Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250221 195 Lake Ave Demolition and Construction Good Casue for demoPlease accept the below as a supplement to our application for 195 Lake Avenue. In March, 2025 the initial application was submitted to demo and rebuild the carriage house located in the back yard of 195 Lake Ave. After the initial workshop, the preservation society drafted a letter to the DRB suggesting the building not be torn down and replaced due to its age. There wasn’t anything noted about historical or architectural significance, but only that it was found on a Sanborn Map. As you may recall, the applicant – in advance of purchasing the property – went to the planning office to inquire of the ZBA staff whether the second structure on the property could be replaced with a new structure on a similar footprint for additional living space, specifically another bedroom and bathroom. Aneisha Samuels advised that secondary dwelling unit could be built with an area variance from the ZBA. At no point in time was there any disclosure that this structure could not be demolished. The existing property only has 2 bedrooms and a shared bath, which is insufficient for the owners needs. The owner would have thought much harder about purchasing the property, and certainly the priced paid, had their diligence included information that the structure could not be replaced. On March 3rd 2025, the ZBA granted the right for a secondary dwelling unit, with the caveat that the new structure be placed 10 feet from the rear setback, rather than the 5 feet where the existing structure is located. Following the Design Review Board’s workshop where information related to preservation of the structure was first raised, the applicant and their team has worked to determine the feasibility and cost related to salvage the existing structure. The discussion included meetings with the building department and informal discussions with the Preservation Foundation. The below are responses to the standards for review of Structures with Architectural or Historic Significance. 3.a. 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. The applicant must provide the following: i. The applicant must document good faith efforts in seeking an alternative that will result in the preservation of the structure including consultation with the Design Review Board and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. The relocation of structures may be permitted as an alternative to demolition. The structure cannot be preserved and also used for code compliant dwelling space. As you will see from the below, the changes that would be required to allow the property to be structurally safe and usable for dwelling space would necessitate such significant modification to the existing structure vertically as to result in the inability to preserve it as it present exists. As you will see below, there are many aspects of the current structure that are fine in it’s current use as a shed in the back yard; however, to make this building a second dwelling, which the ZBA has approved, there are many modifications that need to be made which result in essentially re-building the entire structure anyway. We intend to consult with the Design Review Board at a workshop the week of July 21, 2025. Simultaneously with this narrative, we are submitting our plans for the structure, and open to all feedback the Board may have. The homeowner also welcomes the DRB to examine the structure in person. We have spoken with the Preservation Foundation who seemed to indicate that the value of the structure lie in its age (anything over 50 years is deemed historic) rather than the quality or significance of its architecture. The applicant is interested in designing a similar structure which can preserve the value of the detached structure aesthetic while enabling the space to be livable, consistent with the variance granted to allow a second dwelling unit in the structure. a. In addition to the above, we have consulted with Travis Jameson of Hidden Valley Custom Cabins N Sheds. Travis has moved garages, sheds etc. from Saratoga to other locations. He also repurposes buildings at his shop in Fort Edward to sell to other buyers. Travis came to the property on June 2nd, 2025. Travis advised that he didn’t see any materials in the structure worth saving. He did however state that for $15,000 he could dismantle the building piece by piece to preserve and try and use elsewhere. We discussed moving the structure off the property as well. The issue is the height of it, and moving power lines, street lights etc. and permits to bring it down Lake Ave. Travis couldn’t give an exact number but said it could be well over $50,000 which would be cost prohibitive. ii. The applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. a. See above – without being able to move the shed intact, we’d need to disassemble it piece by piece and find a buyer who would be willing to reconstruct it at their own cost and without being able to use it for liveable space. Consulted with Travis Jameson and he provided $15,000 estimate to dismantle or over $50,000 to move which would be cost prohibitive to any potential purchaser. iii. The applicant must 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. a. This seems to get at the core of the problem. The permitted use per the Zoning Board is to make this a second dwelling. Beyond single family use, the other uses in the UR3 zoning district would not be appropriate for this structure. Those other permitted uses as of right are too big for a structure of this size/location and include community garden, single family/secondary dwelling unit, two family, home for adults, park/playground, rooming house, or domestic violence shelter. All of these uses would require the same significant and costly modifications of the existing structure which would require wholesale changes to be able to make it liveable and code compliant. These changes would not preserve the existing – it would simply reuse some portions while adding so many changes as to not actually preserve the structure. See below details on defects which would prevent this structure from being rehabilitated or reused. b. Below are notes from our Architect that show the impossibility of transitioning the current structure into second dwelling as the Zoning Board approval permits: Foundation • Currently the structure is located on a cement block foundation. Typical historic properties in Saratoga would be built on a stacked stone wall. Without digging under the current cement blocks, you can’t know for sure, but likely these blocks aren’t resting on footings below the frost line like you’d need for a second dwelling. This is not historic construction, but rather a cheap method of putting together a shed, which was probably used illegally as additional living space, as seems likely due to the toilet on the second floor. • The poured slab is uninsulated. Based on the building code, the space cannot be used for finished dwelling space without insulating. In order to insulate the slab, it would be necessary to do either of the following: o Could build on top of slab with wood framing, what our architect refers to as a “sleeper floor” system. This would require a pressure treated 2”x6” plate around the perimeter and center of the structure, spray foam in the new void space (on top of current slab), then cover with ¾” plywood. Once you add your finished flooring material on top of the new plywood subfloor, this will add roughly 7” of height to the current floor. Current ceiling height is only 92” on the first floor. If you raise the floor by 7”, and drop the ceiling by at least 1” (drywall and adding dimensional 2x6” supports to floor joist), the ceiling height becomes only 7’ in the downstairs. To put in a standard 6’ 8” egress door now becomes difficult. o The second option would be to jack hammer current slab, repour a new slab and insulate properly. This method would also require frost walls to be added around the perimeter of structure which likely aren’t there given the current cement block the building is sitting on. Would need to lift current structure off the blocks to pour new foundation. Would require a company to brace the structure, lift into the air while foundation work is being completed. The cost of this could be prohibitive to the owner compared to demolition, and pouring a new frost wall/slab on a blank space. • The existing foundation is 5’ from back property line. The Zoning Board approval to create second dwelling is contingent on moving the new structure 10’ from property line. In order to comply, the structure would need to be moved from it’s current location. This causes significant additional costs for a structure that has no value in terms of architectural significance, is made of substandard materials (plywood, rotten wood, 1 ½ x 5 “nominal” lumber) and a type of construction that is not code compliant. The only value of the structure is that some parts of it are over 50 years of age and that having a home with a separate unit is indicative of some structures in the city during that period of time. However, given the number of nearby homes with secondary structures in the rear, the value of this seems nominal for historical purposes. Framing • 2x4 Exterior Walls – would require closed cell, spray foam insulation, to get R-Value required for secondary dwelling to meet insulation standards. In new dwellings, a 2x6 exterior wall would be constructed allowing the use of fiberglass insulation to meet energy code. Also, the framing doesn’t look to be constructed with the intent of having actual living space above it. For example, having a double plate sitting on top of your wall studs that are positioned every 16”. The current framing may work for the current shed, which doesn’t have a live load (people inhabiting the space) above it. In the current state, our architect refers to the upstairs as a dead load – meaning storage or items, rather than living space. For a dead load upstairs, the building needs to support 10lb per sqft Once the upstairs becomes living space, it would be considered a “live load” – meaning people moving, and using the space. To support a live load upstairs, the building would need to support 40lb per sqft – a significant increase that would require the framing to be completely re-done. • 2x6 Floor Joist (upstairs) – continuing on the “live load” from above, the current floor joist that support he upstairs are 2x6, spanning the entire width of the structure. To make this safe our architect would require “sistering” or essentially attaching two new 2x6 studs, one to each side of the current 2x6 joist to strengthen them to support the upstairs. • Roof Rafters – 2x6 rafters currently – the rafter height doesn’t allow enough room to propertly insulate the ceiling of the structure for a second dwelling. Would need to add 2” to the bottom of each rafter, making them 8” tall to allow for a spray foam to have enough thickness for proper insulation. Also, based on calculations for a snow load – meaning the roof needs to hold significant weight because we live in the northeast and it snows, our architect would require sistering 2x8” next to each – same as above floor joist, we’re attaching two new 2x8” rafters to each side of the current to increase support. Stairs • The existing 2x6 staircase on the exterior of the structure is at a dramatically steep angle that is difficult to climb and discend. This existing staircase would never pass building code for habitable space without being removed and rebuilt to building code standards. In addition, in order to create a secondary dwelling, the staircase needs to be internal to the structure. The existing structure does not have sufficient space to include a staircase on the interior. The only potential solution would be a spiral staircase that would need to be in the center of the building to allow for headroom when you reach the upstairs. Doors/Windows • The existing front barn doors are uninsulated doors being held together with plywood. They have no redeaming value in being preserved. If the applicant is required to raise the current floor to insulate above the slab, the doors would need to be cut, and would likely not meet 6’ 8” min height. In addition, based on current construction, if the building needed to pass the energy check knows as ResCheck, the doors would need to be replaced as they aren’t insulated. • The windows would all need to be replaced to make this actual habitable living space because they are not insulated, and don’t function properly. Roofing • Shingles and Plywood all need to be replaced due to rot and age. You can see areas where the prior owner has screwed plywood to the underside of the roof, I’m assuming to patch things together. • Currently the roof is being held together with plywood. The plywood is installed on the overhangs between rafters to hold the roof together. There is nothing historic or worth preserving on the roof. The entire roof would need to be replaced. Front Balcony • The second story balcony is supported by two 4x4 posts which are angled and attached to the structure. This method of building is not acceptable and this type of support is not up to building code standards. The balcony would need to be rebuilt in a different manner and method, which makes preservation of this feature impossible. Carport Area • The carport appears to be a recent addition which has no historical preservation value. The structure and framing seems more sound than the original building, but it is only 5’ 9” tall. This structure doesn’t have head room for most adults to stand under it. If you raise the carport roof to allow for headroom, it will encroach on the second story windows above. iv. The applicant must 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” is required to demonstrate such hardship. a. Note that the 2024 Realtor listing for the property notes “A detached two-story garage with electrical, could house guests, an office or continue to be used as storage.” Before the homeowner went to contract on the property, she called the City of Saratoga Building Department and spoke with Connor Bryant (x2510). Homeowner (Erin) and Connor discussed adding a shower and the structure becoming a secondary dwelling which would require Zoning Board approval. As a result, the homeowner paid above market value for the home because her due diligence demonstrated she would be able to obtain approval for a secondary dwelling (which Zoning Board has subsequently approved) and add to the overall living space. b. Realtor Candace Eaton pulled a list of sales on the East side of the city to determine the price per sf paid on recent sales as set forth below. This supports that what the homeowner paid is above market, because she believed she would be able to have a second dwelling, providing additional living space. If she is unable to do so, she will be unable to get a reasonable return on her investment if she sells the house without constructing more living space. Address SQ FT Price Price/Sq 195 Lake Ave (subject property) 1,028 $715,000 $695.5253 160 East Ave 1,290 $685,000 $531.0078 175 York 1,104 $570,000 $516.3043 22 Avery 1,650 $800,000 $484.8485 18 James 928 $430,000 $463.3621 242 Nelson 3,000 $1,365,000 $455.0000 241/243 Caroline 3,000 $1,208,000 $402.6667 168 East Ave 2,532 $945,000 $373.2227 144 Middle Ave 1,725 $640,000 $371.0145 14 E Harrison 1,152 $395,000 $342.8819 114 Middle Ave 4,244 $1,212,500 $285.6975 199 Caroline 2,786 $770,000 $276.3819 Average price $/sq $433.1594 $715,000 (price paid)/$433.16 (avg price $/sq) 1650sqft Current House 1,028sqft Difference between current house and market (1650 – 1028) 623sqft Proposed Second Dwelling. 657sqft **By adding the second dwelling of 657sqft, 195 Lake Ave’s total usable square footage would now put the property directly in line with the average price per square foot paid in the area** v. Application for demolition of a structure with historic or architectural significance must include acceptable post-demolition plans for the site. Such plans include an acceptable timetable and guarantees which may include performance bonds/letters of credit for demolition and completion of the project. The Design Review Board 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. a. Enclosed with the application are the proposed renderings of a design which takes the existing structure and replaces it with a similar design that is code compliant. The applicant is open to feedback on the design. Our goal is to maintain the current charm of the carriage house but to update the space with a code compliant building which meets or exceeds current code and energy standards. On the front facing exterior, we plan to use a dutch lap siding, have a French barn door below the balcony, and the gable details. We also understand that the rafter tails add a unique look to the current building, and are open to adding that detail on the new building.