Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES ( FINAL) WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 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 November 3, 2021 and November 17, 2021 DRC Meeting Minutes with very minor edits. 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 is “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. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated consent agenda item – Haller Deck & Railing Modifications, 73 Union Avenue has been moved to the regular agenda. 1. #20211076 ENGELBRECHT AIR CONDITIONER UNIT, 37 Clark Street, #3 Historic Review of wall mounted mechanical equipment within the Urban Residenial-4 District. 2. #20211151 SOTHEBY ’S SIGNAGE, 268 Broadway, Historic Review of a wall sign within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. 3. #20211070 STEWART ’S EXPRESS SIGNAGE, 177 South Broadway, Architectural Review of signage within the Highway General Business District.  4. #20211152 BENSON ’S PET CENTER SIGNAGE, 185 Ballston Avenue, Architectural Review of a wall sign within the Rural Residential 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 Englebrecht Air Conditioner Unit, 37 Clark Street #3, Sotheby’s Signage, 268 Broadway, Stewart’s Express Signage, 177 South Broadway, and Benson’s Pet Center Signage, 185 Ballston 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. #20210062 STE WART’S MARION AVENUE-MAPLE DELL PUD , 31, 33-34 Marion Avenue, 3 & 11 Maple Dell consideration of deferral of Lead Agency Status for coordinated SEQRA Review for establishment of a PUD. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this application is a simple procedural discussion for deferral of SEQRA Lead Agency Status. This project is before the City Council for establishment of a PUD. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of the Stewart’s Marion Avenue – Maple Dell PUD, the DRC defers Lead Agency Status to the City Council. Karen Cavotta 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 2 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this is the second appearance for this application before the Commission. There have been revisions made to the project based on recommendations and feedback from the DRC. Agent: Michael P. Perri, Architect Mr. Perri stated following the last appearance before the Commission the applicant has revised the project. We have redesigned the second floor to provide better fenestration on the building. Views of the exterior of the home, with views of the fenestrations as well as all elevations. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the revised plans show more attention to the fenestration and is more appropriate for this home. There was thought to changing the material on the gable to help break up the mass. With the changes made in the fenestration the gable appears fine as originally presented. Rob DuBoff stated he likes this design much better, and the heads of the windows line up with the exposure of the siding. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, thanked the applicant for taking into consideration the feedback provided and following the guidelines. The Foundation supports the revisions. Rob DuBoff made a motion in the matter of the Merola Addition, 188 Washington Street the DRC issues the following decision on December 8, 2021 – Approve as submitted or shown on the attached plans. Chris Bennett 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 3. #20210956 NATHAN SLATE ROOF REPLACEMENT, 187 Washington Street, Architectural Review of a slate roof replacement for a single-family residence within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this is the second appearance for this application before the Commission. Applicant: Ben Nathan, owner Mr. Nathan stated the Commission requested a letter from the roofer for DRC review. The information was submitted. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, thanked Mr. Nathan for the requested information. The Commission has reviewed this submitted material. To be consistent as we review slate roof replacement applications, it is important the applicants provide documentation as to the condition of the roof. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there were any further questions or additional information from the applicant. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 3 of 12 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 Nathan Slate Roof Replacement, 187 Washington Street, the DRC issues the following decision on December 8, 2021 – Approve as submitted or shown on the attached plans this evening with the following notes. The application is being approved for the original roof for several reasons. The structure is in the Architectural Review District of the City versus the Historic District. Secondly, whether there is a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Mostly asphalt roofs are located throughout this neighborhood and on the adjacent structures. The original roof had no original pattern, ridges were not original. The roof was a bit mismatched with different types of materials and based on the documentation provided the roof could not be repaired. 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 4. #20211068 STOCKWELL SLATE EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, 135 Washington Street, Architectural Review exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the city has been in contact with the applicant regarding documentation required for the slate roof replacement. Therefore, the Commission will focus on porch renovations at this time. Applicant: James Stockwell Mr. Stockwell provided a visual of the front elevation of the home on the Washington Street side indicating the proposed porch renovations. He is proposing re-roofing the porch roof, and replacement of brackets missing posts, rails, spindles, risers, or treads with new, replacing in kind with wood painted to match what currently exists. Views of the Beekman Street side indicate the same replacement of railings on the left side and narrowing the steps as previously existed. All materials will be wood to match what previously existed, painted to match. Mr. Stockwell noted he would like to replace all the porch roofs with the same materials as exist now, asphalt shingles. Also, Mr. Stockwell noted he would like to replace the metal roof on the addition as well which is currently in extremely poor condition and is currently leaking. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, thanked the applicant for investing in his property and using natural materials and replacing in kind. Also, appreciated is reversing the scale of the side stairs back to their original size and shape. In general, what you are proposing for the porches is very appropriate and appreciated. Chris Bennett noted all the porches will be repaired in kind with a simple balustrade will be fine. On the site visit he noted that the slate on the west side of the home is in extremely poor condition. Replacement in kind for the porches is also appropriate. Rob DuBoff also agrees with Chris and the applicant with the use of wood and replacement in kind for the porches. The posts can be retained. The metal roofs are not an issue for the porches. It appears City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 4 of 12 the east side of the house where venting was installed it appears to have been poorly done. The leaking is due to this mechanical venting. Mr. Stockwell stated that is one area where there is leaking. The roofing contractor has attempted to repair these leaks on multiple occasions. The water is damaging an apartment below. Discussion ensued among the Commission with the applicant regarding clarification on the handrails, and stairs and proposed materials for replacement. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated correspondence was submitted to the Commission. Typically, the design guidelines state replacement in kind. The metal roof does give an indication of when that extension was built. Material other than metal is not following the guidelines. Phillip Horn, 50 Granite Street. Mr. Horn questioned if the door is a replacement. Mr. Stockwell stated that they were not replacing the door at this time. Rob DuBoff stated the footprint of the building existed as it is in 1889, including the side portion on Beekman Street, based on the Sanborn Maps. The roof was some type of non-combustible material. He is unsure if it was slate or metal. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding metal roofing materials for the porch roofs and deferring a decision on the slate roof as previously discussed. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation spoke regarding materials on the porch roofs. Metal from a life cycle perspective is a better choice. Metal roofs have been approved on many historic buildings in the historic district. If the applicant chooses to go in this direction the Foundation would be supportive of that decision. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated what she is hearing from the Commission is in approving the porch roofs we allow the applicant an option of using metal should he choose it over the asphalt shingles. The roof over the addition we will defer until we have more information on the slate roof. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion in the matter of the Stockwell Exterior Modifications, 135 Washington Street, the DRC issues the following decision on December 8, 2021 – Approve as submitted or shown on the attached plans with the following conditions – this motion does not include any decisions on the slate roof, but the applicant could choose to change the porch roofs to metal. 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 5. #20210956 FUREY REAR ADDITION AND NEW STRUCTURE, 42 Circular, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding mass, scale, and siting of a proposed accessory structure and exterior modifications with a rear addition within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 5 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this application has appeared before the Commission. Following their last appearance before the Commission we asked the applicant for additional details on the window replacement specifically. The applicant returns before the Commission this evening to discuss final details. Applicant: Julie Furey Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture; Geff Redick, Landscape Architect, Redbud Development Ms. Davis provided an aerial view of the property location and neighboring property. Ms. Davis noted for the new windows the applicant is proposing a Marvin Signature Line wood exterior window. The exterior doors for the new addition will be clad and an example was provided for the Commissions review. Cut sheets will be provided as the application proceeds. A visual of all elevations was provided noting the location of the new windows, where existing windows will be retained and/or repurposed and where windows will be installed where original windows formerly existed and have been covered over with siding. Ms. Davis reviewed all proposed materials for the new addition, architectural fiberglass shingles, poly ash or wood columns, wood horizontal siding to match the exposure. The window trim will also be either wood or Boral. Floor plans were also provided Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the presentation does clarify the questions with the windows and was helpful. The Marvin Signature Series Wood Windows are an appropriate window for the addition. The repurposing of the windows and placing windows in what was original windows is wonderful. The materials for the addition which is new construction so the standards which would apply to historic homes in terms of materials, are not as stringent with new construction. Tad Roemer stated he feels it looks great. Rob DuBoff stated his only issue is with the synthetic materials for the porch posts and balustrades on the new addition. He cannot support the application with the use of synthetic materials and feels it needs to be wood. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the natural materials and synthetic products. 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 appreciates the attention and finalization of the details. Placing windows back in original locations offsets the two windows being moved on the rear addition. Overall, it is a great project and compliments to the owner for investing in this historic home. Also, since the addition is in the rear of the property and is new construction, the Foundation is not opposed to a poly ash (Boral) product. Ellen Sheehan made a motion in the matter of the Furey Rear Addition & New Accessory Structure, 42 Circular Street, the DRC issues the following decision on December 8, 2021 – Approve as submitted or shown on the attached plans with the following conditions – Final details on the materials for the carriage house will be submitted for administrative approval. 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 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 6 of 12 MOTION PASSES : 7-0 6. #20211114 120 SOUTH BROADWAY DEMO, 120 South Broadway, Architectural Review determination of Architectural/Historic significance and review of partial demolition of motel structures within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. Applicant: Stephen Ethier Agent: Brien Ragone, Environmental Design Partners Mr. Ragone stated the application they are presenting is a multi-step process which includes this partial demolition, another demolition and architectural review when a formal application for site plan review is presented before the city’s Planning Board. The site is a little over 2.6 acres immediately surrounded by commercial uses. A visual of the site was provided to the Commission. The zoning designation for this property is a T-5 Neighborhood Center District. For the demolition plan the site consists of a 64-unit motel in three separate buildings built in the 1950’s. The site includes a day spa, an outdoor pool, and a gazebo. We are seeking demolition approval for the entire southern building and a portion of the rear building. All the remainder of the buildings are to remain until the formal site plan application is filed. The main reason for the partial demolition is the site has been subject to break ins since the site remains vacant for the winter. This will rectify that situation. We have received correspondence from SHPO dating back in March of 2021, indicating there will be no archeological or historical impacts on the site or in the buildings. Today we have received correspondence from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation requesting the gazebo be preserved due to the Rosemary Spring which is in the gazebo. The applicant has no issues at all with the Foundations request. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, reviewed with the Commission the procedure for demolition. The first step is determination if the structures to be demolished have any historic or architectural significance. Depending upon that determination, a Short SEQRA form to be reviewed, followed by a discussion on the demolition itself. In reviewing the structures before the Commission. The Chair does not feel that they are historically or architecturally significant, based on their current condition. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding historical or architectural significance of these structures. It was the consensus of the Commission that these structures do not have historical or architectural significance. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the Commission does not feel these structures are of any historical or architectural significance. We will now move into a Short Form SEQRA Review. The Chair noted the Design Review Commission is conducting a segmented SEQRA Review on the proposed demolition of a 9,000+ square foot building in its’ entirety along the southern border and a 2,100 square foot portion of a building along the eastern border. There was a subsequent redevelopment proposal considered. The applicant wishes to demolish the buildings as described. SEQRA REVIEW: The Commission reviewed the Short SEQRA Part II Review, Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated based upon the information provided in Part I of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form I made a motion for a Negative SEQRA City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 7 of 12 Declaration, since the project will not result in any large or important impacts and therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated we will now move onto the determination of Historical or Archeological significance of these two structures. The Chair noted that her concerns were also noted by the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation that the two aspects of this property that have historical significance are both the gazebo and the Rosemary Spring. We are delighted to learn that they are not part of this demolition. The Chair further noted that the demolition of these two structures would not be inappropriate. Tad Roemer questioned if these buildings are to be demolished based on prior break-ins, won’t they break into the other buildings which remain. He does not understand the reasoning. Rob DuBoff questioned the reasoning behind partial demolition at this time for security issues noted by the applicants’ agent, what will remain following demolition. How long will this remain a partial demolition. Mr. Ragone stated the applicant proposed to build a new exterior type of wall or fence at the end of a unit, the remainder will be seeded and landscaped. Chris Bennett stated this does not make economic sense to demolish buildings and then build an exterior type of wall or fence along with landscaping. Leave everything up until the applicant is ready to build on the site. We could look at a partially demolished for site for 10 years. We have seen this before in the city. Ellen Sheehan questioned how they are going to finish the building that is partially demolished. Since this is in the Architectural Review District this Commission would need to review what the site will look like. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated there are two ways to approach this. The Commission feels that there is no reason for this to be demolished. In the event we were to consider demolition we would need to review what would be in that place beside landscaping. We would need to see the wall or fence. We would need more information. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, questioned the Commission as whole do, they wish to see more information regarding the site following demolition or does the Commission feel that there should be no demolition at all. Chris Bennett stated this is the City’s gateway. We already have areas that are eyesores. Leave the buildings up. This is a disjointed way to do a project. More attractive up rather than down until construction begins. Karen Cavotta question what the predicted period for redevelopment of the site is. Mr. Ragone stated they are moving forward with the project as soon as the application goes through the Planning Board and receives approvals. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 8 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Carol Obloy questioned if the SEQRA Review which the Commission just completed was it just associated with the effects of the demolition on the environment. If the project moves forward, there will be a full SEQRA Review at that time. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated that is correct. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, emphasized the DRC has deferred SEQRA Lead Agency to the Planning Board for the full future development of the property. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated she agrees with the Commission. If the plan is move quickly with this project, it makes sense not to move forward with partial demolition. Ms. Bosshart provided history of the Rosemary Springs. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of 120 South Broadway, involving Architectural Review determination of Architectural/Historic significance of motel structures within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District, tax parcel #178.35-1-6, within the City of Saratoga Springs, the DRC issues the following decision on December 8, 2021 – The buildings as noted do not have Architectural and/or Historical significance contributing to the Historic fabric and resources of the City of Saratoga Springs. Karen Cavotta 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 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of 120 South Broadway, Partial Demolition Only, the DRC issues the following decision on December 8, 2021 – The DRC denies the application for partial demolition of these structures involved. Rob DuBoff seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. Tad Roemer stated that the presentation by the applicant’s agent was thorough and provided visuals of the sight which were clear and concise. 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 7. #20200483 269 BROADWAY NEW MIXED USE, 269 Broadway, Historic Review of a new 6-story commercial retail building with on-site underground parking within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this application has appeared before the DRC on prior occasions. Tonight, the applicant appears with additional revisions. Applicant: 269 Broadway, LLC City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 9 of 12 Agent: Mike Toohey, Attorney; Mike Roman, Architect – C2 Design Group, Walt Whitman, MJ Engineering; Chad Snyder, Traffic Engineer Mr. Toohey provided a visual of the proposed building located at 269 Broadway. This property is unique as it has also involves the 38 ft. to the south of the project that will not be constructed upon and will remain as it currently exists. This property is in the T-6 Urban Core District. Mr. Toohey spoke about mass and scale and provided a visual of the project information denoting the project lot size, the permanent easement from St. Peter’s, and the combined lots. The building runs from property line on South Broadway to the property line on Hamilton Street. This building does have significant Victorian details incorporated in the architecture which have been used throughout the Historic District is in the City of Saratoga Springs. A visual of the site analysis and surrounding sites were reviewed noting the project sizes and buildout on these sites as well as site elevations. The proposed project will provide 10,000 square feet of space to be used as civic space and pedestrian accessibility. Drone analysis photos were provided of the site and surrounding sites for context. Mr. Roman, Architect spoke of the changes incorporated into the design since the last appearance before the DRC. Mr. Roman reviewed the building design noting the change in the front elevation - primary entrance off Broadway. The ground floor is at grade with Broadway and is ADA accessible. Primary entrance for retail is off Broadway and Hamilton Streets. The secondary entrance is off the south façade for the upper floors. A review of the location of the civic space, location of the parking garage, deliveries, trash, and transformer placement. The pull-off at the rear remains. Mr. Roman provided a review of the proposed materials, brick, steel, granite, and copper. Mr. Roman provided a visual progression of the design from inception until now. We are using a metal pane on all windows and have introduced more brick. Balcony areas have been retained to help create more elements on the building. Mr. Roman reviewed all elevations of the building noting the front top portion is pushed back. Granite at the base. Aerial view of the building was provided to show the greenspace and civic space noting all pedestrian walkways will have heated sidewalks. The roof remains stepped back along with the proposed green roof with photovoltaic panels. There have not been any real changes to the rear of the building. A visual of the results of the balloon flyover were also reviewed for the Commission. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, thanked the applicant for a thorough review of the project. The DRC in reviewing structures such as this we look at the height, the proportion, contextual appropriateness, the fenestrations, directional expression, street orientation, and building materials, all to ensure that buildings such as this meet the historical design guidelines not only the cities but the Secretary of the Interior as well. We have reviewed this building many times. The materials are high end quality materials. A building should reflect the era in which it is built, and this building certainly does that and is a well-designed building. The question is how it fits into the historic district and this specifically into this spot-on Broadway. The primary concerns the DRC had were the entranceway and the height. The newly designed entryway is much more appropriate. This design is far more appropriate in making this as pedestrian friendly as possible. The height of the building continues to be something she wrestles with. Stepping back the 6th floor is wonderful. You can see the success of that. The roof now becomes an architectural feature and gives the illusion of mass when there is none. The vertical columns going up and the supports add to the verticality of the building in a negative way. The applicant may want to consider having those end at the top of the 5th floor and push back the roof structure, so it falls just over the glass or with a small overhang. The 6th floor is not where it should be to comply with our historic standards. Mr. Roman stated the step back on the Hamilton Street side is successful because we have that retail area that pulls out creating a layering effect. The transition becomes more complete. He feels taking this concept to the Broadway side makes it feel chopped off. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 10 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair stated the Hamilton Street side is incredibly successful. Ironically despite being taller does not appear quite as tall as the Broadway side and the Chair believes it is because of the 6th floor and the way it is pulled back. We would not want it to appear chopped off, but the intent is to appear as if that top is further back. Ellen Sheehan stated one of her concerns was the entrance. This entrance is more successful on Broadway especially the use of the brick down to the ground. On the Broadway side the entrance doors read short, shorter than they should be compared to the windows above it. Also, she is concerned regarding light pollution and what the building will look like lit up at night. She agrees with the Chair regarding the overhang and the top floor. The height remains a concern. Mr. Roman stated they have implemented shades on the building and lighting stepped back to control the amount of light spillage which is controlled at a main system. Tad Roemer agrees with the Chair and Ellen regarding the overhang on the Broadway side. It makes the mass feel unnecessarily large. Hamilton side looks nice. The windows are a defining feature of this building and one of the important things that makes the rendering so attractive is the size of the muntins and proportion. Karen Cavotta stated she very much appreciates the changes made to the building. She loves the brick down to the sidewalk and ties into the entry which was missing in an earlier rendering. She likes the element at the top of the building. If that element is gone the building becomes squat and short. Proportionally drawing your eye with those two elements at the entry is what makes the defining proportion of the building. She feels this building is setting a precedent with the green roof and photovoltaic array on the roof. Materials are beautiful. Fantastic building. Leslie DiCarlo agrees with Karen’s comments regarding the front overhang, and materials. The building is beautiful. She noted an excerpt from correspondence from the Saratoga Preservation Foundation - it states as per the Historic District Design Guidelines for new construction, building height and scale should be consistent with the streetscape and neighboring building pattern. This is consistent with neighboring building patterns. In relates well with the building across the street in mass and scale. They are both large buildings on small lots. They both have substantial amounts of glass and interesting details and balconies. It further notes that Historic streetscapes often have variation in building scale, and massing that contributes to the visual interest and unique historic character of the street. This building reflects the area as far as tall buildings, short buildings, old buildings, and new buildings. She has no problem with it. Rob DuBoff stated the materials are fabulous and what the Commission wishes all applicants would come forward with. Will the brick be red or orange? He is also pleased with the prominent entrance on Broadway. The building is proportionately pleasing. He is concerned regarding the overall height of the building; it is a very tall building which typically you might put a large building such as this on a corner to reduce the mass. He did note our guidelines also dictate a prominent cornice and this building does. Based on that, he would not suggest doing anything with the 6th floor because as it is presented is the most successful way it could be presented. The building is pleasing. Mr. DuBoff spoke about living in the northeast and Although the table and chairs look great now – what will it look like in the winter. He is concerned it will present with a back of the house look with tarps covering the furniture on Broadway. The knee wall in the side park could encourage skateboarders. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 11 of 12 Mr. Roman stated the rendering is not a true presentation of the brick color. The applicant is willing to return with samples of the brick materials as the project moves forward. They will not have tarps over the furniture. Regarding the knee wall there are ways they can mitigate that from occurring. Mr. Toohey stated that the owner of the property is largest individual owner of self-storage units in the United States. We will not have an issue with storage of outside furniture. Chris Bennett agrees with everything that Karen Cavotta stated. This is an incredibly successful building. Products are great. He has been on the Commission when all the big buildings in the city were built and there was that same fear. These buildings were built, and it all works out great. It is fine. Ellen Sheehan questioned if the applicant considered removing the overhang on the corner, keeping it simply in the middle. Mr. Roman stated they have looked at it and decided on this presentation. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated in hearing the comments from the Commission, those that have concerns regarding the overhang or thick cornice. Most Commission members are in favor of the building as presented this evening. Again, for the Chair it emphasizes the size of the building. The Hamilton side does have cornice it is simply pulled back. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, opened the public comment period at 8:53 P.M. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. She acknowledged the thoroughness of the presentation. She acknowledged the building is a statement of its own time and the quality of the materials. She acknowledged the improvements to the Hamilton Street side of the building which lessened the scale of the building. Ms. Bosshart stated that although as noted the Transect zoning has been in this section of the city for 25 years but the Historic Overlay Ordinance precedes that. The understanding is that this is possible but there is this historic protection afforded by the Historic Overlay Ordinance. Examples noted in the review of mass and scale do not exist in the Historic District, and several surrounding buildings, the church and the school are here to stay. One side of the street is not going to change. She has concerns regarding the civic space. Ms. Bosshart spoke about the balloon float and the lack of viewing availability to city residents. She discussed the mechanicals on the roof which will be visible. Carol Obloy, 268 Broadway. The Park Place HOA 269 Committee, citizens in the audience and over 800 petitioners are not opposed to the responsible development of 269 Broadway. However, we are opposed to the scale and mass, the glass and steel. This is an enormous building from Broadway to Hamilton Street. Prior mass and scale mistakes are not a license to make more mistakes. Mass and scale are a major issue with this building. Kathleen Sonnabend, 268 Broadway stated this project is a zero-lot line project. Visuals of the buildings in the neighborhood were provided noting the visual impact of the newly proposed building. We do want the property developed, with a much smaller building more compatible with the Historic District and downtown Broadway. This building is too big for the site, for the traffic and the parking as well as the taxing on the infrastructure. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 12 of 12 Marcia Krantz spoke regarding the two-lane roadway in this location. We are creating a tunnel effect, two large buildings on a two-lane roadway. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, thanked the public for all the comments and we appreciate your passion for our city. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there are any further questions or comments from the Commission. Chris Bennett stated there are two comments which were made which are important. The tower on the building and the proximity to the street. These can be mitigated. Karen Cavotta questioned the width of 268 Broadway versus the newly proposed building. Mr. Toohey stated he does not have exact figures, but it is twice the width of the proposed building. Tad Roemer agrees with Chris Bennett regarding the front setback. I do not really understand that very well. Karen Cavotta stated we do not have a clear site plan as to the relative face of this building and the sidewalk. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner stated the T-zones have a range of setbacks. Typically, it is a build to lot line of varying depths. In this case T-6 has a 0-12ft. setback is required. It is the Commissions interpretation of what would be appropriate. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated she will summarize what has been noted and suggested by the Commission as well as what will be needed to move this project forward. The entire Commission appreciates and likes the design of this building. Most of the Commission seems to be comfortable with the top overhang. What would be helpful for the Commission to determine where we go from here. Specifically, a rendering of that overhang patinaed. Also, what we are asking for are renderings of the structure in winter, request for a brick sample for color, details on the existing setback from the sidewalk. A profile of the building as it approaches the sidewalk as well as the step back which the architect alluded too but is difficult to determine from the renderings. More details on the stair tower and on the mechanicals venting and lighting. Rob DuBoff questioned if a straw poll could be taken regarding the height of the building. Whether the Commission is fine with the height as presented. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated it was her feeling that a majority of the Commission was comfortable with the height of the building except for Rob. A few members of the Commission still wrestle with the overhang. Hopefully, the applicant is comfortable with the take-aways from this meeting. 9:25 P.M. Commission recessed. 9:27 P.M. Commission reconvened. COMMENTS FROM STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, spoke regarding Agenda Item #2. 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 13 of 12 The east elevation for 188 Washington Street was never submitted with the application. The addition and windows on the east elevation were provided to the Commission members. Formally it was not approved as part of that application. This omission was noticed by Ms. Bosshart of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, the information was supplied to her, and she spoke with the architect. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated she spoke with the architect. We felt the improvements were good. She stated the east elevation sketches were missing. She stated that the application was not complete. He did however provide a hand sketched drawing. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, stated we can assume from the plans submitted that there was a window there and obviously there is a side to that building. So, in this case we will be fine in adding this to the record, uploading this a part of the official elevation of that side. There is nothing significant about this elevation and it is not visible from the street, and seems straightforward. The Commission agreed that this would in fact be an acceptable solution. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, stated this meeting concludes the 2021 DRC Meeting schedule. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Design Review Commission Caravan, Wednesday, January 5, 2022, at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 6:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Tamie Ehinger, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: February 9, 2022 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – December 8, 2021 - Page 14 of 12