Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 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, Jeff Gritsavage, Tad Roemer, Ellen Sheehan ABSENT: Karen Cavotta (Alternate), Kennedy Flack (Alternate) STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs, A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: A motion was made by Rob DuBoff and seconded by Leslie Sheehan to approve the January 24, 2024, meeting minutes. All 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. #20240042 67 West Ave., Adirondack Appliance Signage. Architectural Review of a freestanding sign placard replacement within the Neighborhood Center / T-5 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that there were two signs being proposed but they are eliminating the lower sign for now. The applicant will return to the DRB should they choose to move forward with the other sign. There were no questions or concerns from the board or the audience. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the application for the sign located at 67 West Ave. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20230992 140 Grand Ave. Partial Demolition and New Addition. Historic Review of proposed partial demolition of a significant structure within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board will be determining the demolition for the rear portion of the house only. The board will not be discussing the demolition for the middle portion because the applicant needs to provide the board with additional documentation before they can decide. Tamie said they will not be discussing the proposal itself because they need updated information prior to doing so. Tonight’s discussion will involve demolition and SEQRA review. Tamie said the rear portion was determined by the DRB to be insignificant regarding historical or architectural significance. Tamie asked if anyone on the board or audience had any comments or concerns about the demolition of the rear structure. Hearing none, Tamie said they would begin SEQRA review. 140 Grand Ave. 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. A motion was made by Tamie Ehinger to declare a Negative Declaration of environmental significance for partial residential demolition at 140 Grand Ave. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion carried. Tamie asked if anyone had any comments or concerns regarding the demolition of the rear portion of the structure. Rob asked the applicant if the demolition of the rear would begin now or after a determination is made regarding the middle section. He said he’s concerned about the middle section being damaged or compromised during the rear section demolition. Joe Snyder, the owner said he doesn’t have a concern about it being compromised. He said his brother and father are both contractors and they will shore it up, frame it in to make sure it doesn’t collapse. Chris Bennet asked if the siding was going to be removed all at once. Joe said it’s asbestos, so yes at least the back section. Chris said he’s curious about what’s underneath. Joe said they will probably be limited to just the back section for now. Joy King, a Saratoga Springs resident, said she had known the previous owners of 140 Grand Ave. for many years and was concerned about the demolition of this historic home. Tamie Ehinger said at this time only the rear portion of the home was determined to be historically insignificant and was approved for demolition. Joy said she’s concerned because it is a historical building, and she advocates keeping as many historical homes as possible in the city. She suggested maybe a historical marker could be added to the house, anything to maintain the value and the integrity of Saratoga Springs and the type of housing that existed. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 2 of 9 Tamie said the applicant has worked diligently with the city and is preserving the main structure of the house. A determination is pending regarding the historical significance of the middle section of the house. Joy said she was concerned that demolishing part of the building would compromise the rest and the whole building would have to be taken down. Joy came in late and missed the previous discussion about securing the middle section during demolition. A motion was made by Tamie Ehinger and seconded by Ellen Sheehan to approve the partial demolition, rear section, of 140 Grand Ave. as submitted this evening. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion carried. 2. #20230392 78 Church St. New 5 Story Mixed-Use Development. Architectural Review of a new five-story mixed-use structure within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant met with the planning board and their site plan and allowance for off-site civic space have been approved. Libby Clark & George Olson represented the applicant. Libby said the planning board and DPW agree with the civic space off-site, and a plan is in the works. George submitted revised elevations for the first floor. As the DRB suggested at the last meeting, they mirrored the space to what’s on the right of the building. George said it’s now more symmetrical on either side of the arch over the entryway/center. He said they decided not to put a door in the newly enclosed area and continued the storefront, like what’s on the right-hand side and tucked the entrance with a small vestibule for the community space in that storefront. George said the center section of the façade was not altered. Libby said there was discussion the last time before the DRB about the column base, lighting, mechanical screening, and venting details, that they would be issued as conditions to come back when the full set’s complete, either administratively or before the board. Tamie said as a group the board didn’t oppose what was presented at the last meeting, they just waited to see what the planning board decided on the civic space. She said mirroring what was done on the right side of the building was just what was suggested and makes perfect sense. Tamie said she has no concerns at all about moving the project forward this evening. She said the applicant will have to return for signage and suggested that the signage and other items Libby mentioned all be conditional. Rob DuBoff asked if the balustrades on the 3rd and 4th floor were glass enclosure systems. George said yes. Rob said he’s glad about the retail space, it’s far more appropriate. Jeff Gritsavage said he appreciates the applicant’s patience with this process with the new UDO. While civic space is important, the intent of the UDO is to have meaningful civic space. If the UDO were to be followed exactly you might have fragments of civic space that is not useful. Jeff suggested it might make more sense to consolidate the commercial space to the left side and have the community space near the entrance to the building. Especially since the community space would likely be used more often by City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 3 of 9 the residents. It would seem like it would add flexibility to the retail space. Jeff added that it was just a suggestion. Tad Roemer said he had similar thoughts to Jeff’s. Jeff suggested returning the limestone to meet the west side. George said it was a good suggestion and they would commit to that. George said regarding Jeff’s comments on the interior spaces, they’re basically vanilla boxes so they will likely shift around. Ellen Sheehan said the building is more balanced and reads more stable. A motion was made by Tad Roemer and seconded by Leslie DiCarlo to approve architectural review of 78 Church St. with the following conditions: return the limestone next to the community space entrance and return for mechanical screening, lighting, signage, and details on the venting. Discussion: Tad noted that there’s no cast stone – all limestone. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion carried. 3. #20240028 176 Lake Ave. Railing and Heat Pump System. Architectural Review of exterior modifications including rear deck railing replacement and a new heat pump system within the Urban Residential-3 District. TABLED 4. #20231041 153 Van Dam St. Addition and Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of a one-story side addition with deck and exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. Erin Maciel, owner of 153 Van Dam St. said they built a two-story rear addition and are now in phase 2 of the project. She said they wanted to replace the bay window but have been unable to get a contractor who will do it because of the rubber roof system. Erin said they gutted the room to see what the foundation setup was under the window. They discovered there is no foundation under that area. The house has been modified many times. Erin said it is their intent to restore it and bring it to some sense of continuity. Erin said they didn’t intend to do any work on the bay window area but when they put on the addition, they added an LVL beam across to hold the second floor and it had to be located there. Erin said they don’t want bump outs and want one continuous roof system. She said because of the new roof system they will have to remove some of the siding at the center space of the house. They want to add windows for more light coming in to the center of the house. Erin said renovations are expensive, so they were looking for a way to phase their project and make it look continuous. They would like to add a side room with a deck and side (slider) entry door. She said they would like to continue with the original façade and replicate the double hung windows. She said if they narrow the addition, it will bring it down to one window and wouldn’t have the same balance. Erin said they need more space in their house and to clean up the exterior – paint it all one color, etc. Tamie Ehinger said the materials, fiber cement for the exterior cladding and the Fibrex windows, were approved materials by the DRB for the addition several years ago and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 4 of 9 they are looking to match those products. Tamie said she feels the materials being proposed are appropriate and continuity with materials is very important. She has no concerns about the windows or exterior cladding. Tamie said the window configuration lacks consistency and she recommended one more like what’s on the original house versus the ornate configuration they’re showing. Erin clarified that they should and will remove the grills, no casement windows and use a double hung window. Ellen Sheehan said she agreed with Tamie that the windows should be double hung. She asked if the small windows were awning or fixed over the roof of the addition. Erin said they would slide open. It’s a double hung window that they will install horizontally and will slide open with a screen. Erin said they need to get air in there. Ellen thought an awning window would be more appropriate. Ellen said what the applicant is proposing cleans up the side of the house nicely. Jeff Gritsavage disclosed that he lives within 500 ft. but not within 100 ft. of this project. Jeff said the casement windows on the front would not look good when they’re swung open with the light dividers. Double-hung windows are appropriate. Jeff suggested hopper windows instead of awning and no light divider. Jeff told Erin she can get windows made whatever size she wants. He said they’re all handmade so she can get the proportion she needs. Jeff said with the comments that have been mentioned incorporated into the project, he doesn’t feel it’s inappropriate. Leslie DiCarlo asked if there had been a window in the bump out. Erin said there was a window in the middle that had to be removed to create the column for the LVL in the interior. She said the two windows on either side with the grills are historic originals. She said the one they removed for the LVL was an old metal window. Leslie said it looks like there’s a window missing. Rob DuBoff said he agrees with what’s been said, especially regarding the casement windows. He said it wouldn’t be necessary to match the windows on the lower-level front of the house. By matching the windows upstairs on the front of the house would potentially be more appropriate than trying to match the height of the windows (were French doors) on the lower front. It would be more appropriate to have them mimic what’s above. Rob said people don’t typically use sliders as entry doors. They install them for that reason and then don’t use them. Rob suggested an entry door instead. There was also discussion about removing the bay window which Erin said they would consider. Rob said he would not support Trex decking, it would have to be wood. He said the DRB encourages the use of natural materials on historic houses. Tad Roemer added that if they’re going to match the windows on the front of the addition to the front of the house, that they match them all the way around the addition. Chris Bennett said he thinks the addition enhances the house. Chris said he likes Rob’s suggestion about the size of the windows but doesn’t object to what’s been presented. They do have to be double hung windows without the light dividers. The installation of the small awning windows will be important because there will be snow City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 5 of 9 and ice on the roof that could cause leaking issues. Chris agrees with a natural wood versus Trex and said the costs are similar. The deck area will be covered, so weathering shouldn’t be an issue. Removing the bay window was just a suggestion to clean up the façade. It would also give more room on the deck. Chris suggested a single-entry door or atrium door instead of a sliding glass door. Chris said he would try to replicate what’s under the aluminum siding when they do their addition so that in the future when they do more renovations, they will have continuity. Chris said the casings on the windows should be about a 4” flat stock that goes around with a head casing, and a faux windowsill. Chris said the exterior trim around the windows should be the same as what’s on the main house in the front. He said the detailing on the plan is muddled so he’s not sure what they’re doing for facia or soffits. The roof is almost flat and he’s assuming they’re using EDPM. Erin said EDPM or standing seam if they can make the angle. Chris said there are other options to rubber. Tamie clarified that Chris is looking for more details on the trim, facia, and soffits. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the project. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said they would not be opposed to the bay window being removed so the width of the addition could be reduced and maybe go further back. It would clean up the whole side. The small slider windows would not be appropriate. Samantha suggested a simpler porch post than a fluted column that matches the front of the house. It should be a statement of its time as a newer addition. Samantha suggested a Chamfered square post or something simple. She said the fluted posts should only be in the front of the house because that’s where they were originally. Samantha said more details would be very helpful. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it’s a great project and it will be nice to see it cleaned up and simplified. She noted the following comments for the applicant to consider when returning before the board: • The windows in the front are double hung, not casement. • The window configuration should be simplified to a one over one. • The 3 side windows that are currently sliders be reconsidered. Awning windows properly installed were suggested. • Wood decking vs Trex. • More detailing on the roofing – whether it’s EDPM, etc. • Window trim detail to match the front. • Provide elevations that show more detail about what’s happening with the trim. • A simplified column on the addition. Tad Roemer noted that screens on double hung windows ruin the look. No suggestions but wanted to mention it. Chris said you can order half screens – might be more appropriate. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 6 of 9 5. #20231035 431-433 Broadway Infrared Heaters. Historic Review of new wall mounted infrared heaters within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Rob Duboff recused himself because the applicant is the landlord of his office space. Vinnie DiMartino, part owner of 431-433 Broadway. Vinnie said they struggle with maintaining the alley, especially in the winter. The guy he hired quit, and they’ve had trouble finding someone to replace him. Vinnie said he met with someone from the City in May (Joe O’Neil) to get some help maintaining the alley because it’s such a busy artery for the city. Vinnie said one of the solutions he came up with was to use infrared heat to both remove the snow and keep ice from forming and keep pedestrians safe. Vinnie said he was not aware that installing electrical devices required DRB approval, so that’s why he’s present tonight. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked the board, with all due respect to the applicant, to think about whether installing infrared devices is a solution to having a hard time finding someone to clear the sidewalk. Tamie clarified that it’s the applicant’s responsibility as an owner, not DPW to keep the sidewalk clear. Vinnie agreed that it is his responsibility but pointed out that snow, rain, and ice are unpredictable so it’s difficult to have someone on call 24/7. Vinnie said this equipment is installed on Broadway, specifically on the Adelphi. Tamie said yes, that’s for heating their exterior tables. Tamie said the lights are highly visible and at varying heights. If they were installed at a more consistent level, they might be less intrusive. Ellen Sheehan agreed that this is a tough situation - it’s competing values. It’s a public safety issue and the owner’s responsibility to keep the sidewalk clear, and then there’s the aesthetic component. Ellen agreed with Tamie regarding the placement of the heaters, they need a more regular height and pattern. Vinnie said they can adjust the locations. George Olson said he spoke with Vinnie about doing an elevation of the lights to locate them more sensitively. George said they can be moved without destroying the brick. George said they could be put in the bays. Tamie asked if it was their intent to remove them in the summer and only leave them up in the winter. Vinnie said he wasn’t sure how easy it is to disconnect them. Tad Roemer clarified that it’s private property that has to be open to the public. Vinnie said there was an easement given to the city and to the building next door. Tad said he likes George’s idea to do the elevation. Tad said he’s sympathetic to finding someone to shovel on demand. Vinnie said most of the people he interviewed walk away because there’s no place to push the snow. Jeff Gritsavage said he’s opposed to having the sconces on the brick. He said if they were in the bays and not on the pilaster it wouldn’t be so obvious. Jeff suggested not putting a light on the brick arch facing Broadway because it’s not visually acceptable. He said they could set the heaters in the bays along the alleyway - not on the pilasters. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 7 of 9 Leslie DiCarlo said she would like to see a sketch of the placement of the heaters. Chris Bennett agreed with Leslie that he would like to see a drawing. Tamie Ehinger asked if there was any concern with people warming under there – loitering. Vinnie said they would contact the authorities if necessary. Tamie asked the applicant to come back with a schematic showing the exact location and height of each of the lamps. 6. #20221040 120 South Broadway, New Multi-Family Development. Architectural Review of proposed re-development of multi-family residential units (rear buildings, 1,2 and 5) within the T-5/ NC District in an Architectural Review District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the DRB has spent a lot of time with this property. They approved the front two structures, and the applicant is now presenting the rear three structures for approval. Brian Ragone, Landscape Architect with Environmental Design Partnership. Brian is filling in for Steve Mackenzie who is ill. Brian said the site is about 2.5 acres and they are proposing two buildings in the rear on either side of a community building. He said one change is that the entrances on the western side of buildings 1 and 2 will have interior garage parking. Brian showed renderings of buildings 3 and 4 that were previously approved and said buildings 1 and 2 will be the same approved materials. Brian showed a perspective rendering of the structure for the community building with a pyramidal type of metal roof. He said that was purposefully done to have an attractive appearance looking from above in the adjacent buildings. The mechanical units are enclosed on the roofs of buildings 1 and 2 to keep them out of view. There will be a 4’ wall or fence around those units. Parking is proposed to be screened with composite decking and screening. Brian said the community building will have standing seam metal panels for the walls and roof with the same brick, window type and entrance as the other buildings. The gazebo structure will remain. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it’s very successful. The look and feel are the same as the previously approved buildings. She questioned the use of composite decking and screening. Tamie suggested said if they were to move forward with that material it should be painted or purchased black so that it blends in better. Chris Bennett interjected that they should just go with a black aluminum product. He said painting a synthetic material isn’t going to last. Leslie DiCarlo asked to see an elevation of the community building because it’s going to be very visible from the street. Jeff Gritsavage said he would not paint Trex, they should pick a color and purchase it that way. He agreed with Chris that anodized aluminum would be best. Jeff disagreed that the community building was that visible from Broadway because you would have to look down the street between the buildings to see it. Jeff said he is prepared to advance the project. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 8 of 9 Tad Roemer said he’s good with the community building with the landscaping around it. Ellen Sheehan said she agrees with Chris about the aluminum screening and Leslie’s comment about getting elevations for the community center from the applicant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the architectural review of buildings 1, 2 & 5 located at 120 S. Broadway, Saratoga Springs with the following conditions: the applicant return with details (aesthetics) of the community building (5) and for approval of such; the parking screening material should be black anodized aluminum. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion carried. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Caravan Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. DRB Meeting February 28, 2024 MOTION TO ADJOURN: A motion to Adjourn was made by Rob DuBoff and seconded by Tad Roemer. ALL IN FAVOR There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary APPROVED 2/28/2024 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 7, 2024 - Page 9 of 9