Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman; Richard Martin; Robert West; Karen Cavotta; Cynthia Corbett SKYPE: Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman ABSENT: Leslie DiCarlo STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development CALL TO ORDER: Steven Rowland, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 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. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Steven Rowland, Chairman announced that the Mayor has appointed a second alternate to the Design Review Commission, Mr. Chris Bennett, a local craftsman and contractor. He has spent some time on the DRC in the past. We welcome his expertise to the Commission. A. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 2016.035 THE INN AT FIVE POINTS SIGN, 102 Lincoln Avenue, Architectural Review of a freestanding sign within the Urban Residential-2 District. RECUSAL: Robert West recused from this application. Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki stated the applicant is proposing a 30 x 19 ¼ foot oval sign on 7 foot posts with raised lettering, no lighting. Steven Rowland,Chairman asked if there were any 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 Inn at Five Points Sign, 102 Lincoln Avenue that the application be approved as submitted. 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; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Robert West resumed his position on the Commission. 2. 2016.038 BJ FARMS PRODUCE STAND, 16 West Avenue, Architectural Review for a temporary farm stand within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Applicant: Jack Minogue, owner Minogue’s Mr. Minogue stated BJ Farms has housed their produce stand on his property for the last 25-30 years for approximately 75 days during the summer months. We have been asked to have the DRC review the stand to make sure it meets all criteria and regulations. BJ Farms is a multigenerational farm. There is no electricity, no cooking no electric signage or water provided to this stand. There are no setback issues. 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. Karen Cavotta made a motion in the matter of the BJ Farms Produce Stand, 16 West Avenue that the application be approved as submitted. 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, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. 2016.037 MORAN RESIDENCE WINDOWS, 167 Lake Avenue, Architectural Review of exterior Modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Rick and Janine Moran Agent: Matt McPadden Mr. McPadden stated the applicants are planning to do a first floor renovation relocating the dining room and the kitchen. We are reversing the rooms. The issue we are having is the windows in the dining room are lower and we need room for the backsplash. We are proposing switching the windows as well. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated at the workshop we discussed this project and we have a few options to present to you. Richard Martin stated because the size of the bump out and the double windows and the rhythm it sets, the Commission offers keeping the taller windows at the sink and drop down the windows below the backsplash. So these two windows can be kept in the kitchen. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – May 4, 2016 - Page 2 of 7 Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the Commission’s concerns is that the two windows you propose to relocate are fairly small for the bumpout. It disrupts the rhythm. Another option would be the addition of a raised panel detail below the smaller windows giving them the appearance of being larger. Discussion ensued regarding the window openings and the size of the windows as well as the size of the shutters and the size and configuration of the area in the home. Mr. McPadden suggested to swap 2 pairs of windows, add shutters to the kitchen windows to keep with the rhythm of the home. 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 Moran Residence Windows, 167 Lake Avenue, that the application be approved with the following condition – smaller windows be relocated in the bumpout to receive appropriate height shutters the same height of the window. 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; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 4. 2014.079 CITY CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE, Maple and High Rock Avenues, discussion on status of project relating to Architectural Review of multi-level parking structure within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Applicant: Mark Baker, President, City Center Authority; Joe Dalton, Chairman; Roger Goldsmith, Board Member Agent: Ted Mallen, Will Calhoun, Envision Architecture Mr. Baker stated on January 6, 2016 the Center City Parking Structure received DRC preliminary approval pending the successful completion of the lease agreement with the City of Saratoga Springs. This was accomplished on April 6, 2016 with a 3-2 vote. We are returning before you this evening to address the final portion of the DRC application. There were 3 areas of discussion which the Commission requested more clarification and discussion on. Mr. Mallen, stated we spoke about some of the elevation issues specifically the bridge over Maple, the entrance on the south façade adjacent to it and what would we do on the north side or the green wall. A visual presentation was provided to the Commission, noting color and materials of the façade, the entryway, the north grow wall and some of the proposed changes which could be implemented. Mr. Baker reviewed some of the concerns the Commission discussed at the last meeting. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman was concerned regarding the façade of the building. Karen Cavotta spoke about the entryway to the garage and that it should be treated differently. Concerns were voiced over the north grow wall and the treatment there. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated there has been concerns regarding the north elevation all along. The main garage entrance area on the south elevation and the bays which surround that, and the color and material palette of the overpass and the whole building. In our discussions we will start with one elevation at a time. We will begin at the south elevation, the main entrance into the garage and the bays above it and the bay which is immediately east of it. Some of the concerns which were discussed was originally there was some rhythm to some of this. Smaller punched openings and the glass element. When we got to this sketch those openings seem to lose the rhythm that was present earlier. Perhaps some City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – May 4, 2016 - Page 3 of 7 people like the horizontal element more or the arches. We had two glass elements which bookended things somewhat, but it seemed to fall apart in the middle. It looked like the openings were popped in there. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated she agrees with the Chair’s comments. Consistency and rhythm are essential in new construction. I am concerned about a number of areas on a number of facades which need work. This specifically is one of them. There are openings which exist which are just not working with the rest of the architectural features and the rest of the openings. Karen Cavotta stated we have discussed the length of this building and the perception of that with many different views and elevations. People have made arguments that this building is too long. I think what you are attempting to do is to break up the length of this building. You have made several attempts to do that by creating different openings and different types of openings to do that. There has to be a hybrid of breaking up the long façade but still reading some continuation or ways of treating those openings across that façade. Essentially, staying with the sketch which has more consistency, and I like the fact that it is broken by the brick pier in between. To some degree you want to treat the entryway to the garage differently, you want to emphasize the entry. Discussion ensued concerning some of the suggestions the Commission has made including planting schemes, the fact that one façade is more “finished” than the other side. Lightening the concrete elements and introducing the arches, and window elements. Incorporate some of the features present on the other side of the building to the side where features are lacking. Perhaps disguising the ramps in some way. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated the north elevation needs more attention, in particular the arch area. I echo what the Commission members have stated concerning this elevation. The Foundation feels strongly that the grow wall is not the solution, nor are plantings to cover the architecture. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated there has been a lot of positive discussion tonight. We are confident in what the design team can come up with. 5. 2015.008 77 EXCELSIOR MIXED-USE PROJECT, 77 Excelsior Avenue, Architectural review of a proposed building, mixed-use development within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Agent: Michael Tuck, Melissa Clark, Balzer & Tuck Architects, Todd Curley, Prime Properties Applicant: Prime Properties Mr. Tuck stated the last time the applicant was before the Commission we received some valuable comments which we would like to address. Visual presentation was provided to the Commission with additional imagery for Buildings 4 and 6. We will begin with Building 4, then 5 and proceed to Building 6. Mr. Tuck reviewed the timeline and reviewed the concerns regarding the balcony construction. We have proposed a different structure for that. Also concern was voiced regarding cladding colors, the patterning of it in the gable portions of buildings 4 and 5. We have reviewed the composition of that. There was also some question regarding the proximity of 92 East Avenue, and we have provided some additional imagery for that. Building 6, concerns were voiced concerning the entry. We have taken another approach to that making the entry more prominent. We have developed that further. Some questions concerning views from Route 50 and we have provided some views from Route 50. Mr. Tuck reviewed elevations and exteriors of the buildings including a review of the mechanicals. Concerning Building 4 and 5, the comment was made that some of the materials made the building static. We redid the entrance and reworked the central gable material colors a lighter tan color. Flanking gables were set up with the darker City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – May 4, 2016 - Page 4 of 7 colors of the palette and that held through for both buildings. The courtyard side is now lighter. This impacted the east and west elevations as well. The mechanical systems were reviewed for buildings 4 and 5. Wall mounted condensers will be inside the garages. There will be no exterior mounting of condensers. One air handling unit will be on the roof. We are using a mini-split system for heating and cooling of the building which has less exhaust requirements. We were able to greatly reduce the number of mechanicals using this system. All of the venting happens on the individual sidewall terraces. Roof plans were reviewed as well as the placement of rooftop venting in the recessed mechanical wells. Some views were provided to the Commission of the building’s 16’8” proximity to the East Avenue neighbor. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated some of the concerns which were raised at the workshop is that everything seems so monolithic and flat on this façade. I am not sure if it is a function of the panel system being used or if the openings are plain openings. There is not much articulation there, they seem very flat. Richard Martin stated that one of the elements which is lost, and I really liked is the stone base. That texture certainly helped. The windows were also treated more vertically with materials and paint patterns and colors and that was lost. I am not sure why those were changed. Has the gable overhang been changed? Mr. Tuck stated the center gable has been pulled out. This was done in response to the Commissions comments that it was too flush along the front. Discussion ensued among the Commission noting the number of changes made. Richard Martin stated that he does have some problems with the recessed porches and the wall thicknesses of each side of the porches. They look blank. The trim around the windows seem light almost commercial. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated one of the duties of the DRC is to ensure that new construction has contextual appropriateness, and how it relates to its neighbor. This building is just not there in terms of appearance. The first structure in a new area has to meet the standards, this is precedent setting. Karen Cavotta stated there is some element missing, not sure what it is. Mr. Tuck stated when we first spoke about the building which is completed we were very careful. The massing of this building was very deliberate. We have taken some of the horizontal panels and incorporated them into this building. We are trying to stitch the language of these two buildings together. This building is more plain and simple than previously presented. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated the loss of the shed roofs on this building have hurt it somewhat. It adds to the flatness factor that we are struggling with. It seems like the scale of trims around the doors and windows are not in scale with the building and do need to read heavier. Balconies are recessed in. Is there any way the floors of these buildings could project out a little from the buildings and return back to the building. A heavier trim possibly around those openings would help. The gable end overhangs are not very significant. Robert West stated he is in agreement with the other Commission members concerning the facade; however the west corner is the hardest part as it transitions from 92 East to this building. Especially the wall as it heads to the north. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated it appears the Commission is requesting some additional illustrations from the applicant’s agent. More accurate materials, perhaps a 3D rendering so we could walk all around the building and take a closer look. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated adding some heft to the trim around the windows and doors would help. Additionally, if 3D renderings could be taken closer to the building so the visibility is clearer to the Commission. Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning the possibility of a site visit to look at Building 3 while on caravan on Tuesday, requesting the perimeter of the building staked out. The Commission’s consensus is to City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – May 4, 2016 - Page 5 of 7 review one building at a time and then proceed to the other buildings for future considerations on large projects such as this. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. A site visit was scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, 2016 during the Commission’s scheduled caravan. 6. 2016.020 WITT CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION, 563 North Broadway, Historic Review of a Carriage house conversion/renovation within the Urban Residential-4 District. Applicant: John Witt, owner Mr. Witt stated the focus for tonight is conversion/renovation of the carriage house on 563 North Broadway. The windows will be replaced with Pella Pro-Line series with 2 over 2 muntin between the glass, and the cupola will be removed off the roof per the DRC recommendations. To retain the appearance of the back of the barn which was a plain wall, I have added a window and a barn door to that as well. Sketches were provided for the Commission’s review. The slate roof will remain on the front roof and the rear roof will be reshingled with GAF slate line. A garbage room has been added which will handle all the trash on the site and the dumpster on site will be removed. Vinyl siding and a standing seam roof is proposed for the garage as well as bronze copper lighting for the garage. Mr. Witt provided the Commission with a review of homes which were constructed using vinyl siding to provide the Commission with some examples on how vinyl siding was used and the appearance. Wood on the existing carriage house is in bad condition. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated my biggest concern is that this is one of the most historic districts in the City. We will be setting a precedent using the vinyl versus wood. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated the project when originally approved for vinyl siding was prior to the re-establishment of the Historic guidelines. Discussion ensued regarding Hardie plank siding versus vinyl in the Historic District, and the setting of a precedent in the historic district. Richard Martin stated in the Historic Districts where your home is located dictates what materials need to be used. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development reviewed the historic guidelines set forth by the City of Saratoga Springs and the Design Review Commission. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated correspondence was forwarded to the Commission concerning the introduction of vinyl siding for this project. We appreciate the changes John Witt has made which are much more in keeping with the building. The use of vinyl is discouraged as best preservation practices across the country. The DRC guidelines as well as your standards are clear regarding replacing in kind with in kind materials including composition. Richard Martin made a motion in the matter of the Witt Carriage House Renovation, 563 North Broadway, that the application be approved with the following conditions – drawings dated March 14, 2014 be revised with the newly signed and dated drawings dated May 4, 2016. The siding is to be a solid wood material measuring the same thickness and lap as existing. Cynthia Corbett seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – May 4, 2016 - Page 6 of 7 Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; Robert West, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Cynthia Corbett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 UPCOMING WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS: Design Review Caravan, Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Richard Martin, Acting Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/19/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – May 4, 2016 - Page 7 of 7