Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2020 6:30 P.M. ZOOM WEBINAR PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Leslie Mechem; Rob DuBoff; Leslie DiCarlo; Chris Bennett; Ellen Sheehan STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development, City of Saratoga Springs Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector, City of Saratoga Springs Vincent DeLeonardis, City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 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 with minor corrections. 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; Leslie DiCarlo; in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 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. 20200849 BRASSERIE BENELUX SIGNAGE, 390 Broadway, Historic Review of a wall sign and replacement awning within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. 2. 20200504 MACKEY BUILDING SIGNAGE, 250 Excelsior Avenue, Architectural Review of a wall sign and freestanding sign within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. 3. 20200791 DAGGS PARTIAL WINDOW REPLACEMENT, 160 Ballston Avenue, Architectural Review of (4) replacement windows within the Urban Residential-2 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 Brasserie Benelux Signage, 390 Broadway; Mackey Building Signage, 250 Excelsior Avenue; Daggs Partial Window Replacement, 160 Ballston Avenue, that these applications be approved as submitted. Rob DuBoff seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chairman, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 C. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION 1. 20200863 RIP VAN DAM COLUMNS, 351 & 353 Broadway, Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group; Dominick Ranieri, Dominick Ranieri Architecture; Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Mr. Ingersoll stated the applicants have attempted to adhere to the Commissions wishes regarding column replacement and brick removals as discussed at the November 30, 2020 meeting. We are here this evening to discuss the front structural columns and the temporary removal and replacement of the brick work on the rear of the building. Several discoveries inside the structure necessitate further structural work. Mr. Ranieri provided a visual of the site. At the last meeting we discussed repairing several items rather than replacement especially the front structural columns as well as brick areas in the rear of the building. Further evaluation and analysis reveal it is necessary to replace rather than repair. The six front porch columns have revealed serious decay along with the front porch roof beams. Every capital is in bad shape, outside the trim board is rotting and the bases are far worse than anticipated and cannot be salvaged and are not structurally sound. Following some research, we have found a company which makes the specific column which is Temple of the Winds design made of Endura Stone. A visual of the existing column and the proposed column replacement were provided for the Commission. This product is strong and durable and deters decay. Examples of duracast columns which have been used in the City was provided to the Commission. There are areas in the rear exterior wall where due to structural issues inside the building are causing some issues. To accommodate the new floor plan layout for the hotel as well as blocking sound and views of the rooftop equipment the two windows will be in filled with brick and will have similar detailing as the Adelphi. There is a structural issue with the rear stair tower inside the building which necessitates removal of portions of the brick. We will attempt to salvage as much as possible of the brick removed to replace. Additional brick will be matched to this original. On the west wall the four windows will be in filled with brick and have similar detailing as the Adelphi. As previously stated, this is being done to accommodate the new floor plan layouts for the hotel as well as blocking sound and views of the roof top equipment. This will help with the elevator replacement. The rear door will have the canopy removed and the doors will be in filled with brick as well. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this is something that is not unanticipated based on our original conversation several weeks ago. In reviewing historic structures, we first look at repair versus replacement. The Chair feels the applicant has done their due diligence in attempting to salvage portions of this historic building. In terms of materials and the standards and guidelines indicate that wood should be replaced with wood. This is a unique situation. These are clearly weight bearing exceptionally large features with structural involvement in this project. If the columns replicate the original, the Chair does not feel it is not inappropriate to use the Endura Stone product. The team will now discuss the column replacement as well as the removal of brick for infill in the windows and a portion of the brick façade. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the use of the Endura Stone for the columns, the design of the capitals and the brick infill and removal. It was the consensus of the Commission that the columns can be replaced with the Endura Stone product. However, the capitals must be replicated in kind - the same size and shape of the tobacco leaf design which currently exist. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 2 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated the capital design on the column is a character defining feature of the column. Chris Bennett agrees with everything which has been stated regarding the capitals. He did voice concern regarding the recycling or reusing the columns. Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction stated when the columns are removed, they will be stored and not destroyed. Ellen Sheehan questioned if the front fascia would be replaced. Mr. Ranieri stated if the front fascia needs to be replaced it will be replicated as it currently exists in wood. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated she agrees with the Commission that the applicant has done their due diligence to demonstrate the condition of the existing columns. They do not object to the proposed new material for the columns or the brick. Their concern regarding the capitals is the same as the Commission has voiced. Is it possible to grant approvals with an Administrative sign off for the final specifications of the columns and capital proportions? Ellen Sheehan made a motion in the matter of the application of the Rip Van Dam Columns, 351 & 353 Broadway, That the application be approved with the following conditions – the new columns retain the proportion both the capital and the columns as the existing columns. The applicant will submit final details of columns and capitals for Administrative approval. The brick infill is approved. Leslie DiCarlo seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chairman, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. 20200853 77 VAN DAM EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, 77 Van Dam Street, Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney; Jim Chandler, Project Manager, Bonacio Construction Ms. Coreno stated this is an extension of the architectural review for work on the renovation of this historic building. A visual of the site was provided. Some of the renovations which have been completed since the applicant’s last appearance before the Commission involve the installation of the two main carriage lights just below the awning on the main entrance. To accommodate the lighting, fire response system and the security entrance system a small amount of conduit work was performed on the building. Also, on the rear of the building the formerly plywood covered windows were replaced with windows which mimic those of the original structure. Stonework was installed around the venting units in this area as well. We have one additional window which needs to be completed. The main entrance currently has stone fill which replaces the glass transom over the entryway which previously existed. The west entrance did not have a glass transom but currently has the stone fill over the entry doors as well. The rear utility door was replaced and painted to match the adjacent windows casings. A motion sensor light was also installed in this area. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the Commission that this work has already been completed. As always, the Commission must review this application as if they were seeing it for the first time. It is very frustrating when this happens especially when the Commission has been working diligently with the applicant on the renovations which have been done. The Chair City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 3 of 10 noted she does not have any issues with most of the changes which have been made. The lamps do not seem inappropriate; however, the conduit is not ideal. It at the very least should be painted out to match the background. No issues with the rear window replacement, it is an improvement as well as the rear door replacement. The Chair noted her disappointment with the replacement of the glass transom with stone infill on the front of the building. This is not an appropriate solution and would like to revisit other options. The most appropriate thing to do would be to remove the stonework and replace the glass or appropriate product that would belong in this location. Rob DuBoff agrees with the Chair. He does not understand the transom replacement as well. It is something we would never approve. Ellen Sheehan questioned why this was not presented to the Commission prior to the start of these renovations. This is not appropriate and does not make sense for the building. Ms. Coreno stated she believes at the time these were considered replacements to what was already there. Certainly, understanding and taking complete acknowledgement that they are not in the best position to decide what a replacement is and what is not a replacement. It was done in good faith, especially the windows and doors and the lighting for safety. We certainly take the comment about the transom. Mr. Bonacio stated this was lack of communication between himself and the onsite project manager. This was our fault. The Commission knows how much we respect the buildings in town. We take pride in what we do. This was my error. Leslie Mechem agrees about the transom. It almost looks plastic. Going back to pressed glass or some other materials would be appropriate. Chris Bennett stated this needs a better solution than this. Everything else is fine. Tamie Ehinger, Chair spoke regarding the transom with the stonework is not approvable. In terms of proposals based on our standards and guidelines, the transom should be replaced in kind. Mr. Bonacio suggested an opaque glass to keep with the door below. Same color same material. Then we can present to the Commission several suggestions regarding the gold cladding for review. Leslie DiCarlo suggested possibly moving the lettering into the transom space. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation echoed the DRC comments. The solution the applicant is proposing is a good one. We have no objections to the other changes. Tamie Ehinger, Chair suggested we can move forward approving most of the items. We will defer on the transom to resolve those issues. The proposals for the transom should return before the Commission for approval. Discussion ensued among the Commission and the applicant concerning the location and color of the conduit. The idea to re-route the conduit to the inside corner of the entrances and painted black was suggested and accepted by the applicant. Rob DuBoff made a motion in the matter of the 77 Van Dam Exterior Modifications, 77 Van Dam Street, that the application be approved with the following conditions – the existing conduit for the carriage lamps to be re-routed to the inside corner of the entrances and painted black. The replacement windows are approved. The stone infill currently in place in the transoms will be removed and replaced with opaque glass or opaque black glass. The transom material choices are to return before the Commission for further review and approval. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 4 of 10 VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chairman, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. 20200809 SIMPSON REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, 65 Phila Street, Historic Review determination of Historic/architectural significance for a vacant structure within the Urban Residential-4 District. 4. 20200809 SIMPSON REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, 69 Phila Street, Historic Review determination of Historic/architectural significance for a vacant structure within the Urban Residential-4 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair provided information regarding the procedure the Commission adheres to when reviewing a historic property for demolition. First the Commission reviews the property to determine if there is any historical or architectural significance. Once a determination has been made the Commission can move forward with the remainder of the application or should the determination be made that there is significance to the property it sets in place an entirely new process which will require additional documentation. Tonight, we will focus on step 1 for our discussion. Also, the applicant is appearing before the Commission this evening at the request of the courts due to outstanding code violations. It is important for the Commission to have a full understanding of those violations to evaluate this application. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector for the City of Saratoga Springs. He will provide information regarding these violations. Vince DeLeonardis, City Attorney will then review where the applicant is in the legal process. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector stated he is responsible for the enforcement of all matters to the DRC and to enforce all the DRC decisions. These applications involve multiple city departments and agencies. While this may appear to be a new request from the owners to demolish 65 & 69 Phila Street, the structures have been in various states of abandonment and disrepair for a significant amount of time dating back prior to his tenure with the city. There have been various applications in the past for changes to the building, subdividing the two properties into three properties. There is a long history of city actions on these properties. Various court actions in the past regarding registration of these properties on the vacant registries. More recently since 2017 there has been more of a focus on documenting these specific issues of property maintenance with the two structures and then pursing violations of property maintenance code, city code to have the owner’s upkeep and prevent further deterioration. These properties need repairs to prevent worsening of the current situation to something unsalvageable. Current court case notes that the property registration is up to date. Various levels of property maintenance are noted which need to occur to prevent further damage. Engineering reports in 2017 by Chazen as independent third-party evaluator inspected the building and provided a list of recommended and required maintenance. The City agreed with that report and pursued violations as a result. There has been a Notice of Violation that was pulled by the city and re-issued. These re-issued violations are the substance of what is before the court currently. The applicant does have the opportunity to proceed with any administrative remedies to cure those violations, one of which is to repair the buildings to the property maintenance code specifications. Another remedy is to demolish the buildings. The first step is to determine the level of architectural and historical significance. Several violations include the maintenance of the exterior finishes, repairs of any leaking areas of the roof, painting of the exterior structure, closing off any holes that would allow rodent or animal infestation. For the most part the properties have been boarded up to prevent unauthorized entry. Vince DeLeonardis, City Attorney stated Patrick Cogan summarized the issues and provided a great deal of information to the Commission. There were two violations currently pending for each property in City Court. One was regarding the failure to submit these structures to the vacant building registry which the city has. Those applications have been submitted within the last day or so, including the payments required the insurance and the escrow. The vacant structure registry has recently been amended to enlarge the fees required; imposed increased fees in cash escrow required and mandated the requirement for liability insurance. We also denoted a distinction between historic versus non-historic structures and imposed additional requirements for those structures that qualify as historic. In addition to the vacant structure registry violations that exist we also have violations for each parcel regarding the International Property Maintenance Code specifically the failure of the property owner to maintain those properties in good condition including the weatherproofing of the siding and coverings and general structure of the building itself. Those violations remain and are currently pending in City Court. The application for the demolition is not at the request of the court but rather with the permission of the courts. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 5 of 10 The request was made by the applicant to the court as an alternative to remedying the violations by way of repairing the structures in a manner that was appropriate. This is subject to the discretion of this Commission. As mentioned previously by the Chair this is a two-step process. One is to determine if this is a historic structure and if it is if the applicant has met the criteria under that definition for a demolition. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated there has been a tremendous amount of public interest in this application we have received many letters from members of the community voicing concern over the possible demolition of these structures. Many Of those concerned citizens are audience members tonight and we will open it up for public discussion later this evening. Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America; Matt Chauvin, Attorney Ms. Yasenchak stated this has been a long process with the owners. She did provide a history of the applicant’s ownership of the property. Ms. Yasenchak provided a visual of both properties. They were both constructed in the mid 1800’s. The current owners purchased these properties in 1994 and 2003. Both buildings when purchased were in a state of disrepair and not occupied or inhabited at the time of purchase. A brief timeline and history were provided. - 2002 - Paul Male, the City Engineer reviewed the properties and noted that 65 Phila seemed to be structurally intact and restorable, 69 Phila was determined to be unsafe and should be removed. -2003 – Maxim Engineering reviewed both properties noting that 65 Phila appeared to be intact and restorable in some fashion. They noted the rear portion is not significant architecturally and could be demolished and replaced with new construction. Also, 69 Phila was in advance state of deterioration. and was not economically feasible for the owner to salvage this building. Ms Yasenchak stated the owners applied for variances in 1996 and applied for the buildings to be renovated and for an additional building to be built between 65 and 69 Phila Street. -2017 - an inspection report from Jack Donnelly, Code Enforcer noted 69 Phila Street was unfit for human occupancy, the structure was a hazard and should be condemned or demolished immediately. -2017 - response from Chazen’s evaluation per the City’s request noting 65 Phila Street rear addition was structurally compromised and should be demolished. The main structure porch system was structurally compromised, noting much of the building would need to be demolished to make these structural repairs. 69 Phila Street was also noted an advanced state of disrepair, portions of it had no observable foundation and that the building rear addition was structurally compromised and should be demolished. Ms. Yasenchak noted a portion of the engineering reports does include photographs of the buildings, photographs of the areas which are unstable, have substantial cracking areas which do not have foundations. -2020 – an inspection report from Schafer Engineering revealed 65 Phila Street rear addition was structurally compromised and should be demolished. The main structure porch system was structurally compromised and much of the original structure would need to be removed to repair. 69 Phila noted the structure was in a serious state of disrepair, structurally compromised and should be demolished in its entirety. Noting there was nothing in the structure worth saving or repairing. Ms. Yasenchak provided additional photographs of both properties. Mr. Chauvin stated has been intimately involved in the court proceedings. Meetings were held with city staff outlining what steps the City wished the applicant to take. We reviewed the engineer reports and discussion ensued among all parties. It was agreed amongst the parties that seeking demolition of the properties was likely in the best interest and the best course of action. The application was made and there was concern in the delay in filing these applications. Co-vid restrictions did play a part in the delay with these applications especially the requirement to provide a post demolition plan for these sites. The court is comfortable with the proposed course of action and we are before you this evening for the Commission to determine the historical significance of the properties and move through the necessary steps. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 6 of 10 Ms. Yasenchak stated she herself feels preservation is particularly important and has been directly involved in many preservation projects which have taken buildings that have even appeared to be in worse condition than these and have been renovated. However, as the Commission does their review, she requested that the Commission takes into consideration these are wood buildings and the quality and the way they were constructed. These were boarding houses. In these two cases these two buildings were derelict when the owners purchased them. They were unable to renovate them. They have been for sale for some time with no success. We are looking at the existing condition of buildings and how they have been compromised over the years. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the Commission that this evening we are reviewing these structures to determine if there is any historical or architectural significance. Ellen Sheehan stated with these houses they were not boarding houses to begin with. The house to the left was owned by a civil war veteran and the Patterson family occupied this home for 90 years. The red house Reverend Holly and his family lived there for several years. Both homes were then sold to the Jewish Community which has a long history in Saratoga. The history is quite imbedded. The builders who built these homes and the people who inhabited them is the fabric of our community and has a great deal of historical significance? Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector stated some of what was presented by the applicant’s agent is not the complete story. There have been portions of both buildings that have been approved for demolition by the DRC and the City, and that demolition has been carried out. Engineering reports based on further analysis revealed which portions of the structures which were worth saving and repairing and which portions needed demolition because there was no way to save them. 65 Phila in 2003 there was a permit granted to demolish the rear 1/3 of the building, approximately 1,000 square feet of the 3,000 square foot footprint. 69 Phila there was a demolition permit granted in 2004 basically, under the same premise. The rear portion of the building was not original to the structure and has little historic significance. Demolition of this portion of the structure and focus on the remainder of the structure. You cannot take the recommendations of twenty years ago out of context to say that we were necessarily recommending the entire structure be demolished. Some of that was specific to the rear portions of the structures which were in disrepair. Our standard when a building is condemned, we must order that the building be repaired or demolished immediately. That is not an endorsement by the City to demolish the building; it is a legal order under the Uniformed Code of New York State that this must be addressed immediately because it is unsafe. You need to proceed immediately with a repair or demolition. In his experience any structure that can withstand decades and decades of neglect may very well have been built to last. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated she will open the floor for public commentary. Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated she understands this is a phased approach to this application. She does wish to remind the DRC how the vacant building registry was instituted and acknowledge the city’s effort and how important this registry is. Both buildings are examples of the Italianate Style and despite their deteriorated condition they still retain their architectural integrity. These building are significant because of their historical associations with our communities. Ms. Bosshart provided some history of the properties. If these properties are lost, we would lose the stories these buildings tell of the people who inhabited them and the impact they had on our community. Substantial documentation has been submitted via written correspondence to the Commission. There has been no attempt by the owners to repair and/or restore or invest in these buildings in the 13 years she has been with the Foundation there have been no attempts by the owners to avail themselves of the assistance the Foundation can supply with the application for state and federal income tax credits. There have been numerous interests in the purchase of these properties. The Foundation is committed to the repair and rehabilitation of these properties and the demolition applications should not be approved. The homeowners should be required to repair and preserve both buildings in compliance with the Historic Review Ordinance. Michael Cohen, new homeowner in Saratoga. They did investigate the possibility of purchasing in a historic district. They are very aware of the requirements of purchasing a home in a historic district and enforcement and do appreciate these requirements. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 7 of 10 Sam Brewer, Lake Avenue. For many years I have walked by those properties on Phila Street and noted the disrepair. They should be demolished. The City should take the properties. Mr. Bourne Rigano, 64 Phila Street across the street from these eyesores. We have been dealing with this since the early 80’s when we purchased our property. We went to great pains to restore our property and we believed in this neighborhood. We have worked trying to have these properties restored. The applicants are working on demolition by neglect. These houses can be restored and saved. Ms. Liz Howe, 71 Phila Street. She has lived at this property since 1999. She would like to echo what Mr. Rigano has stated. I have had many, many conversations with people that are interested in that property. Ms. Pam Funiciello, homeowner, building manager 61 Phila Street. We have lived here since 1985. Like Bourne, we also brought our home back from being uninhabitable. These homes can be restored. Mr. Jerome Mopsik, I also have had many conversations with people interested in those properties. I hope demolition is not allowed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated we appreciate the public commentary as well as the presentation by the applicant and insight from the City Attorney and Code Enforcement. Tonight, the DRC must determine if these properties are of any historic or architectural significance. These buildings were built in 1851 and are contributing structures to the East Side Historic District. That district is on the National Register. They are significant properties and the Chair noted it seems clear that there is historic significance not only the age and style of these homes but based on past ownership and that history of ownership as we look back over the years. Rob DuBoff stated the buildings have historic significance. They should not be demolished. Any historical features whether decorative or structural have been removed by the current property owners, including the partial gutting of 69 Phila which was completed shortly after the current owners purchased the property. Leslie DiCarlo stated she agrees with Rob. There is no question that they are historically and architecturally significant. I am not in favor of their being demolished. Ellen Sheehan stated in the ordinance as well as historical and architectural significance there is also cultural significance. The former inhabitants were our early citizens of Saratoga. In every way these structures are significant. Leslie Mechem stated she agrees with her fellow Commission members. These structures are definitely architecturally and historically significant. She also opposes demolition. Chris Bennett stated it is crystal clear that these buildings are significant and should be preserved at all costs. Knowing my way around old buildings these can be saved. They are worth saving. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated she is ready to move forward on both applications and they will be made individually. In the matter of the historic review application for the proposed demolition of the structure located at 65 Phila Street, and upon consideration of the applicants submitted information and the substantial public input that we have received tonight the Design Review Commission finds the following: The existing structure identified as a contributing building to the City’s East Side Historic District which is listed on the New York State and Historic Registers of Historic Places. This structure was built in 1851 along with the adjacent parcel at 69 Phila Street and is representative of the Italianate Architectural Style prevalent in this “Hillside” Neighborhood Area. This structure has additional historic significance in that its owners have included the Patterson family who is the proprietor of the Patterson Mineral Springs Company and subsequently the Congregation Bais Moishe which is representative of the Jewish ethnic and religious legacy in this portion of the City’s Historic District. In addition, the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has listed this property on its Ten to Save list since the late 90’s. As such and consistent with the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 8 of 10 Historic Demolition Section of our City’s Demolition Zoning Ordinance, I would like to make a motion the Design Review Commission has determined that this property has both architectural and historical significance contributing to the Historic fabric and resources of the City of Saratoga Springs. Chris Bennett seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chairman, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated in the matter of the historic review application for the proposed demolition of the structure located at 69 Phila Street, and upon consideration of the applicant’s submitted information and the substantial public input that we have received tonight the Design Review Commission finds the following: The existing structure is identified as a contributing building to the City’s East Side Historic District which is listed on the New York State and Historic Registers of Historic Places. This structure was built in 1851 and is representative of the Italianate Architectural Style prevalent in this “Hillside” Neighborhood Area. This structure has additional cultural and historic significance in that its owners have included Reverend Hawley a Methodist Minister who established and served as the President of the Hawley’s Home for Children which is a predesser of the current Hawley Foundation serving underprivileged children in Saratoga County. This property has been on the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has listed this property on its Ten to Save list since the late 90’s. As such and consistent with the Historic Demolition Section of our City’s Demolition Zoning Ordinance, I would like to make a motion the Design Review Commission has determined that this property has both architectural and historical significance contributing to the Historic fabric and resources of the City of Saratoga Springs. Leslie Mechem seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chairman, in favor; Leslie Mechem, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated since it has been determined that these properties are of historic and architectural significance, The applicant should consult with city staff in assuring that the proper documentation is provided so that the Commission can evaluate further at an upcoming DRC meeting. There are several items which will be required. There will be additional public hearings involved as we move through the evaluation as well. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated it is quite clear and identified in the City’s Zoning Ordinance under Historical Review under the section pertaining to demolition that once the DRC has identified historical or architectural significance the next pathway is to show a variety of documentation demonstration of all the due diligence as how to avoid demolition as much as possible. There is a dollar and cent demonstration as to cost, there is a demonstration of due diligence and other opportunities to seek tax credits or opportunities to rehabilitate the structures, alternative to demolition such as selling properties to interested purchasing for restoration, creative opportunities, selling them, donating them, moving them where they could in fact be preserved. Once the city receives what we believe is the comprehensive package we can then establish a formal public hearing for the next step. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Code Enforcement provided information to the Commission regarding providing clarification to the applicant if they are pursuing demolition based on imminent danger to public health and welfare or not. That will also define a path moving forward. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 9 of 10 Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated if this of interest to Ms. Yasenchaks client, then you must provide that information quickly to proceed in that manner. Ms. Yasenchak stated she believes this will fall into the category preparation of materials under due diligence. We will accommodate and present that information to the City. Tamie Ehinger, Chair thanked everyone for their participation. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated this is Mr. Birge’s last Design Review Commission meeting since he is retiring. We are incredibly happy for him. Ms. Ehinger spoke regarding his kindness, great leadership, and guidance over the last ten years. He has been an amazing mentor and great friend. Happy Retirement! Bradley Birge stated it has been a great pleasure and honor to work with the City and Design Review Commission. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation spoke regarding her experience in working with Bradley. The DRC welcomes working with Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Design Review Commission Caravan, Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Meeting, Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 6:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Tamie Ehinger, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:06 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Formatted: Normal, Justified, Right: -0.1" Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 9, 2020 - Page 10 of 10