Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chair; Richard Martin; Robert West; Staci Mannion; Karen Cavotta; Rob DeMarco STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning & Economic Development CALL TO ORDER: Chair Steven Rowland called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: Steve Rowland, Chairman, stated the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 2012.037 MANNION FENCE, 126 Caroline Street, Historic Review of fence in the Urban Residential-3 District. RECUSAL: Board Member Staci Mannion recusing from this application. Applicant: Staci and Michael Mannion The applicant is requesting new steel fencing, black in color to replace existing fencing. New fencing is approximately four feet in height. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Robert West made a motion in the matter of the application of Mannion Fence, 126 Caroline Street, that the application be approved as submitted. Note fencing is not to exceed 6 feet in height. Seconded by Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman. VOTE:  Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Staci Mannion assumed her position on the Board. 2. 2012.031 STATE FARM AGENCY SIGN, 267 Broadway, Architectural Review of free-standing sign in the Transect-5 District. Agent: Tom Wheeler, AJ Signs. Mr. Wheeler stated the applicant State Farm Agency has approved the sign to be a white background with red lettering. Rob DeMarco, stated this is more fitting to the area, and the Board appreciates their cooperation. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Rob DeMarco made a motion in the matter of State Farm Agency Sign, 267 Broadway, that the application be approved as submitted with no lighting. Seconded by Tamie Ehinger. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. 2012.036 MIMOSA GALLERY SIGN, 489 Broadway, Historic Review of directory sign in the Transect-6 District. Agent: Cutter Darch, Adirondack Sign Mr. Darch stated the applicant is requesting removal of the current directory sign replaced with a smaller sign between the two windows which will be representing the upstairs tenant as well. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Staci Mannion made a motion in the matter of the application of the Mimosa Gallery Sign, 489 Broadway that the application be approved as submitted. Seconded by Richard Martin. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 2 of 10 Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 4. 2012.035 KETTLEWELL & EDWARDS AWNING, 13 Phila Street, Historic Review of awning in the Transect-6 District. Applicant: Chloe Kettlewell The applicant is requesting to replace the awning. The framework will remain the same. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Kettlewell & Edwards Awning that the application be approved as submitted. The awning will extend only 7 feet per City Code. Seconded by Robert West. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 5. 2012.038 ALEX AND ANI SIGN, 327 Broadway, Historic Review of sign in the Transect-6 District. Agent: Edward Forer, Blue Sky Group The applicant is looking for approval for signage of a 15 foot sign. We will be using soft LED lighting for the lettering. The awning is not included in this application. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Karen Cavotta, made a motion in the matter of the application of Alex and Ani Sign, 327 Broadway, that the application be approved as submitted. Seconded by Staci Mannion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 3 of 10 None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 NOTE: Agenda Items were heard out of order since the applicant's agent for Agenda Item #6 was not in attendance at this time. 7. 2009. 005 BOFF RESIDENCE, 66 Franklin Street, Discussion of draft Environmental Impact Statement for Historic Review of demolition in the Urban Residential-4 District. RECUSAL: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman Robert West DISCLOSURES: Steven Rowland, Chairman stated his office was a former member of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. They have not been members for several years, therefore, he can remain impartial, so there is no need for recusal. Richard Martin stated his company is a member of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. In a completely different project he was under contract with Mr. Boff approximately two years ago. They are not under contract at this time therefore, there is no need for recusal. Rob DeMarco stated he also is a member of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated this is a continuation of a previous project from 2009 which received a positive declaration of significance from this Board. The applicant has submitted a draft Environmental Impact Statement. There is a process to go through. Tonight is about that process more than anything. The discussion this evening will center around and focus on the DEIS and its contents and trying to get this Commission to see whether or not we have a complete and total EIS. Hopefully at some point this will get us to a decision on accepting that EIS. We have this process and based on our process the State dictates a much of this to us as well as our Zoning Ordinance dictates much of this to us. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated he wants to assure everyone that we will get through this process and do the best job as we possibly can and get to a fair resolution. I do not think that we are going to see a resolution this evening. I think there will be a lot of discussion about what is in this document and what might need to be in here. There are only two members of this Board who have actually seen this building on the inside. They have driven by, but I believe they would actually like to avail themselves of the opportunity. We would like to have each member address the invitation Mr. Boff has extended Mr. Boff has extended and make that happen. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated there are three main areas to focus on in terms of the DEIS. Three impacts which were identified from the positive declaration.  Is the proposed action in sharp contrast with the surroundings.  Does it have an effect on the aesthetic resources.  Will the action impact a structure of historical significance. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 4 of 10 Applicant: Mr. Joseph Boff Agent: Mr. Tony Ianiello, Attorney Mr. Ianiello stated the process as it was identified was you will indicate the deficiencies to us or lack thereof and then we can address those issues. Mr. Ianiello gave an overview of the project. The application has been pending for some time. During the course of the application the City of Saratoga Springs initiated an action to demolish the building, based on it being an unsafe structure. There is a provision in the City's statutes which allows for such an action and it does not require the consent of the DRC. That was the procedure that the City employed. We were in effect brought into court to respond to that motion and we in effect consented to it. The judge issued an order based upon evidence provided by the Code Enforcement Officer and the City Attorney authorizing the demolition of the structure at 66 Franklin Street. We appeared in court, we consented to the demolition. The Preservation Foundation obtained a stay of that order from another judge equal in jurisdictional capacity. That process of demolition was then stayed. We have since been in litigation. Mr. Boff has never been a plaintiff he has always been a defendant. The City asked him to demolish the building because it was unsafe. The Code Enforcement Officer indicated that it was in imminent danger of adversely affecting public safety, and that was the basis for the duly appointed city official to render that opinion. Mr. Ianiello stated since then Mr. Boff has been a defendant in litigation which was commenced by the Preservation Foundation in the Supreme Court as an ancillary action to the one that was continued. We have been delayed in our process of the application because of court actions. We are here now continuing the application after many appearances in court and we are interested in pursuing the application. Mr. Ianiello stated we submitted the Environmental Impact Statement and we really contend that our statement is sufficient. My understanding is that the DRC has never in its history asked for a EIS regarding the demolition of a residence. This is a first time request and obviously this has placed a burden on us especially when we have a structure which is a very dangerous structure and it has been cited as such by the City. The fire department will not enter the building it has been tagged. The Code Enforcement officer has clearly stated that it should be demolished and so we're back and hopefully the DRC and its members will view the property internally, externally and come to the same conclusion that the duly appointed City officials have come to. Mr. Ianiello stated we feel you have all the information that you need and that our statement is sufficient. If we can answer any questions you have and address any deficiencies you think exist and proceed. We would like to proceed expeditiously because this is a structure which is a very dangerous structure. It is unfit for human habitation. A fire would have dramatic and adverse consequences for adjoining properties and for the City's own liability. The City Officials have time and time again voiced their concerns and their opinion that the building should be demolished. This process has delayed that and the City at any point in time could have participated and had been more involved in the process, they have chosen not to. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated he is sure the Commission wants to move as expeditiously as possible as well. We are certainly not here to be obstructionary in any way in terms of timing but as you are aware this process is what it is and we do have to get through it which does put some time constraints on how quickly we can go through it. Obviously, we can discuss some of the items which are in here and some items that ought to be in here and moving forward we have some site visits to arrange. Following that when the EIS is accepted as complete then we move to the next step in the process with the public comment period and the public hearings which still have to occur. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated we will now focus on the draft of the EIS. There are a few items in this document which need a little clarification or more supporting information. There are some statements which are strong but we want to make sure that when this document is accepted that there is enough back up information. The first area states there is significant potential for catastrophic failure of the structure. The appendices which were included and the items which were received from various engineers who have looked at it and rendered their opinion and I just want to be sure that the supporting documentation will support that statement. The engineering letters we received and reviewed did seem to point towards that strong of a statement. Some speak of how to stabilize the structure, and possibly fix it. I did not see any that speak of a City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 5 of 10 catastrophic failure. Any additional information that can be provided to back up that specific statement or revise that statement would be appropriate. Mr. Ianiello stated the professionals have spoken on this very well. The City of Saratoga Springs Fire Department, the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Saratoga Springs, and the Building Inspector of the City of Saratoga Springs who have issued a report some time ago. All three of these City Officials that are responsible for their respective categories that they have been employed to oversee have indicated that the building is in that kind of condition. Very importantly if a fire were to start on that property the response by the Fire Fighters would be very limited and what would ultimately occur in a very short period of time, would be the fire would spread to adjoining structures. There is ample information from people who are well qualified to render those opinions as to the catastrophic nature of this property. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated perhaps some supporting information to support the language here would be appropriate to be included here. There is a statement here which states the loss of the current structure cannot be avoided. Certainly there were measures spoken about, expensive measures that speak about avoiding the loss of the structure. There is some documentation in the supporting appendix which states what it would cost to renovate or fix the building, repair or restore the building. It does contradict the statement that loss of the structure cannot be avoided. I want to make sure that we are clear on that. There is documentation which speaks of how it could be renovated. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated there should be some documentation in the EIS which supports information which we discussed that demolition cannot be avoided. That should be in the paperwork. That demolition cannot be avoided. I would also ask that this statement while the loss of the structure maybe reversible and irretrievable, the replacement structure would be aesthetically compatible. I am not sure that is worded correctly. While the loss of the structure maybe reversible I am not sure what that is saying. Mr. Ianiello stated they will correct that and re-submit the information with additional background information. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated under the mitigation measures there are statements which back us up. Our City's ordinance and statutory authority here requires a post demolition development plan. Currently there are a couple of things in here that seem to contraindicate each other in terms of whether there is or is not a development plan. Part of the development plan speaks about grassing the site, installing a fence, then in another location states at the current time there is no plan for construction of new structures. I want to make sure that we do not have conflicting statements. I notice that all the documentation backing up previous hearings and meetings that were held regarding other mitigation measures discussed are not here and I think it would be very important to have them. Some of those items discussed that should be in here are grossly missing from this application. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated prior to this Board they were presentations made before this Commission for conceptual designs for single family homes there that are not indicated here as potential mitigation matters. The idea being that if they are not being considered it ought to be clear that the post demolition plan is seeding and fencing or is there something more which could be added as a mitigation measure for the Board's consideration. Mr. Ianiello stated the statute itself does not require a plan with structures. The intent of this developer would be to develop the property in accordance with the Zoning Law of the City of Saratoga Springs which among other areas requires your review, consent for a design. There is a procedure in place for the DRC's involvement in the future. It is pretty simple what can be put on there it is a residential zone and the zoning of the City of Saratoga Springs dictates what can be built on it. The DRC involvement is dictated by statutes also. The plan submitted is cleaning the property up, seeding it, fencing it and making it safe, as opposed to what it is now, which is a nuisance. Mr. Boff stated his plan when the house was unfeasible to restore was to take it down. The Board kept asking me if you were going to build something what would it look like. So, I started producing pictures all the time making it clear that I had no intention of building on that property. This is the height of the financial crisis. I have no intention of building on that property at this time. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 6 of 10 Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the Zoning Ordinance does require a post demolition plan, generally within 6 months. The previously developed concepts that could be included in this application. Certainly there would be flexibility when the time comes, that is within our discretion. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated if the plan is what you want to say it is grassing, fencing, cleaning of the property, then that must be stated all the way through. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated for Plans after demolitions are stated in Article VII 72010 Standard to Guide the Commission. Under Subsection F Demolition, Subsection III states "Application for demolition for a structure which is a contributing building in a National Register District shall include plans for development on the site following demolition. The site plans must include an acceptable time table, which may include performance bonds, letters of credit for demolition, and completion of the project. The time between demolition and commencement of new construction should generally not exceed 6 months". Mr. Ianiello stated what he is missing with this statute when you have a situation with an unsafe structure is that the development plan is to develop the property in accordance with the Zoning Law of the City of Saratoga Springs. This Zoning Law dictates what can be built there as a right. Mr. Boff would not be asking for use variances, he would not be asking for area variances, he is going to build it right. The acceptability is in your hands. The development plan does not involve a zoning change. Mr. Boff stated from the years 1983 to 2008 this home has a Historical Lien on the exterior of the property. At any given time, the Preservation Foundation could have gone in and made either one of the two last owners repair the roof, etc., to save the structure. This home was not lost in the last two, three years, that home was lost over the last 30 years. I am not happy that it is gone. I am not looking to build a replica right now. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the following Correspondence received by the Board. Communication from Kyle York, Railroad Place, dated May 14, 2012. Communication from the Preservation Foundation, dated May 15, 2012. Communication from Ianiello, Anderson and Riley, dated May 7, 2012. Communication from Mr. Boff to the Chair, electronically regarding site visits. Communication from Jim Martinez. Steven Rowland, Chairman thanked Mr. Boff for his arranging for site visits to the property for the Board. PUBLIC HEARING Steven Rowland, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. Obviously we feel the draft EIS is deficient in several areas. To say that the building is in eminent state of collapse or catastrophic has not been successful in City or Supreme Court. If it were in eminent danger I think the court and the City would have been successful in those arguments. We have had engineers who have been in the building and since then the City Court has ordered Mr. Boss to do further stabilization and waterproof the building. I would ask the Board to ask for a more complete draft EIS and consider the contradictions even in his statements. Douglas Kerr, 60 State Street, Saratoga Springs. I have reviewed the EIS. I am a participant and a party in some of the actions with Mr. Boff concerning demolition of this property. None of the engineers have found this building in danger of catastrophic failure. Misrepresentations of this kind are not supposed to take place in any EIS. It should be a fair, accurate and complete presentation of the facts. Mitigation – SHIPPO has stated that this project is eligible to receive Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits if it is developed for income producing use which would be residential development. Other Preservation Organizations in addition to the Preservation Foundation see this as a valuable building and one that can be preserved. Their letters are submitted in this application. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 7 of 10 Patrick Kane, 19 Marion Place, Saratoga Springs. Common sense is something we should think about. I am a former Chairman of the DRC, and have renovated several homes in the Saratoga Springs area. Guidelines are not laws. We have been overzealous here. This building needs to be taken down. If we are going to preserve buildings it must be done proactively. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone had any further comments. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated he would like some time to visit the house. We will set up visits next week. Please review this EIS and pay attention to the areas we have discussed, possibly rework and revisit some areas which need more information. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated the applicant has offered a draft EIS. Clearly within that the DRC is trying to make a case. Technically the DRC has to be comfortable with the EIS and the statements presented within and the language. So what we need to do now is to craft the language and statements in a fair and accurate manner so that if and when the DRC decides it is adequate they can accept it as their document. Discussion ensued regarding making corrections and adding additional information per the Boards recommendations. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated this application will be tabled until June 6, 2012. We will reconvene at that time. Modifications can be submitted to Bradley Birge and he will expedite those to the Board. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman resumed her position on the Board. Robert West, resumed his position on the Board. 6. 2012.003 316-318 BALLSTON AVENUE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, 316-318 Ballston Avenue Architectural Review of two six unit residential buildings in the Transect-4 District. Agent: Bob Flansburg Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development reviewed items the Board requested clarification on. Mr. Flansburg presented the latest revisions to the plans for this application via visual presentation. Sterling grey for the siding colors. Windows on garage doors, roof penetrations on the east side only, black roof penetrations, PVC product for trim, window trim and corner fascia, with siding relief no J channel. Meter banks, three on each end of the building. Venting to the rear along the garage soffit. Natural screening to cover air conditioning condensers and meter banks. Center gable elimination of the center column, windows on gables to be consistent. Dryer vent locations. Richard Martin made a motion in the matter of the 316-318 Ballston Avenue Residential Buildings, that the application be approved with the following conditions: That a shroud of siding and arborvitae be added to mask the air conditioning condensers to the plot plan. Also to lower the gable end frieze board to match the frieze over the garage and cut the garage gable short of the corner trim. Also, eliminate the nested gable in the center of the west elevation. Revised plans to be submitted for the file. Seconded by Robert West. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 8 of 10 VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 DRAFT REVIEW – HISTORIC REVIEW LEGISLATION – CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation gave a brief presentation of the two minor revisions in the Draft Revisions of the Historic Review Legislation for the City of Saratoga Springs. Revised documents were circulated to the Board for their review as well. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation sent correspondence to the Design Review Commission stating on May 8, 2012 the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation voted to support the revisions the Historic Review Ordinance that are being presented at this evenings Design Review Commission Meeting. These revisions will clarify and strengthen information to assist in preservation of the City of Saratoga Springs. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the Historic Review Legislation which will be incorporated into the Zoning Amendment to be presented to the City Council for adoption. Seconded by Richard Martin. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Steven Rowland, Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2012 meeting as submitted. Seconded by Richard Martin. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES 7-0 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING: The Design Review Commission Caravan and Workshop is scheduled for Monday, June 4, 2012, at 5:00 P.M. The Design Review Commission Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 6, 2012, at 7:00 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 9 of 10 MOTION TO ADJOURN: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Richard Martin. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Staci Mannion, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Rob DeMarco, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Meeting adjourned at 9:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 7/18/12 City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – page 10 of 10