Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2020 6:30 P.M. ZOOM WEBINAR PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Leslie Mechem; Rob DuBoff; Chris Bennett; Ellen Sheehan LATE ARRIVAL: Leslie DiCarlo STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:34 P.M. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, 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. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 4, 2020 DRC meeting minutes. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appears to be “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. 1. 20200841 NATIONAL GRID TELECOMMUNCATION POLE, 157/1, 3291 Route 9, Architectural Review of a utility pole-mounted telecommunication array and associated equipment within the Tourist-Related Business District. 2. 20200844 MENGES & CURTIS AWNING, 474 Broadway, Architectural Review of a replacement awning within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. 3. 20200581 WELL NOW SIGNAGE, 204 South Broadway, Architectural Review of signage following ZBA granting of variances within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of the National Grid Telecommunication Pole, 157/1, 3291 Route 9, Menges & Curtis Awning, 474 Broadway, and Well Now Signage, 204 South Broadway, that these applications be approved as submitted. Ellen Sheehan seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 C. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION 1. 20200791 DAGGS PARTIAL WINDOW REPLACEMENT, 160 Ballston Avenue, Architectural Review of (4) replacement windows within the Urban Residential-2 District. No representation present for this application. This application was tabled to the next meeting. 2. 20200812 DORR ROOF REPLACEMENT, 92 Ballston Avenue, Architectural Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-2 District. RECUSAL: Chris Bennett recused from this application. Applicant: Kevin & Yvette Door Mr. Dorr stated they are proposing to replace their 95-year-old slate roof with a new shingled roof. A sample of the proposed asphalt shingle was submitted for the Commission’s review. A visual of the site was provided noting the disrepair of the roofing. Mrs. Dorr stated there are some leaks and the current roof is a patchwork of roofing materials. Some of the roof is slate, some is shingled, some is tarred, and some is old standing seam. Mr. Dorr continued that the snow slides are leaking as well and the ice and snow slides into the driveway. NOTE: Leslie DiCarlo joined the meeting at 6:38 P.M. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this home is an Architectural Review District versus the Historic District, so the review standards are different. This is a historic home in the Architectural Review District and is not on the National Historic Register. Therefore, Secretary of Interior Standards do not apply. The Chair stated she does not object to the use of architectural shingles in the roof replacement on this home. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there were any questions for the applicant. None heard. Ellen Sheehan stated it is always sad to see a slate roof go. It does make sense to replace with asphalt shingles. Leslie Mechem agrees with Ellen regarding the loss of the slate roof. She does agree with asphalt shingle replacement. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 18, 2020 - Page 2 of 7 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this application. None heard. Rob DuBoff made a motion in the matter of the Dorr Roof Replacement, 92 Ballston Avenue that the application be approved as submitted or shown on the attached plans. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Commission Member Chris Bennett resumed his position on the Commission 3. 20200845 HUSS ROOF REPLACEMENT, 54 Ash Street, Architectural Review of a roof replacement within The Neighborhood Complementary Use-1 District. DISCLOSURE: Rob DuBoff disclosed that he is a long-time acquaintance of the applicant. He has no financial interest in this application and feels he can objective in voting on this application. Applicant: Jenny Huss Agent: David Jayk, Contractor Mr. Jayk stated the applicant is proposing to replace the roof at 54 Ash Street. A visual of the site was provided for the Commission. Mr. Jayk provided views of the roof which are areas of concern on the home and are problematic. The roof is currently slate, and they are proposing replacement with an architectural shingle. The front porch will be replaced with a standing seam metal roof. There is a large section of EPDM roofing on a flat portion of the roof in the rear which will not be replaced at this time. Mr. Jayk stated his first thought when called to estimate a roof repair with a slate roof in place is can this roof be repaired. In his opinion and based on the photographs provided in this case and the number of places where the slate needs repair this home is beyond repair in his estimation. This home needs a full roof replacement. His second thought is what would fit in the neighborhood aesthetically and he did walk the neighborhood. Many of the roofs have asphalt shingles. We did discuss what is economically viable and what would look good. The idea of onyx black Owen Corning shingles on the main roof with a black standing seam roof on the porch is what will not only aesthetically look good but will also fit the style of the home. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this home is an Architectural Review District versus the Historic District, so the review standards are different. This home while not historic does contain a slate roof. We look at can the roof be repaired versus replaced. In this case the documentation shows that a roof replacement is in order. Is the slate a character defining feature of the home or is the Commission in agreement with the use of architectural shingles in the roof replacement on this home. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. Rob DuBoff stated it is clear from photographs and a site visit, it appears this roof has lived its life. It always sad to lose a slate roof. Does the applicant’s agent do slate roof repair? Mr. Jayk stated he does do slate roof repair. He spoke regarding slate roof repair and how oftentimes a repair turns into a mammoth project. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 18, 2020 - Page 3 of 7 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Ellen Sheehan made a motion in the matter of the Huss Roof Replacement, 54 Ash Street that the application be approved as submitted or shown on the attached plans. Rob DuBoff seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 4. 20200142 TAIT LANE RESERVE WORKFORCE HOUSING, 114 Tait Lane, Architectural Review of 12 Buildings (202 units of mixed income workforce housing with supportive activities and site amenities within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood District. Applicant: Chris Dirr; Thom Nester, NRP Agent: Andrew Hosack, Architect, RDL Architects Mr. Dirr provided a project overview noting their commitment to the project to provide workforce housing. We are proposing 202 units over 12 building providing a clubhouse and office space. This originally was a phased project however Homes and Community Renewal (HCR) has requested this be completed in a single phase. We are obtaining local approvals and will return to them to complete the financing process. Mr. Dirr stated their hope is to begin construction sometime next summer. Mr. Nester provided an aerial vicinity map noting the location of the project. The site is 14 acres located in the T-4 zone. Access to the site is off both Tait Lane and Allen Drive. On Allen Drive we have a 50-foot easement over the adjacent parcel to access the site. Mr. Nester noted the proximity of the Allendale Project which has been approved by the Board and is adjacent to this site. A three-dimensional street view rendering was provided as well as a streetscape view. A schematic layout and site layout were provided. Three different building types are proposed a three-story building; the second is three stories in the center and two stories on the sides and lastly the town homes. The Commission requested focusing on one or two building types at a time. We will be focusing on the main residential building. Mr. Nester provided views of the front elevation noting the changes. We have raised the stone and added a few one-story elements on the end elevations. We decreased the size of the gables and it seems to fit in better with the building. We have reorganized the interior of the space which allows us to center the windows above the entries. We have raised the building as much as possible to maintain ingress and egress, about 8 inches. Mr. Nester reviewed the remaining elevations, raising the stone and centering the windows above the entries in the rear to be consistent with the front. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated it is easier for the Commission to review one building type at a time to focus on the changes. This evening we can focus on this building style. The Chair requested a review of the materials to be used. Mr. Nester stated provided information on the materials. Cement board and vinyl siding is proposed as well as a higher- grade vinyl window in a dark color. Visuals of other projects the applicant has constructed using the materials proposed. Mr. Dirr stated they did investigate the use of other products and the cost to upgrade these to an aluminum window was over $350,000. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, questioned the use of exterior cladding on the building. Mr. Nester stated the applicant is proposing the use of cement board siding on the main portion of the building, the vertical portions of the structure will have vinyl as well as the areas that denote horizontal siding. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 18, 2020 - Page 4 of 7 Mr. Dirr provided information to the Commission noting the stone is stone, the light colored area is a cement board siding, the darker gray areas on the inset of the upper story inset or patios will be a vinyl double lap sided product and the ends of the building the darker gray vertical siding is proposed as a vinyl product as well. This makes up the materials. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated in reviewing this building style she appreciates the revisions which were made. The raising of the stone, the addition of the vertical windows, adjusting the size of the balconies, as well as the more pronounced front entrances. These all work very well. The concerns she still has are the materials in terms of the vinyl siding and the windows and the elevation grade in the front. This elevation should be raised higher. We have not allowed a vinyl product on a residential/commercial building development in the Architectural Review District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there were any questions or comment from the Commission. Rob DuBoff stated he agrees with the comments that the Chair has made regarding the windows and the siding. He is in 100% agreement that the notion of approving a vinyl product for siding or windows would be beyond what the Commission is willing to do based on precedent. Just from a design and cost standpoint but that the removal of the stone would easily pay for the upgrade in siding and windows. Why are you proposing a hip roof versus a plain gable roof? There are a lot of complicated roof lines and angles. It could possibly be simplified. Also, the building even though you stated it has been raised it still appears to be on grade. The entrances although are more prominent perhaps the addition of a portico could be beneficial to the tenants. Chris Bennett stated he agrees with Rob and the Chair regarding the use of siding. He does not find it a heavy lift to switch out the vinyl to cement board. A little more emphasis on the front entrance will help a lot. The improvements which have been made have helped create more balance and detail. You are headed in the right direction. Mr. Dirr spoke about looking at other materials and what each of these products would add as additional costs to the project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated in terms of looking at the financials and the Commission understands the financial constraints the applicant is working with. The Commission does not take that into consideration in reviewing applications. Our task is to determine if the materials chosen are in fact appropriate for the construction. We understand the financial parameters the applicants are tasked with. The vinyl is not appropriate. How you determine to replace that with whatever other materials is up to the applicant. We are tasked with adhering to the standards set forth by the City for this Architectural Review District. Also, why would the applicant feel that vinyl is appropriate for the context of the neighborhood since this a brand-new neighborhood you are creating. The Chair is not sure what context you are referring to. Mr. Dirr stated when they look at the development and the entrance into the development and the Kirby Drive neighborhood many of the homes in this area have vinyl siding. Chris Bennett questioned how this project compares to the Intrada Development. Mr. Dirr stated they have used an aluminum window and we have spoke with them regarding the windows. The cost was upwards of more than $400,000. These developments will complement each other. The other development is surrounded by more commercial buildings this will be surrounded by residential buildings. These are different neighborhoods. Discussion ensued regarding building materials and products. Ellen Sheehan spoke regarding the changes the applicants have made. The materials for this project will make this look project look less generic. The materials will make or break this building. Leslie DiCarlo stated she appreciates the changes made based on the Commission’s suggestions and remarks. She appreciates the use of the windows; it does enhance the quality of life in the apartments. She does agree with her fellow Commission members regarding materials. She also feels the entrances could be more enhanced. Her issues are with the quality of the materials and raising the building. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 18, 2020 - Page 5 of 7 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, requested the applicant’s agent walk the Commission through the placement of the meter banks, the venting, the dumpster locations, and any of these types of mechanicals. Mr. Nester stated they are not yet through this portion of the process yet. Mr. Andrew Hosack stated it would be hard to promise something at this point. They would like to run some mechanicals through the top floor soffit. Typically, the intermediate floors would be run through the truss space to the exterior. We will try to color match materials where the vents protrude. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated as the Commission moves forward these are some of the items they will be considering. Our objective as well as yours will be to keep those items less visible and as hidden as possible. Specifically, the meter banks and venting. Typically, the Commission likes to keep the meter banks on the least visible façade of the building. Also, any type of screening that could be used to minimize their appearance would be encouraged. Chris Bennett questioned the type of heating proposed for these units. Mr. Dirr stated we are using individually metered split system natural gas. Mr. Nester explained they are using gas. Each unit will have a tankless water heater, and this will loop through the furnace and provide heat for the units. The splits will provide air conditioning. Tamie Ehinger, Chair questioned what the applicants were looking for in terms of feedback this evening. Since we cannot provide any approvals this evening, we are happy to provide a letter of support for your financing portion of the project to move forward. Further we can review the overall layout of the project this evening. Mr. Nester walked the Commission through the B Building which is like the first building for continuity. The townhomes views were provided as well with a pop of color and the introduction of stone. We did change the roof a bit to prevent the large mass of roof. A review of all elevations was provided for the Commission as well. Mr. Nester provided a view of the clubhouse as well as the commercial space. He reviewed materials noting these will be a revised prior to the next appearance before the Commission. The site plan was reviewed for the Commission. Mr. Dirr stated the parking for the apartments was oriented to the rear of the buildings. The street parking along the main roads was interspersed with more green space and street trees and pocket parks and walking paths. Emergency access for the site is along the railroad tracks. This is not for everyday use. We have provided several grilling areas for the apartments. Dumpster locations were reviewed as well as several bike stations. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the rendering was extremely helpful. She requested additional renderings from different angles to help in further building evaluations. This is very appealing. The styles of the buildings play off each other nicely. The renderings are helpful to see the entire project from all views and how this fits together. We are looking to see how these building relate to each other. The Chair stated the overall look and feel of the new development is great. It will be a nice infill to the area. The concerns moving forward and what would need to be addressed would be the materials, the window materials and there is still some concern regarding the entrance elevations not elevated enough above grade. Rob DuBoff stated he believes the guideline is 2 to 3 steps up off grade or about 18 inches. Ellen Sheehan was reviewing the ordinance for specificity. The first floor of buildings for residential use should be raised above sidewalk grade a minimum of 2 feet above grade in the Transect-5 District. Mr. Dirr stated this is a Transect 4 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated overall the Commission would be looking at approximately 2 feet above grade. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 18, 2020 - Page 6 of 7 Mr. Dirr stated if they must raise every building two feet off the ground, they will not be able to afford to the project. The agency would not support it and the project would not move forward. He stated they simply cannot raise these buildings it is not possible, and the agency would laugh at them. Discussion ensued regarding raising the building to the City’s requirement along with the addition of the ramps and the feasibility of the applicant’s ability to both raise the building and afford the project. Ellen Sheehan stated she feels this needs to be reviewed by staff who is more familiar with the requirements of the specific districts. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner stated she will review and investigate the ordinance further and reply to the Commission and the applicant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated we will await further information regarding elevation to grade for now. We recognize the applicant is working with constraints, but the Commission is tasked with reviewing these projects to meet Architectural Review Standards. There was some discussion regarding emphasizing the entrances and the possibility of an overhang. Masking of penetrations are also encouraged. The project looks like a great addition to the west side of the City. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Design Review Commission Caravan, Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Meeting, Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:30 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Tamie Ehinger, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:28 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Formatted: Normal, Justified, Right: -0.1" APPROVED 12-9-20 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 18, 2020 - Page 7 of 7