Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DRAFT (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 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, Jeff Gritsavage, Tad Roemer, Ellen Sheehan ABSENT: Leslie DiCarlo, 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 Ellen Sheehan to approve the February 7, 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. #20240049 282 Ballston Ave. Egress Windows. #9 Architectural Review of rear egress windows. 2. #20240079 NBT Insurance Wall Sign 295 Broadway. Historic Review of a new wall sign within the Urban Core / T-6 District. 3. #20231035 431-433 Broadway Infrared Heaters. Historic Review of new wall mounted infrared heaters within the Urban Core / T-6 District. 4. #20240073 Studio A Freestanding Sign 74 Warren. Architectural Review of a new freestanding sign within the Neighborhood Center / T-5 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the consent agenda items #20240049 282 Ballston Ave., #20240079 NBT Insurance, & #20240073 Studio A. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the consent agenda item #20231035, 431-433 Broadway. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-N, E. Sheehan-Y. 4-1, motion carried. Rob DuBoff abstained after recusing himself. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20240028 176 Lake 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. Randall Williams, owner. Randall said he is seeking approval to replace the treated lumber railing and install a condenser unit on the back of the building, the second-floor deck area. Randall said the deck is old and structurally unsound. He said they are also having problems with the rubber roof above the deck, and it needs to be replaced. He said they are looking to put a new air conditioning unit with heat on the second floor, and showed a sketch of where the condenser unit will be located. Randall said all the work will be done at the back of the building. He said the railing will be white, which compliments the house and provides the most structural support posts that they could get. Tamie asked where the conduit and venting would be located. Randall said it will come down to the right of the unit as shown in the photo and the conduit will be covered with a white service unit. The condenser will be located on the house about 18” above the roof (deck floor) to the right of the chimney. Tamie said vinyl is not a product that she would typically approve of, especially in the architectural or historic districts. She said she doesn’t have any concerns about the location of the condenser or conduit because it’s in the rear of the building and there is zero visibility from the street. The same with the vinyl railing, Tamie feels it’s not inappropriate enough to deny the application. Ellen said she agrees with Tamie. Vinyl can get mold and mildew and be tricky to repair because it needs to be done in sections. She said a different material might serve him better. Ellen said if they choose to move forward with the vinyl, it’s fine because it’s located in the back of the house. Randall said he chose the white vinyl railing because it comes with a very solid structural post. He said rubber roofing membranes don’t stick to wood products. Randall explained how the deck railing will be reassembled giving additional strength to the deck. Tad said he doesn’t object because it’s not an historic building and it’s at the rear of the structure. Jeff said the condenser and railing will not be a visual impediment to Lake Ave. and suggested they minimize the run for the conduit by the placement of the unit to make it look better. Jeff said he would never use vinyl, but white is most appropriate because it won’t fade. Chris clarified that the applicant will be putting on a new rubber roof which will be the deck. He asked if the applicant had considered Premier Rail, a fiberglass system. Randall said he only considered it in the structural means of the post fastening. He said City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 2 of 13 the other reason he didn’t consider it for the railing is that there are vinyl corners and vinyl post sleeves match the same material on the front of the building. Chris agreed with the other board members about the vinyl and it being on the back of the house. Tamie asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment on the application. There were no comments. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: Locate the unit to minimize the length of conduit; the vinyl must be white in color. The motion was seconded by Tad Roemer. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-N, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 5-1, motion carried. 2. #20240029 130 Regent St. Window Replacement. Historic Review of select window replacement within the Institutional Education District. Gillian Staniforth, Owner. Gillian said her and her husband purchased the unit in 2021. She said she’s retiring from her job in Vermont, and they will be moving here in the near future. Gillian said there is a large arched opening on the back of the building where bats have come in and there have been leakages, and they are not able to open and close the windows. There are two smaller windows in the bedroom section that have rot and decay and the sash cords within them are broken. They do not open and close easily. Gillian said the large arched window was a carriage house door that opened outward at one time. The house was built in 1903. She said the archway has been painted and sealed shut. Gillian said because the windows are single pane and on the second floor, they’re unsafe. Plexiglass has been placed over the arched window as a full-length barrier to keep people from going through the opening. Gillian said they are proposing to have the smaller windows fixed. She said she contacted people who do historic restoration, and none were willing to take on the job. Gillian said she contacted Renewal by Andersen to see what they could do. She said the two smaller windows have vinyl storm windows that are warped and don’t function well. Gillian said the large arched window is peeling and rotted. Some of the wooden pieces around the panes have fallen off. Gillian said in working with Andersen they have come up with a solution. The arch would look the same and the material they would use is wood reinforced with polymer. There would be a large arched window at the top that would meet a sliding window on the bottom that would be operable. Gillian said it would function differently because it wouldn’t be doors or open outward but look the same as it does now. Gillian said they are looking to preserve the architecture of the building. She showed a photo of a railing that has been placed in front of the archway on the interior for safety reasons. Gillian said she’s hoping for a solution that allows them to preserve the aesthetic, increase the efficiency, and for the windows to be operable; that would be an ideal outcome for her as the owner and person who will be living there. Tamie Ehinger, Chair clarified that the smaller windows are wood not vinyl but have vinyl storms on them. Tamie noted the historic standards regarding window replacement. Preserve rather than remove: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 3 of 13  • Distinguishing the original features of a structure or site is essential to the historic quality and character of that site. • Distinguishing original qualities or character of a structure, site and/or its environment must be preserved and protected to the maximum extent possible. • Destruction or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided. Repair rather than replace: • Distinctive architectural features that characterize a structure or site must be repaired whenever possible. • If replacement is necessary the replacement should match the original in composition, design, color, texture, and all other visual qualities. Tamie said historic windows are a character defining feature of a historic home. She said it will need to be determined whether the windows are damaged beyond repair. If they are, then appropriate replacement materials could be discussed at that time. Tamie said there’s not enough documentation at this time to determine if the windows are damaged beyond repair. Tamie added that it would be rare for a window to not be repairable. If the windows are allowed to be replaced, they must be replaced in kind. Gillian said she has been unsuccessful in finding someone with historic preservation knowledge to repair the windows because of the condition. Tamie said that most historic windows that need repair have broken ropes, and most are sealed but they can be repaired. Tamie recognized that it is hard to find someone to do that work. Chris Bennett said he knows the property and it’s beautiful. He said there are two separate issues going on; the 2 double hung windows with the ropes can be repaired; the arch doors have metal plates holding them together, so the issue is more complex. Chris said if she replaces the smaller windows with the proposed Fibrex window it will change the look of the outside of the building. Chris said if they were making a new arched doorway the board would need a layout of where the grill patterns are and how it's all going to work. Chris said what Gillian proposed with the separate arch and bottom slider will not look the same. Rob DuBoff agreed with Chris about the double hung windows. Rob said the board is just looking at the photos of the windows for the first time tonight. He said you can see that the arch window has some structural issues and it likely was not a good design to begin with. Rob said the board will need to see exactly what they are proposing for the arched window. The arched window is a defining architectural feature of the property. Gillian asked if a sliding window is a bad thing. Rob said it’s not appropriate for this building. Rob said to fix the arch window, the glass would need to be taken out, pulled apart where there are seams and glued back together. He said he’s not even sure that they could get it back to functioning properly. Chris added that it could be replicated. Tamie said this is one unit in a building and none of the other windows have been replaced and they shouldn’t be based on historic standards. Jeff said what is being proposed is a half round window with a slider underneath. Jeff said one window will be in front of the other for it to slide, so it won’t look the same. He said what has been presented is not adequate for him to go ahead with this application. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 4 of 13 Jeff said the property is gorgeous and the window is a character defining feature that needs to be repaired. Tad Roemer said he’s on board with everyone else that the window should be repaired or replaced in kind. Ellen Sheehan noted that Chris and Rob are experts in windows and their opinion that the window would need to be repaired is likely correct. She said if it needs to be replaced, then a slider wouldn’t work. Ellen said Gillian could get casement windows that open at the top where the window is arched and fixed on the bottom. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. Samantha said the photos are helpful in understanding the condition of the windows. She agreed with the board that the double hung windows do not look beyond repair. Samantha researched the property and had a photo that showed that historically there were barn doors that opened inward with a solid bottom panel on the carriage door. Tamie suggested that the applicant work with the Preservation Foundation to come up with some designs for replacement of the arched doors/window and come back in two weeks. She said the DRB is very willing to work with Gillian to come up with a solution. Amanda said that the applicant can submit to her whatever she would like to revise based on tonight’s discussion and she will place Gillian on a future agenda when she’s ready. Tamie added that the applicant should come back with all of the details she can possibly provide so they can make an informed decision. 3. #20240051 Clancy's Rear Addition 43 Caroline St. Architectural Review of a 1-story rear addition within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes Unlimited. Bob showed slides of property location, site plan and Bob said the existing building is 72’ long by 20’ wide and there’s an existing alley between Trotters and Clancy’s Tavern that is 6’ +- wide and that is the only access to the rear of the property. Bob said the front of Clancy’s is brick veneer and the remainder of the building is cinder block (CMU). Bob noted the new 30 ft. building in the photo at the rear of Clancy’s. Bob said they can build right up to the lot line which is 10 ft. for the proposed addition. The applicant is proposing to put a kitchen at the back of the building. Bob said he will be moving an exit door (on the right of the building) forward about 2 ft. so that people will not have to go through the kitchen to egress. Bob said initially they were going to continue with cinder blocks on the exterior, with footings but decided they wouldn’t be able to get concrete and equipment back there. They’ve designed the addition on piers with Sonotubes and a wood frame structure with a one- hour fire rating. They are proposing fiber cement material that will be flush with the existing cinder block. The building is 14 ft. high and steps down about 2 ft. The roof drainage comes forward. The 10 ft. addition will drain onto the existing roof. He said the bulk of the building is 12’ 9” high. Bob said the fiber cement panels are 4’ x 10’ that he will run horizontally as opposed to vertically. He said there’s an aluminum flashing system about an inch and a half wide. Bob said the vertical strips are 2.5” battens. Bob showed photos of the existing condition at the rear of Clancy’s. They will be removing the steps and railing at the back of the building. Bob said the existing floor elevation to City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 5 of 13 the ground measures approximately 21”. He said once the addition is completed skirting won’t be necessary because there will be less than a foot exposed. Rob asked what the distance was between Bonacio’s building and the new addition. Bob said Bonacio’s is not built to the property line and Clancy’s will be built to theirs, so about a foot. The panels will be color matched to the cinder blocks. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this addition will not be visible and won’t negatively affect the character of the neighborhood. Tamie said in this instance she has no concern about the cement board panels but installation is key to longevity. She suggested they use a skirt board in the back to keep small animals from living under there but will leave that up to the applicant. Tamie asked about any mechanicals that may be located there. Bob said there will be an Ansul hood that will come up about 1.5’ out of the roof. They will place it about 10’ away so they won’t need a safety rail. Bob said it’s not a serviceable item. Tamie said she would like to see details on that venting. Jeff Gritsavage asked about the existing windows on the back and if that will be the service window. Bob said the wall will be pushed two feet forward into the bar and a new service window will be put in. Jeff said that expanding food offerings in pubs is the direction the city wants to go. Jeff said he is ready to advance the application with the details of the Ansul hood being administratively approved. Rob DuBoff has concerns with the addition being built so close to the property line and Bonacio’s property, especially with drainage. Rob suggested the applicant have a conversation with Bonacio about that. Rob asked that the applicant submit a site plan showing exact dimensions of where Bonacio’s building sits versus Clancy’s property line. Tamie asked if it would be possible to pull the addition back another foot to take care of maintenance issues, etc. Bob said they will look at pulling it back one foot. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked that the applicant submit details regarding the Ansul system and moving the addition back from the lot line one foot, the board will review it and place them on the consent agenda for the next meeting. 4. #20240054 128, 132 Washington Garage Demolition. Determination of Historic/Architectural Significance for an existing residential accessory structure and discussion regarding proposed new additions within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the DRB looks at the demolition of a structure that could possibly be historic. They need to determine if it has any historical or architectural significance, and that will be all the board will determine today. She said based on that determination it will allow the city to put up the required posting which will include the determination. After it’s posted for two weeks the applicant can return and the board can have further discussion about the demolition if it has been determined not historically significant. If it is historically significant, that would be included on the posting and the applicant would return for more discussion. Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture represented the applicant. Sue said they are proposing to demolish a CMU block, two-car garage, that was constructed in the 1950’s and is non-compliant as it is slightly off the property line. The house is on the corner of City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 6 of 13 Beekman and Washington and faces Washington. The garage is to the rear left of the property, partially on the neighbor’s property. Sue said she has contacted Samantha at the Foundation and gotten some Sanborn maps to reference. Sue displayed photos of the interior of the garage that showed mold or mildew, sagging over the garage doors and that the structure is very close to the property fence and in the back as well. Sue showed the Sanborn map circa 1950’s and 1895. The 1895 map shows a larger attached structure that goes out toward Beekman. There is nothing going back to 1852 that indicates that the garage structure was there as it stands today. Sue said it would make it easier for the applicant to move forward by showing that they don’t believe it’s historical and being allowed to remove it. Sue said structurally it is compromised with water damage and rodents that have gotten in. Tamie reiterated that they are determining historical and/or architectural significance at this point and not the condition of the building. Tamie said she does not see any architectural significance to the structure. Tamie said in looking at the historic significance, the DRB looks at the age of the building, if a significant historic event took place there, or if an historical figure lived there. Tamie said even though the building has been there a long time, she does not find it to be historically significant. Ellen agreed with Tamie that there was no historical or architectural significance. Tad, Jeff, Rob and Chris agreed with Tamie and Ellen. Tamie said the posting can be made that the structure is not historically or architecturally significant and the applicant can return to discuss the demolition. Tamie asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the structure at 128, 132 Washington St. does not have historical and/or architectural significance. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Lori Sames, applicant for 128, 132 Wahington asked what the DRB will need to know with regard to the demolition of the garage. Tamie said because it was found insignificant, they won’t need anything from the applicant in that regard. 5. #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 reminded the board that the middle portion of this structure was found to be historically significant. She said the applicant was asked to provide the DRB with good faith documentation involving 5 criteria. The applicant must: 1. Document good faith efforts in seeking an alternative that will result in the preservation of the structure, including consulting with the DRB and Preservation Foundation. Joe said when he purchased the property it had been on the market for 2 years and was a mess. He said a structural engineer assessed the building City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 7 of 13  and said it was significantly compromised and recommended tearing down the middle section of the structure and building it up from the foundation which was deemed good. 2. Document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. 3. Demonstrate that the structure cannot be adapted for any other permitted use (middle addition). 4. Submit evidence that the property is not capable of earning a reasonable return. 5. Must include post demolition plans for the site. Tamie said there needs to be a public hearing. Joe Snyder, Owner. Joe said he is looking to demolish and rebuild the middle section of 140 Grand Ave. to reflect the Greek Revival style. Joe said the middle section was likely built in 1866, but they discerned after visiting the site that it doesn’t reflect the Greek revival style and that the integrity has been compromised over the years with vinyl siding and replacement windows that are not located in the original places. Joe said he attempted to get the building inspector out to the property, but two appointments were canceled, and the building inspector had Covid for the third attempt and scheduled visit. Joe said he has a report from a structural engineer which he has submitted. He made the following points regarding the demolition of the middle section: • When he purchased the property, it had been on the market for 2 years and was a mess. He said a structural engineer assessed the building and said it was significantly compromised and recommended tearing down the middle section of the structure and building it up from the foundation, which was deemed good. • Water intrusion – extensive water damage. Leaking was observed at the roofs, windowsills, waterlogged spray foam ceiling, moisture being retained at high levels within the framing, walls, roof sheeting and rafters. Wood decay throughout which is further compromising the structural integrity of the building. Molds were tested and there are at least two types present and possibly up to four. • Chimney failures – compromised flashing, deteriorated brick, broken mortar bonds, damaged stucco covering and missing a support leg on the first floor. • Window failures – all the windows are vinyl replacement windows which were put in without permission and not vertically aligned. • Insulation flaws – the window framing lacks the essential components like headers, jacks, kings, and cripples. Improper bearing and point loads on the window frames. • Structural framing and bearing wall concerns – critical failures in the bearing walls: cracked joists, notched beams at every joist connection, a beam improperly bearing on a notched stud. The bearing walls are made up of mis- aligned pieces and non-continuous point loads. • Infeasibility of retention or relocation – wouldn’t be practical due to the deterioration of the building. Joe said he spoke with and presented a document from someone from NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and they said it looked like many things were done City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 8 of 13 without permission, including the porch. He said the load bearing wall is between the porch and main structure. Joe said he intends to remove the asbestos siding which is underneath the vinyl. The document shows that the porch and windows were replaced after 1973. Joe said the issues that were cited in the structural engineering report are as follows: • Extensive wood decay in the wall and roof framing. • Undersized framing members. Highly unconventional and unsound framing practices. Joe said it was noted that even for its time it was not built properly. • Many joists are undersized, bowed, split, cracked, and have smaller wood pieces attached to them. • Several beams supporting the second floor are undersized, bowed, and damaged. • Recommended demolition of the middle section and rebuilding on the foundation. Joe showed the water damage readings, mold sample tests with positive results and photos of the windows. Tamie said she was incredibly impressed with the amount of good faith documentation the applicant provided, especially considering it’s a middle addition to a building and not an entire structure. Tamie Ehinger, Chair opened the floor for public comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. Samantha said with all of the good faith documentation that has been provided by the applicant, the Foundation does not object to the demolition of the middle portion of the structure. Samantha said that Joy King, who spoke at the last meeting, asked her to relay that she has reviewed and supports their project. Paul Trimble, 139 Grand said he is in full support of the project. Tamie said she strongly feels the applicant has demonstrated good cause as to why the middle portion of the structure cannot be preserved and should be demolished. Tamie asked the other board members to state their opinions on the demolition. Chris agreed with Tamie and said “it’s a mess. Rob feels the applicant has more than demonstrated that this part of the structure cannot be maintained. Jeff noted that the middle section of the house was added later and didn’t follow the Greek revival style. Jeff said there’s mold in the middle section and there’s likely mold in the main structure that will have to be mitigated. Jeff said the front and middle section are over the property line so if the applicant wants to rebuild the middle section there are committees who will decide where he can build. The applicant said he’ll be keeping the original foundation. Jeff agrees that the middle section needs structural repair but, in his opinion, everything can be repaired. Tad and Ellen agreed with the demolition of the middle section. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 9 of 13 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the Design Review Board issued a negative declaration of environmental impact regarding partial demolition at 140 Grand Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY on February 7, 2024. The Design Review Board has reviewed all new materials submitted and found that there are no new or different impacts that were not previously considered and made a motion to reaffirm the negative declaration of environmental impact. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the demolition of middle section #2 as submitted in the previously attached plans. The motion was seconded by Tad Roemer. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 5-1, Motion carried. 6. #20240050 Tree House Brewing New Development 3376 S. Broadway. Architectural Review of a new commercial development of a vacant property within the Gateway Rural Commercial District. John Cannie, Attorney represented the applicant, Tree House Brewing Company. John was joined by Stan Kubinski & Joe Vecchione, Bergmeyer and Steve Wilson, civil & landscape architect, Bohler. Also present, Sarah Maggi Morin, Chief Growth Officer for Tree House Brewing. John presented a project narrative: • Seeking to construct a facility for micro-production of alcohol and eating and drinking. • 3376 Broadway has been unused since 2013. It was previously Murphy’s driving range and is now a vacant lot with trees on the northern, southern, and eastern borders. They are proposing to construct a primary structure housing a brewery, kitchen, indoor dining, retail & off premises distribution. They are proposing accessory structures for on-premises patrons in a campus-like outdoor setting. • UDO compliant, sufficient off-street parking, no variances, on-site traffic circulation with 2 curb cuts. John said Tree House is the largest direct to consumer on-site brewery in the country. It will bring more craft beer tourism to Saratoga and build up the local craft beer economy. John said their proposal works within the comprehensive plan – specialty mixed-use parkland designation, focusing on the outdoor elements. They anticipate 60+ jobs at Tree House and 35 ancillary jobs. The project is compatible with the neighbors’ commercial use to the north and south. Four Winds, east of the project, has issued a letter of support for the project which has been presented to the planning board. John said the planning board has issued a negative declaration under SEQRA and issued a special use permit for the outdoor dining with minimal conditions. John said DOT has given them a preliminary curb cut approval for the right-of-way improvements and been in discussion with DPW regarding sewer and water and they have been approved. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 10 of 13 John said they are seeking architectural review from the DRB, site plan approval from the planning board, building permit from the building department, and licensing from the City for the restaurant and the state liquor authority. Stan Kubinski & Joe Vecchione, Bergmeyer presented a video of a “walk around” the proposed project. The porte co·chère has been removed and they added glazing on the front to mimic what they have at the rear of the structure so that both entrances are primary. There were 3 outdoor structures, they removed one the one closer to Four Winds. They’ve added rich woods everywhere that the public engages the building. The campus setting is in the rear. Stan showed still slides of the project including the proposed monument sign. Tamie Ehinger, Chair explained that the DRB’s job is to look at the project and make sure that it meets the city’s standards and guidelines for the architectural review district to include: height, proportion, mass & scale, contextual appropriateness (how the structure relates to neighboring structures and to the neighborhood in general), street orientation, directional expression, fenestration (rhythm of doors & windows), articulation, pedestrian engagement, etc. Tamie said the board specifically looks at street orientation, main entrances, and pedestrian friendliness. Tamie said the materials that they are proposing are incredibly good and appropriate – the wood and agricultural feel really fits in with the comprehensive plan for the city is very successful. Tamie said she still has concerns about the front entrance because it still doesn’t look like a main entrance because it’s so far back from the street. It lacks pedestrian engagement, and she wonders if that’s appropriate. She asked the applicant to consider how many parking spots they need at the front of the building based on the function of what that’s meant to be. Stan said based on planning board comments they reworked the front – reduced the parking and pulled it back. Stan said the curb cut is based on comments from DOT. Tamie asked if the stormwater area would be fenced in. Steve Wilson, Bohler said it would have a split rail fence with a chain link on the inside so that it has aesthetics but keeps people out. Tamie said the board will need to see details on that moving forward. Rob DuBoff noted that the hotel and Honda dealer both have parking at the front of the structures so it’s difficult to ask that the parking be limited in front. Rob said ideally the parking is not in front, it’s more wooded and the building is closer to the street. Rob asked about the monument sign. Stan said it will be halo lit, like a silhouette. Rob asked about the “can cooler” and will it be seen. Stan said there’s a partition/finished wall in front of it that will hide it. Rob asked about the proposed vinyl fencing #22 on the landscape site plan. Stan said it’s over by the Honda dealer and more of a screening with Four Winds. It will match what is already there between Four Winds and the Honda dealership. Chris Bennett agrees with Tamie about the parking out front. He said the applicant is tasked with softening the front to make it look more like a front entrance. Chris feels by removing the porte co·chère they’ve lost some of the woody elements at the front entrance making it look more industrial. Chris suggested bringing more wood into the front of the building, making it more inviting to pedestrians. Tamie suggested that they bring some of the porch architecture to the front of the building. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 11 of 13 Jeff Gritsavage said he doesn’t find the stormwater management area appropriate the way it will look. Jeff said there are technical solutions such as sub-surface detention under the pavement which would cost more but would look better. If they are using chain link fencing it has to be the black vinyl wrapped product, not galvanized. Jeff said he doesn’t think the bike parking is in the right place because most people biking to the Tree House will be coming from the north and will have to go past the pub to get to the bicycle parking. He suggested maybe putting the bike parking in the front and replace some of the car parking out there. Jeff said some of the stuff at the back of the building – loading dock, transformer, dumpster corral, need to be consolidated into one service cord. Jeff said there should be some sort of circulation for larger mass transit vehicles like the trolly bus and limo buses. Tad Roemer said he preferred the previous rendering with the porte co·chère on the front of the building. He said it looks very industrial now. It looks dark. Maybe they could incorporate more wood on the outside. Tad noted that the sign on the side of the building seemed very large. Amanda said it’s based on linear feet and they may be fine with the size proposed. There was a discussion about the function of the front entrance. Sarah Maggi Morin said there are two different streams of business at Tree House – beverages to go where you order ahead, pull into a parking space and an employee brings your order to your car or sit and enjoy in a park-like setting, eat pizza, have a few beers and shop in the retail store. Sarah said it’s a totally different logistical matter and the reason why they have separate operations in different parts of the campuses. Tad said he likes the bike path and all the trees in the front. The trees are a very important element in the design. Ellen Sheehan asked about the roof. In the rendering it appears to be black, but it says in the narrative that it’s a “black metal standing seam roof with dark grey, insulated metal panels on the recessed wings to the north and south”. Stan said it’s charcoal grey and black – two different products and materials. The applicant brought samples. Where there is no wood it will be black steel. Ellen said the applicant described wood in the overhangs at the entrances but in the narrative, it says it’s a “fully glazed curtain wall façade with aluminum wood look clad overhangs”. The applicant said they’ve had wood at other campuses and the sun turns it black in some places and bleaches it out in others. They’ve had to remove and replace it. The product they are proposing has the look and feel of wood year-round. Ellen asked if the glass was clear or tinted. The applicant showed the board a sample. Ellen asked that they explain the “Adirondack” influence in their design. Stan said the “agrarian” structure and every place where they’ve added wood. Stan said the two pavilions are very “camp” like and the style of furniture adds to the Adirondack feel. Sarah spoke about the connection with the arts and history with Saratoga Springs and how it relates to Tree House. Ellen asked about the distance the building is set back from the street and how it compares to the hotel and Saratoga Honda. They are closer than the Honda dealership and further back than the hotel. Ellen said the parking in the front reads like the Honda dealership. It would be nice if the parking were not in the front. She feels the design is successful, but they could soften it a bit, maybe bring in more wood. Tamie said looking at the rendering of the front of the building without the trees the wall to the left is a solid wall. Could they do something to break that up? Chris agreed it City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 12 of 13 would be helpful to soften the wings and take away the industrial look. The applicant said they will come up with some solutions for that. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it appears that everyone is very excited about this project. She said it’s a great project and a wonderful asset to the community. The changes suggested will help to make the project more in keeping with the city’s standards and guidelines – adding more wood, softening up the front, breaking up the mass, and making the front entrance functional as such. John said there won’t be any patrons coming through the entrance at the front of the building. Tamie asked how they will direct people to where they want to be. Sarah said it’s communicated online when people order to go and there are directional signs when they arrive. John asked if the board was comfortable with mass and scale tonight. Tamie said she would not be comfortable moving forward until they see some of the final details of the changes that the DRB has proposed. John said the mass and scale approval would help them to order the steel needed because they would know the exact dimensions of the building. John said if the board could vote on just that it would help the project move along. Tamie added that mass and scale includes the footprint so if there’s hesitation about the location of the building then that needs to be considered. Amanda said the approval could be conditioned that the front setback is up for discussion. Tamie listed comments from the planning board: improve how the project presents from the street and area between the street and the front of the building; consider relocating the retail/beer to go operation from the front of the building to the side of the building; reduce the number of parking spaces in front of the building; consider importance of design in the gateway. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the mass and scale of the Tree House Brewing application at 3376 So. Broadway with the following conditions: mass and scale approval only without front setback. Applicant to return for final details including exact front setback. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. Matt Jones spoke of everyone’s appreciation for Amanda and how she will be missed. Upcoming Meetings: March 20, 2024 at 6 pm. Caravan March 13, 2024 MOTION TO ADJOURN: A motion to Adjourn was made by Rob DuBoff and seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. ALL IN FAVOR There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – February 28, 2024 - Page 13 of 13