meredith Woolford James Kettlewell emeritus Samantha Bosshart Executive Director September 18, 2017 Mr. Steve Rowland, Chair Design Review Commission City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: 19-23 Washington Street — Demolition & Addition Dear Mr. Rowland: The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation reviewed the application for19-23 Washington Street to demolish the rear addition and the detached two -car garage and the proposed addition. The stone Greek Revival house was built circa 1840 and is Iisted as a contributing building to the Broadway Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Foundation does not object to the demolition of the garage. However, as stated in the letter the Foundation submitted on November 5, 2014, the Foundation has significant concerns regarding the removal of the rear addition of 23 Washington Street. A portion of the rear addition may be original to the structure or was added prior to1853, as shown on the 1853 Bevan Map (see attached maps). The first room of the first floor has the same ceiling height and treatment, flooring, molding, and foundation that match the original house (see attached images). The Foundation strongly advocates for the preservation of this portion of the addition which has been part of the building for over 160 years. This portion of the building does not appear to be in poor condition to the point that it cannot be reasonably repaired and preserved. While other portions of the rear additions are historic, they were more utilitarian in nature and have been modified over the years and do not retain a high degree of historic integrity. Therefore, the Foundation does not object to these portions of the rear addition being removed. The Foundation respectfully requests that the Design Review Commission require the owner to preserve this portion of the building. In addition, the Foundation requests that the rear addition be documented before its removal. The Foundation also has concerns about the dismantling of the historic stone wall. The stone wall in front of the house should remain. It should be repaired not reconstructed. In addition, the electrical transformer box that was installed in front of 23 Washington Street without Design Review Commission approval should be relocated. The transformer is not in an appropriate location as it is highly visible and obstructs the view of the primary facade. Landscape screening is not an appropriate solution. As far as the proposed addition to the structure, the Foundation is pleased with the proposed materials and the architectural style as they do relate and take design cues from the other historic buildings on Washington Street, specifically 41 Washington Street. 112 Spring Street, Suite 2113 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-587-503n Us 1ra1‘5,1,ip However, the Foundation has concerns about the scale, mass and height. The proposed addition will loom over the circa 1840 structure. In addition, the Foundation is disappointed that the east and west facades have no visual interest. The project narrative indicates that the proposed structure is setback 5' from the east and west property lines, which would allow for up to 25% of the area of the building facade to have windows, per the International Building Code. The Foundation recommends that there be a coordinated review with the adjacent proposed new construction project at 353 Broadway so that the public and all of the City land use boards can have the best understanding how these two large projects will relate to one another as well as neighboring properties on Washington Street. Should both projects move forward they will permanently change the context of that portion of Washington Street. The Foundation also recommends that the applicant be required to provide a 3-D model of the site that includes the adjacent structures on Washington Street. In addition to the 3-D model, the Foundation recommends that the applicant provide elevation drawings that include the adjacent structures. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. incerely, Matthew E. Veitch /amantha Bosshart President xecutive Director Cc: Jeff Ward, RBC Construction, Applicant Brad Birge, Administrator of the Office of Planning and Economic Development Mike Torpey, Planning Board Chair Kate Maynard, Senior Planner Bill Moore, Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Susan Barden, Senior Planner