Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Richard Martin, Acting Chair; Robert West; Karen Cavotta; Leslie DiCarlo; Cynthia Corbett SKYPE: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman ABSENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development, City of Saratoga Springs Susan Barden, Senior Planner Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney CALL TO ORDER: Richard Martin, Acting Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: Richard Martin, Acting 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. A. PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Richard Martin, Acting Chairman stated the intent of the consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be “approvable” without the need for further evaluation or discussion. If any DRC member or member of the audience wishes to discuss/explore any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. 1. 2016.024 BLENDED HAIR STUDIO SIGNAGE, 11 Hampstead Place – Ste 103, Architectural Review of wall signage within the Transet-4 Urban Neighborhood District. 2. 2016.01.1 2 WEST AWNING, 2 West Avenue, Architectural Review of new awning within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. 3. 2016.027 LA SARTORIA AWNING, 379 Broadway, Historic Review of new awning within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. 4. 2016.028 FISH AT 30 LAKE WALL SIGN, 30 Lake Avenue, Historic Review of a wall sign within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Richard Martin, Acting Chairman asked if anyone on the Commission wished to further discuss any item on the proposed consent agenda. None heard. Richard Martin, Acting Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to further discuss any item on the proposed consent agenda. None heard. Richard Martin, Acting Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Blended Hair Studio Signage, 11 Hampstead Place, Suite 103; 2 West Awning, 2 West Avenue; La Sartoria Awning, 379 Broadway; Fish at 30 Lake Wall Sign, that the applications be approved as submitted. Robert West seconded the motion. Richard Martin, Acting Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Richard Martin, Acting Chairman, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 B. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATIONS: 5. 2016.029 MURPHY LANE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 39 Murphy Lane, Advisory Opinion to the ZBA on conversion/reconstruction of a carriage house to a 1-family residence within the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Jean D’agostino Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated her client is currently before the ZBA for several variances as well as for work which has been performed on this structure. The ZBA felt that they would like an Advisory Opinion from the DRC with regard to mass and scale and materials concerning this structure and how it fits with the neighborhood. The structure was a barn at one point. During construction a new foundation was added which raised the building two feet out of the ground bringing the floor further out of the ground than the original structure. During construction while the barn was on blocks, the applicant did take most of the barn down leaving only the second floor still intact. All of the studs were in bad condition, and she was forced to replace all of the exterior walls, and in doing that she also removed the roof. Due to the extent of the work performed on the structure the code enforcement official has asked her to revisit zoning. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated area variances were sought for renovation and conversion of the existing barn to a single family residence. Those variances were granted. After the building permit was issued there was a stop work order issued due to the installation of a new foundation. Steve Shaw, Building Inspector felt the extent of work was beyond renovation and conversion. The existing footprint remained the same. Ms. Barden reviewed the area variances granted. AREA VARIANCES – ORIGINAL ACTION: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR PROPOSED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIRED RENOVATION/CONVERSION Minimum lot size: 6,600 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. No change 4,100 sq. ft. (62%) Minimum average lot width 60 ft. 50 ft. No change 10 ft. (17%) Minimum front yard 10 ft. 3.1’ 32.2’ 6.8 ft. (68%) Minimum total side yard: 12’ 11.4’ 12.3’ (compliant) No relief required Minimum rear 25’ 15.7’ 11’ 14 ft. (56%) Maximum principal bldg. coverage: 30% 46.5% 16.5% (55%) Minimum parking: 2 1 No change 1 (100%) Richard Martin, Acting Chair stated the Commission did visit the site on caravan. The first thing which jumps out at you is the elevation of the building. How did the elevation grow? Ms. Yasenchak stated originally the structure was to be on a slab. The applicant requested the building be placed on a crawl space. As the applicant was excavating she decided to make this a full foundation. Unfortunately it was not dug deep enough so the reveal is now approximately 26” and we have another floor above that. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 2 of 9 Richard Martin, Acting Chairman requested information on the proposed materials for this project. Ms. Yasenchak stated fiber cement board siding for the exterior, suggesting bringing down the siding to within a 6” foundation reveal and a frieze board baseboard along the bottom. Robert West questioned what is the ZBA looking for in this Advisory Opinion, is it because the height of the building changed necessitating a stop work order. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated this application is before the DRC tonight because of the height of the new structure and the extent of materials removed. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the ZBA often conditions variances stating as shown on submitted plans. Once it was determined it was not what was shown on submitted plans that is when the stop work order was established. You do not have original jurisdiction on this project. The ZBA has asked because of the characteristics of this project as originally presented, as a carriage house adjacent to and subservient to the principal structure, that now for you to assist them in evaluating what is now proposed both in mass and scale, and height, architectural features that would normally be present in a carriage house. Materials as well. They are looking to get some information from the Commission from your experiences with carriage houses what would the Commission expect them to be, particularly as a historical precedent. Ms. Yasenchak stated one of the questions the ZBA does ask is whether or not the variances being granted cause a detriment to the neighborhood. They are looking at how this structure as it is proposed affects the character of the neighborhood specifically. Drawings were submitted to the Commission by the applicant. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed height of the building. Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant is gaining height. Originally the height was 27 feet in height. We are adding approximately 15 inches. Other buildings in this area do have 2 foot foundation reveals. The zoning height in this area is 60 feet. Richard Martin, Acting Chair stated typically carriage houses are not 4 feet in the air. Whatever doors are used in the carriage house are at grade. It takes away some of the character of the building. PUBLIC COMMENT: Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Cynthia Behan, 70 White Street. Ms. Behan provided some handouts to the Commission. This structure looms over all the neighbors’ yards, and it is 1/3 of the other lots in the area. Raising this building has made a big change. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked Mrs. Behan what would her solution be. Mrs. Behan stated it could revert back to an accessory structure or building on that lot. I think that is a possibility. The applicant might sell the property if it doesn’t work for her. There are possibilities there. Rachel Dunn, 74 White Street. The height of the barn was never measured before it was deconstructed. The height is in dispute. The barn was shy of 25 feet by two different methods of calculation. We did take a photo of the barn and sent this on for review. Richard Martin, Acting Chair stated it is important to note that the barn doors were at grade. The first floor was at grade. What is the pitch on the truss that is onsite now? City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 3 of 9 Tonya Yasenchak stated the wall originally was going to have height added to it as was submitted on the plans. We have changed that now and that was not originally a part of the plan. We are now proposing roof rafters. We are not using the roof trusses on site. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if anyone else wished to comment on this application. Brian Rodems, 84 White Street. Concern was voiced concerning the height of the renovation. Cherie Grey, 38 Fifth Avenue. Ms. Grey disclosed that she is an alternate board member on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight she is speaking as a resident of the City of Saratoga Springs. The task for the DRC is to make this look like a hundred year old barn again. There are ways to accomplish this. Basically it is not going to be a hundred year old barn again. It is gone. John Kaufman, 44 White Street. The original application for this project the applicant indicated that it was going to be a renovation. She explicitly stated that it would be damaging to the neighborhood to remove this. This is in the original application. Now it is going to be a 3 bedroom home. It adversely affects this neighborhood. This is a very narrow alley. The barn was removed. This needs to be made whole. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. A letter was submitted to the Commission. This speaks to the importance of the historic districts and historic district zoning and the value of being in a historic district. Carriage houses are important to the fabric of Saratoga Springs. Many are being unused and are suffering from demolition by neglect and not being maintained. If there is an opportunity, although this building has been lost, every effort must be made to retain its historic character via height, materials, roof pitch, and all of the items discussed this evening. Evan Williamson, 18 Clark Street. I have been restoring our family home over the last 7 years. The barn in question was in good shape. Most of the siding materials was salvageable. The materials which were to be used are gone. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked what his solution would be. Mr. Williamson stated to put back the original knee walls. The roof pitch maintained and brought back down to grade with some of the features of the historic barn. John Swick, 24 Clark Street. I am here to support this neighborhood. The barn in question was structurally sound. I stored my boat in there for years. This does not fit in the neighborhood. Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street. If this is allowed to continue it will change the character of the whole neighborhood. This is precedent setting. Richard Martin, Acting Chair stated it is gratifying to the Commission when the neighborhood residents come out and stated what they feel could be done to correct this issue. We did visit the site on caravan and we did take measurements. The elevation of the building is way too high. It immediately jumps out at you. There are a number of carriage houses in this community which have very successfully been converted into residences, very successfully, which kept the integrity and the architectural features of the barn. It appears we have lost some of this. On the blueprints and on the building permit it states replace and repair as necessary. One thing which was not restored is the elevation. It pops out of the ground. As a Commission we all felt this building was too high. The building can be lowered in several ways. The building foundation can be cut within a foot of grade, that was my first solution. Cut out the foundation and bring it down to within a foot of the ground and bring down the siding as you have proposed. We eliminate the steps and the railings and everything which goes with the higher elevation. You have a 9 foot floor, you don’t need all that elevation, it can come down. The knee wall does not need to be 6 foot high. It can also come down. Even the roof structure can come down by pulling the roof down over the structure, dropping the fascia, soffit and siding. There are a number of ways this can be accomplished. This structure was higher than the building department thought they were going to see when they went out there and performed their inspection. I believe the applicant did not respect the elevation of the building as it sat. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 4 of 9 Cynthia Corbett stated she agrees with the Chair. There have been many conversions of barns to carriage houses in the community; this is not one of them. There are many examples for the applicant to study to see how it could be done. My only other concern is the small door and railing and steps on the alley. The opening needs to mimic a carriage house door. What was originally there? This would do a lot to bring back the sense that it was a barn and now a carriage house. Karen Cavotta stated as the Chair stated, the first thing we noticed is the height. It is not just the height of the overall structure from grade to peak of the roof. It is the height of the surface of that wall. A better solution would be to try to maintain the eave height of the building as it existed, was when it was there. Use that space using rafters instead of trusses and get an actual occupiable space in that area of the roof would maintain the original height. It does reduce your floor space and you do have to reconfigure how the second floor of the building works. This would maintain the overall mass of the building while retaining the usable space. Bringing back more characteristics of the old barn to the carriage house, whether it is the old doors or any new creative way so you do have a sense of the old barn. Leslie DiCarlo stated she agrees with Karen. The applicant was given variances to convert what was there to be a renovation into a different use. That is what the variances were based on. This house is very different than the original barn which existed. The structure should have more of the characteristics of the old barn incorporated into this new structure. This will be a new building with the old style and feel. Robert West stated he feels as everyone else on the Commission. The real goal is to maintain the height of the barn which existed. Wall height, roof pitch, elevation of eaves at the top. You will need to do whatever programming is necessary on the interior to make this work while giving the neighbors the building they are expecting to see aesthetically. The barn style type door in some configuration is important not a stoop which was proposed. Discussion ensued concerning the addition of windows in the new structure to meet code and emergency rescue. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated this was presented as a modification of an existing barn and it has turned into the building of an entirely new structure. We must maintain as much of the historical integrity as possible. This means materials must be consistent with the original, the grade as original and the roof pitch as well. The Commission has presented the applicant with a number of potential solutions. Those should be taken under consideration. It is really nice to see neighbors rally around a cause such as this. Samantha Bosshart made a very good point about city historical districts. As neighbors you may wish to rally around designation as a historic district moving forward simply to protect other homes and barns in the neighborhood. Mr. Kaufman stated he is not sure how the process works. Since this is not a historic district and the ZBA has asked for an Advisory Opinion how does the oversight work in terms of recreating this. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development. The ZBA has asked the DRC for an Advisory Opinion. You are not bound by the DRC normal jurisdiction. You can provide input and suggestions to the ZBA and they can take it from there. It is not binding. They can accept what you have asked or as in some instances in the past not accepted your suggestions. It is up to the ZBA, to them, how they wish to deal with what you have suggested. To Mr. Kaufman’s statement you could suggest if you think it is helpful and the ZBA is amenable that they could designate final design approval through you as well. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning the condition of final approval by the DRC. Ms. Yasenchak stated for the record she would like to note that a portion of barn was cut out to provide one onsite parking space. Richard Martin, Acting Chair, made a motion for an Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the first floor elevation be lowered to 12” above the alley surface at the paved area in front of the foundation. The total elevation to the ridge of the structure will be the same as the removed structure ridge. This elevation will be estimated by the photographs available. The building should reflect an entrance as a carriage house would have. Materials will be fiber cement board siding, and that the dimensions reflect the original as well as the corner boards, and architectural detailing, City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 5 of 9 such as soffit, fascia, trim and siding reveal. The roof returns to standing seam. All trim and details will be as close as possible to the original photos. Also, the Commission will be willing to discuss new drawings provided to the ZBA by the applicant. Robert West seconded the motion. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Richard Martin, Acting Chairman, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 6. 2016.018 BROWN CARRIAGE HOUSE WINDOW REPLACMENTS, 173 Caroline Street, Historic Review Of a carriage house window replacements within the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Peggy and Joel Brown Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture Ms. Davis provided a visual presentation of the project. We are not proposing any exterior changes to the home. There are issues over the year concerning ice damming and in need of upgrading. Ms. Davis reviewed all windows and conditions which exist currently. We are speaking about 7 windows. The Brown’s are proposing Anderson Wood right Custom Series Double Insulated SDL two over two windows. No change in the grill pattern. We are also proposing the removal of a non working chimney and added insulation. Cynthia Corbett discussed the replacement windows in a historic carriage house. These windows are not beyond a reasonable repair. I am uncomfortable with the replacement and I am not in favor of replacement. Discussion ensued concerning the replacement of historic windows. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. Ms. Bosshart thanked the applicant for the care and maintenance provided to their historic home. Perhaps a more detailed review of all the windows being replaced would be helpful. The Preservation discourages removal of historic windows whenever possible. Discussion continued regarding the repair versus replacement of the first floor windows. Mrs. Peggy Brown stated she is happy to do that. Two of the lower level windows were rebuilt. We do not ever open those. We could consider the addition of the storm windows on those windows. Karen Cavotta made a motion in the matter of the Brown Carriage House Window Replacement, 173 Caroline Street, and 23 Milton Place that the application be approved as submitted. Richard Martin seconded the motion. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Richard Martin, Acting Chairman, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, opposed; Karen Cavotta, in favor MOTION PASSES 5-1 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 6 of 9  7. 2016.023 MILTON RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, 9 Marion Place, Historic Review of siding replacement, chimney removal, and window replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Paul and Beth Milton Agent: Brian Tabor, Schrader & Company Mr. Tabor stated the Milton’s are looking to replace 19 double hung windows in their home. They would also like to remove an exterior chimney which is non functional. We would like to replace the siding and exterior trim components which are beyond repair. We will replace the siding with HardiePlank siding, as well as the trim components with a cedar shake product. Andersen Windows tilt out series. Mr. Tabor stated our company cut its teeth on historic restoration. There are new technologies constantly being created that do a terrific job. The energy code standards and measures are becoming tougher. It is something people want and are asking for. Discussion ensued regarding gable ends, shakes. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman asked just for clarification, the shingles on the gable end are not in terrible condition, but the homeowner has requested the change. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated it was hard to comment on the replacement of all 19 windows without detailed information concerning each window. The ordinance calls for preservation rather than replacement. I cannot comment since we cannot see what the condition of each window is and if they are beyond repair. The bigger issue here is the wholesale replacement of the wood siding. A letter from the Foundation addresses the reasons why the Commission should consider if this is an appropriate action. It is the Commission’s responsibility to consider the ordinance, which is based on the Secretary of the Interior Rehabilitation Standards and the National Parks Service they do not find fiber cement board siding on a historic building is appropriate. The repetitive water damage that is absorbed on wood siding could possibly be part of a failure that maybe hidden or not visible only because it just covers the damage. The profiles are not retained. The overall condition of the wood siding is not in need of a wholesale replacement. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant would be willing to maintain the front façade with wood siding and the sides and rear of the home with fiber cement board siding. Discussion ensued regarding repair versus wholesale replacement of the home. Richard Martin, Acting Chairman offered to table the application for this evening, thereby giving the applicant’s agent time to discuss the concerns and suggestions of the Commission. This will provide the applicant’s agent to look at the gable end of this home and access the condition of the shakes. Analyze the situation and perhaps make a better decision for all concerned. Discussion ensued tabling the application. It was the consensus of the Commission and the applicant’s agent to table this application until the April 20, 2016 meeting. 8. 2016.001 55 PHILA (CAFFE LENA) MIXED USE BUILDING, 55 Phila Street, Architectural Review of a new Mixed use structure within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 7 of 9 Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Tony Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Agent: Matthew Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects Mr. Hurff reviewed the site with a visual presentation for the Commission’s review. Views of the project were provided from all elevations. Floor plans of the project were provided as well as views of shared parking and the circulation between the buildings. A sketch was provided of the shared courtyard space. The shared entrance was reviewed with the glass connector. All mechanicals are being housed on the roof. A green roof is also proposed. We are picking up the scale of the adjacent building. This will be a masonry structure with recessed porches, storefront along the bottom. Keeping within the scale and rhythm of the streetscape. A cut through of the building was provided to show the Board how the elevator area accommodates the two buildings. A streetscape view was provided to show the overall scale to the Library. The outdoor room was shown and how the building notches back and provides some space to the Library. We have added a heavy cornice on the building along with additional architectural details on this corner which was a recommendation from the Commission. The south elevation has 3 separate brick colors. Samples were provided for the Commission’s review. Stucco infill. Pella aluminum clad windows are being proposed. Lighting fixtures were also reviewed. Discussion ensued concerning the location of signage. A small LED sign will be recessed in the brick. Richard Martin, Acting Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Andrew Ingall, 14 Lafayette Street. I live 150 feet from the property. My perspective is from Henry Street. Concerned regarding the view from his home. Looking for more texture or something to break up this large mass. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated the thicker cornice looks great. We are very supportive of this project. Tonya Yasenchak questioned the usage of an LED sign as part of this application. Where is it located? Sonny Bonacio stated this will be recessed in the brick. Designs have not been completed at this time. Nice area to let everyone know what is going on at Caffé Lena. It is a poster with LED lighting surrounding it. We are fine with returning for signage. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion in the matter of the Caffe Lena Mixed Use Building, 55 Phila Street, that the application be approved with the following conditions – to submit for future review of interior courtyard signage. Robert West seconded the motion. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Richard Martin, Acting Chairman, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor MOTION PASSES 6-0 9. 2016.025 TROUTMAN/D’AGNESE RESIDENCE ADDITION, 29 Beekman Street, Architectural Review of a 2-story residential addition to an existing building within the Neighborhood Complementary Use-1 District. Applicant: Mike D’Agnese; Amanda Troutman Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America We have recently purchased this home. We are excited to expand the footprint of our home to make it more livable. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 8 of 9 Currently we have no closets in this home. We are proposing the addition of a master suite and bath. Ms. Yasenchak stated this will remain a two family. It is a very narrow house. Only one bedroom and bath. We are trying to make it more manageable for a couple or family to live. We will be removing a two story porch and adding a master suite and bath for both units as well as a back entrance for both units and a small mudroom for both units. Currently access is off the alley. This parcel does provide off street parking. Sample of materials were provided to the Commission. New vinyl windows will also be added. The roof pitch will remain the same. The addition will be consistent with the existing home. The existing tree will remain. Richard Martin, Acting Chair suggested staggering the addition to denote such. Ms. Yasenchak provided information concerning the reasoning for not staggering the addition. Robert West made a motion in the matter of the Troutman/D’Agnese Residence Addition at 29 Beekman Street, that the application be approved as submitted or shown on the attached plans. Richard Martin, Acting Chair seconded the motion. Richard Martin, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Richard Martin, Acting Chairman, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor MOTION PASSES 6-0 UPCOMING WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS: Design Review Caravan, Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 4:30 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Richard Martin, Acting Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:10 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/19/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – April 6, 2016 - Page 9 of 9