Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chair; Richard Martin; Robert West; Robert DeMarco; Karen Cavotta; Cynthia Corbett ABSENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: Tamie Ehinger, Vice 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. 2015.007 SISK RESIDENCE ROOF, 210 Church Street, Architectural Review of change in exterior building Materials within the Office Medical Business District. Applicant: Erin Sisk Ms. Sisk stated part of the roof is slate and part of the roof is asphalt and rubber. It had been repaired multiple times. We were unaware of the City’s process, and in August of 2014 we replaced the roof. We did try to match the slate roof which is what currently existed as best we could with asphalt shingles. Our contractor did not complete the necessary paperwork required, unbeknownst to us and a ‘stop work’ order was issued by the Building Department . Upon refinancing our home the bank notified us of an issue with the stop work order still present in the file. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman requested a spec sheet for shingle material for the file. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this application. None heard. Robert West made a motion in the matter of the Sisk Residence Roof, 210 Church Street that the application be approved with the following condition – the applicant provides a spec sheet for the shingle material for the file. Richard Martin seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 The agenda was heard out of order due to lack of representation for Agenda Item #2. 3. #2014.097 FOX APARTMENTS POOL HOUSE AND GYM, 72 Union Avenue, Historic Review of a pool house and Gym within the Urban Residential-4 District. Agent: Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction Mr. Boucher stated this project was presented to this Commission back in January of 2015. We did receive some feedback regarding this application. Comments included the plans were too boxy for a pool structure, window details which related better to the building, and a variation of materials, and lack of details. Mr. Boucher stated he did put together a revised format for the pool building. We increased the height of the windows, installation of a gable to break up the horizontal line, we added an arbor structure to break up the two story façade and give a porch feel to the structure. I have met with the Saratoga Preservation Foundation, and Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development. The feedback received is that it still feels like a primary structure versus an accessory structure. I would appreciate a better understanding of what an accessory structure means. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, provided the following guidelines for accessory buildings: -A secondary or accessory building should be distinct from, and smaller in scale than, the primary structure. -While the shape, mass and scale of a secondary/accessory structure should generally reflect the primary structure, it should not visually compete with the primary structure. -The placement of accessory structures should be consistent with other secondary structures in the neighboring area. -Accessory buildings and garages should reflect a secondary use and should not compete with the primary façade of the building. Placement toward the rear of the property is preferred. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated the rendering provided this evening is a vast improvement from what we had previously seen. It is still the location of the pool house that I am wrestling with because it does fight the primary structure because it is not set back far enough. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Discussion ensued among the Commission members regarding the siting of the pool house. Mr. Boucher stated the building is as far back as possible without losing the handicap and other parking spaces. We did try to rotate the building but it does not work because it comes to close to the primary structure. A court yard is proposed between the primary structure and the accessory structure. Richard Martin questioned why the building roofline can’t come down in elevation so as not to compete with the main building. It does look like another residence. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding rotating the building, moving the building back as far as possible and decreasing the roofline so it does not compete with the existing structure. Cynthia Corbett requested seeing a rendering of the building rotated. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Michael Tuck stated in regards to the parking space on the alley. I am 90% sure this will not be approved. It has not been granted the past. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated the four guidelines which were stated earlier by the Vice Chairman should be considered. Building an accessory structure so close on a main boulevard is a very dangerous precedent. It does not read as an accessory structure but a house. Placement is critical so that it does not compete with the height of the primary structure. Also, there has been no discussion on the addition. This is a solid mass to the end of the lot. These are things to consider. I feel this current rendering looks and reads like a house with a strange setback and I don’t know if that would be appropriate. There is an opportunity to find a solution that works. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – March 4, 2015 - Page 2 of 5 Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated we have been focusing on the pool house and not the addition. Ann Jillian, audience member questioned what is the mission or vision of the Design Review Commission. Richard Martin stated that an addition, renovation or whatever is appropriate for the surrounding real estate, and how it reacts to what is there now. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated this property is in a Historic district, and a contributing property within that district. So it is this Commissions responsibility to retain, preserve, and promote the historic qualities of those, especially contributing structures within the historic districts. To review the materials, especially if there is a change in materials, to determine if they are appropriate. For new construction, to see if it is consistent with the ideals, and aesthetics and time period for this district. The historic districts are created for specific reasons, not just that they are attractive houses, but because they represent a specific period. There are a number of specific districts in the City. Each one has its own unique characteristics. The Commission reviews the proposals to ensure that any changes are consistent with those districts. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman requested information concerning the proposed addition. Mr. Boucher stated he does not have the visual information on the addition. There is not enough room in the rear for both the addition and the pool house and accommodate the parking. Mr. Boucher reviewed the plans for the apartments for the Commission. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated it would be appropriate to think of the historic context of this site. It would have been a large open lot. You would have had green space between the original structure and the accessory carriage house structure. Now, it is becoming more of a complex. It is not reading as a single family, it is now a multi-unit and it adapted because of the times. As I look at the structure, it is changing the overall historic context of it. That is why the placement of the accessory should be towards the rear and whether another accessory structure would be appropriate. It is becoming a rather large structure for that neighborhood. Richard Martin stated it is the addition of the apartments which is driving a half way decent building closer to the road. To the applicant, it is a financial gain. He can give them a pool, if I can get two extra apartments. We are looking at a financial concern, which is not our purview or concern. If we can’t get this building back to meet the setback we think is appropriate and the size to meet those guidelines, I am not so sure that the owner of this project, can have both buildings. One perhaps not both. It does not fit both. It bothers me that the additions are driving this project. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman reiterated the addition is what is driving the pool structure’s siting on the lot. In terms of the addition we are going to need more information and would ask that you and the applicant discuss some reconfiguration alternatives and return before the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the reconfiguration of the addition and the pool house. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, stated we look forward to the applicant returning before the Commission with improved designs. 3. 2015.002 DEVLIN ADDITION/FAÇADE ALTERATION, 25 Fifth Avenue, Architectural Review of an addition and exterior material changes within the Urban Residential-1 District. Agent: Michael Tuck, balzer+tuck architecture; Jim Sasko, Teakwood Builders Mr. Tuck stated the applicants are here this evening to review a proposed addition to the Devlin residence. We appeared before the Commission several times and modifications were made to the design. We have provided updated drawings for your review. Mr. Tuck reviewed the location of the project and the location of the proposed addition. He provided a brief City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – March 4, 2015 - Page 3 of 5 review of the project with a visual presentation, as well as reviewing elevations. The house is not out of scale with any of the neighbors nor will it be after the project is completed. The context of the neighborhood is not adversely impacted. Mr. Tuck stated they have adjusted panels and increased them in size and aligned their openings with the first floor. The columns were shortened to give it more of a secondary architectural feel to what is going on below. We also have provided alternate design #2 where we carried the paneling up from the first floor, extended the height of the windows, down to replicate what is happening on the ground floor and we went back to the taller columns. This then led to the most recent submission provided last week in which we took the lower level and are duplicating up on the second floor. We have lost the open porch; to address the feeling was that it needed to be more balanced and symmetrical. We were asked to provide additional renderings. The applicant provided several examples. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated the latest rendition is a further step in the right direction, and is quite aesthetically appealing. Robert DeMarco stated he prefers the third rendition of the project – view C. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated there are two issues need to be addressed, is the addition appropriate, and whether the specific design works or not and I would like us to address these. We have reviewed the historic guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior standards. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the above issues. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated we now need to look at the carriage house which is a part of this application. The applicants would like to remove the clapboard from the carriage house and replace with shingles. Discussion ensued regarding the carriage house renovation. It was the consensus of the Commission that appropriate material for the Carriage house would be to retain the Clapboard. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated this design now looks like a Symmetrical Colonial Revival home. This is the best fit. Clapboard versus cedar shingle on the carriage house is appropriate and ties the two buildings together. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion from the Commission. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the application of the Devlin Addition, Façade Alteration, 25 Fifth Avenue be approved, using Option C as submitted this evening with the following condition: that the exterior treatment of the carriage house remain as clapboard versus shingle. Richard Martin seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Robert DeMarco, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 UPCOMING WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS: Design Review Commission caravan, Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 4:00 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the meeting minutes was deferred to the March 10, 2015 Design Review Commission meeting. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – March 4, 2015 - Page 4 of 5 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/1/15 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – March 4, 2015 - Page 5 of 5