Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2021 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Karen Cavotta, Vice Chair; Rob DuBoff, Leslie DiCarlo; Chris Bennett; Tad Roemer; Ellen Sheehan STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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 October 20,2021 DRC Meeting Minutes as well as the Joint Planning Board/DRC Meeting Minutes for April 8, 2021 and April 22, 2021 with very minor corrections. Ellen Sheehan seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. #20211038 LUKOIL SIGNAGE, 54 Church Street, 54 Church Street, Architectural Review of freestanding sign within the Transect-5 District Neighborhood Center District. 2. #20211053 DISH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MODIFICATIONS, 84 Weibel Avenue, Architectural Review of modifications to an existing telecommunications facility within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. 3. #20211089 COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT SIGNAGE, 11 Excelsior Avenue, Architectural Review of a freestanding sign within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. 4. #20211092 PITNEY FARMS POLE BARN, 223 West Avenue, Architectural Review of a new pole barn within the Rural Residential District. 5. #20211094 CREATIVE SPROUTS SIGNAGE, 3 Hampstead Place, Architectural Review of wall signage within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood Center District.  6. #20211115 H&R BLOCK SIGNAGE, 250A Washington Avenue, Architectural Review of a wall sign within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. 7. #20211122 454 BROADWAY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, 454 Broadway, Historic Review of paint color modifications within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. 8. #20211133 160 LAKE ROOF, 160 Lake Avenue, Architectural Review of roof modifications with the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission regarding these applications. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on these consent agenda items. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion in the matter of Lukoil Signage, 54 Church Street; Dish Wireless Telecommunications Modifications, 84 Weibel Avenue; Courtyard by Marriott Signage, 11 Excelsior Avenue; Pitney Farms Pole Barn, 223 West Avenue; Creative Sprouts Signage, 3 Hampstead Place; H&R Block Signage, 250A Washington Avenue; 454 Broadway Exterior Modifications, 454 Broadway; and 160 Lake Avenue Roof, 160 Lake Avenue that these applications be approved as submitted. Leslie DiCarlo seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted no new applications will begin after 10:00 P.M. If your application has not been called by that time it will be adjourned to the next meeting’s agenda. C. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. #2021110 THE MERC SIGNAGE, 430 Broadway, Historic Review of a wall sign within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Agent: Emma VanVorst, AJ Sign Company Ms. VanVorst stated this application is before the DRC for replacement of an existing sign. The business is still the same this is simply new signage for a fresh look. The new sign is a push through box sign. This is an aluminum box face with push through acrylic lettering. Opaque vinyl is proposed for the front of the letters. During the day it will appears as shown in the visual. At night you will see more of a reverse lit halo glow. The light will not pass through the face of the letter but along the sides of the letter providing a soft glow. Daytime versus nighttime examples were provided for the Commission. Tamie Ehinger, Chair questioned the applicant’s agent regarding mounting. Ms. VanVorst stated the signage mounting will be like what is there currently. Ellen Sheehan questioned the applicant’s agent if the along with glow around the letter will the signage itself be lit. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 2 of 9 Ms. VanVorst stated there will be blackout vinyl on the signage and the frame does have a small glow on the sides. Rob DuBoff questioned if there are any examples of this type of signage anywhere for the Commission to view. Also, what is the depth of the box. Ms. VanVorst stated they do not have any examples per se; however, it will be like the Adelphi Signage but not as bright, with a better glow. The black portion stands off the gold face about 2 to 2½ inches total depth. Tad Roemer questioned the level of lighting and what temperature is the light. Ms. VanVorst stated she is unsure of the lumens, but she will follow up to confirm with staff. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated the Commission has not seen this type of signage before. Their concerns are the white appears to be lit. The Chair does not see anything inappropriate regarding the signage, but Mr. Roemers point regarding the preferred Kelvin scale register less than 3000. Tad Roemer made a motion in the matter of The Merc Signage, 430 Broadway, that the application be approved as shown on the attached plans with the following conditions – the Kelvin temperature of the light be between 2700 – 3000. No light penetrates through the front vinyl of the letters. Ellen Sheehan seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. #20211087 MEROLA ADDITION, 188 Washington Street, Architectural Review of a two-story addition for an existing single-family residence within the Urban Residential-2 District. Agent: Michael P. Perri, Architect Mr. Perri stated this proposed project is adding new space to expand the kitchen and a master bedroom suite on the second floor. Floor plans were provided to the Commission. Today, it was made known to him that the Saratoga Springs Preservation had comments regarding the rear fenestration. Mr. Perri stated the project was designed to provide increased storage in this area which accounts for the lack of fenestration in this area. Mr. Perri provided two roof design alternatives. One is a gable roof, and one is a hip roof design. To address the Preservation Foundations concerns the windows with the transoms above will remain. We are proposing casement windows in the kitchen area versus double hung. A dividing strip will be added to give the appearance of a double hung window. A visual of the proposed property was provided to the Commission. Views of all elevations were provided to the Commission, noting the windows and their placement dictated by the interior design. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this is a great house and stands out on the corner. Due to its location, it almost has three fronts. The rear is highly visible and should be treated as a front façade. When the DRC reviews an addition to a home it should be smaller than the home, so it does not compete with the primary structure, which you have achieved. Materials are important, leaving the double hung windows is a wise choice. Casement windows are not an appropriate choice for this home. The fenestration does seem off. Our job is to look at the project from the exterior and assure that it meets Historic standards. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 3 of 9 Chris Bennett agreed with the Chair concerning the casement windows. They really do not work. You have an opportunity to address the west side with the addition of two windows. If the applicant’s agent were to eliminate a window over the sink area and add double hung windows in this area, or casements which give the appearance of a double hung windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated it is not the DRC’s position to design the project. Mr. Bennett has made excellent points. Fenestration issues are not just a concern of the Preservation Foundation but also that of the Commission as well. Rob DuBoff questioned how the applicant is proposing an addition to the home without destroying what is currently there. You are proposing to add a second story to a current addition without dismantling what is currently there. Obviously, the interior is driving what is happening on the exterior. Is there a reason the sink could not be placed on an interior wall in the bathroom which is what is driving the two-transom window design? Mr. Perri stated the plumbing needs to stay where it is to connect with the current soil line down. It seemed a logical location. Rob DuBoff stated there are ways to connect this through the floor and an interior wall to the basement. His concern is the second floor and the layout of the windows. By reconfiguring the location of the bathroom fixtures, you have an opportunity to install a double hung window where the sink was previously located, and a double hung in the walk-in closet on both the east and north façade. Leslie DiCarlo stated she agrees with Chris and Rob her concern is the fenestration. Karen Cavotta stated agrees with Rob in moving the bathroom vanity to an inside wall allowing for a mirror over the vanity. This would allow for the double hung window and a more balanced elevation. A window added to allow for a better outdoor fenestration on the structure can be mitigated internally. Regarding the roof, the gable is more appropriate and the treatment to be more like that which exists currently on the other gable currently on the home. Tad Roemer stated he agrees with what has been stated. The side and rear elevations are very visible from the street. Aligning the window heads would be beneficial. The attic window could use something a little more charming. Ellen Sheehan stated she agrees with her fellow Commission members regarding the fenestration. In the gable end on the new addition is it possible to change the shingles like what is currently on the existing gable. Mr. Perri agreed that this could be accommodated. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the Commission unanimously feels that there are fenestration concerns that need to be addressed and suggestions have been made. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation agrees that the gable roof would be a preferred design. Thank you for the Commissions thoughts and consideration. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the Commission does meet again in three weeks. Our next meeting is scheduled for December 8th. 3. #20210788 FUREY REAR ADDITION AND NEW STRUCTURE, 42 Circular, Historic Review of a two-story addition, exterior modifications, and a new accessory structure within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated this is the second appearance before the Commission for this application. We had an opportunity to have a preview of the project. The applicant returns before the Commission this evening to discuss final details. Applicant: Julie Furey City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 4 of 9 Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture; Geff Redick, Landscape Architect, Redbud Development Ms. Davis stated the application received ZBA approval on Monday night. An aerial overview of the project was provided noting it overlooks Congress Park and is a prominent building in the Historic District. Views of the existing property were provided noting no defined driveway, and pressure treated fire escape type structure and deck on the rear. On the south elevation the applicant is proposing removing the two small windows which are not original to the home and replacing them with the original size windows. Currently the interior of the home has been gutted and they are awaiting approval of the building permit. Ms. Davis provided a site plan overview for the Commission outlining the entire proposed project. Reviews of all elevations were provided. The east elevation has original windows which we intend to keep as much as possible. Several new windows are proposed. The second story door which currently exists will remain exiting out to a balcony. There is a third floor, and we are trying to provide light and ventilation in this area. The tower has a window which will remain. The applicants are proposing to remove the rear deck and provide a rear porch and upgrade. The south elevation has two windows which we will replace to match the existing. The south elevation shows a side entry to the home from the driveway for the benefit of the applicant’s husband who has mobility issues. The rear porch will be designed reminiscent of the front porch details. The north elevation is the least visible side of the home and there is a window we are proposing to remove to accommodate a stairway which is required by code, and we will move it where a window existed on that elevation at one time. Existing windows will be retained. Views of the proposed rear mudroom entry and stairs to the basement were provided. Currently the basement cannot be accessed from inside the house. Floor plans were provided and reviewed with the Commission. We are proposing the addition of a small second story balcony on the home. We are also proposing a new carriage style garage. This was the site of the original Beagle School. The design was driven by the height of the home and the original structure, and we have had added a small cupola. A small exercise room will be built off the garage with a small half bath and closet. There are no plans for finished space on the second floor of the carriage house. It is to be used for storage and is not a full height second floor. Ms. Davis provided views of all elevations of the carriage house. Mr. Redick provided a visual and a review of the proposed landscaping plan for the Commission’s review. A new bluestone walkway is proposed for the front of the home reusing as much of the current bluestone as possible. We will be removing the current cement stairs and replacing them with a wooden staircase and railing. The applicant is proposing a historic style iron fence and the addition of a historic cobble curb. A cobble inlay is proposed for the driveway. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, questioned if the applicant’s agent would provide details on the metal railing proposed. The fencing is a nice touch. The Chair questioned the proposed materials for the carriage house. Ms. Davis stated they will provide information on the railing. Ms. Davis stated they are proposing a board and batten style finish but have not yet decided if it will Boral or Hardie Board siding. The windows will be Marvin Signature Series aluminum clad windows in a two over two pattern consistent with what exists on the home currently. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this is the second time we have had an opportunity to see this project. This is very straightforward and appropriate. The location of the accessory structure is exactly where it should be. The mass and scale of it is appropriate as well as the design. This is a great project, and she does not see anything that is inappropriate. Ellen Sheehan stated this is so exciting and a terrific addition to Saratoga. Are there any changes being made to the current tower. This is a great project, and it really works. Ms. Davis stated there are no changes proposed to the tower. Karen Cavotta questioned what was envisioned for the brackets on the accessory structure. Ms. Davis stated they are more substantial than those on the house since they will be supporting the roof structure. Not as ornate as the house but more functional. Leslie DiCarlo stated she agrees with the comments made, the accessory structure is in the right location and size. She questioned the roofing material for the cupola. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 5 of 9 Ms. Davis stated it will be a standing seam. Rob DuBoff stated this is a great historic house and a great design. The carriage house is nicely done and appropriate for the property. He questioned if the board and batten will rest on a water table and if you will then see the foundation? Ms. Davis stated it will rest on a water table. You will see a bit of the foundation. Rob DuBoff because of the importance of this historic house, and where it is located, and it would have to be wood trim and wood siding. No Boral, no Hardie Board, it must be wood for the house and the carriage house. The aluminum clad windows will be fine. He also questioned if the windows on the second story of the carriage house are ganged together or are separated by a mullion or trim work. Ms. Davis stated she likes to add trim work, so these windows are not mulled together which is too much of a contemporary look for this style. Chris Bennett stated this is a great project and he does not see any issues. He does side with Rob regarding the use of wood. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated we will now move onto discussing the addition and exterior changes to the main house. In reviewing the accessory structure, it is a new structure. So, the aluminum clad windows and use of Boral would be appropriate in this instance. The home is different it is a historic home. Chris Bennett stated he likes the idea of removing an original window, saving it, and using it in a different location. Mr. Bennett questioned if the applicant’s agent has explored the possibility of installing single pane windows. Then all these windows will be identical and could be a cost saving. These windows will require storm windows which can be made for all the windows. The Marvin windows will not read as nicely as the originals. Ms. Davis questioned if we could agree to the size, shape, and location of these windows with the understanding we have the option to investigate this suggestion. Rob DuBoff stated he agrees with Chris, he does not feel any windows on the home should be aluminum clad. He is unsure of what is being moved, saved, and retained. Ms. Davis reviewed the elevations and the windows which are to be maintained, replaced, and moved. Leslie DiCarlo stated she does not have a problem with the use of aluminum clad windows on the new structure. The windows on the original house should be wood. Moving the windows does look like keeping with the style of the house. Ms. Davis stated she understands the main portion of the house the windows should be wood, however, on the rear new addition the use of Marvin Signature Series aluminum clad would work. Tad Roemer stated, the elevations look good, the location of the windows are appropriate. The tall window on the upper main portion of the house should really be wood made of single pane glass to match the rest of the windows on that elevation. On the back of the home, he can accept those being Marvin aluminum clad as well as the accessory structure. Ellen Sheehan stated the placement of the windows works well. She agrees the main part of the original structure should have wood windows. The aluminum clad for the addition is fine, since it is new construction and because it is not visible. It is a long narrow driveway and not highly visible. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 6 of 9 Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated she appreciates meeting with the applicant’s agents early in the process allowing the Foundation to make comments. She agrees that the windows in the main body of the original structure and on the south elevation should be wood. The applicant should salvage as many of the windows as possible. It is a great project. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the windows, placement, and re-use of the original windows in the home. Rob DuBoff stated he would support the use of aluminum clad windows in the addition but not in the historic portion of the home. Also, regarding the front stairs we would need to see a detailed drawing regarding what you are proposing. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated she concurs with Rob. Our standards and guidelines are clear regarding maintaining wood windows in a historic structure. Chris Bennett stated he agrees with Rob concerning the windows. The main portion of the Historic home wood and the Marvin Signature Series for the addition and the carriage house. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated there are still unanswered questions and we do need to see more details on issues discussed. The applicant indicated they were looking for approval for fenestration which is something the Commission has never done. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, stated how she understands this is there is a building permit submitted for the demo and work on the exterior of the main house which includes removal of a number of windows. Those were defined and identified by Ms. Davis indicated on the south elevation and in this presentation. Ms. Davis stated this is a little confusing because we are not the architect of record for that permit. What has happened here is we are acting in advisory capacity to the architect of record. The Building Department requested we obtain approval from the DRC regarding the windows on the main part of the house. We are not looking for complete approval but for a way to move the project forward. For clarity purposes Ms. Davis stated she will provide updated elevations and hopefully return in two weeks for approval on the main part of the house. Or mass and scale for the carriage house. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated based on this evening’s conversation we need to obtain revised elevations which reflect tonight’s discussion. The Commission has no issues with the mass and scale of the accessory structure, we are awaiting details. The Chair feels approval for mass and scale on the accessory structure could be accomplished this evening to allow the applicant the ability to move forward. Updated elevations for the windows, details on the new wood stairs, railing, and other details which the Commission needs. The Chair feels comfortable moving forward with the mass and scale approval for the accessory structure. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion in the matter of the Furey Rear Addition & New Accessory Structure, 42 Circular Street, the Design Review Commission issues the following decision on November 17, 2021 – Approve Mass and Scale for the Accessory Structure only. The applicant will return with updated elevations and details. Rob DuBoff seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Rob DuBoff, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Ellen Sheehan, in favor; Karen Cavotta, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 4. #2021055 422 BROADWAY ADDITION, 422 Broadway, Historic Review of a fifth-floor addition to an existing four-story mixed-use building within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Agent: Larry Novik, Bonacio Construction; Tony Bonacio, Bonacio Construction, General Contractor; City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 7 of 9  George Olsen, Olsen Architect Mr. Olsen stated the building was built in 2013. During construction we contemplated whether this would be a 5 or 6 story building. We decided to build a five-story building but kept the roof with the idea for leasable space for rooftop gardens or terraces. This never materialized and the pergola area remained as is. A visual of the existing elevations was provided noting the upper perimeter of the building. Structurally the 6th story was anticipated. The new structure is set in about nine feet off the sides and is like other larger buildings completed downtown where we pulled back the 6th floor to reduce the mass. We did not want to compete with the large mass of the building, so we decided to make the addition light, almost disappear, and set back. The heavy cornice will continue across the front of the building. 3D visual models were provided to the DRC. The new addition shows corners of open glass and on the sides, we have punched windows. This is a simple fiber cement board panels like the limestone on the front in a darker color. An aerial view of the site was also provided noting the elevator shaft which will be reduced in size following the addition of the 6th floor. We do have to bring one stair up and that is also visible in this view, about 7 ½ feet above the height of the roof. A drawing was provided noting the existence of the current mechanical equipment on the roof which cannot be seen because it is setback. All the equipment will be clustered in the middle of the roof and will not be visible. The larger rooftop equipment is tucked behind the stair and elevator tower and can be seen but from a distance away. This area can be screened if necessary. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated in looking at this project, this is an attractive 6th floor. Keeping it simple, dark, and pulled back the 9 ft. works. This floor accentuates the character of the building. Also, the glass on the corners works very well. The mechanicals on the roof and the elevator tower will not be visible but she would like the applicant to show us it is not visible. Whether that is with a balloon float or something along those lines. The Chair feels more detailed renderings would be helpful. The perspective from further away would also be helpful to the Commission. Tony Bonacio, Bonacio Construction provided a photographic view of the project from their office building. Tad Roemer stated the mass and setback is fine. The skyline can accommodate that. The design should be rationalized a bit more because it is quite visible from the street. I would study alternative colors, and the spacing of the windows. It just does not read in an elegant way. Perhaps if you massage the interior, you could have a better rhythm of windows or the design of the large expanse areas of glass. Mr. Olsen provided information on the interior design and why the windows were laid out as featured. Tad Roemer stated he feels the arrangement he sees currently could be better. If you work at it, you will achieve a nicer arrangement of fenestration and a nicer appearance. You can study alternative colors. Ellen Sheehan stated she is fine with the color. She agrees with Tad. When she first looked at this project it gave her the appearance of one of the multi-level motels that you walk around the balcony. It just looks like there are scattered rooms. She likes the glass in the front, but she agrees with Tad. It does not look like a design more like it was designed from the inside out. The windows are an issue. Chris Bennett questioned how the cement board panels would be fastened with concealed fasteners which gives a slick modern appearance. When do you say storefront glass are you speaking of aluminum track? Mr. Olsen stated yes like what is on the main floor of the building. Chris Bennett stated instead of using storefront windows it should read something a little different. Something slick and more modern would be better. There are other types of these window systems. This storefront system you are proposing would detract from what you are trying to achieve. Rob DuBoff stated he has mixed emotions regarding the trend in architecture in tacking on additional floors to a building. He recognizes this is the modern equivalent to a mansard roof and the reasons why. He does like much of what is being proposed. His issue is with the stair tower which will be visible from further away. Regarding the code, you must have a set of internal stairs which lead to the roof. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 8 of 9 Mr. Olsen stated the way the code reads once you get into the stairwell or exit access you are not allowed to go out of the exit until you get to the level of exit discharge. Leslie DiCarlo stated she feels the 6th floor works her concern was the glass in the rendering appears white. The real glass will read differently. Karen Cavotta stated she likes the full element on the top of the building. She understands what everyone is saying about the glass. It does not appear to go with the building, but another type of element in the current storefront panels. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated Tad and Ellen have voiced fenestration concerns. Chris made suggestions regarding exploring alternative types of glass storefronts. Tad indicated he was not in favor of the color, but the other Commission members felt that the darker color worked. Leslie spoke regarding the limitations of the rendition showing the 6th floor windows whiter and brighter than they would be. Tad Romer stated he is not opposed to the black but initially he felt it did not look quite right. It is just something is off. Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated that is one thing we would like the applicant to return with details of the cornice. Other items we would like to see are different perspectives of the building from further away. A perspective from the intersection of Church Street and Lake Avenue where Adirondack Trust is. It is a prominent intersection. A more detailed rendition of the mechanicals themselves. We want to confirm that there are no visibility issues. A paint color sample would be helpful. A visualization of a nighttime view of the 6th floor. Also, information on the exterior lighting. The applicant will return before the Commission. Our next meeting is scheduled for December 8th, which is our last meeting of the year. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Design Review Commission Caravan, Wednesday, December 1, 2021, at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, December 8, 2021, at 6:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Tamie Ehinger, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: January 3, 2022 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 17, 2021 - Page 9 of 9