Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Steven Rowland, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Steven Rowland, Chairman; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman; Richard Martin, Leslie DiCarlo, Chris Bennett, Leslie Mechem ABSENT: Cynthia Corbett STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: 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. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 2016.075 OBSTARCZYK GARAGE DEMOLITION, 147 Spring Street, Advisory Opinion to the ZBA on the demolition of a contributing structure and reconstruction of a garage within the Urban Residential-3 District. Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated she is here representing the Obstarczyk’s. This referral to the DRC was made by the ZBA, for an advisory opinion on the demolition of the garage, which is a contributing structure, and the reconstruction of a of a new two car garage. At the last meeting the DRC requested additional information, and it was provided to the Commission, as well as a repeat site visit which did occur. The building would be very difficult to lift due to the logistics and the size of the lot, as well as the proximity to the neighbor’s property. There is no sill plate on the structure. All studs need to be removed and replaced in order not to just lift the building but to replace it or to prepare it and at that point it is more costly than to build a new building. The applicants have had some discussions with their neighbors, who are concerned with the proximity to their property and are not exactly favorable about the equipment on their property. Steven Rowland, Chairman requested a quick recap procedurally where the Commission is at concerning this application. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the ZBA has asked for an advisory opinion. What you are being asked is to provide the ZBA information concerning the amount of relief to allow for reconstruction of this building if you determine demolition is an option. The home is within the Historic District. You have a certain series of questions which you need answered before determination if the property is worthy of demolition. If the structure is demolished what would be built in its post demolition construction plan. Any of those aspects whether it can be demolished or cannot be demolished and/or if it can be demolished, how what is constructed may impact the sitting of the structure, the mass, the scale, the materials and any number of items which could impact the relief which is currently underway at the ZBA. We are suggesting you look at it that way. In essence run through your normal procedures and make sure that you are comfortable with your decision and input on what should be your referral. The first question is there any historical or architectural significance to this structure, and to this structure within the context of this property and adjacent to properties in this neighborhood. If you believe there is historic or architectural significance to this structure, at that point, we need to set a public hearing which is required for any historic demolition and we can schedule for the next meeting scheduled for December 7, 2016. At that point you will hear other alternatives, options, etc., to see if there is a way to the salvage the structure. You would then determine if it’s worthy of demolition or not. If it is worthy of demolition a post demolition construction plan would then be required. If you determine there is no historic or architectural significance, to this property which is listed on the National Historical Register, at that point you can determine that it’s worthy of demolition. If you are looking at proceeding with that determination then I suggest you identify specifically why it does not have historical or architectural significance given the fact that it is identified as a contributing property. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated we have visited the site again. It appeared that at one point in time the building was probably bigger and part of something else. Something has been taken off at some point in time. Certainly, portions of it have been reconstructed or constructed anew. A long time ago perhaps, judging from the framing much of it does not appear to be of the era as the home. At some point in time it was renovated or reconstructed as it sits today. Even if the building were salvaged much of what is there would need to be replaced. Basically reconstructing the building. At some point the building may have had some significance historically perhaps even before it was made into the shape that exists today but given so much has been repaired or will be required to be replaced would then require non combustible materials to meet code, it appears to me that the building is worthy of demolition. The alternatives listed in our ordinance and in the application note there are not a lot of other alternatives for the building. Most importantly any replacement structure, should this go forward, needs to be reflective of what was there. What is proposed is too grand; the scale needs to be scaled back. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman stated it appears that the building was much larger at some point, perhaps even extending into the neighbors yard. Because of that, there was some discussion that it could have possibly been a livery for the area around it. Very few of those remain, but because of that potential and the fact that is a contributing structure on the National Historical Register, I do feel that it is a historically significant building. We should follow those processes as we determine if it should be demolished. Leslie DiCarlo and Chris Bennett agree with Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated she would like to see this building evaluated as a building which has historical and architectural significance. She believes it is a rare example of a livery or a stable. Those two properties were once one. It was part of a larger structure. My hope is that this be evaluated per this criterion. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated our next step, and I agree with Tamie and her approach, is to basically schedule the public hearing for our next meeting on December 7, 2016. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the Commission would need to first offer a motion acknowledging that the structure does have historic significance and that the building be evaluated under the City’s demolition criteria. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion in the matter of the Obstarczyk Garage Demolition application the Design Review Commission moves that there is historic significance and that the building be evaluated under the City’s demolition criteria, with a public hearing to be scheduled for December 7, 2016. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. Steven Rowland, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission – November 16, 2016 - Page 2 of 6 VOTE: Steven Rowland, Chairman, in favor; Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 NOTE: The agenda was heard out of order due to lack of representation for Agenda Item #2. 3. 2014.109.4 RITE AID SIGNAGE, 90 West Avenue & 242 Washington Street, Architectural Review of Multiple signage within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Applicant: Rite Aid Agents: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney; Terry Mizner, Saxton Signs; Jackie Hakes, MJ Engineering Mr. Jones stated the applicant is before the Commission following action by the ZBA and your Advisory Opinion to the ZBA for action on the application for 8 or 9 signs. Mr. Jones reviewed each of the proposed signs, location and materials. Mr. Jones stated the signage on Washington Street which simply states Rite Aid and it is at 3 locations; one on Washington and one on either side of the tower. The ZBA determined that these were above the first story and not in compliance with the zoning ordinance and were granted variances. Jackie Hakes, stated these particular letters for this signage are 30” in height. The signage will be a PVC material low gloss matte finish letters, pin mounted with external goose neck lighting. Terry Mizner provided a sample of the product to be used. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the proposed lettering, and requirements of signage in that district. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development reviewed the signage requirements noting there is no 18” limitation on West Avenue. The applicant is allowed 2 sq. ft of signage for every linear foot of building frontage. These signs do comply with these requirements. Normally applicants are granted one sign per street frontage. This building has two street frontages and would be permitted two signs at the first floor level. These are actually three signs above the first floor level and the ZBA did grant these variances. Mr. Jones stated the tower signage reads Rite Aid and is now accompanied by the word pharmacy on both the West Avenue and on the south elevation. It was the ZBAs determination that was one sign. The same relief was requested on the West Avenue and the sign facing the parking lot being above the first floor level. Additional relief was sought for the tower signage facing the Posey Peddler with no street frontage. This relief was also granted. Jackie Hakes noted that the word Pharmacy lettering in this area has a height of 20”. Mr. Jones stated the shield sign will be centered vertically and horizontally in the gable with external goose neck lighting and will be constructed of the same materials as the Rite Aid sign. This required two variances. It is above the first floor level and the second is there is no frontage there per se. The pylon sign is located on the southerly end of the property. That is a zoning compliant sign and no relief was sought there. The Rite Aid “we are open” sign is a revision and is a temporary sign. “Department within” signage was discussed at some length with the ZBA; these are small 3½” letters. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission – November 16, 2016 - Page 3 of 6 The rationale is there is a legal need to identify “department within”. The Pharmacy does not necessarily operate within the same hours as the store. This satisfies a regulatory requirement. These were not compliant on the West Avenue face and the southerly face of the towers and required relief which was granted by the ZBA. Discussion ensued concerning the definition of department within. Mr. Jones stated the drive thru over the canopy was discussed with the Advisory Opinion, and was granted relief by the ZBA. Chris Bennett questioned the size and scale of the lettering on the north elevation. Discussion ensued concerning the shield placement on the building, and the flexibility in the size of the lettering. Also, discussion ensued regarding the directional signage, size and height. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated it is unfortunate that we have such a sea of signage. My concerns are the 30” letters on the north elevation do not work. That appears to be crowded to fit in the gable. They would look a lot better if they were reduced in sign to fit in that area better. I will agree that scale wise it looks better on the other elevations, but 30” lettering here is too big. I do not belief it is appropriate for the area and I feel 30” is excessive. In addition my other concern is the height of the pylon signs. We have worked very hard trying to reduce the height and the size of the signage in that area. Other businesses in that area have had their signage reduced to 8’. It is a more appropriate size in that area I am hoping we can have some flexibility in the size of some of these. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development reviewed for the Commission exempt permanent signage and what that consists of. It states that directional signs identifying public parking areas, fire zones, entrance and exits and similar signage, maximum 4 sq. ft. and 4 ft. tall. Building names and logos are not permitted. Steven Rowland, Chairman questioned who makes such determinations. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the Zoning Officer and we can go back and check on this. What directional signage is requested. Mr. Jones stated two freestanding directional signs, one from Washington Street in and the drive thru and one which directs from West Avenue. These are 48” in height and 4 sq. ft. in size. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated those signs would be exempt. The Commission only has purview aesthetically. Mr. Jones stated on the canopy for the drive thru one is pickup and one is drop off. These are wall signs and relief was granted by the ZBA. Discussion ensued concerning the 30” height of lettering on the south and west elevations and determined the size here is appropriate. A possible reduction in height of the lettering from 20 – 24” scaled down proportionately on the north elevation. Discussion also continued among the Commission on the height of the pylon signs. Richard Martin questioned the height of the pylon signs in this area. He reiterated the signage in the area being less than 8’. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the Commission has in the past encouraged more of a monument sign approach rather than a pylon sign in that area. The Commission encouraged the ZBA should they grant the additional signage on the tower perhaps the pylons are unnecessary. They are permitted one, but they can volunteer not to have it. If they choose to keep it then it comes under your purview. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission – November 16, 2016 - Page 4 of 6 Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning the usage of a monument sign. Mr. Jones refuted that he does not believe the DRC has the ability to institute a policy for signage beyond what the ordinance states. The Commission does have the ability to regulate mass, scale and proportion. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development clarified for the Commission the following information from the Architectural Review Section 7.5.3 – Action Subject To Review – Paragraph B. Installation of an awning, sign or sign structure that requires a building or sign permit, this does, or such modification with respect to size, materials, illumination, method of attachment, and color. Further beyond that it states design considerations for actions subject to review, which this is, the Commission shall evaluate if the proposed construction is compatible with subject structures, site neighboring properties and then lists, height, scale, mass and open space, proportion, directional expression, architectural rhythm, setback materials, and colors. You have the ability within reason to evaluate those sign structures. Steven Rowland, Chairman stated for him it is a contextual issue. What is adjacent and what is nearby that this wants to be in scale with and contextually appropriate. This signage is out of scale with what is around it. I do think this is within our purview. I believe the pylon sign would be more appropriate at 9’8” than what is proposed. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman also agreed that a monument sign would be better. The surrounding structures also play a role. Lower the height will be in more context with what is currently present in this area. Monument signs appear less commercial. Richard Martin stated he does not want to create an obstacle. However, the height should be scaled down. Discussion ensued regarding the trees which will be remaining on the site and additional landscaping proposed. Tamie Ehinger, Vice Chairman proposed approving all proposed signage however a scale model of the pylon sign would be helpful. Perhaps a mock up at 9 feet which seems appropriate. Richard Martin made a motion in the matter of the Rite Aid Signage, 90 West Avenue, 242 Washington Street that the application be approved with the following conditions: that the west elevation sign to be reduced proportionately to 20”. The Commission will review a mock up of a 9 foot overall height of the pylon sign with an onsite visit scheduled for November 29, 2016. 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, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Richard Martin, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Steven Rowland, Chairman stated there is no representation for the Legends Café, External Modifications Application. It was the consensus of the Commission to table the application to the next DRC Meeting Scheduled for December 7, 2016. 2. 2016.074 LEGENDS CAFÉ EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS, 102 Congress Street, Architectural Review of External modifications within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. UPCOMING WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS: Design Review Caravan, Monday, November 29, 2016 at 4:00 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission – November 16, 2016 - Page 5 of 6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred until the December 7, 2016 Design Review Commission Meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Steven Rowland, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 9/6/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission – November 16, 2016 - Page 6 of 6