Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chair; Richard Martin; Robert West; Robert DeMarco; Cynthia Corbett ABSENT: 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 7:00 P.M. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Design Review Commission arrived at 8:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded 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. 2014.130 SARATOGA VISION WALL SIGN, 235 Washington Street, Architectural Review of a wall sign within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood District. Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki stated the applicant is proposing a halo lit building sign with dimensional letters. The overall size is 35 ½" x 110". It will be mounted between the two windows on the first floor. Letter coloring will be bronze and mounted on a panel allowing the wiring to be hidden. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Cynthia Corbett made a motion in the matter of the Saratoga Vision Wall Sign, 235 Washington Street, that the application be approved as submitted on November 19, 2014. Richard Martin seconded the motion. 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; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. 2014.121 TROUTT PORCH ADDITION, 737 North Broadway, Historic Review of rear porch addition and façade modifications within the Urban Residential-1 District. Agent: Matthew Hurff, Frost/Hurff Architects Mr. Hurff stated the applicant is proposing a rear porch addition. Materials will match that of the house. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. 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 Troutt Porch Addition, 737 North Broadway, that the application be approved as submitted this evening. Robert West seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. #2014.122 CONGRESS PLAZA APTS. CONVERSION, 46 Congress Street, Architectural Review of 2nd floor offices conversion to apartments within the Transect-6 Urban Core/Urban Residential-5 Districts. Agent: Matthew Hurff, Frost/Hurff Architects Mr. Hurff stated the applicant is converting the second floor office space into apartments. We will be changing out the fixed commercial windows with double hung aluminum clad. A small entry porch is also proposed. No change in the massing of the building. Richard Martin questioned the placement of the mechanicals. Mr. Hurff stated the mechanicals will be placed on the roof. The units will be set far enough back so they will not be seen. Gas meters will be placed along the southern wall. Steven Rowland, Chairman, requested cut sheets for the windows to be supplied for the file. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there are any further questions from the Commission. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Richard Martin made a motion in the matter of the Congress Plaza Apartments Conversion, 46 Congress Street, that the application be approved as submitted, with a note to submit window cut sheets for the file. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 4. 2014.129 SUTTON RESIDENTIAL PORCH DECK REBUILD, 223 Union Avenue, Architectural Review, of a porch deck rebuild within the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Mark Sutton, Owner Mr. Sutton stated they originally were repairing the porch. Upon further examination they discovered the floor joists were deteriorated sitting on cinder blocks. We propose to rebuild the entire porch with composite materials in a grey color. A sample was provided for the Commissions review. We will use PVC railing with a square spindle. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – page 2 of 8 Richard Martin discussed framing lattice not on the diagonal. Informed the applicant of a new lattice smaller squares. Extra bracing was recommended on the railings. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Robert DeMarco made a motion in the matter of the Sutton Residential Porch Deck Rebuild, 223 Union Avenue, that we approve the application with the following conditions: lattice skirt to be "privacy", small square pattern, with a vertical/horizontal (not diagonal) presentation, picture framed and attached proud the piers. Robert West seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, opposed; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 5. 2013.024.1 BURKE BUILDING, 15 Church Street, Historic Review of seasonal entrance doors within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Agent: Tom Pratico, Ball Hatfield Construction The applicant is proposing the addition of entrance doors to the restaurant. Black aluminum full glass double doors to be installed for the winter season to be removed in the spring. Discussion ensued regarding proposing one door with a sidelight similar to the door and lite pattern on the inside. The applicant's agent believed this would be acceptable to the applicant. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Commission. 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 Burke Building Seasonal Entrance Doors, 15 Church Street, that the application be approved with the following condition: - approval is for a single 36" left hand, out swing door with sidelite. Color to be black to match existing trim. Richard Martin seconded the motion. 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; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 The Board recessed at 7:33 P.M. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Design Review Commission arrived at 8:00 P.M. The Board reconvened at 8:02 P.M. 6. 2014.112 MOUZON HOUSE SOLAR PANELS, 1 York Street, Discussion relating to decision on Architectural Review of roof mounted solar hot water panels within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – page 3 of 8 Steven Rowland, Chairman stated there have been some discussions regarding the Design Review Commission approval of the solar panels on the Mouzon House. We have assembled everyone here to come and present each side of the issue: the applicant's side and the neighbor the City Center Authority and their proposed parking garage. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Design Review Commission introduced the audience Mr. Jonathan Tingley, Counsel for the Mouzon House and its owners; Mr. Jones, attorney for the City Center Authority, Mr. Baker, President, City Center Authority, Alex Beso, law clerk, Jones Firm. Mr. Schachner suggested the reason we are discussing anything about this is due to a request not from the Mouzon House but by the City Center Authority attorney, Mr. Jones. I would suggest in order of proceeding to allow Mr. Jones/Mr. Baker make any plea they wish to you since they have initiated the request. They have requested that you reconsider and actually nullify your decision approving solar panels on some portion of the Mouzon House property. Then Mr. Tingley can speak regarding his clients the Mouzon House owners. The Design Review Commission can they take it from there. The Commission should not feel any burden; legally you are not under any obligation to make a decision since technically, you do not have an application before you. That said, it is appropriate for you to consider making a decision. The Commission could nullify or vacate your previous decision approving the solar panels. You could make some sort of decision reaffirming your decision or you could decide to make some sort of revised decision if you deem that most appropriate. I will suggest that you have the discussion this evening without making a decision. If you should consider to issue some sort of new decision, I am suggesting that you not actually make the decision this evening but suggest that some sort of combination of staff or myself prepare something in writing as a draft for your consideration at your next meeting. The reason for the recommendation is that we have 3 lawyers and 1 lawyer to be in the room and it is not unreasonable to think we will have some sort of legal proceeding no matter what result you render. I would like to suggest that you be as careful as you possibly can to create a very careful written record of your determination as opposed to shooting from the hip tonight. Mr. Jones provided background information on this application and reviewed the application for solar panels, as well as the Notice of Decision from the DRC meeting approving installation of the solar panels. Mr. Jones referred to and summarized his argument as presented in his letter dated October 29. Mr. Jones related the process that the City Center and he on their behalf, undertook in review of this application. He indicated that the City Center was not opposed to the erection of solar panels but that this approval could be used by the Pedinotti's not only as a shield to legally protect their installation of solar panels but also as a sword , used by the owners of the Mouzon House, to attack the City Center project. Mr. Jones indicated that he was not aware of the City's provision relating to solar access for solar panels and he did not believe that Commission took this provision into consideration when they made their decision to approve the solar panel installation. This provision of the ordinance is unique in that it allows a neighboring property owner to render and applicant's application zoning noncompliant. In this instance, the installation of the solar panels, whether with or without approval by the Commission, has rendered the City Center application zoning noncompliant. This now forces the City Center to appear before another board, the Zoning Board of Appeals to satisfy a 5-part test and seek a variance. Mr. Jones then displayed a PowerPoint showing the application. He indicated that the tax parcel number is incorrect; the owner is incorrectly identified, the signature is incorrectly identified, and there is no signature of the Building Inspector. Mr. Jones referenced minutes from the Planning Board years prior from an advisory opinion to the City Council on the requested subdivision and zoning district change for the Mouzon House. He indicated that the property owner, the Pedinotti's, were aware of the possibility of redevelopment of the adjacent land and that they would not oppose such a project. The Pedinotti's have every right to express themselves. At issue is the transformation of the shield that they now wish to use as a sword – to argue against the development of the site. The DRC's approval on architecture would be turned around and used as a sword. That is exactly what happened. With respect to the application, there is a wrong property tax ID number is on the application, and a wrong signature on the application. The application should be nullified. The applicant then has a right to return to seek the approval with One York LLC as the applicant and corrected signature but there will also be impediments. I don't believe that the applicant has the variance that was granted on the expansion parcel and I don't think the are zoning compliant and the DRC would not have the authority to review that application until they are zoning compliant. This is such a fatally flawed application that the entire process falls apart. The legal impediments are there is a remedy to them. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – page 4 of 8 Mr. Tingley stated the roofing solar panels were up prior to obtaining approval. Mr. Stinson of The Radiant Store believed the building permit issued for the new roof included the solar panels. This was incorrect. The Building Inspector discovered this and required the applicant to apply for DRC approval. They came before the DRC and the application was approved. The DRC's obligation is set forth in the Zoning Code. That is to review exterior changes, in appropriate areas of the City, for conformance with architectural standards. These solar panels were up; photographs were provided; the location of them was clearly identified to this Commission during the application review process. This was approved, substantively, on the merits. Some boards do not have power to reconsider decisions; this board is not one of those. I have found no statute which would or could nullify a prior decision granted on the merits. If the approval is nullified , what you are saying is that this property with the solar panels in this location is not entitled to the Architectural standards of the zoning code. You've already said that it is. That is by definition arbitrary. We've already gotten the approval; we've already gotten the building permit and CO. Is the wrong tax map identification number listed on those approvals? Yes, because the application was applied for a One York Street, not a tax map number. There was no identification of a tax map; that was originally left blank. That was filled in by someone at the City. In terms of ownership, Mr. Pedinotti is a manager of the LLC and is acting on behalf of the owner of the property when he signed the application. In layman's terms, they run the restaurant, they own the property, and they installed the panels. He was told he needed to get approval and he went to get that approval. David Pedinotti is a manager of the LLC; he is an owner of the LLC. Everybody know where these panels were, they knew what the application was for, and they knew that David Pedinotti had authority to act on behalf of the property. In terms of the Zoning Officer signature the zoning office issued a stop work order because the panels were put up. The stop work order was the referral to the DRC. The Zoning Ordinance only requires a referral; it doesn't require a signature on the application. He told them they needed to get approval by the Design Review Commission. An application to the Design Review Commission was then made and they were approved. In terms of noncompliance with the ordinance, we've provided paperwork relating to the construction of the addition, not the existing house. The variance was granted for that parcel and is now compliant because of the variance. I think this Board's jurisdiction is limited to conformance with architectural standards. Any errors in this application are technical irregularities. We ask the Commission to correct any irregularities, identify tax map number, and identify the property owner. Mr. Jones provided a rebuttal to Mr. Tinsley's argument. I don't think everyone knew that 1 York Street was the owner. I don’t think the stop work order constitutes a referral. The variance, granted in 2005, lists the parcel number for the house. We don't challenge the issue of the variance for the house. There is no variance for the expansion. If they are not zoning compliant, they must first seek a variance from the Zoning Board prior to returning to the DRC. It is unfair for Mr. Tingley to insinuate that someone from the Office filled in a number without someone's permission. It's not fair to put the blame on the City; it is the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Tingley responded: the application was submitted blank for a tax map number; the Building Inspector did refer the applicant to the Commission on the stop work order. Mr. Stinson said there was a yellow piece of paper that indicated they had to appear before the Commission. Everybody does know who the property owner is . The only zoning violations that prevent this Commission from approving are written ones. There was only one written zoning violation on this property – that was for solar panels and the zoning ordinance expressly allows this Commission to act on an application to correct a zoning violation. There is nothing preventing this Commission from acting on this application. Steven Rowland, Chairman, stated this is unchartered territory for this Commission. There is a great deal of information to ferret out, and we will need some time to do so and render some type of decision. Our next meeting on December 3, 2014 we can hopefully arrive at a conclusion on how to proceed with this. We will seek some advice from our legal counsel in term of how to proceed with this. Mark Schachner, Counsel for the Commission stated the Commission, indicated that the Commission can only deliberate at at a public meeting, such as in this room. Outside of a public meeting, you can seek guidance regarding questions of a legal nature either individually or collectively any time you wish. Those conversations are not subject to New York State open City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – page 5 of 8 meetings law. We can also do that this evening after the close of this meeting. The deliberations of the evaluation of an application, or its merits, can only occur at an open meeting, either tonight, on December 3rd, or sometime thereafter. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated one of the key elements was that these panels were already installed. Everyone was aware of what we were reviewing and what we were looking at because they were already in place. Some of the argument lends to what property they were on. We know where they were, we know what they look like. We can walk right out of the door and see them. This is important as to how they relate to the architecture around them. There certainly was a lack of knowledge of the solar access issue in the Zoning Ordinance. I do not believe we have ever had to address that in the past. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated there is a lot of information to digest and I definitely have some questions for Mark to discuss. Mr. Schachner stated that if there are factual questions relating to the application or evaluation, you can certainly ask them here. The applicant, his agent, and Mr. Jones are here to answer those types of questions. If you have questions of a legal nature, we can discuss them after this meeting or some other time. Mr. Schachner noted that he would not be available on December 3rd should the DRC have questions at that time. Rob DeMarco inquired as to what responsibility might the Commission members have to ensure the application information is correct. Mr. Martin stated that over the years, it has not been the case for members to question the tax number. They look at the address. They look at the jurisdiction; whether architectural or historic review. We do look at owner signatures. I don't think I've every seen the Building Inspector's signature. Mr. Rowland stated that the application does have a space for a building inspector signature. Mr. Schachner clarified that what is being contended is an application-related issue of whether the application was correctly or completely filled out with or without the signature of the Building Inspector. He then clarified that this was not unique to this applicant or application, and that there is no requirement in the zoning ordinance requiring such a signature. Steven Rowland, Chairman thanked all the agents for their time and information.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the December 3, 2014 Design Review Commission Meeting. UPCOMING WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS: Design Review Commission caravan, Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 4:00 P.M. Design Review Commission workshop, Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman made a motion to adjourn. Cynthia Corbett seconded the motion. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Steven Rowland, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:06 P.M. Following adjournment, the Design Review Commission then engaged in an attorney/client privileged conference with Mr. Schachner, Counsel to the Design Review Commission, to seek and gain legal advice relating to the Mouzon House Solar Panel application. City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – page 6 of 8 Following the completion of the attorney/client conference regarding the Mouzon House Solar Panel application, Steven Rowland, Chairman, reconvened the Design Review Commission meeting and called the meeting to order at 9:30 P.M. APPLICATION UNDER CONSIDERATION: 2014.112 MOUZON HOUSE SOLAR PANELS, 1 York Street, Discussion relating to decision on Architectural Review of roof mounted solar hot water panels within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the meeting is being reopened to discuss the Mouzon House application which was approved on October 15, 2014 for the solar panels. Mr. Rowland stated that I, for one, find the technical irregularities in this application materially inconsequential to understanding and evaluating what was before the Commission's review. In that regard I am not inclined to make a reversal of a decision or make some sort of new decision on an application that does not exist at this point. I am more inclined to say we can have the record corrected so that the technical irregularities are correctly reflected, i.e., the tax ID number. The original applicant could either provide proof of the signatory being properly authorized to sign paperwork on behalf of the actual owning entity, the LLC, or owner. Otherwise I am not inclined to make any other changes. Mr. Schachner reviewed and read aloud portion of the correspondence provided on behalf of the Pedinotti's indicating that the operating agreement of One York Street, LLC, paragraph 11, specifically identifies David Pedinotti as one of the two Managers for the LLC and indicates that each of the Managers is hereby given sole power and authority to execute instruments on behalf of the Limited Liability Company and to otherwise bind the LLC. Mr. Schachner also pointed out that the other irregularity requiring correction was that of correcting identifying "One York Street LLC: as the proper name of the applicant on the application and on the decision. Bradley Birge, Administrator sought clarification of how the Commission wished to proceed. He inquired if it was the Commission's desire to actively do nothing to modify the current application and decision, or to modify the application and decision to correctly identify the tax parcel number and the name of the owner. Steven Rowland, posed the question of whether to correct these items by a resolution either tonight or at the next meeting on December 3rd. Cynthia Corbett asked if Mr. Schachner could prepare a draft motion. Richard Martin indicated that he thought there was no reason to delay the decision. These items could be corrected tonight. The Commission members are available now to act. Steven Rowland, Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Mouzon House, 1 York Street Solar Panel decision made on October 15, 2014 that we move to have staff correct the technical irregularities which were present on the application and therefore on the Notice of Decision to reflect the proper Tax ID number, and to reflect the proper name of the owner, noting that we do have record documents at our disposal now that indicate the signatory was, in fact, a member and/or agent authorized to sign on behalf of the owner. We just need to have the owner properly indicated on both the application and the Notice of Decision. Richard Martin seconded the motion. 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; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – page 7 of 8 Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman made a motion to adjourn. Cynthia Corbett seconded the motion. VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Steven Rowland, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved 01/07/15 City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Minutes – Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – page 8 of 8