Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:05 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, Chris Bennett, Leslie DiCarlo, Tad Roemer, Jeff Gritsavage, Ellen Sheehan ABSENT: Karen Cavotta (Alternate) STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: A motion was made by Rob DuBoff to approve the minutes from January 10, 2024. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any "approvable" applications without the need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, that item would then be pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered individually. 1. #20240004 307 Broadway, The Bunker Vent Cover. Historic Review of through wall exhaust vent within a PUD. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the DRB or audience. None were heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve The Bunker vent cover at 307 Broadway. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20230742 53 Putnam St. New 5-Story Mixed-Use Development 53 Putnam St Consideration of SEQRA lead agency in regards to a new 5-story mixed-use development within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant is not here to present for 53 Putnam St. because it’s just a procedural decision. She said typically with a project of this scope the DRB would defer lead agency status to the Planning Board. Tamie Ehinger made a motion that the Design Review Board defer Lead Agency status to the Planning Board should they seek it. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 2. #20230992 140 Grand Ave. Partial Demolition and New Addition. Determination of Historic/Architectural Significance for an existing residential structure and discussion regarding proposed new additions within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that they are to determine if there is any historical or architectural significance to the portions of the structure the applicant is looking to demolish. There will not be any discussion about the demolition or what is being proposed to be built in that spot. Rob DuBoff said there are two sections of the building that the applicant is looking to demolish and asked if they should be treated separately or as one. Amanda Tucker, Planner said their significance can be considered separately. As part of the motion, they would need to indicate which section may have significance and which does not. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that several members of their team were able to view the interior of 140 Grand Ave. with the applicant. Tamie asked if there was anything the applicant wished to discuss about that and/or the letter that Rob DuBoff put together regarding the visit. Joe Snyder, applicant/owner of 140 Grand Ave. thanked Rob for putting together the letter and said he’s looking forward to finding out what he can demo. Tamie said there are a few ways to look at historical significance. One factor that plays a role is the age of the home. If the structure dates back to the1800’s there’s an argument that that in itself makes the structure historic. Another way is to determine if an historically significant person lived in the home. Did those portions of the house play a role in the City’s history. Tamie said in this instance the house was built in the 1800’s and she sees it as historically significant. Tamie said it has been determined that the primary structure and the two additions date back to the 1800’s. Tamie said the DRB exists to identify situations in which exceptions are justified. She said after reviewing the photographs that Rob provided and going through the files, she feels that as proposed by the applicant, the main part of the house will and should remain in its historic condition and there is justification for demolishing the middle and rear sections. Tamie said in her mind demolishing the middle and rear sections of the house will not negatively affect the historic character of the original part of the house. Tamie said she would not find these two sections of the house to be historically or architecturally significant. She said any architectural features they may have had have been so compromised over the years they no longer exist. Rob DuBoff said he agrees with most of what Tamie said. He said it’s difficult to take a home that was likely built in 1866 and say it has no historical significance. Rob said it has little discernable architectural significance on the outside because of the layers of materials covering the façade. He said the rear portion was probably built during the 1881 building campaign and has no architectural significance inside because it’s been City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 2 of 17 gutted. Rob said the middle section may have some historical significance just because of its age. Ellen Sheehan disagreed with the middle section being saved just based on its age. She said it’s been so corrupted it would be difficult to discern what you could restore it to. Ellen said she would be okay with tearing down the middle and rear section of the house. Tad Roemer agreed with other board members who said it was okay to take the middle and back portions down and that there is no historical or architectural significance. Jeff Gritsavage said the back portion is gone. He said if they can save the front portion of the house, the shape of it, and restore detailing that’s good. The house is on a very prominent corner and defines the entrance to the arts district and history of the working class of Saratoga Springs. Jeff said after looking at the middle and rear sections of the house, they don’t look worth saving and have no historical or architectural significance. He said the construction looks cobbed together over the years. Leslie DiCarlo said she was unable to see the inside of the house, but the rear section is not significant. She said it’s unfortunate that they don’t know what’s under the siding in the middle section before they agree to have it be demolished. Leslie said from looking at the inside the middle and rear portions of the house are not historically or architecturally significant. Chris Bennett said he agrees with Rob that the rear is not significant but thinks the front and middle portions are. He said the house isn’t that big and he feels the front and middle could be salvaged and are historically significant. Chris said removing the middle portion could cause some issues for the main structure during demolition and reconstruction. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience wanted to comment on the architectural or historical significance of the building. There were none. Tamie Ehinger said considering the strong feelings that two of the board members have regarding the demolition of the middle section being determined significant, she would make two motions. Amanda said they can’t make two motions. They have to make one motion and vote on it and see where it goes. If that doesn’t pass, they can make another motion. Tamie clarified that the two separate motions would be one for the middle section and one for the rear. Amanda said that was fine. Tamie made a motion in the matter of the application for 140 Grand Ave., the partial demolition of the middle addition, involving the determination of architectural or historical significance of an existing residential structure within the UR-3 District determines that the middle addition noted does not have architectural and/or historical significance contributing to the historic fabric and resources of the City of Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Discussion: Jeff Gritsavage said that Chris Bennett made a compelling case so he will be voting for historic significance on the middle City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 3 of 17 section. Leslie DiCarlo agreed with Jeff and changed her determination. Vote: T. Ehinger – Y, E. Sheehan – Y, T. Roemer – Y, C. Bennett – N, R. DuBoff – N, L. DiCarlo – N, J. Gritsavage – N. 4-3 against. Motion denied. Tamie Ehinger made a motion in the matter of the application for 140 Grand Ave., the partial demolition of the middle addition involving the determination of architectural or historical significance of an existing residential addition, commercial structure within the UR-3 District determines that the middle addition noted does have architectural and/or historical significance contributing to the historic fabric and resources of the City of Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger – N, E. Sheehan – N, T. Roemer – N, C. Bennett – Y, R. DuBoff – Y, L. DiCarlo – Y, J. Gritsavage – Y. 4-3 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie told the applicant that the board has determined that the middle section does have historical significance. She added that that doesn’t mean it can’t be demolished, he just has to go through some extra steps before they talk further about it. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion in the matter of the application for 140 Grand Ave., the partial demolition of the rear addition involving the determination of architectural or historical significance of an existing residential addition, commercial structure within the UR-3 District determines that the rear addition noted does not have architectural and/or historical significance. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Amanda suggested that the applicant meet with her to discuss the demolition. Joe asked if the DRB would have to make another motion for the removal of the chimney on the front section of the house. Tamie said that would be reviewed when he comes back for discussion about the renovations. She said typically with a historic home and chimney it would need to be maintained – it’s a character defining feature. Amanda said because the DRB has determined the middle section to be significant it triggers a set of “good faith” documents including a notice of a public hearing. They cannot decide on a demolition this evening. Tamie thanked the applicant for his investment in the property and said it’s needed some TLC for a long time. 3. #20230532 395 Broadway Historic Review of the street entrance along Broadway within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has been before the DRB several times and has returned for historic review of the street entrance at 395 Broadway. Brett Balzer, Balzer & Tuck Architects. Brett said they came before the DRB on January 10, 2024, to discuss the exterior stairs and related sidewalk. He said at that time DRB members Leslie Sheehan and Chris Bennett weren’t able to see the presentation. Brett said there was a small change from what they had proposed the last time and asked how much the board wanted him to present tonight. Tamie suggested that Brett briefly touch on what he presented before and show the renderings and new City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 4 of 17 change. Brett displayed renderings of the building before, from the 10th and the proposed change. Brett said from the rendering they had shown on the 10th there was a fair amount of discussion around the feathered stairs and whether it was in keeping with Broadway and safety concerns. The DRB wanted to know if there were some other things that could be done there with Broadway and concern for safety. Brett showed a proposed 4” granite sight wall that starts on the low/north side and as the sidewalk tapers it grows to 1’4” in height but consistently stays 4” above the sidewalk for people with canes who are visually impaired. Brett said they showed this to the planning board and received site plan approval. Brett said they added and relocated some railings because there were concerns about skateboarders. Brett showed a drawing that was shared with the Planning Board last time showing the low granite sight wall that leads into concrete steps that wrap around and abut the building. If you are arriving by car and coming up the front steps, the railings align with the entry door into Prime Group Holdings. The rails align on either side of the entry or exit door for the retail spaces as well. They also added one intermittent rail and one at the south end of the stairs per Code. As a condition of planning board approval, they will be improving the planter in front of the adjacent property to the south (Rhea’s). It’s currently gravel & mulch at grade. They will be adding granite curbing and appropriate plantings. Brett showed pictures of the rails they’re proposing from Julius Blum & Co. and the granite sight wall from Champlain Stone. It’s a wood creek granite without a lot of veining or color and should blend well with the granite curbing the city does. Brett showed the proposed stair nosing’s. He said by Code there needs to be a visual contrast at the nosing of the stairs. The stairs are concrete, and the nosing is cast aluminum that has a grit within it that helps with the visual and makes it more slip resistant. Brett reminded the board that all the sidewalks and stairs will be heated with radiant heat. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that they are deciding whether the stairs are appropriate there, not necessarily choosing between the tapered stair versus the sight wall. Tamie said in her opinion, the feathered stairs are more in line with keeping the stairs simpler. Tamie said there have been some concerns raised about stairs being built in the right of way for a private business and that it gives it a civic look. The board needs to decide if it’s appropriate. Tamie reminded the board that the width of the sidewalk is not within DRB’s purview. The city and department of public works signed off on this project and has no issue from their perspective. Leslie DiCarlo said she went downtown today and walked down Broadway to get a feel for the proposed sidewalk/steps. Leslie said she really likes what they’ve done with the first and second floor of the building, much nicer and more inviting from a pedestrian perspective. Leslie said she’s struggling with the one long raised sidewalk that is servicing those separate entrances. Leslie said she assumes the applicant is doing that for handicap accessibility but would prefer smaller set of steps coming out like The Wine Bar and others. The long steps make it look like a civic building or train station and it takes away from the separateness of the entrances. If handicap accessibility is the main driver it should be met in the interior of the building. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 5 of 17 Chris Bennett said he has very little issue if any with the proposal. He feels it enhances the structure and the corner. It’s made its visibility more prominent, everything’s in-line with the over-hangs and it serves the purpose of making it easier for people to get in and out. Chris prefers the tapered sidewalk; it looks more elegant. Chris said the applicant has done a great job on this building. Rob DuBoff said the applicant has done a nice job solving the problem but he’s not sure why the problem exists to begin with. Rob said right now there’s an at grade door between the proposed bay two and three as you come from the corner heading south on Broadway. That door is being filled in but is currently at grade with no steps going into the building. Brett said it hits grade but is above the sidewalk. As you walk into the opening there’s a ramp that leads you up to the door and the slope is not compliant with today’s code. They couldn’t build that door again as it currently exists. Rob repeated that he feels they are solving a problem that they created. He said in his opinion it sets a dangerous precedent for Broadway. Jeff Gritsavage said he’s good with either stairway. He said there is precedence where there’s a couple of steps up to get to a landing to go into buildings on Broadway. Jeff said he doesn’t agree that it looks like a civic building; it’s not a school or a railroad station, it’s just more architecturally detailed than many buildings being built today. He said he was in favor of advancing the project. Tad Roemer said he thinks it’s a “handsome solution” and prefers the feathered stairs because it looks more elegant. If the curb is safer then that works. Tad said he’s not convinced that the stairs are necessary and asked Brett what they would have done if DPW didn’t approve. Brett said they have approved the stairs. Brett said it’s his understanding after speaking with Susan Barden, Planner, that the stairs and landings are PB and DPW’s purview. Brett said the real estate committee looks at the awnings and makes a recommendation to the City Council. Amanda said her understanding is that part of the stairs as an entrance to a building and not part of civic space, that that would require approval by City Council via a recommendation from the Real Estate Committee. That has not happened yet. Tad noted the entry way to 385 where they have a slab. Brett said that is new construction. Tad said the applicant could replace that section with something that slopes down to the existing sidewalk elevation. Amanda clarified that from the planning department standpoint the applicant needs three approvals for the stairs; the planning board, the design review board (because this is not civic space, it’s the entrance to a building – it’s part of the design and under the DRB’s purview), and because it is a private entrance into a private building which requires approval from City Council via the real estate committee. Tad asked if he could get kicked off the stairs if he were sitting there. Amanda said she doesn’t know if the city charges a fee for taking of the space or if it’s still considered public property as part of the entrance, she doesn’t have those answers. Leslie asked if the DRB is recommending a design for the stairs or whether they are appropriate. Tamie said the DRB is determining whether the stairs are appropriate in general and then the style of the stairs that are being proposed. The DRB needs to decide if it’s visually appropriate. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 6 of 17 Ellen Sheehan said the newest proposal is safer so she would vote for that one. Tamie Ehinger, Chair opened the floor for public comment. Mark Haliday is a lifelong resident who volunteers for the Historic Preservation Foundation. Mark said he is concerned about the applicant taking public right-of-way and setting a precedent. He also thinks the stairs are a safety hazard. Amanda noted to the board that there were several public comments that came in electronically. Mark Haliday, Francis Wright Earl, Michael White, Kathleen Sonaben, Lorraine Fitzsimmons, Chris Lasher, Ellen Donning & Jason Thomas. Tamie said she saw them, and they’re posted. Most of the comments expressed concern about this project. Tad asked why their planters don’t line up with Rhea’s. Brett said Rhea has outdoor seating in the summer that reduces the walking area to about 9’6”. There’s 13’ width from the nose of the stairs to their planter. Because of the amount of square footage of the building they are required to have 5% green space which includes their planters a pocket park in the rear and by incorporating Rhea’s planter into their civic space. In the matter of the application of the Broadway Street entrance located at 395 Broadway Tamie Ehinger made a motion that the Design Review Board approve the application with the following condition: that design number one be used with the feathered steps to be constructed as it is most appropriate assuming the Real Estate Committee and City Council provide permission for the use of this public space for stair construction. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. There was no further discussion. Vote: T. Ehinger – Y, E. Sheehan – N, T. Roemer – Y, C. Bennett – Y, R. DuBoff – N, L. DiCarlo – N, J. Gritsavage – Y. 4-3 in favor. Motion carried. 4. #20230944 12 Ballston Ave Demolition & Redevelopment. Architectural review of the demolition of a non-significant commercial structure and a new one-story commercial structure within the Neighborhood Center / T-5 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that when the applicant was before the board the last time it was determined that the structure they wish to demolish is not historically or architecturally significant. Jonathan Haynes, Phinney Design Group, Colab Dev. & Chipotle. Jonathan said they have received planning board and ZBA approval on this project and showed the DRB the design of the project:  Unusually shaped parcel – focus is to create a presence at the corner where the streets come together.  They have a maximum one-story footprint (under 3,000 sq. ft.) theirs is 2400 sq. ft., with a maximum height (over 20’).  UDO requirement – beyond 30’ need a step in the façade with transitions in materials. Concrete board transitions to brick on both elevations. They also City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 7 of 17  made changes in the patterning to align with the storefront system that wraps around. Hit glazing requirements for the first floor as well on the public facades.  Materials – Corner façade - Douglas Fir brackets, wood on underside of eaves are all Douglas Fir with Sickkens teak stain. Same finish on entryway with standing seam metal roofs.  As part of PB approval they will be improving the grading, landscaping and stormwater management around the building.  Rendering of new building – painted concrete board on the upper part of the building, storefront system around the lower levels, standing seam metal roof & Douglas Fir & brick. Jonathan asked if there were any questions. Tamie said they reviewed the plan when they determined there was no historical significance. She said she doesn’t have any questions about the design and feels they done an amazing job. She said based on procedure for the DRB review they need to discuss the demolition first, then SEQRA analysis with a formal decision and then they can officially review the proposal. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she has no issues with demolishing the building and asked if any other DRB members had concerns. None were heard. Tamie went on to SEQRA review: SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. In the matter of the application for the commercial structure demolition SEQRA Review at 12 Ballston Ave. and in accordance with 6NYCRR part 617, the Design Review Board classifies this request as a SEQRA Unlisted Action SEQRA assessment and determination. Tamie Ehinger moved for the issuance of a negative declaration of environmental significance because analysis of the information provided and presented in the environmental assessment form demonstrates that the project will not result in any large and important impact and therefore is one that will not have a significant impact on the environment. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. No further discussion. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. In the matter of the application for 12 Ballston Ave. demolition located at 12 Ballston Ave. Tamie Ehinger made a motion that the Design Review Board approve the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 8 of 17 demolition as submitted and shown on the attached plans. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. No further discussion. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger said this is a really well-done appropriate structure. She said she thinks this is the best designed Chipotle she has seen. The materials are very high quality and appropriate. The layout of the building on the lot is perfect. The awnings are great, and the entrance way is emphasized. She has no concerns about the proposed building. Chris Bennett was concerned with the EPDM roof – seeing a massive black roof with lots of shields screwed in (mechanically fastened version) when you turn the corner. Jonathan said they will be doing a fully adhered version which will be completely flat with a patch around the perimeter. Chris is also concerned about the cement board panels going right to grade and that they will weather. Concerned about longevity. Aesthetically it looks fine but how will it look in 6 to 7 years – falls apart, flaking. Chris said the design looks good. Rob DuBoff agreed with Chris about the cement panels going down to grade. It would make sense to use something else to bring that up off grade. Rob noted the garbage enclosure and the treated wood paneled fencing and would like to see a plan submitted administratively as to what that will look like. Jonathan said it will be built adjacent to a stained treated wood enclosure next to it. He said they added a grid pattern of stainless screws and wire and a flowering vining plant that will overtake the enclosure and screen it. Leslie DiCarlo asked about roof penetrations and exhaust fans. Jonathan showed where the shed roof comes done and the flat brick comes in there’s a mechanical screen where all the roof penetrations come through. He said in the back of the house area in Chipotle there’s a pull-down stair for access to service the equipment. Jeff Gritsavage said the design looks good. He is also concerned with the cement board going to the ground. He suggested maybe a water table stripe like what’s above the storefront windows. Jonathan said they can bring in a piece of flashing if the bottom piece of cement board fails and pull that piece off. Jeff asked if the applicant had considered split-faced CMU for the dumpsters instead of wood for the dumpsters. Jonathan said the dumpster next to it is wood and it’s easier to repair when the trucks damage it. Tad Roemer agreed with what had been said and had nothing to add. Ellen Sheehan had no comment. Chris Bennett suggested keeping the lights on the signs on the building toned down, especially because they’re on three sides. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the public. There were no public comments. Tamie said the board agreed that a water table for the cement panels at ground level is necessary and the applicant needs a final drawing of the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 9 of 17 treated wood screening around the dumpster. Tamie said they will move the project forward tonight and the applicant should provide the documents showing the new water table material. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the application for 12 Ballston Ave. with the following conditions: that water table with concealed fasteners on sections with cement board panels and dumpster screening details be submitted for approval at the next meeting and that 3500K or less be used for the lighting for the signs on the three facades of the building. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 5. #20231003 119 Van Dam Rear Addition and Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of a rear two-story addition and exterior modifications to an existing single- family residence including new siding and select window replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked the applicants to give an overview of their proposal. Dennis Gosier & Tiffany Britt, owners 119 VanDam. Dennis said they are proposing a rear addition to expand the kitchen off the back and add a master bedroom and bath above. Tamie Ehinger reminded the board that this house is in the architectural review district. She clarified that the applicant is proposing vinyl windows and siding for the addition. Dennis said they are, and they will keep the original windows on the main part of the house. Tamie asked about the historic window they are looking to replace and reduce in size. Tamie said there should be a distinction between the original house and the addition, even if it’s just a few inches that jut out. Tamie said the DRB typically would not approve of vinyl windows in this zone. Dennis said they are trying to be cost effective and it’s extremely loud because they’re on a truck access highway. Tiffany said they’re trying to make a practical investment. The resale value isn’t great with 30 trucks per hour and the business of the street. Jeff Gritsavage said he lives at 179 Church St. and has the same vehicles going past his house as the applicant plus the ones going down church – 14,000 cars per day, and he is also in the architectural district and would never propose to put vinyl on his house. Tamie asked what the siding was on the house. Dennis said it’s aluminum, which they would like to replace with vinyl if they are approved for the vinyl for the addition. If not, they will keep the aluminum. Tamie said there may be the original wood cladding in great shape under the aluminum siding. She said that often happens that the aluminum preserves the wood. Tamie said she would not object to reducing the size of the opening of the window because it’s located at the rear of the house, if there is evidence left of the original opening. The trim work for the original window would remain and filled in around the smaller window. The opening should not be compromised. Ellen Sheehan said because the submitted plans are very minimal it’s hard to see any distinction from the primary structure. She would like to see something more detailed. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 10 of 17 Ellen said the DRB’s responsibility is to the city and when the applicant leaves that house the vinyl siding and windows will still be there. She encouraged the applicant to use better materials. Tad Roemer agreed that the drawings are hard to read and asked if the applicant’s intention was to get some initial feedback from the DRB. Tiffany said yes that this is their first time doing this. Tad said he doesn’t have any objection to an addition on the building but agreed that there needs to be a distinction between the house and the addition. He said he’s not sure how it would look going from aluminum to vinyl siding. Tad said the applicant should come back with more detailing for the windows, and that he doesn’t approve of vinyl windows and hopes the applicant can make the project work with a better window. He said a future buyer would appreciate better quality windows that will last longer and perform better. Jeff Gritsavage noted that generally if you need to buy cheaper materials to make a project work you probably need to make the project smaller. He said when you buy a house you need to do research. It shows on Realtor.com that this is a noisy zone. Jeff said this is a pleasant street and the house is very beautiful. He said the sliding glass door, pressure treated wood, etc. are not generally details that are allowed even in the architectural district. He noted that vinyl windows don’t last long and don’t have good insulating value. Jeff said they need to show better drawings of the elevations and the materials they are proposing are just not allowed by the city in this district. Leslie DiCarlo said while the street is heavily trafficked, it’s a lovely house on a nice street and deserves quality materials, something better than vinyl. Rob DuBoff thanked the applicants for investing in the house. It’s a great house and he would love to see them remove the aluminum at some point and restore the clapboard that is likely underneath. Rob asked if they would preserve the slate roof and Dennis said they would. Rob said he doesn’t understand the pitch of the addition. It should be gabled all the way back. He said he knows that will affect the slate but it’s already in bad condition in the back of the house. There will be water runoff onto their steps which will become icy. He suggested a gable on the roof over the steps. Rob agreed that there needs to be a distinction between the house and addition. He said he appreciates the time and expense the applicants are putting in the house and he’s sure their neighbors will appreciate it as well - they’re setting a good example. Chris Bennett said the addition is fine, but they do need better drawings. Chris suggested they leave the aluminum siding on the house and put the money into better quality windows like Andersen series fiberglass. He suggested they convert the back of the house to cement board and paint it the same red as the aluminum siding. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the window they are replacing with a smaller window would have to be wood. Tamie noted that there are aluminum clad products that could be used for the windows that would not be a big jump from vinyl to wood. Chris said they should try not to mess with the aluminum too much when they fill in the window. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 11 of 17 Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that there needs to be more of a distinction between the addition and the primary structure, they need to rethink the use of vinyl for the windows and siding, and have the architect look at some optional roof designs. Dennis asked how his neighbors could have vinyl on their house. Jeff explained that Saratoga Springs planning has evolved from an Historic Review Commission in the 90’s to the Design Review Commission and then the Design Review Board. It’s been an evolving process to review historical and architectural districts in the city. With regard to other houses in the neighborhood having vinyl; either it was done without a building permit or was added prior to the review process of today. 6. #20231027 49 George Second Story & Porch. Historic Review of a second story addition and exterior modifications to an existing single-family residence within the Urban Residential-3 District. Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects. Matt said the project is in the middle of a block on the north side of George St. which is the side of the street they used to establish their design, existing single-family homes. Matt said there are extraordinarily large carriage home type structures on the south side of George St. that support Union Ave. Matt showed photos and talked about some of the characteristics of the existing single-family homes on the street for context. Typically, there’s a front facing gable recessed off the street, simple trim, rectilinear elements, heavier Greek revival exposure but not much profile, with more articulated trim on the porches. Matt showed a current photo of 49 George St. a ranch style home built in the 1960’s with a shallow gable, no articulation in the trim, brick – at odds with the other homes in the neighborhood. The long gable gives the house a horizontal facing that the other houses don’t have. Matt showed the existing site plan. The house is shaped like a “T”. There is a covered patio on the back. There are two doors – one goes to the breezeway on the back and the other goes to the primary entrance along the brick walkway. They will keep the same footprint except for adding an element on the front. Proposed First Floor additions:  Covered porch.  Stair to go up to the existing covered patio.  Internal work on first floor – new garage door. Proposed Second Floor Plan:  Layout of bedrooms.  Deck going over the existing patio. Matt showed a drawing of the house with the second story addition and elevations. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she has no concerns about adding a second story to the existing structure – not inappropriate for the neighborhood. She said she’s not sure it fits into the context of the neighborhood – it’s hard to read. Tamie said she would like to see a rendering showing more shadows around the details. She said her initial reaction is that the house is way too ornate and overbearing. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 12 of 17 Chris Bennett – no mic, but I believe he disclosed he had a property nearby based on Tamie’s disclosure that she also owns a property nearby. Structure is too ornate, too much going on. Rob DuBoff said it was detailed beautifully and, in his opinion, does fit in with the neighborhood. Leslie DiCarlo feels there’s too much detail. Leslie also disclosed she lives nearby. She said this is a nice improvement. She said the west gable addition is very nice. Leslie said with so much going on it takes away from the nice shape of the new design. She said she was confused by the two sets of double doors – one with a single transom and one with a double. Matt said that’s because the existing breezeway is at a lower floor level. Leslie said it doesn’t need a transom, just a door so the focus is on the main entrance. She said the second-floor covered porch might read better if there weren’t rails on the top windows and it was simpler. Too much is going on and takes away from the first-floor entrance. Jeff Gritsavage said this is a challenging project and applauded Matt for taking it on. He likes sustainability, keeping some of the elements such as the foundation. He appreciates the applicant restoring the streetscape, it’s currently an interruption as a one-story building. Jeff said he likes the use of traditional elements. He said perhaps the fenestrations on the main living area could be made simpler. He said the light dividers don’t seem necessary. Tad Roemer said he thinks it’s a fantastic solution and a very handsome design; he said he wouldn’t change anything at all. He said there’s ornate detailing on the house a few doors down which helps to explain this design. The house really fits Saratoga. Tad said he likes that the porch reads as a sleeping porch. Tad said he would support the design right now as presented. Ellen Sheehan said Matt’s explanation showing where he got the context and elements for the design was very helpful. Her concern is it may end up looking faux historic, so hopefully that would be avoided. Ellen asked Matt if he could make the breezeway a single door. Matt said they were trying to make it balance visually because there’s a strong symmetry there. Ellen said it’s confusing as to which is the primary entrance. Tamie said the Preservation foundation submitted a letter and they had a concern about the illusion of two primary entrances. Matt said there will be a brick path that will only go to one door and landscaping that will detour you from that entrance. Chris Bennett said the weight of the enclosed porch seems to overwhelm the rest of the structure. Tamie said a rendering would be very helpful. Matt said he didn’t have enough turnaround time to do the rendering but they’re working on it. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the DRB has provided a lot of feedback for the applicant, especially concerning the weightiness and ornateness of the design. She said Matt City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 13 of 17 should share some of the concerns with his client and consider the board’s suggestions when returning with the renderings. 7. #20230392 New 5 Story Mixed-Use Development. 78 Church St Architectural Review of a new five-story mixed-use structure within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has been in front of the DRB before and have made some revisions to their last presentation. Libby Clark & George Olson presented for the applicant and talked about the project’s process to date. They worked on the height appropriateness with DRB, height bonus award with the planning board and are now in front of the DRB with the final proposed drawings for review for determination of significance (demo) and full architectural review (except for height per prior SEQRA approval). Libby said the DRB made several comments regarding the verticality of the building and the first floor. Libby showed slides of the street view. George presented the revised elevations in comparison to the past elevations:  Before the brick went all the way across. Now they have reinforced the center mass of the building.  Before the articulation of the first floor felt too low. Now from the street view they’ve elevated that section to make the first floor more prominent. Instead of the glass railing they’ve increased the steel and it’s now opaque. They boxed out underneath the columns to give them more weight. They doubled the columns at the edges of the building for more mass. They increased the brick pattern at the lower level and added a limestone water table and limestone bands above the second floor.  Regarding comments from DRB about no articulation – the windows were haphazard and didn’t relate to the rest of the façade. They have now established 3 separate entrances and the main retail space.  Second floor level – DRB comment that the brick wasn’t supported with the balcony being recessed. They added heavier steel.  DRB commented that the columns came down and ended at the sidewalk so they added concrete plinths underneath the columns. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it’s a huge improvement. She said they did a great job at the main entrance by detailing the arch and breaking up the entablature. Rob DuBoff said all the changes are for the better. He said he’s concerned about the cement panels they’re using as opposed to brick. George said it breaks it up so that it’s not just a massive brick building, gives it texture and detail. Rob said he questions the longevity and appropriateness of cement panels. Tamie Ehinger, Chair clarified with Amanda that she didn’t think the DRB could make a motion of the project tonight because the civic space has to be discussed with the planning board. Amanda said there’s nothing that says they can’t make a motion, but the planning board has not officially reviewed the project. She said there’s a cutout City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 14 of 17 area on the first floor that the applicant is proposing for civic space and that likely will be a big part of the discussion with the planning board. Amanda said she would encourage delaying the approval because a change in the civic space could impact the design of the building. She said it would be beneficial to the planning board for the DRB to provide insight into whether the design is appropriate and some feedback in that regard. Libby said they have to show civic space compliant with the code. Amanda said the DRB should comment on the civic space location and the design – railing on the first- floor level. Rob DuBoff said he does not support the civic space where it is and never has. “It’s ridiculous and should be taken out of the UDO.” He said he does support the design and it could easily become retail space. Leslie DiCarlo asked about the panels versus the clapboard on the building and why they weren’t using that all the way around the building. George said the scale as it turns around the building goes from commercial to residential which fits in better with the clapboard style buildings in the neighboring residential area. Leslie said the civic space is dark and not inviting. You would want to see activity there. Libby said that they have shown it with a statue and lights. It is also a combined entrance to the community board room to the right which is space that will be rented out and managed by the condo association. She said technically it’s private space for hire, it can be locked and secured. Civic space requires public gathering areas – no gate or locks leading to opportunities for crime. Libby said there are initiatives underway in the City to address the UDO issue which they will be discussing with the planning board tomorrow night. If the applicant can take advantage of those, they would also support retail space at that location. Amanda said the UDO currently allows them to provide civic space within a certain distance of the project. She said Susan Barden, City Planner said it’s possible they could make improvements to a small park that already exists in front of Franklin Square. Libby said the issue is that Franklin Square is not within the same block. Libby said if there’s a favorable interpretation to do that, they would be amenable. Jeff Gritsavage said they have addressed the DRB’s concerns very thoughtfully. He said the new building and materials makes it a very comforting building. Jeff said he’s prepared to advance the project. He said land use boards are around to fill in the gaps when something doesn’t work even though it was well intended such as this civic space at this location. He said he would prefer that space to be retail because it’s more appropriate. Tad Roemer thanked the applicant for responding to the DRB’s comments. He said the building has a much more dignified appearance. Tad asked about the finish under the loggia. George said it will be finished metal panel with an internal slope. Tad noted that it appears on the front of the building that the metal wants to be proud of the limestone squares. George said that is not the case, it just wasn’t pushed back in the drawing. He said the limestone box on the second floor will sit underneath the steel. Tad the windows on the west side there are 4 squares and then two smaller double-hung City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 15 of 17 windows. George said it will be the 4 squares not two over two. Tad clarified with George that there will be spandrel glass inside the entry door because the second floor is behind the transom. Tad asked if they could make the pier footings at the corner out of limestone. George said they prefer concrete because they detail them, and limestone gets too thick when detailed. Tad said the piers appear too big. George said it’s a better proportion when you look at the front elevation. Tad suggested for the community space they could mirror the lobby on the other side, enclose it and let it be a rentable room or increase the retail space. He added that civic space needs to be more prescriptive in the UDO. Ellen Sheehan said the design is very successful. She said the civic space is ominous. Asked if the cornice would be painted to be the same color as the painted metal on the fifth floor. George said yes, and the 5th floor is 95% glass windows and doors with some cement board panels around the side. Chris Bennett said the square panels are easier to repair than the clapboard and they lay flatter and look neater overall. The civic space doesn’t work in this context, doesn’t seem appropriate there. Ellen added that the void weakens the building. Tamie clarified that the mechanicals will be on the roof and will be screened and the heat pump system will be low to the ground. What about dryer vents and exhaust fans? George said they can go out the side or back, not through the brick, and also combine venting within the building and go up through the roof. Tamie said the DRB will need to see the vent location details and specific location of the mechanicals and the screening for their files. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said if the board is interested in moving forward this evening, she has noted the following conditions:  Details on the mechanicals, screening, vent locations.  Return for signage and lighting.  The civic space is not approved. To be determined. The DRB would encourage the planning board to allow the applicant to look at off-site locations for civic space because they feel that the current void weakens the building, and that as it’s presented now negatively affects the character of the new design. Amanda said once the planning board decides whether the civic space should be here or not, the applicant will still need to return to the DRB to approve the design. Amanda said she will pass along the DRB’s comments on the civic space to Susan who will relay that information to the planning board members for tomorrow night’s meeting. Amanda said the board can also give a preemptive advisory opinion to the PB. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that what Amanda had to say makes sense. Libby noted for the record that there is a famous case in NYC that used the phrase zoning purgatory, court of appeals decision Libby was not speaking into the mic so I couldn’t get the details. There’s potential for a conflict with no resolution. Amanda said they’re not there yet because the planning board hasn’t seen this yet for their review. Jeff noted that 395 Broadway was approved except for the stairs. Amanda said there is no City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 16 of 17 advantage to a DRB approval tonight because they can’t advance any further without planning approval. Amanda said she will relay the DRB’s comments to the PB about the civic space. Tamie asked Amanda to relay to the planning board that the DRB strongly encourages them to allow the applicant to do something with civic space off site even if it is not on the block. Amanda said another comment from the DRB was that the space should interact with the street. Tamie said she should add that the Design Review Board is very pleased with the design and was ready to move forward with an approval with the exception of the civic space. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Caravan Wednesday – No caravan DRB Meeting Wednesday, February 7, 2024 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss a motion to Adjourn at 10:04 p.m., was made by Rob DuBoff and seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. ALL IN FAVOR Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary APPROVED 2/7/2024 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 24, 2024 Page 17 of 17