Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 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: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs, A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any "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. #20240051 Clancy's Rear Addition 43 Caroline St. Architectural Review of a 1-story rear addition within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Rob DuBoff clarified that the building is now one foot off the property line. Tamie said that was correct. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the consent agenda item #20240051, Clancy’s rear addition at 43 Caroline St. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0, motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20230894 49 Franklin St. roof modification. Historic review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-4 District. Tom Buser, Blue Moon Construction. Tom said he is looking for approval to replace the roof at 49 Franklin which is currently leaking. He is proposing a standing seam roof which will match the existing roof on the rear of the house. Tamie said this project was originally on the consent agenda because the board thought the applicant was replacing the roof with asphalt shingles, not cedar. She said the board needs to look to see if the roof can be repaired. Rob DuBoff took photos of the roof, and the board agrees that the cedar shingles are well beyond repair and the roof does need to be replaced. Tamie said because the other roofs on the house are standing seam, she has no objection to standing seam as the replacement for the roof. Rob DuBoff said he agrees with Tamie except he noted that the main part of the house which is also cedar shingle may be in worse condition than the porch roof. Tom said the porch roof is not being replaced, it’s the upper roof of the main house. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were no public comments. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the 49 Franklin St. roof modification. 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. 2. #20240076 150 Henry St. new construction. Architectural review of a new two-family structure within the Urban Residential-4 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that this application was before the DRB several years ago and the applicant is looking for an extension of their approval as their previous approvals are expiring shortly. The applicant has also provided some final details/changes to the original plan. Sue Davis, SD Atelier representing William and Wallace Allerdice. Sue said the project was originally approved for mass and scale with final details to be provided to the DRB. She said the Notice of Decision was from May 10, 2022, and they had completed construction drawings in January 2023. The building permit submission was in July of 2023 and it “sat around” until November. Sue said there were questions that went back and forth over the heating and site issues. She said by January they realized that the approval had expired. Sue said she is hopeful for approval again and will clarify any outstanding details to the board to eliminate any ambiguity. Sue provided a quick overview of the property: ➢ Since their approval the garage that was there has been removed. ➢ Showed slides of neighboring properties. ➢ The property borders a series of smaller garages, a large parcel of land and next to that a large condominium square. Sue said the lot is more residential scale. ➢ The property backs up to Spring Run Condominiums. ➢ They received variances from the ZBA which had to be extended and have been approved. ➢ They are staggering the two units, so the driveways work better with the angle of the street. The garages will be below and the main living area up above. The building is integrated into the hillside. ➢ The materials will create a barn image, more residential. ➢ Sue showed the previously submitted list of materials and proposed elevations. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 Last time before DRB there was a discussion about clarification on the fenestration and stone. Sue said they are proposing the following materials: ➢ Marvin Elevate line for the windows – black for windows and doors. ➢ TrueExterior Poly Fly Ash for the board and batten, a durable composite material. Comes pre-finished. Color – Brushwork Red. ➢ Carriage house style garage doors by Overhead Garage Door Company ➢ Adirondack Stone – Thin Stone Veneer – ledge and rectangular pattern. ➢ Cable Railing – express cable railing by VIEWRAIL ➢ Therma-True Classic Craft door for exterior doors ➢ Marvin Elevate for balcony and back doors (black). ➢ The lighting is by Lamp Plus. Gooseneck lighting on the outside. ➢ Sue displayed the exterior elevations. ➢ Sue has floor plans and a full set of drawings & specifications. Tamie said she has no concerns with extending the approvals as nothing has changed from what they originally presented to the DRB. Tamie said because this is new construction, modern materials are appropriate. Ellen Sheehan said it is successful, especially on a tough lot. She asked if the applicant had considered visual support under the box bays. Sue said it’s not bumping out very far and agreed that if it were further something visual would be necessary. Tad Roemer said the plan shows sliding glass doors and Sue said they are French doors. Sue said French doors are correct. Tad asked if the whole house will be the heavily textured siding. Sue said they will be getting smooth siding – a matte. Tad asked about the stone going around the corner of the house. Sue said they have talked with Adirondack General Stone, and they said they are able to mix and match some different roughly squared rectangular pieces with it and make it so it does wrap around. Tad said the Therma-True door shows 2 options; one for glass that comes with screw holes to change the glass if it breaks, or without the screw holes and you would have to replace the whole door. Jeff Gritsavage asked for clarification about the two over two windows and if they’re double hung. Sue said yes. Jeff said the textured siding might be more appropriate with board and batten, it makes more sense visually. Chris Bennett said he thought the smooth was more appropriate and the texture picks up a lot of dirt over time. Chris asked how the stone will be applied. It should be lathe, scratch coat and then applied to make sure water doesn’t get behind it and cause mold. There are brand new places in Saratoga where they had to remove the stone and do it over for that reason. Rob said it appears that the stone goes all the way back on the rendering. Sue said it doesn’t, it goes into the hill. The rendering is older. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tad Roemer made a motion to approve the new construction at 150 Henry St. with the following conditions: Doors at the front of the building at the balcony are French doors and the board and batten siding will be smooth finish. 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 3 of 10 4. #20230391 Stewart’s Demolition and redevelopment sketch, 177 So. Broadway & 28 Lincoln St. Determination of architectural/historical significance for an existing single- family residence (28 Lincoln) within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that the applicant is before the board for determination of significance. They will determine whether the structure that is proposed to be demolished is historically or architecturally significant. Tamie said the DRB’s determination will determine the language used in the posting. After the signage is in place for the appropriate amount of time, the applicant can come back before the DRB to discuss demolition if that is the result. Ellen Sheehan recused herself from the demolition portion of the application. Ryan Rubado presented on behalf of Stewart’s. He said Hudson Cultural Service took pictures of the house, looked around inside and researched the history of the house. They determined that the Greek Revival Style was minimal, the property doesn’t meet the Secretary of Interior’s criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historical Places, NYS Parks & Recreation and Historic Preservation deemed the property no impact or historical significance. Ryan said the best guess on the date of the house is 1880’s/late 19th century because of the saw marks on the dimensional lumber in the basement (mass produced lumber). Ryan said the structure itself has no real historical significance as far as the research goes back. Tamie said the DRB’s determination will decide the language on the posting – whether it has historical/architectural significance. Tamie said the applicant allowed the DRB to walk through the structure which was very helpful. Tamie said there are many ways historical significance can be determined: the age of the home, architectural characters and features that were part of the original home, whether the home played an important role in the history of the city, or a historically significant individual ever resided in the home. Tamie said that based on the age of the home and some of the remaining features of the home (albeit a bit compromised) it has enough integrity that she finds it historically and somewhat architecturally significant. Chris agreed with Tamie and said there was a similar structure on Beekman St. that they found historically significant. He said in all fairness to remaining consistent, this house falls in the same category. Rob said he agreed, and he said he would date the house more about1860, making it one of the older houses in the city. He said just based on the architectural features in the photo you can tell the house is not from the 1880’s. He agreed it’s lost a lot of architectural detail over the years due to mediocre stewardship pf the property. Rob said he feels it has historic significance and potentially architectural significance. The house has been there for 170 years and has important features that are not commonly found in town. Jeff agreed that there are unique features that are part of the era and architectural Greek Revival style. He said the shape of the house and the fenestrations have held their shape and the house could be restored. Tad said he doesn’t have a strong opinion. He said it’s been so badly maintained he was leaning toward replacing it. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 Jeff Wood, 26 Lincoln Ave. Jeff said he has lived next door to this house for more than 30 years. He works for the Department of Transportation and is very familiar with the procedure related to historic properties. He said he has an appreciation for the historical significance of homes in the city. Jeff said from a practical standpoint the location of this property has been a good place for lower income housing, but he doesn’t see the property being restored anytime soon. Jeff said he thinks the house will remain the eyesore that it is perpetually. Jeff said if Stewart’s project doesn’t go through it might even get worse. It has been a location for drug use and crime and he’s hopeful that there’s a way to solve those problems. Tamie explained to the applicant that a determination of significance, whether it is or isn’t, doesn’t necessarily rule out demolition. It will determine the path that the applicant needs to take, how much more research needs to be done, to come back before the DRB to discuss demolition. Ryan noted that they have done quite a bit of digging. The Hudson Cultural Services went back to 1884. Tamie said there are specific requirements in the city’s United Development Ordinance that detail what they would need to provide and Beige Berryman, Planner can assist them with that. Rob said he didn’t see the report that was submitted from Stewart’s in October 2023 and asked if a vote could be postponed until it can be reviewed by the board. Chris added that the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation also did a narrative on the project, and it should be put alongside the Hudson Cultural report. Jeff Gritsavage replied regarding the public comment on the economic viability of restoring the house saying there are many structures like this in the Mohawk Valley mill towns where restoration like would not be viable because of the declining real estate market, but Saratoga Springs is running out of properties to restore. Ryan said he would like to postpone the vote until the board has looked at all the information. Tamie asked that the applicant resubmit the information to Beige to be uploaded into their system. 5. #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. Tamie said the applicant was before the board previously and they asked to be provided with renderings to take another look. Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects. Matt showed line drawings of the property. He said the board questioned the grill pattern on the front of the house. Matt said there are similar grill patterns on the street but there is also precedence for larger grill patterns as well. Matt showed an alternate drawing that shows a less intricate pattern on the lower floor, which they are willing to move forward with if board members feel it’s a more contextual response. Matt showed renderings of the house and how it’s in line with elements of other homes on the street. Tamie thanked the applicant for providing the renderings. She said she continues to feel that the proposed addition is too ornate for the context of the neighborhood. Tamie said it’s top heavy and very unusual to have an open porch on the bottom and solid porch on top. There should be a primary and secondary entrance, and this does not present that way. She said the two over two helped to mitigate some of her concerns. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 Rob agreed that the two over two is more practical for the windows. Rob asked if they were going to allow runoff from the flat roof or would install gutters. Matt said it would currently run off the side but if they were to install gutters, they would be downspouts at the interior corners. Jeff said the rendering helped a lot. He said he thinks it’s fine and could go either way. He said he doesn’t have any comments that would add value to the design. Jeff said it’s been thoroughly thought out and he finds it appropriate. Tad said, “it’s a total home run” and he loves the design as presented. He said it is a little more ornate than some neighboring structures, but it feels right for Saratoga. Ellen said she agrees with Tamie about the two primary doors and that it would read more sensibly if the door closest to the garage was reduced so it looks like a secondary door. She said she’s fine with 6 over 1 or 2 over 2 for the windows. Ellen asked what the composite material was. Matt said it’s a Boral or Azek which will be painted and smooth. The windows will be double hung, and the front doors will be wood. The brick sidewalk will be re-laid. Chris said he sees what Tamie’s saying but he thinks the 2 over 2’s makes a difference in softening it up. Regarding the two entrances, Chris said it might help to make the main entrance a little more sophisticated/ornate/emphasized than the breezeway doors because currently it becomes a confusing space. Matt said there’s a pathway that leads to the front door with plantings across the front. Ellen suggested making the secondary door solid. Matt said he could do that by removing the glass and making it solid. Chris said the transition where the garage meets the main house seems a little clumsy. There could be a potential problem with water running up against the building. He is concerned about longevity and potential leakage. They will have to do some flashing details that will be unique. Matt said they drew an alternate where they didn’t have the gable over the garage door, but it was not available to view. Tamie asked if there were any comments from the floor. There were none. Tamie said 3 of the board members feel that the 2 over 2 windows are more appropriate. Two board members liked the 6 over 6 and one board member was in the middle. She said the 2 over 2 is more appropriate by majority vote. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the second story addition, porch, and exterior modifications at 49 George St., Saratoga Springs with the following condition: that the double hung windows be the two over two configuration. Chris Bennett seconded the motion. Vote: T. Ehinger-N, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-N. 4-2, 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 & Sarah Maggi Morin, Chief Growth Officer for Tree House Brewing. John said they received some good comments from the planning board after meeting with the DRB the last time and they hope to be before them again at the beginning of April. John said the PB was very satisfied with the front setback. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 Stan Kubinski, Bergmeyer. Stan said the DRB gave them 3 issues to work on from the last meeting. 1.Integrate the wood look to the front façade. 2. Continue to wrap the wood around the rest of the building. 3.Incorporate a detail that would tie the wood and remaining metal through the rest of the building. Stan showed renderings where they’ve brought the wood texture to both sides, the complete front, underneath the porch and wrapped it around the back side of the porch. They introduced a channel that creates a datum from the porch and creates a separation between the wood and the top of the façade. Tamie said it was her understanding that there was a change with the parking in the front as well. John said they reduced the number of parking spots to 23 from 46 and in- filled with more screening – 81 additional trees, and they are adding bollards in front of the entrance. Stan showed renderings of the proposed signage: ➢ Monument sign at the front of the building (8’ high by 10’ wide) – national parks theme – stone, wood. The lighting will be from the ground pointed upward to the sign. ➢ Directional signs, also wood. The board looked at the directional signage on the site plan. Tamie said the changes that they made are really positive and have made a difference in terms of allowing the structure itself and the property to better adhere to the standards required. She said they’re very successful changes. Tamie said she no longer has any concerns. Tamie clarified that the wood that is being referred to is a wood look and not real wood. Ellen asked about the material that was described as a wood look aluminum plank and how the planks would join. Stan showed a sample, it will look like vertical shiplap but only has a shadow gap. Jeff asked if the wood look continued once you go inside the entrance. Stan said there’s no wood inside. Jeff said the front of the building beer to go is confusing. It looks like an entrance to a restaurant but it’s not. He also does not like the precedent of a drive-thru in the front and the on-premises in the back. John said he wanted to be very specific that this is NOT a drive thru. The code says a drive-thru serves you through a window, you are not being served through a window. There was a discussion between John and Jeff about whether the front beer-to-go is a drive thru. Chris said he thinks the additions of a wood look are successful and asked about the product itself. Stan said they have used the product before. They use it because they’ve had bad experiences using natural wood. Chris said the monument is really attractive. Tad said he thinks the experience of people driving by will be great. He said he thinks the hesitation with the entrance is addressed with their wayfinding. Tad said he’s comfortable that Tree House has it figured out for the guests once they arrive on the site. Tad asked about the ducts and venting. Stan said on the roof on the left side of the building as you’re facing it are skylights bringing natural light down. To the right of that is architectural screening for handling units up on top that won’t be visible from anywhere around the property. On the right side they’ve dropped the roof down so there’s a parapet concealing everything. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 Stan talked about lighting. He said there’s a series of downlights and wash lights to “wash” the wood so that you can’t see any of the light sources. It will have a glow. Stan said there’s a series of bollard lights everywhere throughout the property – an ambient warm glow. Ellen asked what patio flooring material is proposed. Stan said it’s poured concrete stamped with a pattern. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment. There were none. Tamie said it appears most of the board is happy with what was presented. Tamie said a diagram marking where the light fixtures are located would be helpful and could be provided administratively for the records. Rob Duboff made a motion to approve the architectural review of 3376 S. Broadway, Saratoga Springs with the condition that a diagram of the lighting plan be submitted administratively. The motion was seconded by Tad Roemer. Discussion: Jeff commented that the Tree House project is a parody of a park design. Vote: T. Ehinger- Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 5-1, motion carried 7. #20230742 53 Putnam St. New 5-story Mixed-Use development. Historic review of a new 5-story mixed-use development within the Urban Core/T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant was before the DRB previously for a joint planning board meeting, general sketch review, and a second sketch review. The applicant is before the board now with changes based on feedback that was provided by the board(s). James Tripp, MRB Group represented the applicant. James showed the elevations they brought when they were previously before the DRB and recapped some of the comments from that meeting: ➢ Too many varieties of windows. Now all double hung in the front. Protruded fiberglass, black. ➢ Juliet balconies removed. ➢ Front materials with the fiber cement siding vs brick -Now extended the brick up to the 5th floor. Now 4-stories of brick on the front elevation. Fiber cement panels along the 5th floor (fry red reveal) and the resident’s entryway/the slot. ➢ Overhangs ➢ Floor to floor heights changed in dealing with the 3 ft. increased grade from Putnam St. towards the back of the building. Increased the 1st floor height and shrunk the upper floor to floor distances to still meet below the 55’ limit for zoning. ➢ South elevation – slimmed down the window boxed out units. ➢ North elevation has more storefront windows (coffee shop & civic conference room). ➢ Colonnade – light fixtures on the columns, wood look ceiling treatment underneath and the storefront into the retail space. Double hung windows, protruded fiberglass, black. ➢ Cast stone product as a water table at the base of the building. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 8 of 10  ➢ Fiber cement panel on the boxouts with batten strips. ➢ Added details around the windows with soldier course header, corbeling for signage banding. ➢ Image of mass and scale of building and how it fits in the context. ➢ Showed the roof mechanicals – will be an all-electric building. Applying for several energy incentive programs – DOE & HCR credit. Condenser cassettes – 1 for each unit (32) centered in the middle of the roof. Two energy recovery ventilators on each side. Stair overrun to the roof level to service the equipment. The eastern stairs abut the elevator overrun (Approximately 9’ above the roof line). ➢ Received site plan approval from planning board. Tamie said the changes they’ve made have come a long way and are very positive and quite successful. Removal of the Juliet balconies is a positive change. She said the base along the pillars in the front really helps to anchor that. The materials are appropriate. Light fixtures have not been submitted. Chris agreed with everything Tamie said, it’s a really nice project. Rob questioned the appropriateness of the 5th floor with the change in material - it seems like it should be stepped back. He feels the change in material warrants another kind of change like stepping it back all the way around. Rob questioned them having windows on the south side of the building because they’re only 3.5 ft. from the property line and that wouldn’t normally be allowed. James said it was initially laid out at 6ft. so he will check on that. It will have to be greater than 5 ft. Rob said eventually something will be constructed on the Verizon property out to the property line, that may not look good for the condo owners looking out their window. Rob said he has concerns about the installation of the clapboards and the appropriateness of using them in a commercial setting. Rob said the project has come a long way and it’s very encouraging. Tamie asked Beige about applicants who are seeking “LEED” type credits and if one of the requirements is that the top floor needs to be set back per zoning. Beige said she’ll look into it. James said the UDO does state that the limit is 55 ft. He said they can achieve a bonus of 15 ft. if they meet any of the 6 or 7 criteria. James said this building would meet at least 6 of the 7. Jeff said some serious design work was done to move this building from a visually neutral design to a design that enhances the streetscape. He said the brick relief adds a lot and makes it interesting. Jeff referred to the fiber cement casing on the windows above the coffee shop entry. He said the board often gets a picture frame casing. He said here the sill is clearly defined as thinner than the jams, but the header could be thicker or more defined to add more depth. Jeff talked about the 4th floor bay and changes that could be made. Tad said he appreciates James’s consideration and patience with the board’s feedback. He said they’ve come so far and he’s happy with what they’ve done. Tad asked if the cast stone water table for the five piers at the front of the building could be real stone/granite. He said the cast stone stains and doesn’t end up looking very good. Tad said it would be nice if the penthouse read not coplanar with the bricks. He said the window setbacks are an important detail and should be done very nicely. Tad asked if the water table at the piers was intended to be coplanar with the brick as depicted on the rendering. He said it would look nice if the water table had a little profile. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 Ellen said she was very happy to see what was done with the design. Ellen agreed that if the penthouse were to be set back it would make a stronger and more interesting building and would make sense. She asked if the windows would only be inset at the depth of the brick veneer. James said the brick is full width. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment. Jason Lutz for Mallard Landing said he appreciates all the great feedback. Jason said some of the comments are different from last time. One is that no one advocated for a setback to the penthouse floor. He said they’re trying to keep the building affordable, and a setback would make it so they could not afford to build the building. Tamie said it’s important when an applicant is receiving feedback from the group to remember that all 6 or 7 people are using the same standards and guidelines but looking from different perspectives. Tamie said the applicant may not have received the feedback before but until an application is fully closed it continues to be reviewed. Sometimes things come to light partway through the process and need to be discussed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board seems really pleased with what was presented and how far this project has come. She said some small things were suggested – the water table, soldier course beneath the penthouse. Tamie said she would be encouraging the group to at least approve mass and scale tonight, but the question of the side setback (3.5 or 5.0) is not resolved. James said he appreciated that being pointed out and will get it resolved. James asked if there were any other details the board wanted to mention. Rob asked if they could coordinate the siding/clapboards exposure so that it lines up nicely with the window openings. Upcoming Meetings: April 10, 2024, at 6 pm. Caravan April 3, 2024. MOTION TO ADJOURN: A motion to Adjourn was made by Rob DuBoff and seconded by Chris Bennett. ALL IN FAVOR There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 20, 2024 - Page 10 of 10