HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 01 02_79 Henry Street_DRC Ltrtog,1 X1)1-ings
Preservation Foundation
F 0 R` %r/—
PRESERVATION
FOR YEARS
Board of Directors
Matthew E. Veitch
President
James Gold
Vice President
Linda Harvey-Opiteck
Treasurer
Alicia Czwerwinski
Secretary
Caroline Cardone
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 203
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-5030
January 2, 2018
Mr. Steve Rowland, Chair
Design Review Commission
City Hall
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
RE: 79 Henry Street — Modifications to Approval
Dear Steve:
The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation reviewed the materials submitted to request
modifications to the existing approval for 79 Henry Street.
The structure is listed as a "contributing building" to the Broadway Historic District listed on
the National Register of Historic Places and is located in an Architectural Review District.
When the application to demolish the structure and reconstruct it was made in 2014, the
Foundation supported the project in that the proposal for reconstruction of the new structure
would retain the character and aesthetics of the original and use as much of the original
historic building materials as possible. These measures were to serve as the mitigation for the
loss of one of the few remaining historic livery buildings constructed of wood in downtown.
As stated in the Foundation's letter to the Design Review Commission dated April 22, 20171,
the Foundation expressed concerns about the demolition of a building through deconstruction
a historic building. Various reasons were given in the letter for those concerns, but the
Foundation continued to support the mitigation proposal for reconstruction of the new
structure that would retain much of the character and aesthetics of the original structure and
use as much of the original historic buildings materials as possible.
Samantha met with Michael Tuck, the architect, and Tony Bonacio, on November 29, 2017 to
discuss the proposed changes and the following day toured the building. At both of these
meetings, Samantha indicated that the Foundation would be supportive of the proposed
changes IF the following the character -defining features of the building were retained — the
hay loft doors, the cupola, metal hay lift, decorative detail in the gable of the primary facade,
novelty siding on the primary facade as well as the double -hung windows, which Tony stated
on site that they appear to be salvageable. It was Samantha's understanding following both of
the meetings that the requested items would be preserved.
In addition, Samantha stated at the meeting on November 29, 2017 that while the Foundation
was supportive of the unique initial mitigation proposal to reconstruct the building
incorporating many of the historic character defming features on top of a new basement and
first floor level, it would have not been supportive if that proposed mitigation was constructed
with all new materials. Instead the Foundation would have recommended best preservation
practice, a new structure be designed to represent the time in which it is built, not a replica.
After review by the Foundation's Advocacy Committee, Samantha followed up with an email
on December 3, 2017 (enclosed) that restated the need to preserve the items listed above and
1 Please note that Mr. Tuck references a DRAFT letter to the DRC dated April 16, 2017 that was provided to
him in advance of the meeting.
retain the novelty siding on the primary facade. In addition, the Foundation requested that
further research be done to explore alternatives that would allow for novelty siding to also be
retained on the north and west facades of the building, which are highly visible from the
public right-of-way. The intent of the approval was to reconstruct the building using as many
historic materials as possible. The use of cementious lap siding significantly changes the
appearance of the building.
After reviewing the materials submitted, the Foundation was disappointed to see that many of
the items discussed were not included in the materials submitted -
• Wood novelty siding will not be retained on the primary, north, and west facades.
• The decorative gable end treatment on the primary facade will be constructed with
AZEK lattice over smooth finish AZEK, not of wood.
• The hay loft doors will not be preserved and retained.
• The wood windows will not be retained.
• It is unclear based on the drawings if the metal hay lift will be retained.
Also, the Foundation does not support replacing the gable window with a simulated loft door
as that would not be historically accurate. As stated in my email dated December 3, 2017, a
louvered vent would be most appropriate. To date, we have not received any response to the
email indicating that what had been discussed was not acceptable or that the use of novelty
siding would be further investigated.
As the letter provided by Mr. Tuck indicates, the owner is working with the Foundation to
identify materials that should be preserved. However, there is no commitment to do so in the
materials submitted. The lack of commitment to incorporate many of the historic materials to
mitigate the loss of a contributing building and one of the last remaining livery buildings in
downtown does not follow the intent of the original approval that was provided by the Design
Review Commission.
The Foundation strongly encourages the Design Review Commission to require the applicant
to retain the novelty wood siding, the historic windows on the primary facade, the metal hay
lift and replicate the decorative gable -end detail in wood as well as incorporate the historic
hay loft doors. Not making those requirements of the applicant would nullify the original
intent of preserving and rehabilitating the historic structure, and would not get the
Foundation's ongoing support.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
14,frAtt,,r- p},W,
Matthew E. Veitch
President
0414/427304-4444
Samantha Bosshart
Executive Director
Cc: Michael Tuck, Architect
Tony Bonacio, Project Manager
Bradley Birge, Administrator of the Office of Planning and Economic Development
Enclosures: December 3, 2017 Email Correspondence
April 22, 2014 Saratoga Springs Preservation Letter
Samantha Bosshart
From: Samantha Bosshart<sbosshart@saratogapreservation.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 1:43 PM
To: Michael Tuck
Subject: 79 Henry Street
Mike,
Sorry for the delay — the Friday I had several meetings and things got away from me!
The Advocacy Committee was in agreement with what I had expressed to you when we met — restoring the historic
windows, the hay doors, novelty siding on the primary facade and a louvered vent in the north gable, as well as those
items that you had said would be retained — the cupola and the metal hay lift, and the decorative detail in the gable.
However, the Advocacy Committee felt that there may be alternative solutions that should be fully explored to allow for
the novelty siding to be retained on the north and west sides, which are visibly prominent. A potential alternative may
be using fire retardant treated wood (2.1) of the Building Code.
602.4.8.2 Exterior Walls.
Exterior walls shall be of one of the following:
1. Noncombustible Materials
2. Not less than 6" in thickness and constructed of one of the following:
2.1 Fire -retardant -treated wood in accordance with section 2303.2 and complying with Section 602.4.1
2.2 Cross -laminated timber complying with Section 602.4.2.
The intent of the approval was to reconstruct it using as many historic materials as possible. The use of cementious lap
siding significantly changes the appearance of the building.
Is the siding something you could explore more? Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
As always, thank you for taking the time to share with me the revisions to the plan and allowing me to tour the
building. It was very helpful!
Sincerely,
Sam.
Samantha Bosshart
Executive Director
Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation
112 Spring Street, Suite 203
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
(518) 587-5030
www.saratogapreservation.orq
1
Preservation Foundation
PRESERVATION
Board of Directors
Jere Tatich
President
Seth D. Finkell
Vice President
Cynthia Corbett
Treasurer
Linda Harvey-Opiteck
Secretary
Christopher Armer
Katie M. Carroll
James Coker
Sue Hensley -Cushing
Liz Israel
Maryanne Moerschell
Michelle Paquette
Nicole R. Rodgers
Michael Tuck
Charles Wheeler, Jr.
William Willard
James Kettlewell
emeritus
April 22, 2014
Mr. Steve Rowland, Chair
Design Review Commission
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
RE: 79 Henry Street: Additions and Alterations
Dear Mr. Rowland:
The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has carefully reviewed the application of
Places in Saratoga, LLC to make additions and alterations to the building located at 79 Henry
Street.
The structure is listed as a "contributing building" to the Broadway Historic District listed on
the National Register of Historic Places, but it is not located in the Historic Review district. It
is in the Architectural Review District and subject to the review criteria in Article 7.5 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Article 7.5.6 states:
The Commission shall determine whether the proposed structure has architectural or
historic significance. "Significance" includes having particular important
associations within the context of the architecture, history or culture of Saratoga
Springs or region and may include listing as "contributing" on the State and National
Registers of Historic Places.
The Foundation requests the Design Review Commission identify this building as a
"significant" structure, due to its contributing status in the National Register District and as
one of the few remaining examples of a wood frame livery stable barn located downtown.
Currently "demolition" is not defined in the zoning ordinance. According to Julian Adams,
Director of Community Services at the New York State Historic Preservation Office,
"Deconstructing a contributing building in a listed district is not consistent with the Secretary
of Interiors' Standards and renders that building non-contributing within the historic district.
We would review this action as demolition and construction of a new and non-contributing
building within a National Register listed historic district."
The Foundation is concerned about the dangerous precedent this case could set by allowing
other buildings to be dismantled and removed from site — thus jeopardizing their status as
contributing - without specific criteria for review. The dismantling of a building should not
be taken lightly and all alternatives for preserving the building in its original location should
be considered prior to allowing its removal from the site. The demolition requirements of a
property with "Significance" under the Architectural Review Ordinance would provide the
necessary documentation and review of such a proposal.
112 Spring Street, Suite 203
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
P 518-587-5030 F518-581-1448
The following demolition requirements would need to be met:
Structures with architectural or historic significance for the proposed demolition of a
structure with architectural or historical significance, the applicant must demonstrate
"good cause" as to why such structure cannot be preserved.
1. The applicant shall document "good faith" efforts in seeking an alternative that
will result in the preservation of the structure including consultation with the
Commission and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. The relocation of
structures may be permitted as an alternative to demolition;
2. The applicant shall document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring
and preserving the structure;
3. The applicant shall demonstrate that the structure cannot be adapted for any other
permitted use, whether by the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in
a reasonable return; and
4. The applicant shall submit evidence that the property is not capable of earning a
reasonable return regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable
return possible. "Dollars and cents proof' shall be required to demonstrate such
hardship.
5. Application for demolition of a structure with historic or architectural significance
shall include acceptable post -demolition plans of the site. Such plans shall include an
acceptable timetable and guarantees which may include performance bonds/letters of
credit for demolition and completion of the project. The Commission may condition
the issuance of a demolition approval on the applicant's receipt of all other necessary
approvals and permits for the post demolition plan.
6. The Commission shall schedule a public hearing on an application for demolition
of a structure with historic or architectural significance and shall provide public
notice.
The Commission shall advertise the hearing in a Saratoga Springs newspaper of
general circulation at least five days prior to the date thereof. The applicant shall be
responsible for payment for this notice. Prior to the hearing, the applicant shall be
responsible for filing with the Commission an affidavit from the newspaper
confirming such publication and payment.
While this applicant has a proven track record of preserving buildings in our community, it is
those who follow him who may not follow through on their plans and may deconstruct a
building and never reassemble it. Under the demolition portion of the ordinance, the Design
Review Commission has the authority to request a bond and a time table for construction to
insure that the building is reconstructed.
If the applicant were to meet the requirements set forth in the ordinance for demolition,
acceptable mitigation for the loss of that historic resource could include the reconstruction of
the building using as many original materials as possible.
The applicant is seeking to disassemble the existing structure and reconstruct it on top of a
new basement and first floor level. If the applicant were to meet the criteria set forth under
demolition, the Foundation would be pleased that the mitigation proposal for reconstruction
of the new structure would retain much of the character and aesthetics of the original structure
and use as much of the original historic building materials as possible.
The Foundation respectfully requests that the Design Review Commission consider this
proposed project a demolition with the construction of a new building using salvaged
materials as mitigation for the loss of the historic resource and that it be reviewed under the
criteria set forth under Section 7.5.6 B of the Architectural Review Ordinance.
Furthermore, the Foundation requests that the City of Saratoga Springs amend the Historic
Review Ordinance to include a definition of demolition to avoid any confusion as to how
future cases are reviewed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.
Sincerely,
ere Tatich
President
Executive Director
Cc: Places in Saratoga, LLC — Applicant
Balzer + Tuck Architecture — Agent
Bradley Birge — Administrator, Planning and Economic Development Department