Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board discusses porch repairs and materials at 202 Lake Avenue; board urges in-kind replacement for key features
Summary
Board reviewed proposed porch reroofing, column addition, lattice and pilaster treatments at 202 Lake Avenue; members generally opposed cladding original concrete piers and cheek walls but supported a metal handrail and simpler lattice and asked applicant to test underlying materials before committing to replacement.
The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board on July 16 reviewed proposed exterior modifications at 202 Lake Avenue that include reroofing a north-facing porch, adding a non-structural boxed wood column for symmetry, replacing lattice and trim with historically appropriate square lattice, and addressing pilasters that previously were parged with concrete.
Applicant Antonia Yasenchak (Engineering/American Y Engineering) described replacing failing porch roofing with new material and requested the board's guidance on whether the concrete parged pilasters and cheek walls should be retained or refaced with stone or brick. She provided precedent photos of nearby houses (for example, 172 Caroline/172 Lake Avenue and a house near the military museum) where similar treatments had been approved.
Board members broadly agreed on several points: they do not support removal of the cheek walls; they prefer repair or in-kind replacement where feasible; they recommended square-lattice patterns rather than diagonal lattice; and they suggested a flat-seam or in-kind asphalt roof rather than a tall standing seam metal roof. Several members cautioned that cladding the pilasters in stone or brick could alter proportions and character-defining features and advised the applicant to "chip away" the parging to verify underlying materials before committing to a veneer.
There was not a formal vote on the application at this meeting. The board requested additional information, urged the applicant to test the pilaster substrate, recommended a metal handrail (or simple pipe/wrought-iron alternative) to replace the current vinyl railing, and asked for more detailed drawings of proposed changes and materials for future review. The Preservation Foundation had submitted a letter (delivered late) echoing similar guidance in favor of repairing in-kind and avoiding incongruous material changes.
The board emphasized maintaining defining historic features and proportions, preserving cheek walls, and using appropriate materials for lattice and handrails. The applicant and board agreed to return with more detailed specifications and test results showing what lies beneath existing parging.
