Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2014 7:00 P.M. 3RD FLOOR MUSIC HALL PRESENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman; Robert DeMarco; Georgeanna Lussier ABSENT: Richard Martin; Robert West; Karen Cavotta STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Steven Rowland, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT PROCEEDING WOULD NOT BE RECORDED: Steven Rowland, Chairman, stated the proceedings of this meeting are not being recorded due to a change in venue and lack of recording facilities in the 3rd floor Music Hall. The minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings; the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the meeting. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 2014.026 Sissi Boutique, 10 Phila Street, Historic Review of a wall sign within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki presented an application for a wall sign with digital print, located above door. Steven Rowland questioned the width of sign and whether it could match the recess of door. Mr. Roicki noted that clips would fit in recess of door and agreed to use them to fill space in door. The sign will not be lit and all lettering will be printed and flat. Bradley Birge noted that there are no issues with zoning. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if the Board had any further questions or comments. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman entertained motions. Georgeanna Lussier made a motion in the matter of Sissi Boutique, 10 Phila Street, that it be approved with following conditions: sign to be sized down to fit within the recessed transom area above the door and so as not to obstruct or damage the door lintel. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chair seconded the motion. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Georgeanna Lussier, in favor. MOTION PASSES: 4-0 2. 2014.014 The Springs Signage, 72-74 Weibel Ave, Architectural Review of freestanding signs in the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Agent: Sean Corp, Balzer+Tuck Architects, Mr. Corp presented 2 freestanding signs as part of Phase 2 of The Springs development. Mr. Corp indicated the signs were  identical to those in Phase 1. Mr. Corp noted that the Directory freestanding sign is for commercial tenants. Chair Rowland asked if provisions for the street sign had been made during Phase 1. Mr. Corp reported that this action will be on a separate parcel. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if the Board had any further questions or comments. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, entertained motions. Rob Demarco made motion in the matter of The Springs Signage, 72-74 Weibel Avenue that it be approved. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chair seconded the motion. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Georgeanna Lussier, in favor. MOTION PASSES: 4-0 3. 2014.012 Saratoga Acquisition LLC, 20 Fifth Avenue, Historic Review of renovations to single family residence in the Urban Residential-1 District. Applicant: Mark Holliday- Owner Agent: Sue Davis- Architect; Matt Jones- Attorney; Jorge Sanchez- Landscape Archictect; Mr. Boris Baranovich- Architect Steven Rowland, Chair, pointed out to applicant and owner that there were only four Board members present and as application is significant, they may not be able to vote this evening. Mr. Rowland noted that if the items are not resolved, the DRC may need to table a complete decision or pull some items out of the application for future review. Bradley Birge, Administrator, asked for introductions. Matt Jones introduced the application and went through slides and provided an overview of project to date. Owner, Mark Holliday, purchased the property 2 months ago and also owns real estate in Manhattan including Landmark properties that have won design awards. Landscape Architect Jorge Sanchez reviewed application from a design perspective and outlined proposed site rendering. Mr. Sanchez indicated that project had received ZBA approved resolution on 3/10/14. Mr. Sanchez noted that the project intended to keep front very traditional but would be changing out two trees in the front, a Magnolia and a Maple. The rear rendering pictured green space and an arbor around 2 sides of existing garage. Included in the project was a half round swimming pool, located behind hedge. Further property items will feature a field stone wall and hedges and ivy hydrangea. The board and staff reviewed detailed rear sketch of arbor and swimming pool area. Tamie Ehinger asked whether the pergola was a standalone. Georgeanna Lussier asked its distance from the garage. Mr. Sanchez responded that it is a standalone and is about 2 feet. Mark Holliday discussed his focus on maintaining the historic design and authenticity of the project. Mr. Holliday noted that there will not be any significant additions. Mr. Holliday reviewed some design changes they were proposing to improve the front of house including adding and modifying the front porch. Mr. Holliday noted they are trying to maintain whimsical style, but bring today’s standards to the home. Architect Boris Baranovich discussed the changes to the roof, including the section where the new modified porch will be. Mr. Baranovich indicated that the current roof now is part of interior and that proposed changes will still maintain the same footprint that exists today. Mr. Baranovich noted that the original tower will be maintained but reviewed some additional changes to the front of house. These proposed changes include the extension of front porch and new steps to existing porch, as well as modifying windows on front porch to complement the roundness of tower. Further changes will include the introduction of round columns and relocation of a bay window from the front to the rear. Mr. Baranovich noted additional rear changes to include an introduction of new opening to bedroom on second floor and the addition of new steps to back porch. Mr. Baranovich indicated that there will be shingled roof on the side of house and that all proposed changes are in keeping with scale of house. Mr. Baranovich noted that everything else remains same and that the project tries to maintain layout of original structure. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, March 19, 2014 – page 2 of 8 Architect Sue Davis reviewed her role in project as being that of a liaison between the applicant, City boards and local neighbors. Ms. Davis noted that the applicant wanted to work with his core architectural team that he has used for other projects outside of Saratoga Springs, but that he retained her as a local community based architect who has understanding of city requirements, neighbor concerns, etc. Ms. Davis reviewed the evolution of the process and changes proposed to date: 1) Dormer in turret, after dialog and concern for original feature in turret; dormer is now taken out of proposal. 2) Front door is original and decided to maintain. 3) Returning to wood shingle roof as neighbors indicated that was home’s original; 4) Applicant had concern over windows, so Mr. Holliday hired window consultant. A discussion ensued regarding the windows. Applicant presented a sample of window and noted that he wanted to address any concerns brought forth. Applicant noted his focus on replicating historic details in new window including it being mahogany, all wood with insulated glass. Chair Rowland talked about guidelines to restore and save original wherever possible. DRC Board noted they wanted to gain a better understanding of the condition of existing windows. Applicant noted that from exterior, they didn’t look bad but that the existing windows had degradation due to 100 year old settling issues and separation and water infiltration internally. Applicant and advisors noted that many units may not operate. Applicant noted goal of replacing existing damaged windows with historically similar units that would operate efficiently. They would be all wood and be energy efficient. Tamie Ehinger questioned the diamond pattern and asked it this design would be consistent throughout. Mr. Sanchez compared existing windows to proposed replacements and described patterns of each. Mr. Sanchez noted that the bay window in front had diamond pattern and would remain. Sue Davis noted she had submitted existing windows to reference what is here today. Tamie Ehinger discussed the reason for relocating the bay window. Mr. Holliday explained that it is necessary for access to porch. Sue Davis talked about keeping bay window in front but moving it to the side. Chair Rowland talked about other windows noting that replacement windows may not be consistently placed and designed. Matt Jones talked about 2003 replacement windows. DRC has had review of replacement windows in past including at 191 Circular and 10 Fifth Avenue. Robert DeMarco asked if all windows would be replacements. Mr. Holliday confirmed he wants to have 80 to 90 percent duplicates of original and some slightly enlarged and consistent, but that the vast majority would comply with first design. Sue Davis emphasized that Mr. Holliday is focusing on quality and customizing windows (e.g. Mahogany two divided light window.) Chairman Rowland noted some concerns including: loss of the front gable feature which is an original element; loss of appearance on porch; loss of square columns and the thought that going round may not be appropriate and may look heavy on building; loss of front bay and relocating to the back. Chairman Rowland asked if it was possible to retain the bay window on porch. Holliday said front porch gets used and that the redesign is more practical for porch. Architect Sanchez noted that the porch section of wall is being pushed back 2 feet. Chairman Rowland asked about thought process of introducing an eyebrow feature instead of gable. Mr. Sanchez noted that there are too many gables. Chairman Rowland thought eyebrow in back an original feature and introducing in front was concerning to DRC. The DRC noted that rear eyebrow was significant feature being lost. Chairman Rowland also talked about some of the ice damming conditions and whether any consideration was discussed to add a snow slide to shed ice. Mr. Sanchez discussed how the shingles would be waterproof and shed the water sufficiently. Sue Davis provided input on the roof. Chairman Rowland talked about junction of roof against chimney and that this is difficult to waterproof. Substantial discussion ensued regarding ice accumulation in front. Discussion ensued regarding adding heating trace wires. Mr. Sanchez noted that he did not think the introduction of metal snow slide was appropriate. Chairman Rowland talked about flashing to shed roof, junction to chimney. Mr. Holliday talked about different options including slate for roof and about how there may be metal introduced in future. Chairman Rowland suggested that wood shingle would be more appropriate. Matt Jones talked about how this neighborhood values front porches and that they reflect tradition. Robert DeMarco thought extending the porch does reflect balance. Sue Davis talked about how the approach was to make the porch more inviting. Concern was expressed regarding losing gable and whether the porch extension was outside of the DRC guidelines. Sue Davis recapped that perhaps concern is not about porch extension but that form is changed from straight gable to curved front. Mr. Holliday emphasized interested in keeping historic and within guidelines and suggested improvements may be outside of the guidelines but considered better improvements. Tamie Ehinger appreciated point, but noted that the fact of City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, March 19, 2014 – page 3 of 8  whether it looked better is irrelevant because it does not comply with historic guidelines. Gable porch is original feature, but no way would she approve destruction of gable. Agree the eyebrow looks great. Matt Jones reflected on the discretionary role of DRC and whether they can make decisions as to what is a distinguishing original feature. Chairman Rowland pointed out that the detail of the gable is deep and it replicates itself around soffits and the detail does continue around the house. He is having difficulty losing details on front of house and on front porch. Sue Davis asked for other items that might be of concern. Chairman Rowland said columns are of concern. Matt Jones talked about new French doors where there was a bay window and asked for comments from audience. Samantha Bosshart of the Preservation Foundation thanked applicant for interest and investment. The porch, historically, is a distinguishing feature with the columns. No objection to extending porch. No exception to enclosing side porch but wants to retain columns. Wants documentation of what has been replaced. Prefers to retain more unique windows like originals noting that they are hard to replicate and that consideration be made to retain and restore them, per guidelines. Struggles with window replacement. Struggles with removal of bay window and plane of wall moving back a few feet. Biggest issue is introducing a French door on front porch. Does not want bay window removed but also has issues with French door. Shingle style and Queen Ann is represented by a mix of windows and that is typical of Saratoga home and concerned about all window replacement. Back not visible from street. Ms. Bosshart noted she applauded their efforts and asked for documentation of windows. Chairman Rowland shared concern with Ms. Bosshart that introduction of French door is problematic. Out of character. Board discussed where walkout window/French door would be. Discussion ensued regarding how there are full length windows that open up on porch. Chairman Rowland thought that the French door would compete with front door on the front porch. It might create circulating problem for sitting on front porch. Mr. Holliday thought it was good feature to open between billiard room and outdoors and discussed functionality of door from entertaining room to outdoors. Ms. Bosshart also asked about reason for windows over dormer. Chairman Rowland asked applicant how they wanted to proceed, noting that significant issues not resolved. Chairman Rowland asked applicant if they wanted to rethink and return at future DRC meeting when additional members were available. Matt Jones asked if they could create motion to delay eyebrow, etc. and other concerns and vote on core parts of project. Chairman Rowland noted that he does not like segmenting application and hoped that taking two week for further deliberation might be acceptable. Matt Jones thought perhaps 80 percent could be approved. Mr. Holliday said timing is concerning because he has 30 days of work to get drawing submitted and then 6 weeks for Building Dept. Mr. Holliday thought that if eyebrow and columns are big problems they could be taken off table. He noted that he could live with angled gable roof and squared off columns. Samantha Bosshart talked about wave of shingles towards the top and has concerns of changing shingles near turret. Chairman Rowland had opinion that applicant and DRC would benefit of having 2 more weeks and that applicant did not have to return with entire team. Bradley Birge noted that he could assist other board members to get up to speed. Chairman Rowland noted that he would feel more comfortable waiting the two additional weeks. Chairman Rowland noted that this is impressive project and that he wanted to make sure that the DRC had adequate time to review. Chairman Rowland asked that application be adjourned for two weeks. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Georgeanna Lussier, in favor. MOTION PASSES: 4-0 4. 2014.027 Walbridge Building, 432 Broadway, Historic Review of painting of building façade within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Agent: John Whipple, Old Saratoga Restorations Mr. Whipple presented the repainting. Mr. Whipple noted that the building currently has painting over brick. Mr. Whipple noted that they will strip the brick and leave as is. Steve Rowland noted a preference to maintain building as painted. He recalled Bob West having noted concern over past repairs and the DRC agreed. DRC reviewed Fire escape and discussed City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, March 19, 2014 – page 4 of 8  having it stay. Mr. Whipple provided several options for painting. Chair Rowland asked if the owner had a preference. Mr. Whipple responded that option 3 was the favorite design. A discussion ensued among board members concerning the colors. Group noted their concern that that the neighboring building containing Wheatfield Restaurant is very similar to option 3. The DRC suggested using more yellow and different colors to address this. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if the Board had any further questions or comments. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, entertained motions. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chair, made a motion in the matter of Waldbridge Building repainting, 432 Broadway, that it be approved as submitted with Option 3 colors as outlined in the application. Rob Demarco seconded the motion. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Georgeanna Lussier, in favor. MOTION PASSES: 4-0 5. 2014.023 46 Congress Street Retail Bldg Façade Renovation, 46 Congress Street, Architectural Review of partial demolition and renovation of retailing building facade within the Transect-6 Urban Core District and Urban Residential-5 District. Applicant: Donald MacElroy Agent: Matthew Hurff and Rebecca Paresi, Frost Hurff Architects. Matthew Hurff, Agent, reviewed application noting that the applicant is looking to update existing façade and make improvements on property to change from the existing “1980s feel”. Mr. Hurff noted the project will update brickwork and will start with main building and move to North incorporating cast columns in metal. Mr. Hurff noted several key elements in design including new walkway. Chair Rowland asked how tall the columns are. Mr. Hurff responded that they are close to 7 ft. Chair Rowland expressed concern that columns may be too skinny. Mr. Hurff suggested changing to 8 inch diameter from proposed 6 inch. Chairman Rowland noted that overall design looks fantastic and that it is a good improvement. He noted that he likes that it incorporates signage panel and lighting in the design. Mr. Hurff expressed concern that that base would have to get wider to get enough clearance. Chair Rowland questioned how that would course out and make it not symmetrical. Mr. Hurff asked if he could submit sketch with 8 inch so that column looks heavier. Mr. Hurff asked if he could do change administratively in future. Tamie Ehinger noted that she loves the iron work. Robert DeMarco asked whether iron matches the iron on new building going up nearby. Mr. Hurff said it would not. Chair Rowland and Bradley Birge asked for samples of precast and brick color to be submitted with new wider dimension drawings. Tamie Ehinger asked whether individual stores would have to come back for individual signage. Chair Rowland suggested that all future tenants come back for signage approval. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, entertained motions. Robert DeMarco made a motion in the matter of Congress Street Retail Building Façade Renovation that it be approved with conditions: iron columns increase 6 to 8 inch for both retail buildings. Georgeanna Lussier seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if the Board had any further questions or comments. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Georgeanna Lussier, in favor. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, March 19, 2014 – page 5 of 8  MOTION PASSES: 4-0 6. 2013.105 Verizon Cell Tower, 2202 Route 50 South, advisory opinion to ZBA on a proposed 110’ monopine cell tower and associated equipment within the Highway General Business District. Agent: Jessica Vigars, Attorney, Young Sommer, LLC Ms. Jessica Vigars, agent, presented information on the proposed 90 foot monopine tower originally proposed. DRC Board noted that during the balloon test, it became evident that the height of tower may be problematic. Board reviewed current status of project. The project was referred by ZBA (use variance application) to DRC for input on design of tower. Ms. Vigars reviewed with the DRC the map of coverage needed and service provided as well a proposed picture with proposed tower. The Tower is in the northwest corner of the property to maximize natural tree screening (70 feet trees). Chairman Rowland asked DRC Board for their input. Chairman Rowland noted that typically the Board is more receptive with structures hiding the tower, such as a silo, than the pines. DRC noted that across street from the proposed site was an actual silo. Chairman Rowland asked Ms. Vigars if the structure would have to be same height if it was designed as a silo. Ms. Vigars responded yes, noting that the structure would have to anticipate conditions of trees and capacity issues. She further noted that the height is settled by surrounded tree line and that the pine tree design was selected because it is in a wooded area and would match the surroundings. Ms. Vigars proposed that the Silo might appear more imposing at a minimum 20 feet wide and would not blend in with surrounding wooded area. Ms. Vigars noted that the pine tree selected was the most slender of models. A discussion ensued concerning how neighboring trees looked in relation to the silo tree. Tamie Ehinger asked if options existed regarding how dense the pine tree appears. Ms. Vigars responded that she was not sure. Mr. Birge noted that at another site, the applicant had proposed a tree design that was different than what was actually installed. Mr. Birge indicated that the City is rectifying that situation. Ms. Ehinger asked about standard height of a typical farm silo. Mr. Birge noted one had been approved on Crescent Street and was appropriately 115 feet. Ms. Ehinger indicated that she would rather see a silo than a tree as it better fits into the surroundings. Chair Rowland asked about options for the tree so that they are not as cylindrical, noting that trees normally taper. Ms. Vigars advised that they could not branch the entire pole since workers need access. Robert DeMarco noted that there are different grades like in the Adirondacks. He said he struggles with the silo feature. Mr. Birge asked if Board wanted to see photo simulations as it is a rural gateway to the City. Ms. Vigars noted that the silo would be wider and would stick out more. Mr. DeMarco noted that the silo would be out of place near a parking lot. Given other trees the pine is most appropriate. Georgeanna Lussier questioned whether the design is accurate. Ms. Ehinger added that she liked the silo more. Ms. Ehinger suggested that the base could be built to resembled a barn. Chair Rowland asked for applicant to provide alternatives to the pine tree, including a design of a silo, before the DRC could provide the requested advisory option. Specifically, DRC wants to see: 1) option for tree re-design. Board indicated that they wanted to see detailed schematics of more natural looking tree 2) photo simulation of silos. Chair Rowlands also asked if DRC could see tower that just looked like an antenna, an option brought up at hearings before. Board expressed concern that the design of trees and other structures do not always match what is actually constructed. Applicant noted that this model was selected because of design of wooded area. Mr. Birge noted that the Weibel Ave pine is sparse and that the antenna sticks out and is not covered by branches as approved. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if the Board had any further questions or comments. None heard. Chairman Rowland tabled decision until 2 weeks. Applicant will make sure that she has time to provide information. 7. 2014.013 The Fresh Market Signage, 52 Marion Avenue, Advisory Opinion to ZBA on signage in the Transect-5 Neighborhood City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, March 19, 2014 – page 6 of 8 Center District. Agent: Russ Hazen, Ray Sign Mr. Hazen presented the signage proposed in ZBA application including the number of signs, size of signs and location of signs. Mr. Birge, Administrator, explained that the site featured 1 large parcel with 3 significant buildings. Mr. Hazen noted that what was originally requested was a halo style lettering, very subtle. Mr. Hazen noted that originally the applicant had wanted to put a 29 inch set of letters facing Marion Avenue and that there was resistance to size of letters. Mr. Hazen stated that most of sign couldn’t be seen coming down Route 50. Mr. Hazen now agrees that you don’t need 20 inch letters but requested that on the West side of the building, you have a 7 ft by 7ft single face back lit sign. Mr. Birge reported to the DRC Board the various evolutions that the sign project has gone through and how the boards have attempted to work with applicant. Mr. Birge noted that on the Marion Ave/North face tower, the original proposed sign is permissible as long as the letters don’t exceed 18 inches in height. A discussion ensued among DRC members that there was a disparity between the revised drawings and the earlier drawings; that the update did not show signage that was shown on earlier drawings. Chair Rowland noted on the original north elevation, the northeast tower facing route 50 had a panel. The current drawing does not show a panel. Board noted that at center, main entrance, originally proposed signage was 29 inches high. Mr. Hazen noted that the project was now under time constraints for opening. Mr. Hazen noted that they would ask for 18 inch letters to get signs on building. Chair Rowland said that 18 inch letters are fine size for people pulling into parking lot. Board discussed option with 18-inch, halo lit letters as being acceptable. A discussed ensued regarding signage on gable. Tamie Ehinger asked about how many signs are allowed. Mr. Birge noted that they need variance to have sign on Gable and the issue is the quantity of signs proposed. Ms. Ehinger noted that she thinks the center sign alone should be fine, but does not like sign on either tower as they don’t match. Chairman Rowland agreed that he does not like other two signs. Mr. Birge noted that he thought north tower should have similar panels and that the project appears to have been built differently than originally proposed. Additional discussion ensued regarding the South elevation including proposal of additional set of 15 inch halo lit letters. Mr. Hazen noted that he thinks sign is important for public coming down Excelsior. Chairman Rowland agreed noting that as soon as other building goes up you won’t be able to see sign. The DRC further reviewed the West elevation signage noting that the Chair of ZBA suggested putting sign on West elevation. Chairman Rowland expressed his agreement with ZBA suggestion for sign on West elevation. Chair Rowland suggested that it is better to have signs consistent and that they should also be three lined halo lit signs. Chair Rowland summarized the discussion noting that the Board is considering 3 signs, 2 signs say the Fresh Market in 3 lines, 1 on the East and 1 on West and the 3rd facing parking lot. Chair Rowland noted sign will be single line of text with18 inch letters. Bradley Birge noted that DRC would make recommendations to the ZBA and then project would come back to DRC later. A discussion ensued whether DRC could approve administratively if ZBA approved signage. Mr. Hazen asked if possible to have 1 sign up as soon as possible. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, asked if the Board had any further questions or comments. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman, noted that following a discussion, the Design Review Commission issues the following favorable opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Given the prominent location of this building within an important gateway into this historic City, and following discussion with Mr. Hazen of Ray Signs, the DRC respectfully provides the following opinion. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, March 19, 2014 – page 7 of 8 The DRC supports the applicant’s request for relief from the City’s Zoning Ordinance to provide for the installation of three (3) and only three wall signs on this building, as follows: 1. North elevation: one sign, “The Fresh Market”, comprised of three (3) lines of halo-lit, 15” letters, located on the north façade of the northeasterly tower. 2. West elevation: one sign (as above), “The Fresh Market”, comprised of three (3) lines of halo-lit, 15” letters, located on the west façade of the northwesterly tower 3. East elevation: one sign, “The Fresh Market”, comprised of 1 line of 18” halo-lit letters, centered over the main building entrance under the center gable. No other wall signage is recommended as this provides sufficient visibility and direction to this independent, single-use building. Should the Zoning Board of Appeals grant requested relief for the signage as specifically identified above, the DRC authorizes final approval of the above signage by administrative action by the Chair. Tamie Ehinger seconded the motion. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Georgeanna Lussier, in favor. MOTION PASSES: 4-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Steven Rowland, Chairman, deferred the approval of meeting minutes to the next meeting scheduled for April 2, 2014. NEXT MEETING: The next scheduled Caravan will be held on Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 5:00 P.M. The next scheduled Design Review Commission meeting is Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Steven Rowland, Chairman, adjourned the meeting at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Wertheim Secretary, Office of Planning & Economic Development City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, March 19, 2014 – page 8 of 8