Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2023 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the joint meeting of the Design Review Board and Planning Board to order at 6:05 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Chris Bennett, Ellen Sheehan, Tad Roemer, Jeff Gritsavage, Leslie DiCarlo ABSENT: Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, Karen Cavotta (Alternate) STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: 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. 1. #20230772, Empire Pizza signage and exhaust hood, 170 S. Broadway. Architectural review of wall sign replacement and a roof mounted exhaust hood within the Neighborhood Center / T-5 District. 2. #20230934, 39 George AC Compressor and Ducting, Historic Review of a new compressor and related ducting for a single-family residence within the Urban Residential-3 District. 3. #20230939, 2 Tompion Lane window replacement. Architectural review of select window replacement within the Urban Residential-4 District. 4. #20230940, The Grove Monument Sign, 233 Lake Ave. Architectural Review of a new monument sign within the Urban Residential – 1 District. 5. #20230970, European Wax Center, 33 Railroad Place. Architectural Review of a wall sign replacement within the Urban Core/T-6 District. 6. #20230941, Residence Inn Signage, 295 Excelsior Ave. Architectural Review of a wall sign package replacement within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. C. DRB Applications Under Consideration Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20230928, 289 Lake Ave. Solar Panels, 289 Lake Ave. Architectural Review of new rooftop solar panels within the Urban Residential-1 District. 2. #20230945, Basement Egress Window and Escape Well, 48 Union Ave. #1. Historic review of a window conversion into an egress window with escape well within the Urban Residential-4 District. 3. #20230947, Scupper and Downspout, 73 Henry St. Architectural Review of a proposed through wall scupper and downspout within the Urban Core / T-6 District. 4. #20230590, Stewarts Demolition & Redevelopment, 177 South Broadway. Determination of Historic/Architectural significance for an existing single-family residence, Consideration of SEQRA Leads Agency, and Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the demolition of a single-family residence and redevelopment of a convenience store and filling station within Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. 5. #20230246, Woodlawn Club Exterior Modifications, 118 Woodlawn Ave. Architectural Review of exterior modifications including roof replacement, porch reconstruction, and select window infill and replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. 6. #20230532, Two story addition, 395 Broadway. Historic Review of a two-story addition to an existing commercial structure within the Urban Core/T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair listed the Consent Agenda items and asked if anyone from the Board or Public had any questions or comments. There were no comments or questions. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the consent agenda items. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Motion carried. Vote 6-0. 1. #20230928, 289 Lake Ave. Solar Panels, 289 Lake Ave. Architectural Review of new rooftop solar panels within the Urban Residential-1 District. William Hayes, homeowner at 289 Lake Ave. William is proposing a 15 KWH solar system consisting of 28 panels on the south/Lake Ave. side of the house and 10 panels on the east/Elizabeth St. side of the home. The panels will be black on black. Tamie Ehinger, Chair commended William for taking the initiative to install solar panels. Tamie said that is the DRB’s task to make sure that when solar panels are installed in a way that they are not immediately visible from sidewalks or a pedestrian perspective and that the conduits are hidden/tucked away – they are not meant to be on facades that are facing the street. They’re supposed to be on the back or the side. Tamie said oftentimes that’s not possible by an applicant because of how their house is located on the lot. Tamie said they have denied applicants on Lake Ave. from installing panels on the front of their home and they have adjusted and installed on the back of their home. Tamie said this home is not historic and is located quite far out on Lake Ave. Tamie said that one thing that would reduce visibility would be to have the solar panels match the color of the shingles on the house. In the aerial view there are 3 staggered panels to the left on the roof. Tamie said it would blend better and be less visible if those three panels were removed. Ellen Sheehan agreed with Tamie about the configuration of the panels on the left side of the roof. William agreed and will remove those three panels. Tad Roemer agreed and suggested he just move one panel down – reconfigure it. Ellen asked if there were going to be panels above the front door. William said that was an older version and that section of the roof doesn’t get enough sun to warrant panels. They’ve been taken out. There will be 25 panels on the left and 10 on the right. Jeff Gritsavage said he does have concerns with individual photovoltaic systems that are not necessarily configured to be the most efficient. Jeff said the roof angle of this house is not set at the perfect 43 degrees and not oriented perfectly toward the sun, at least the ones on the east side are not. Jeff said William would not be living off the grid and asked if it has a battery backup system. William said it does have battery backup, but he will be off the grid. He said he will eliminate his need for public utilities both gas and electric and will store his excess power on City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 2 of 12 site. Tad agreed that the panels would not diminish the view on Lake Ave. so he would be in favor. Leslie DiCarlo said she was happy that they’re saving the tree because it acts as a screen from the street. Leslie asked if the shingles were in good shape because she agrees with Tamie that a darker shingle on a darker roof would look better. William said the roof was replaced about 10 years ago. Chris Bennett said he thought it was a good idea for the homeowner to remove the panels over the front entry door because they collect snow, it melts, drips, freezes and causes a slippery situation at the entryway. Tamie Ehinger said she personally would not be in favor of approval unless the roof shingles were changed to match the solar panels, or the panels were moved to the back of the house. William said the rear of the house doesn’t get enough sunlight and he can’t take on the expense of replacing the roof. Jeff Gritsavage noted a retrofit at 79 Clement Ave. It’s a shed dormer and the solar panels fit exactly at the top of the dormer. He said if you can make it more rectangular it will look more purposeful. William said he can change it to a rectangular layout. Tad Roemer clarified what the rectangular configuration would be with William. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that if the application is approved and the applicant wanted to put additional solar panels on the east side of the house that that could be administratively approved. Leslie DiCarlo clarified that the panels are black on black. She asked where the conduits would be located. William said they’re going to come off the back of the house and go down the northwest corner down to the battery pack in the basement. It will not be visible from the south side of the house. Tamie said they require any exposed conduit to be painted the same color as the background color. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the public. There were no comments heard. Chris Bennett asked where the fire department would walk to get to a fire on the east side of the house without stepping on the solar panels. William said he hasn’t gotten to the permitting process yet. Chris said that may be a sticking point because he believes they need a corridor around to access a fire issue. William said his solar provider is aware of that and they’re not quite sure what that will be until they go for the permit. Tad Roemer made a motion to approve with the following conditions: solar panel configuration to be as shown on page 7, remove the 5 panels over the breezeway, the east roof would have 2 panels high by 5 panels wide, on the south roof remove 3 western panels and have a 4 high by 5 wide rectangle of panels, conduit to run along the peak of the north roof and then north to the northwest corner roof and conduit to be colored to match the roof. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Motion carried. Vote: 5-1 Chris Bennett - yes, Ellen Sheehan - yes, Tad Roemer - yes, Jeff Gritsavage - yes, Leslie DiCarlo – yes. Tamie Ehinger – no. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 3 of 12 2. #20230945, Basement Egress Window and Escape Well, 48 Union Ave. #1. Historic review of a window conversion into an egress window with escape well within the Urban Residential-4 District. Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects represented the applicant. This application is to install an emergency escape window. The existing residence faces onto Union Ave. and is characterized by a very dramatic front porch and two large bays at either end. It’s an early 20th century building. They are proposing to insert an escape well in between the bay window and the porch, in a location that is highly concealed from the street. Matt showed a drawing of the basement which is currently occupied and pointed out the window that would be converted and the well it would be put into. Matt showed photographs of the house and where the proposed well would be located. Matt noted a pre-cast water table running across the top of the opening and dressed cut stone on either side. Looking from the southeast you can see how it will be tucked back behind the gas meters. Matt showed a sketch of the window to be removed. They intend to leave the pre-cast water table and the width of the opening intact and to cut straight down on either side. The new window would have the same width as the existing window, but it will be deeper. They are proposing to put a pre-cast cap on top of the wall spanning between the two that would match the water table and the window would be tucked in there. Matt said at some point the dressed stone is going to stop as they excavate down, and it will likely switch to a much rougher finish at some point. He said when they get to that layer, they will have to put mortar in. They are proposing to put some parge over that rather than leaving a granulated surface that would catch water and ice and cause problems. Matt said they are proposing a fiberglass window in this location. He said that would normally not be his first choice, but they are effectively putting a window in a snow bucket. He said his experience with very long, thin, wood casement windows are that when they weather, they start to warp. A warped window won’t open well in case of an emergency. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said based on where the window is located, she has no concerns whatsoever and had considered putting it on the consent agenda, but it was too late prior to the meeting. Jeff Gritsavage asked if it is compliance since it is currently occupied. Matt said it’s pre- existing, non-conforming and they’re working on it. Tad Roemer asked which way the window would swing. Matt said it will hinge outward. Tad added that could be a problem when it fills with snow. Matt said they will have to crank on it and there will be a ladder in the well. Matt said a railing will not be required because the drop is less than 30”. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve the application as submitted. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Motion carried. Vote 6-0 3. #20230947, Scupper and Downspout, 73 Henry St. Architectural Review of a proposed through wall scupper and downspout within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that Amanda has been talking with Patrick Cogan about this application and she has some updated information. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 4 of 12 Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner said there was discussion at the caravan last week about locating the scupper on the side of the building. Amanda said that is exactly where the property line is and would require an easement from the neighbor to have the downspout and scupper located there because it would extend over the property line. That agreement would be decided between the applicant and the neighbor. Alternatively, Patrick said he was presented with an option for an internal drain that would go down inside of the corner of the building (might be a staircase there) and come outside the building and connect. Amanda said either option would require a backup drain - a through wall scupper that would drain out onto the street where you would see the water. Brian Casey, Attorney represented the applicant – Mr. Izzo. Brian gave some background information regarding ongoing legal matters. He said he has been representing Mr. Izzo since 2020 in a lawsuit by a neighboring building owner, which is still pending. Brian said he represented Mr. Izzo in a second lawsuit from a neighboring property owner which is not still pending. In that lawsuit the city was sued as well. He said he also represented Mr. Izzo in connection with a criminal charge pursued by the neighboring building owner which is what brings the applicant before the DRB. Brian said they are looking to address roof water that has run south to north off the building for about 150 years. When the property was a feed store, the water would cascade off the roof onto a one-story shed like structure where the new building is located. Then a metal roof would take the water west out the back. Brian said the new building was constructed 4 inches from the applicant’s building which doesn’t leave room for a gutter on the north side of the building. That would also be in the neighboring building owner’s air space which would require permission. Brian said the criminal action that was brought against the applicant involved the discharge of water in the four-foot section at the northeast corner of Mr. Izzo’s roof and was discharging down onto the sidewalk. They are proposing to address that in part by putting a four-foot gutter there, have a leader come down the side into the stub. That proposal was submitted to Mr. Cogan’s office, but the neighbor objected because it was in his airspace. The neighbor wanted other concessions that included tying the buildings together at the top and it could not be agreed to. They considered an internal drain, but the cost was too high. That’s when they began the option of coming through the east wall onto Henry St. This will involve roof work that will pitch all the water toward the northeast corner. They would come out through the brick with a 6” diameter pipe which would go down the front, as noted on the drawing, and into the existing stub at the bottom. Brian shared that he received a letter today from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation objecting to proceeding in this fashion. One of the Preservation’s concerns is that they would be scarring the parapet and cornice. Brian said it appears to him that the pipe will come out below those areas and then run down the side. They’re not coming through the wood at the top. Mr. Izzo is seeking approval of this proposal because he’s been in litigation for three years. Because of the way the building next door is constructed, he can’t put a gutter there. Brian said this seems to be the most appropriate solution and one that can be done without getting into neighbor disputes. Brian said they are open to any suggestions and addressing any material concerns to get this done. Brian pointed out that the new building at 79 Henry St. does have gutters coming down the front. Brian said there is a secondary overflow at the four-foot section at the northeast corner. If the drain were to become clogged and the overflow kicked in, it would alert the owner that there’s a problem. Brian said that if this is approved their engineer will get Mr. Cogan whatever he needs to be assured that there is a secondary overflow available, as well as any other information he needs. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said in her view because there is no easement agreement, so she’s going to take that out of consideration. She said that’s unfortunate because the side of the building is the appropriate location. Tamie said based on her interpretation of the DRB City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 5 of 12 guidelines, if the drain can’t be located to the side of the building, then an internal drain is best. Historic design standards indicate that the façade of a historic building should remain as original and as intact as possible. Putting a hole in historic brick is to be avoided at any cost. Tamie asked how far the pipe would come out from the building. Brian said approximately 7 inches including the pipe and the clamp that will hold the pipe out about an inch. Tamie said the material that would be the most appropriate for her would be a copper drain. Chris Bennett discussed the route for drainage off the roof with Brian. There’s a parapet wall at the back of the roof that catches all the water. Chris asked if there was any way to shed the water off to the west side. Brian said you could but the area in the back is small, and it would end up on the ground. Chris agreed with Tamie that the materials should be copper – smooth round, not corrugated. Chris said where they punch a hole through the brick it could leak over time and the masonry could erode and interact with the copper. The owner may want to use a different material, something more durable than copper at that location. It won’t be visible. Leslie DiCarlo said it’s very unfortunate that the neighbor dispute situation can’t be resolved amicably. Lesile said she would be ok with the copper. There was a discussion about the location of the stub between the buildings on the sidewalk. Most likely the stub is in the city right of way. Brian said the Supreme Court Judge hearing the case is aware that Brian was presenting tonight and is hopeful that the situation can be resolved. The neighbor’s attorney is aware of this solution and so far there hasn’t been any disagreement with this plan. Jeff Gritsavage said the downspout in front of the pilaster is a cob job, but they may have to be done to make it work. He agreed that it would absolutely have to be copper. Jeff said there are some things on the façade of the building that could be decluttered, such as electrical connections that are no longer attached, phone & cable wires. Tad Roemer agreed with Jeff that it’s a cob job and he wishes there was another solution. He said the best solution would be to have an internal drain with an internal scupper that has a higher entry point and then comes out through a cow tongue. That’s how you know there’s a problem with the main drain if the cow tongue is dripping or if water’s flowing out of it. He would agree to the copper (with a good craftsman) as proposed if the internal drain was not an option. Brian said the size of the pipe was not addressed to the engineer, but he could find out if a smaller pipe would work. It would be a mathematical calculation. Ellen Sheehan agreed with the use of copper and expressed disappointment that the neighbor dispute could not be solved. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment. Cassandra Gipe, Attorney, Lemery Greisler said they represent the neighboring property owners, and she has limited knowledge of the plan but the attorney handling this matter is quarantining with Covid. Cassandra said the goal is to stop the water from dumping onto her client’s building. They have no objection to the current proposed solution. Cassandra said she is not aware of an easement situation. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the litigation over this situation is very unfortunate. Samantha said they have concerns about putting a hole in the brick and what the copper will look like. She said the best drainage would be a straight shot City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 6 of 12 down, so she would encourage the neighbors to agree to allow a pipe to go straight down the side of the building. The pipe would need to be copper and there would need to be a lot more detail about what the scupper and the turns look like. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it appears that there is an opportunity to reopen a discussion with the neighbor about allowing the pipe down the side of the building. Tamie proposed that the attorney for the applicant reach out to the neighbor’s attorney and let them know that the DRB strongly recommends that the safest solution in terms of keeping the water away from your neighbor is to have it run down the side of the building. If that is not possible, then it appears that the DRB is pretty much in agreement that a gutter running down the front, done in copper would be allowed. Brian said he would contact the neighbor’s counsel and explain what happened at the DRB meeting. He asked to be put on the DRB agenda for January. 4. #20230532, Two story addition, 395 Broadway. Historic Review of a two-story addition to an existing commercial structure within the Urban Core/T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the applicant has been before the DRB many times and has come to discuss at least one revision that has been made. Brett Balzer, Balzer & Tuck Architecture, Shawn Corp, Project Architect representing Prime Group Holdings for the proposed offices at 395 Broadway. Brett said the first application they submitted was in August for a September 6th presentation. Brett is asking that the Board keep that progression in mind tonight regarding the revision. Brett listed the comments shared at the September 6th meeting. He said after careful review of the videos they take those comments and incorporate them into proposed revisions, which Brett also listed. Brett said on September 20th they received mass and scale approval. Brett said they are aware that there was a fair amount of detail that the DRB was not on board with, so they went back to the drawing board and incorporated those thoughts. Brett displayed a rendering of the proposed addition from their November 1st DRB presentation, which was the last time they were in front of the board. He also listed a summary of DRB comments from the 11/1 meeting. Brett presented a list of Proposed Design Revisions that they submitted to Planning on November 15, 2023: Exterior Elevations  Elimination of ornamental iron panels at third and fourth floor bays  Elimination of parapet and entry awning ornamental iron cresting – pigeon spikes.  Elimination of ornamental iron awning support brackets – 1st floor entry canopies along Broadway & the West side elevation (parking lot)  Simplified terra cotta extruded, and ram pressed patterning – they brought them tonight. They are looking at a vertical, combed terra cotta in two different striations.  Cleaned up detailing at 4th floor corner step-back at intersection with bays. Lowered the bay and locked the cornice all the way around. The building loses about 18” in height by dropping the bays. Exterior Lighting  Removed ornamental hanging lanterns at Main Entry awning – back to wall mounted sconces on either side of the entry.  Removed pilaster uplighting at Third and Fourth Floor bays – to call less attention to the bays. Sidewalk  Conducted sidewalk study; provided diagram showing requested dimensions.  Favorable review by Planning Board on 10-26-23/continued coordination with DPW City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 7 of 12 Brett said they went out and walked the sidewalk starting at Starbucks up to Division St. and took measurements to get a feel of the scale. Brett illustrated their findings using photos. From the start at the southern point, they measured 11’8” up to 14’ (bench comes in about 2’ so feels like 11’6”), goes from wall to curb 9’ in front of the Rip Van Dam. Looking south from 395 Broadway you see 9’ at Morrissey’s outdoor dining. They concluded that 9’ was not an unusual feel on that stretch of Broadway. Brett said as you go further up Broadway at Rhea for example with their outdoor patio in the summer, they are at 6’9”. Brett showed a photo of the existing planter in front of their project which will be torn out and reconstructed. The measurement of the sidewalk is 10’ from planter to low wall – a low seating wall 18” high. Between the low wall and the building, they have 5 feet for handicap accessibility, ADA entry and exit in and out of their building. Brett said one of their challenges is from Division St. as they walk their way down the Broadway sidewalk it slopes 1’5”. They have to build a level sidewalk to get into the retail which they do within the 5’ zone they call the “plinth”. At the end of the plinth there are 3 steps down that gives you the 1.5 in grade change. As you walk along the building is on your right with a low seating wall (18”) on your left. Brett said it is a site and public amenity. The slope from the front of the building to Broadway is 4’4”. There will be a stair that is on center with the main entry - two steps up from the street level through the sitting wall to get to the building front. The sidewalk will have radiant heat. There will be landscaped areas on both sides of the steps as shown on the site plan. There will be brick and paver areas with benches. All three stair locations with steps will have handrails. Tamie Ehinger said she still has the same concerns she’s had from the beginning. 1. The lack of continuity between the existing structure and what is being proposed. She said there is nothing tying them together. 2. The variety of the setbacks looks haphazard, especially looking north. Tamie read the definition of mass and scale – constitutes approval of footprints and proportions. It does not constitute approvals of elevations and other façade and roofline details. Tamie feels regardless of the feedback she’s provided, these two issues have not been addressed. Tamie said as presented, she could not consider an approval. Tamie said she would like to see a rendering of the sidewalk configuration. Ellen Sheehan said above the doors and windows on the addition there is a horizontal glass piece that she is calling a transom might be too much. The windows are two large on the top two floors. If they were smaller the addition would look more secondary. Ellen said the other changes have been successful. Tad Roemer said the design as proposed is very handsome. It started out as a nice project, the DRB offered input, it’s been incorporated, and it looks very successful. Tad doesn’t think the board should continue to mess with the design. There’s a color connection between the windows and spanner panels and the original building and the color of the addition on top. The arched windows make a connection. Tad said because there are three entrances at different levels there’s really no other way to make the entrances level besides how they are proposing. The only other alternative is to have only one entrance. Brett commented they originally had the main entrance at the corner with no retail. Tad said he doesn’t have an issue with the sidewalk design. He is ready to endorse the design as proposed. Jeff Gritsavage said the color from the trim below, including the spandrel between the windows, ties into the top. The arched windows on the upper levels tie into the lower levels. The void-solid ratio is fine. There’s a lot of examples of more glass in modern structures while still retaining elegance – which the applicant has done with the light dividers. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 8 of 12 Jeff said the streetscape progression as you’re walking south from what was the Downtowner, now a big void, to this building which steps back and then to 385 Broadway where the mansard steps back and then the Adelphi…this building almost gives 385 Broadway some purpose. With the streetscape built out in this way it almost makes 385 make more sense. Jeff said the progression with the step back/mansard/full vertically it’s comfortable from a streetscape standpoint. He said architecture needs to grow and evolve and Jeff sees this as such a project. He doesn’t think further iterations will give the board a better product. Jeff said he is prepared to advance the project as designed tonight. Leslie DiCarlo said she’s struggling with the comment in the letter from the Preservation Foundation “the proposed building lacks the overall design aesthetic, continuity of the other buildings along Broadway”. Leslie said she agrees with that comment but feels the problem is with the existing building and not the addition to the existing building. Leslie said she knows what the Preservation is saying but doesn’t know what the solution is. The Borders building was built to be one retail space with one entrance and a corner façade, not a Broadway facade. Leslie feels the current iteration is a solution to all the difficult pieces that have to be put together with an existing building. Chris Bennett agrees with Jeff and Tad that they’ve done a great job. He agrees with Jeff about the buildings to the south, they have completed the streetscape with this design. Chris said looking at the addition on the rendering it’s monolithic, but it will have joints and will look less monolithic. Chris said he’s looking forward to the building being built. Tamie Ehinger asked what the railings were going to look like. Brett said they provided a cut sheet at their last presentation. He can’t say that is going to be the exact railing because they are custom made. Their drawing is the design intent. Brett said up on the roof is a glass rail with an aluminum shoe. Brett passed around samples of the terra cotta. Tamie Ehinger, Chair opened the floor for comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation expressed frustration at not having details about the revisions that were discussed at tonight’s meeting, prior to the meeting. She said she thinks the changes are mostly successful. The renderings of the building looking north the setbacks and fenestration makes no rhyme or reason to anything on Broadway. Samantha said she appreciates that the ornamentation has been reduced but disappointed to only learn about it now. She asked that the DRB provide her detailed elevation drawings that have been updated to reflect these changes such as the reduced ornamentation, details of the canopy, ornamentation of the railings, etc. The railings are a very New Orleans feel – we are not New Orleans. Samantha said there’s an iconic Walker Evans photo of this section of Broadway showing a very wide sidewalk, a character defining feature of downtown Saratoga Springs. Samantha has concerns about the 18” wall down the middle of the sidewalk. People will be walking along and fall over it. She said the wall does not add a civic benefit to the city. Samantha strongly suggested that the DRB look at businesses who don’t want to address accessibility within their own building and are coming out onto the street. Samantha said there are currently 3 entrances going into that building and you can walk straight into them. She said at the very least there needs to be more detailed renderings looking north to see what the wall and curbing and stairs look like and how far the stairs are going to come out. Brett provided a current picture of the building showing the entrances and sidewalk. Samanatha said to her the applicant is trying to address an accessibility issue on the city’s public right-of-way for a building that has a private interest. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 9 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked the board if they want to see a rendering of the sidewalk/wall plan. Ellen Sheehan asked where the planning board and DRB intersect on this project. Amanda Tucker, Planner said it’s a little tricky because it’s part of the right-of-way, so they need approval from DPW. It’s not a civic space, so it would be considered part of the building entry. Staff will look into whether it requires signoff from the City Council via the Real Estate Committee. Amanda said that is an open question that will be investigated. Amanda said if it’s considered part of the building entrance then it’s probably part of the DRB’s purview as well. It’s probably a collaboration with the Planning Board. There’s no clear answer. Tad Roemer asked if you kept the existing grading, at least through the first two bays as it touches the building, why do you have to have steps as you walk west that go into the middle entrance? Shawn Corp, Balzer Tuck said both entrances are recessed back from the façade and there’s a slight grade change going up, about 4” from the property line to the door. The doors are set back so they don’t swing out into the public space. The upper three doors are not set back. There’s a vestibule on the middle door. Tad asked if doors could swing out into the sidewalk in Saratoga or do they have to be set back 18”? Shawn said he’s not aware of that requirement, but they’ll check. Shawn said to come out either one of the new proposed doors they’re four inches above the existing sidewalk. Tad said the outer doors look much smaller than the inner doors. He noted the inner doors just above the security desk and suggested putting that same size door on the exterior of the building. Brett said those are oversized doors, 4’x8’, at the interior vestibule and it’s planned that they will be replaced with 36” doors. Shawn said that some of the challenges the site civil engineer is having is that the cross slope from the building to the existing curb on Broadway is very steep. He said they’re trying to take some of the slope out as you walk north/south, parallel to the building. Tad said it will be a little flatter, but it will be a lot narrower. Tad said that if everyone was ok with a recess instead of a vestibule, and you kept the sidewalk as it is, you could enter the recess and go straight into the main office or turn left into Prime Construction and not have to have the wall and could keep the sidewalk the way it is. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked the applicant what their backup plan is if they are not able to get approval from the DPW, Planning Board, or the DRB on the wall. Brett said they have shared detailed drawings from Lansing Engineering with the Planning Board. There are no renderings, but they can be provided. The options are as follows:  The wall could be lowered but would still need to be a curb and they would put a railing to prevent people from tripping on the curb. Brett said they feel the more elegant solution is a seating wall. It will be a public amenity. It’s not cement, it’s cladded in granite – a well detailed wall with all of the right intentions. Brett said if the 10’ is the issue they can move the planting beds and make them shallower. Brett said he is asking the board to work together with them. If what they’ve presented isn’t the solution, he’s confident that they will get to one. He said he doesn’t want this to be an impediment to a vote and hopes for approval tonight. Brett said they have a Planning Board meeting coming up and they will bring the DRB’s comments to them. Brett said they will render the plan as it exists and if there’s an alternate plan that the planning board feels strongly about, they can bring that back to the DRB. Tamie said when they come back to the DRB they should have renderings that show more space – 10’, 12’. Tamie said she was not suggesting that they lower the wall, she was talking about a backup plan the applicant may have had to address the issue internally should the other plan not be approved. Brett asked that the DRB tell them what the right amount of space is. He said there is no sidewalk plan in Saratoga for them to follow. Brett said there’s also an optical illusion going on by looking at the plan. It looks tight, there’s a low wall, but there’s a 2’ wall and 7’ sidewalk, the building is 7’ away. Tamie said it would be inappropriate for the DRB to start throwing out numbers. She suggested that they come back City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 10 of 12 with renderings that show alternatives with the width of the sidewalk and the planters. Brett said the Planning Board will make the determination on whether the 10’ is the right dimension. The planning board has seen the plan, they have the drawings. The plan has gone to the County and DPW has seen it and they’re comfortable with the plan and the awnings. Amanda Tucker asked if the DRB could provide some guidance to the Planning Board in terms of what would be appropriate. Amanda said she could even pass their concerns on to Susan to relay to the PB to be part of their discussion. Tamie said there are concerns about the plinth, the depth of the sidewalk…the DRB would like to see more so they can be confident in the decision they make. Jeff Gritsavage said he’s comfortable with them matching the width of the sidewalk between the Downtowner planter wall and the tree band if they can continue that between the plinth/seating wall and tree band of 10’ – maintain the thoroughfare at the same width. Brett said he likes applying that logic and they will meet whatever that width is. Tad Roemer asked if they should make a motion on the rest of the building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she would prefer not to entertain a motion on the project until the applicant comes back with the renderings for the sidewalk. She said this is a significant part of how the building will present itself to the street. Pedestrian traffic and the pedestrian experience on Broadway is important to the whole character of the downtown. Tad Roemer asked Tamie if the sidewalk design could unravel the design of the upper two stories. Tamie said yes, the entranceways might have to be reconfigured. Tad said if that’s what it takes to solve the sidewalk problem, if that’s going to unravel the top, then they’ll have to address it then. Tad said it seems that there are solutions that don’t go beyond the ground floor and the sidewalk. Tamie said she’s indicated her preference, majority rules, so if most of the Board would like to vote tonight then let her know. With a straw vote of 5 in favor of voting only on the building the board proceeded to a vote. Leslie DiCarlo made the following motion: In the matter of the application for the two-story addition final details for 395 Broadway involving historic review of final approval of a two-story addition to an existing commercial structure within the Urban core T-6 District within the City of Saratoga Springs. The Design Review Commission issues the following decision on December 6, 2023, to approve as submitted or shown on the attached plans, excluding the Broadway sidewalk and the proposed plinth. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Discussion: Amanda said that it should be added that the applicant provides revised detailed elevations for the record. The motion carried. Vote: 5-1 in favor. E. Sheehan-yes, T. Roemer-yes, J. Gritsavage-yes, L. DiCarlo-yes, C. Bennett-yes. T, Ehinger-no. Brett said they intend to get some solutions/renderings together right away and submit them to the DRB to be on the next agenda which is the day before the Planning Board meeting. Amanda said if they can provide the right-of-way design, they can have that discussion in advance of the Planning Board meeting. Brett said thank you, and they will make that a priority. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Caravan Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 11 of 12 DRB Meeting December 10, 2024 MOTION TO ADJOURN: The motion to Adjourn was made by Leslie DiCarlo and seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. ALL IN FAVOR There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 8:49 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary APPROVED 1/10/2024 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 6, 2023 - Page 12 of 12