Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 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, Leslie DiCarlo. ABSENT: Karen Cavotta (Alternate), Kennedy Flack (Alternate) STAFF: Leah Everhart, Counsel, 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. #20240081 Capital Cardiology Wall, 34 Congress St. Architectural review of a new wall sign within the Urban Core/T-6 District. 2. #20240108 D-Bat Signage, 40 Plaza Rd. Architectural review of two new wall signs within the Urban Neighborhood/T-4 District. 3. #20240131 170 S Broadway Smiles for Life Dental Care sign. Architectural review of sign face replacements within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. 4. #20240162 24 Circular St. Presbyterian United Sign. Historic review of new freestanding and wall signage within the Urban Residential-2 District. 5. #20240164 25 Lake Ave. Hampton Inn sign. Architectural review of a new wall mounted sign on the porte cochere within the Urban Core/T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the above consent agenda items. 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, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 6. #20240129 231 Broadway Solar Panels. Historic Review of roof solar panels within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Tamie said the reason she pulled this off the consent agenda is she has questions after reviewing the application. She said she wanted some details on where the conduit was located and whether it would be painted out or not. She said she also wants to know if the structure containing the solar panel is black to match the solar panels and not metallic. Tamie said the applicant submitted some information today. The board looked at the picture of the panel and it’s either silver or white, not black. Tamie suggested that the application be tabled until the applicant can be here to represent themselves. Jeff added that if the applicant were present the board could also give them suggestions on how to route the conduit. The application was tabled. This application was reopened at 7:52 p.m. upon arrival of the applicant’s representative. Bob Vittengl, Plug PV said he represents the Inn at Saratoga and they’re looking to put a small symmetrical solar system, 45 panels, on their south facing roof. The conduit will run down the backside of the opposite street from Broadway to the meters where the conduit currently runs for the existing electrical. Bob said the panels are black with chrome trim on the outside. Tamie said the location is fine and the black panels are appropriate. The chrome trim is not appropriate, it needs to be black. Bob said they can switch that to black. Tamie asked if there was a diagram for the conduit. Bob said it would go out the back at the southwest corner. The conduit would hug the corner with the other conduit. Tamie said the board would request that the conduit be painted to match the building. Bob said Plug PV can’t paint it but the owner can. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were no comments heard. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for solar panels at 231 Broadway with the following conditions: The frames around the panels be changed from chrome to all black, and the applicant is responsible for color matching the conduit to the background color. 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, L. DiCarlo- Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. #20240054 128, 132 Washington Ave. accessory structure demolition. Architectural review of the demolition of a non-significant residential accessory structure within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said neither the applicant nor architect will be present tonight because the decision with the application is procedural. Tamie explained that when the DRB is looking at the demolition of a structure, there’s a 3-step process. 1. Determine whether the structure is architecturally or historically significant. 2. Based on the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 2 of 16 determination of significance, allow appropriate language for the posting for the front of the property. 3. The applicant returns to the DRB to review additional information/documentation and discuss demolition. Tamie said this applicant came before the DRB and they determined there was no architectural/historical significance. It was determined that it was not a contributing structure to the neighborhood. Tamie asked if any of the board members had any concerns about demolishing the structure. There were none. Tamie was handed a letter from a neighbor who supports the demolition of the structure. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she has no issues with demolishing the building and asked if any other DRB members had concerns. None were heard. Tamie went on to SEQRA review: SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change in use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental characteristics…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. In the matter of the application for the demolition of a non-significant residential accessory structure regarding SEQRA Review at 128, 132 Washington Ave. Architectural review of the demolition of a non-significant residential accessory structure within the Urban Residential-3 District. in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY and in accordance with 6NYCRR part 617, the Design Review Board classifies this request as a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The Design Review Board has reviewed the SEQRA environmental assessment form and determined that Part 1 is complete. The Board reviewed Part 2 of the SEQRA form and determined that it is accurate. Tamie Ehinger moved for the issuance of a negative declaration of environmental significance because analysis of the information provided and presented in the environmental assessment form demonstrates that the project will not result in any large and important impact and therefore is one that will not have a significant impact on the environment. In conducting this SEQRA review the board has looked at all impacts that may arise from the proposed demolition. To the extent that this review may conceivably be viewed as segmentation, the board believes this is appropriate given that review of demolition related impacts will not be less protective of the environment. In reaching this conclusion, the Design Review Board notes that but for the need of demolition approval the overall project would be exempt from the requirements of SEQR as a Type II action adverse environmental impacts under the SEQR regulations. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. No further discussion. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 3 of 16 In the matter of 128, 132 Washington Ave. regarding demolition of the non-significant residential accessory structure within the UR-3 District, in the city of Saratoga Springs. Tamie Ehinger made a motion that the Design Review Board approve the demolition as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. No further discussion. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #20240077 202 Washington second floor renovations. Architectural review of second floor addition within the Urban Residential – 2 District. Ethan Hall, Architect and William Symolon presented the project. Ethan said the home is a single-family residence with 1 bedroom, living room, dining area, kitchen, and pantry space on the first floor. The second floor is not a full story and that’s where the applicant proposes to add a master bedroom suite. Everything will stay the same on the first floor, they’ll replace the stairwell. The existing ceiling joists and structure will stay in place. William said there will also be a bathroom and small office area upstairs. Tamie Ehinger, Chair explained that the DRB’s job is to review any exterior changes that are being made to the structure and that they meet the city’s standards and guidelines regarding additions. Tamie said regarding additions; they should be smaller in scale than the primary structure so that it remains the primary structure. She said in looking at their proposal, the addition really hovers over the existing structure. Tamie said even though it’s toward the back, it’s too massive and too tall. Ethan said it won’t be any larger than the house next door, which is a two-story house. Tamie said it’s about the mass that’s appropriate for the structure they’re adding to, not the house next door. Tamie said vinyl windows and siding are proposed and are not typically approved for the historical or architectural district. She said in this particular case, the structure already has vinyl siding with vinyl windows and that is enough rationale, in her opinion, for allowing them on the addition. Rob DuBoff said the plan showed a fireplace in the bedroom and asked where it would be vented. William said they will not be adding the fireplace. Rob agreed with Tamie regarding the vinyl windows and siding. He asked if there was something different that could be done about the single casement window that is off set from the center on the front of the house. Ethan said there are restrictions on where they can place the window but the only people who will see it at that angle are the people directly across the street. Rob agreed, and because the house is at a high elevation from the sidewalk it also makes him less concerned about the height of the addition. If there is a way to bring it down a little, maybe with a flattened gable (jerkinhead), that would be better. Chris said instead of running the clapboard all the way up through the gable, break up the triangle and put an attractive vent in the gable end. Chris asked if they considered bringing the entire addition forward and doing the whole thing. William said cost was one of the considerations and they also intended to use the existing piece for a walk-in closet. Tamie reminded everyone that the DRB is just making suggestions and that the architect for the applicant is the one who is designing the addition, these are just ideas that are being thrown out there. Ethan said the maximum building height in this zone is 60 ft. Tamie said that’s the maximum number you can build to, but not necessarily appropriate in the context of the neighborhood or for the structure. Leslie DiCarlo said she is struggling with the mass of the structure as well. She said if the façade could be broken up it would be more attractive and more in keeping with the neighborhood. Jeff Gritsavage said it would be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 4 of 16 good if they could break up the front elevation with a band. He suggested repeating the shakes in the lower gable up on top. Looking at the east elevation, the bathroom, there are smaller, double hung windows. He said the aspect is wider on the double hung windows and it should be either square or tall. He suggested going with a single window or a different arrangement. Tad Roemer said he’s trying to get comfortable with an addition that’s only in the back two thirds of the building. He asked if the casement window facing the street could be double hung like the rest of the windows. Tad said the mass could be reduced by bringing the roof down and having chamfered corners. Ellen Sheehan agreed with other comments about the front façade and reconfiguring the bathroom windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation submitted a letter to the DRB. She said they have similar concerns with the mass and scale of the project and noted that they may be able to break it up in some ways and the fenestrations in keeping with the existing building. Tad Roemer commented that if the addition were at the front, the window problem would probably go away. William said the reason it’s in the back is because there’s currently a stairway going up there. He said if they were to move it away from that stairway they would have to increase the elevation of the slope of the ceiling. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that the board doesn’t seem to have any concerns about the materials being proposed. It’s important that the massing be broken up and there are concerns about fenestration. Tamie asked the applicant to provide a prospective from the street with a pedestrian standing in front of the house and across the street. Tad added that it was important that the front portion of the addition roofline meets the existing roof line. 9. #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. Libby said their historic consultant has been delayed on their way from Syracuse. Ellen Sheehan recused herself from the demolition portion of the application. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that the applicant was before the board at their last meeting, and they discussed the determination of significance. The DRB suggested then that the applicant return when there was a fuller board. She said there was also a report that was not uploaded until late in the day and the board wanted an opportunity to review it further to help decide whether the structure has historic significance. Tamie reiterated that the DRB’s determination will decide the language on the posting – whether it has historical/architectural significance. She said that does not necessarily mean that the building cannot be demolished. Tamie said it means that that language will be included on the posting and the applicant will then provide additional documentation prior to the board finishing the discussion on demolition. If the building City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 5 of 16 is determined not significant, that will determine the posting and the applicant would return to the board to discuss demolition and likely will not need any further documentation. Ryan Rubado presented on behalf of Stewart’s. Ryan referred to a memo from Hudson Cultural Services that was supplied to the board and city staff regarding the assessment of the house. Ryan introduced Beth Selig with Hudson Cultural Services to talk further about the assessment of the structure. Beth said she was retained by Stewart’s to explore the historical background of the building. She said she was able to discover through historical records – Sanborn maps, cardio graphic images, lithographs, and the city directories that the structure does not appear on the lot before 1881. Beth said since the time that it was constructed it served a variety of functions such as a boarding house, a residence, and a rental up until the mid-twentieth century at which time it was gutted and converted into a health clinic. She said she met the landlord during the walk-thru of the property who indicated that it was a Planned Parenthood type clinic. He said that when he was renovating, he removed sinks, interior wall partitions and beds associated with a clinic. The landlord turned the building back into rental units. Beth said in terms of historic integrity, anything that would speak to its late 19th century construction has been lost due to the various uses over time. She said she looked for indicators in the basement to confirm the period of construction. Beth said the foundation is cut stone and the rafter boards and sill plates have all been cut with a manufactured saw that you would find in the 1890’s to early 20th century. She said they are the precursor to the present day two by four. Beth said she also reviewed census data to look at who would have lived in the house at the time. After reviewing those names there was nothing available in the historical record that indicated that any of the people who might have lived there had particular significance to the City of Saratoga, community, neighborhood or further abroad. Beth said she also looked at information provided by the Historic Preservation Foundation regarding Delia Morris (wife of William Morris who may have lived there). She was able to confirm that Delia Morris lived nearby at 145 Broadway and not at 28 Lincoln Ave. Beth said in speaking with the landlord he indicated that he made a number of changes to the property, one of which is the diamond paned grilled window that’s on the front of the house, that he found it on the street and cut the opening to make it fit on that house. The feature is not original to the building. Beth said some of the exterior architectural characteristics mirror Italianate (front end gable) styles and Greek Revival, but she said neither are shining examples of either style. Tamie thanked the applicant for a very detailed and well-done document. She said it was incredibly researched, well organized and presented. Tamie explained all the factors considered by the board in determining significance and she feels that it would be irresponsible of her to deem it anything but significant. Tamie asked her fellow board members to provide their comments. Rob DuBoff said he agrees with what Tamie said. He said in his mind does a Victorian vernacular structure have historic inherent historic value even if the interior and exterior have been compromised (lost windows and trim). He believes it still has historic value and significance. Tad Roemer said he agrees with the report that was submitted by the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 6 of 16 applicant and that it’s not historically significant. Chris Bennett said he would tend to lean toward the professional review of the property. Chris said he does have concerns about commercial businesses creeping into the neighborhood. He said the redevelopment of the property is concerning to him, but it’s hard to deny what the report says. Leslie DiCarlo said she is struggling with the same things as the other board members. She said it’s been remodeled over the years, but it feels like a placeholder for the neighborhood. Leslie is concerned about commercialization into what was once a neighborhood, especially on the west and south sides of Saratoga which is so unprotected anyway. Leslie said she feels the board needs to take a stand to protect the yard and residential house that has been there since the 1800’s. Jeff Gritsavage said proportionally the house helps to define the streetscape and has for over 100 years. He said the borrowed architectural features and trims are part of the evolution of architecture. He said the proportions of the house are not offensive. The modifications are not great, but the proportions stand. The house could be rehabbed. Tamie said even the lot itself can contribute to the historic nature of the home. Tad asked if the home had been moved. Beth said she did not find any indication that the house had been moved. Leah Everhart said she wants to make sure the DRB’s review process is as sound as possible. She pointed out that there have been several comments that are focused on the future use of the lot rather than the current structure on the lot. Leah very strongly recommended that the Board members not let their concerns over the future use of the lot cloud their decision making about whether this is or isn’t a significant structure under the UDO. She said the city council decides the zoning for the area and the future use of this area as commercial or residential and it has been decided in the UDO. She said the “ship has sailed” on that issue. She said the issue before the DRB is incredibly narrow. Leah also advised the board that when they’re deciding historical or architectural significance that they dig deep and articulate their reasoning for their decision. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Preservation Foundation clarified some things about the correspondence provided by the applicant’s consultant. Samantha said the preservation understood that this building is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It does not have that level of significance. She said the information that the foundation is providing is that they believe the building was moved there, based on research of articles where Delia, the owner of the property, was in court not paying a contractor to move a building, and that’s the only portion of the property she owned. Samantaha said the architecture pre-dates 1885. She added that preservation isn’t just about preserving the history of important people. Samantha said preservation is a national movement and about recognizing different stories “not just about the older wealthy white guy”. It’s about being inclusive in your history. Samantha said this information was submitted in her original letter so it’s not new information. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 7 of 16 Steven Chindamo said he lives across the street and this house is an eyesore. He said there are some very unsavory characters that go in and out of the building. It’s not a safe place and he was looking forward to it being demolished. Jeff Wood, 26 Lincoln St. agreed with Steven. He said he is a history buff and can’t imagine anyone wanting to invest to bring this property back to its former glory. It’s an eyesore and there are lots of police calls there. He said he is looking forward to this being replaced by better neighbors. Libby Clark, Counsel for Stewart’s said she wanted to reiterate for the record that she is requesting that the actual standards being used by the board be articulated in this decision. She said “Article 13 in the demolition provisions it does have criteria for the determination of significance. She said they are listed and may include contributing on the state or national register of historic places, and when I read Ms. Selig’s memo she also references known criteria for determination of significance which is implicated in this particular UDO. There are other items to be considered such as the context of the architecture, history, or culture of Saratoga Springs. This is not the provision within the UDO that references the people of Saratoga Springs nor is it the provision of the code that references protection within historic districts. This is the provision that applies absent those two things. So, it is a different standard, and one that I must say in my time of working in this field is light on the criteria given to a land use board to make this determination. But what’s not light is the provision that comes after. There are no less than seven additional standards should a determination of significance be made, and they sound in a use variance. Which is the, in the realm of land use law, the most challenging relief to achieve. And for good reason. Because you’re asking for a use to occur in a zone that the legislature did not intend, and the burden is high. The burden would be high here, not light. It is not a simple thing or a small thing. To determine that a structure itself, not the people who live there, is of architectural or historical significance so as to justify a use variance type review to be able to utilize the parcel. And I believe that this is significant because this is operating outside of two other highly restrictive historic preservation sections of the UDO. The first being the ability to designate a city landmark and the second being those located in the historic district. It is by operation of the UDO itself that this is a different standard.” Tamie explained that a determination of significance defines the path that the applicant needs to go down to be in a position to adequately discuss demolition. Tamie said the DRB needs everything they can get at their fingertips to make a proper, educated, fair and just decision. She referred to a recent application before the board, 40 Grand Ave., where they found portions of their structure that they wanted to demolish were historically significant. They have gotten approval for demolition. They provided the good faith documentation that’s required, it was presented, and that decision was made. Tamie said this is not unusual, this is how the process goes. If an applicant can’t come up with the good faith documents, it speaks volumes as to their regard for the history behind the building. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 8 of 16 Leah said in looking at the provision in the UDO that the applicant’s counsel cited and looking back at the city’s 2012 zoning codes, the zoning code that was in place prior to the adoption of the UDO, it makes sense for the board to include in their analysis the factors that are relevant to determining whether or not a structure is a contributing structure for state and national historical places purposes. Leah said she understands that that is what the applicant’s consultant has done and what guided her review. Leah recommends that the board employ those factors in any review process to decide whether the structure has some historic or architectural significance. She said those factors are reliable, they are reflected in the 2012 code and the UDO even though it doesn’t spell out the standard, it references the standard. Leah said weight should be given to that standard. She said there are three paragraphs that are relevant to that which she will read aloud if the board would like. Leah said the DRB can consider other factors that have been mentioned tonight but she recommends putting some weight on whether the structure would be considered a contributing structure for purposes of state and/or national register of historic places purposes. Tamie said she wanted to clarify her understanding. Just because a property is not on the state or national register doesn’t mean it’s not historically significant for Saratoga Springs. Leah said the most important thing is to have a standard that’s evenly applied from one application to another. She said the current provision of the UDO has some guidance about what the board should be looking to. Tamie said it’s not insignificant that this home has been sitting on this lot since the 1880’s, so she would like to know the words that she can say to better articulate that. There was a discussion about the path the applicant must follow after the determination of significance. Leah said the board needs to clarify for the record the basis for their decision. Tamie said she feels like the board is being a bit bullied and the solution to that is to take a step back and review internally the steps that the city attorneys would like the board to focus on as they’re making these determinations. Tad Roemer said it’s not a forgone conclusion that a structure is historically significant because it was there before a certain date. Tad said because this is a close vote and there’s been such a long discussion about this project, the board may need an alternate present to vote. He asked if an alternate could watch the recording. Tamie said the alternate would have to catch up on the history of what’s happened, and a streamlined version of tonight’s discussion would have to be repeated at a meeting. Leah said they are not trying to push the board toward one outcome or the other. She said she wants to make sure that whatever outcome the board reaches is in the record and is supportable. Tamie said that’s something the DRB always does. Leah said if the DRB feels a seventh member is appropriate, it’s really for the benefit of the applicant. If the board or applicant wishes to wait until the next meeting for a decision, that’s perfectly fine. Leah said she can provide further guidance but she’s not sure that it will be any different than the guidance provided tonight. She said the 2012 code makes some reference to the standards that are in federal regulations about whether something is a contributing structure, and it seems relevant to consider those factors. Rob said there’s two sets of standards: there’s the National Register set of standards which the consultant clearly spelled out. He said, “the standard”, the single letter “b” in the UDO is all the DRB has to consider. He said while the national register standards are important, they’re not really part of the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 9 of 16 DRB’s consideration. Leah said there is no list of criteria to follow in the UDO nor was there a list in the 2012 zoning code. It’s always been a matter of discretion for the board. She said they have a vast amount of discretion and expertise as the board making this decision. Leah said she is asking that they articulate the standards that they’re using and the criteria they think are most relevant to the outcome of their decision. Tamie Ehinger, Chair recommended that the board postpone the vote to the next meeting when an alternate can be present and there will be a full board. The majority of the board agreed as well as the applicant. She said it will give the board time to review the criteria and to give an articulated explanation for supporting whatever decision is made. 10. #20230920 165 Lake Ave. porch modification. Architectural review of front porch modifications including stair, lattice, railing, and column replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that the applicant was recently before the board and received feedback on some unauthorized work that had been done. The applicant has returned with revisions to their proposal based on that feedback. Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. Bob displayed photos of the porch as it used to be. He said the porch will be restored to the original as shown in the photos. It will be all natural materials. Tamie said a lot of work had been done on the house without approval using vinyl, PVC, and un-natural products. The PVC plastic lattice is being removed and replaced with natural lattice. The columns are now round, wood columns. The treads and risers on the stairs will be wood. Tamie said she appreciates the changes that are being made, they are appropriate and are proposing the appropriate materials. Rob DuBoff asked if the rail height meets code. Bob said it does not. Bob said he’s treating it as it’s being replaced in-kind and will talk with the building department. If it isn’t approved, he’ll add a booster rail (metal pipe). Chris Bennett said it would look better to set the lattice back in between the piers and have the piers exposed. He said it would also be easier for the carpenter to place the lattice. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on the application. There were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve front porch modifications to 165 Lake Ave. with the following conditions: that the framed lattice panel be set back between the piers, and the board would approve a painted pipe booster rail if required by code. 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, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 11. #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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 10 of 16 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has been before the DRB several times. At the last meeting the board asked for additional details and minor revisions and the applicant has returned to present those changes. James Tripp, MRB Group represented the applicant. James said he would focus on some of the comments from the last meeting. James said they’ve adjusted the building to move it away from the south property line. He said the southeast corner is now 6.1 ft. from the property line, giving it more of a buffer for the windows and fenestrations along the building. Regarding the water table, they’ve chosen to stay with the cast stone due to budget constraints. He said they will be using a stone that has more longevity and is locally cast. James said they considered more of a reveal but given the modern edge of the building, they prefer it being flush with the water table. They’ve pulled the soldier course outward at the top windows to make it more proud. James said the casing and molding around the double hung windows, the head trim, was made a little taller/beefier. James provided the lighting cut sheets requested by the board. He said they don’t have a lot of exterior lighting around the building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that this structure has come a long way and has evolved to meet the historic standards and guidelines of the city. She said she appreciates that they have worked with the board through a very long process. Tamie said she hopes they feel they may have a better building than what they started with. Ellen said the improvements are successful, nice work! Tad asked if they would need to come back for their sign. Yes, they will. He noted that on the lighting cut sheets they like to see 2700K or 3000K. Jeff had no comments but thanked the applicant for addressing the board’s detailing concerns. Leslie said it’s a handsome building and thanked the applicant. Chris said they’d come a long way and did a nice job. He asked what the difference is with the cast stone that leads to more longevity. James said it could go to compressive strength or simulated stone. Chris said he thinks keeping it flush is smarter because it won’t hold water. He said the look is appropriate to the building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on the application. There were none. Ellen Sheehan made a motion regarding the application for a new 5-story mixed-use development at 53 Putnam St., Saratoga Springs to be approved as submitted. 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, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 12. #20240130 198 South Broadway. Architectural review of a new exterior egress stair within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Steven Chindamo & Robert Bolen, Contractor presented the application. Robert submitted a letter to the board. Tamie read the letter out loud. The applicant is switching their material from regular pressure treated to fire rated pressure treated for the egress from the third floor. The exit way will be constructed with dry comp fire City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 11 of 16 retardant pressure treated material. The installation shall comply with the Form 30 of the APA Engineered Association standards and NYS building codes. Robert said the third floor used to be an attic space that was converted into a room. He said the building department requested that there be a second means of egress. Robert displayed a south facing sketch of the egress on the outside which exits toward the back of the building to the parking lot. Broadway is at the front of the building. Robert said there’s a second building about 15 ft. from the stairs that blocks the view. In the summer there’s a large tree that also blocks the back view of the stairs from Broadway. Tamie said she didn’t have any concerns in terms of the mini-split location. She said she would like some clarification on the conduit and where it will be located. Robert said it’s on the first level and runs up alongside the building by the attic window and goes in to where the interior unit is. The conduit would be painted to match the siding. Tamie said she doesn’t find the stairs are visible enough to cause any great concern. She said she does have concern over the pressure treated materials being used. Tamie said pressure treated in general is not an acceptable material from a design review board’s perspective. The guidelines and standards for homes within an architectural or historical district suggest it would be important that the material be made of natural wood or metal, either would be appropriate. Steven is not speaking into the mic so he's inaudible. Chris said the city is requiring fire rated, pressure treated timber or steel. Tamie said an iron staircase would be ideal. She said minus the code requirement, natural material painted black would work. She said a pressure treated material won’t take paint so it’s not an option. Rob said he’s not concerned about the visibility because it’s between two buildings. Rob asked if the applicant could make it look better from Broadway. Robert said the tree will block the view in the summer, but it will be visible in the winter. Leslie asked what the window is that will be made a doorway. Robert said it’s double hung. Leslie said she had to add a fire escape to her home, and they framed out the double hung window, added hinges, and made it act as a door. Robert said he can run it by the architect but he’s not sure it would meet the energy or safety codes. Leslie agreed with Tamie that pressure treated lumber is not appropriate in that location. Chris suggested maybe a partial pressure treated stair tread with an iron railing. Chris said there are also some aluminum systems that are fire rated that are black and might pass with the DRB. Tamie said the board should focus on approving materials that are appropriate rather than if they meet the code. The code issue is up to the code enforcement officer. Ellen said that what the applicant is proposing will be very expensive and will require maintenance over the years. She asked if they had considered getting a ladder balcony. It’s a metal balcony with a ladder fixed to the side of the building/balcony or would be retractable. She said it would be much better visually as well. Jeff said if they can do the balcony and it meets code that would be great. If not, then metal stringers and railings holding it up with pressure treated treads, would be okay. Regarding the mini-splits, Jeff said it most definitely needs to be painted the color of the building, the conduits need to be consolidated, and they need to be put in the least visible spot. Tad said the property looks beautiful. He had nothing else to add to what had already been said. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on the application. There were none. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 12 of 16 Tamie summarized the board’s comments: The mini-split – the conduit be painted out and be put in the least visible spot. The board would need information on the type of door that will be replacing the window. It would have to be appropriate for an historic home and the window opening itself would not change. Materials for the stairs – all metal (no objection from the board). A hybrid of metal stringers and railing and wood (no objection from the board). Natural wood painted black or stained black, if approved by code (no objection from the board). Balcony with a ladder (no objection from board). Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the modification at 198 South Broadway, Saratoga Springs with the following conditions: 1. The conduit for the mini split be painted out to match the exterior of the structure. 2.The spec sheet on the door be submitted for final approval. 3. The materials to be used for the exterior stairs could be one of the following: A. metal stairs. B. metal stringers & rails with pressure treated wood treads. C. A ladder balcony. 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, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 13. #20230246 Woodlawn Club Exterior Modifications Architectural review of a new exterior egress stair within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 118 Woodlawn Ave Architectural Review of exterior modifications including roof replacement, porch reconstruction, and select window infill and replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. Brett Balzer & Dennis McGowan, Balzer Tuck Architecture presented for the applicant Lisa Moser, EC Woodlawn Van Dam Property, LLC. Brett said since their last meeting with the DRB they have secured a Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval. Brett said they can go through the entire presentation or just talk about the pertinent information which would be the stained-glass windows. Brett gave some bullets on the last discussion: • New porch reconstruction with the ADA entry was received favorably. • New east exit stair in the alley. Pressure treated will be replaced with ornamental iron. • Favorable exterior lighting & new slate roof. • Marvin window replacement (not stained glass) received favorably. Tamie said she doesn’t recall any objections to the above and is comfortable with moving on with the stained-glass discussion. Ellen Sheehan said as you’re looking at the building there are two small windows on the far right that are going to be infilled with stone and she wondered if they could repurpose stone from elsewhere on the building. Brett said yes, that would be their intent. Ellen noted that number 8 on their schedule shows a double hung window between the two windows that are going to be infilled and asked if that was correct. Brett said it was incorrect and thanked Ellen for noticing the error. Ellen asked about the platform for the venting on the roof. Brett said they haven’t completely figured that out yet, but it will likely be wrapped in copper. Ellen asked if the smaller windows were operable. Brett said no, they’re fixed. Ellen said looking at the west elevation there’s a grey area above the porch that she doesn’t understand. Brett said it’s a cricket designed to help with water collection that has caused rot in that area. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 13 of 16 Ellen asked about the bracket over the stairs on the north elevation. Brett said that’s a steel bracket that has structural support to it to hold up the porch roof. Brett said at the June meeting the DRB asked for specific details on the wood versus aluminum and how it relates to the stained-glass. Brett brought samples to show the board. Rob recalled that there was hesitation regarding removing the frames. Tamie said the DRB asked a lot of questions about the process of removing, repairing, and reinstalling the windows. She said toward the end of their last presentation a gentleman came in and talked with the DRB about what it entails. Brett said that Chuck from Chapman Stained Glass Studio will take the glass out, bring it to his studio to restore them and then reinstall them. Rob said his recollection was over the concern for replacing the historic wooden sash with aluminum sash. Brett said Rob is correct and he will show why the aluminum sash should be used. Brett brought the samples up to the board and described the process for installing the windows. Ellen asked if the upper and lower sash will be on the same plane. Brett said what Sussman will be doing is not a double hung window so they will try to recreate it with a simulated check rail. Brett said it’s also too large to be one piece of glass. Brett said one of the reasons they’re pushing for the aluminum window is that getting convection through this cavity promotes the longevity of the windows. If you don’t get the convection, it degrades the windows over time. Brett said the experts are saying this is the science behind it and that it will hold this glass in place for the next 100 years. Brett said if the DRB does not want the aluminum windows then they would place a storm window in front of the existing double hung windows that would get restored. Brett said that it’s Chapman’s opinion that there is too much work to be done on the wood windows and they don’t feel good about it. If they were to do it they would rebuild a new window in their shop to recreate the current window. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone wished to comment from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she appreciates the details that Brett presented. The Foundation feels the windows should be repaired or replaced in kind. Samantha gave examples of other churches who replaced or repaired their windows and kept the wood. Samantha said she contacted Megan McElfresh, Executor Director of the Stained-Glass Association of America who said “anytime anyone calls for the wholesale replacement of windows, it tends to make me a little nervous. Especially with the advances made in wood restoration, unless the frames are truly completely degraded, it seems that there are often other solutions. “Aluminum will definitely change the look of the building and the windows” …” Aluminum framing is not mandatory to have environmental protective glazing that is properly vented, if that’s also a requirement of the project. An insulated glass window and EPG add only a miniscule R value and would need replacing in 15 to 20 years anyway which is a different cost that needs to be considered.” Samantha said there’s definitely paint issues on the windows, but she doesn’t feel the wood is beyond repair without seeing that that has been proven. Tad asked Samantha if the goal was to protect the stained glass from the outside. She said 100%, but it needs to be ventilated. Tad said if someone wanted the best-looking option from the outside it would be not to protect it City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 14 of 16 from the outside and do a thermal thing on the inside. He asked if everyone agreed that the glass needed to be protected on the outside. Samantha said yes and it can be vented from the outside. Julie Slovik, 122 Woodlawn Ave. said it was her understanding that all the windows on her side of the building would be bricked up. Brett said the idea was to brick up the windows that share a wall with the kitchen (4) on the lower level on the north elevation. He said the window to the right is the entry vestibule and not part of the commercial kitchen. Brett said it was a condition of site plan approval. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any other details the DRB wanted provided. There were none. Tamie said in terms of the window solution, the DRB standard is that windows should be repaired versus replaced and if they are being replaced it should be in kind. She said one of the reasons for the existence of the DRB is to look at when there may be instances where circumstances allow for some deviation off those standards. Tamie said she feels that what was presented by the applicant is a good window solution in the scope of the work that’s being done, and the magnitude of what it’s taking to restore the stained-glass windows. She said the solution is not inappropriate in this circumstance. Chris said the most important part of the window is the stained glass. He said he feels the applicant makes a compelling case for preserving the stained glass. Chris said the stained-glass experts are saying the aluminum isn’t a bad solution in keeping with the science of how best to preserve the windows – keeping condensation out and creating a chimney effect. He said in his opinion this solution is best for preserving the stained-glass windows in the long term. Rob said someone who repairs stained glass is not necessarily a preservationist. Rob said in his opinion the applicant hasn’t proven that the windows can’t be restored. He said he’s discouraged hearing that the windows will be sent out and may not be able to be saved. That’s not okay. Rob said in his opinion the wood windows can and should be restored for history’s sake as well as the appearance, the way they look today. That needs to be maintained. Leslie said she’s struggling with this as well. She said not having storm windows will make the stained-glass windows look better from the outside. She said if we follow the guidelines the windows must be restored and not reset in aluminum frames. Jeff said we like to retain wood windows in this city, and we do so regularly. He said the stained-glass windows are the character defining features, more so than the wood. He said this is an eloquent, high-tech solution. He said the relief from the brick will make more sense architecturally and he’s in favor of this solution. Tad said he’s in favor of this solution. It replicates the geometry from the pictures. He feels it’s pretty true to the original windows. It puts the protective glass in the right position, and long-term protection of the stained glass is the most important part of this decision. Ellen said she had sent their application to Conrad Schmitt Studios in Wisconsin, one of the preeminent restorers. Ellen said they sent her photographs and said they can maintain the double hung stained glass windows and put protective glass on both sides on each sash. Conrad looked at Chapman and said he didn’t think they did that. He doesn’t know anyone near here that does that, and it was too small of a job for them. Ellen concluded that the double hung windows are not able to be maintained unless the applicant does the storm window. The storm window would be almost flush City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 10, 2024 - Page 15 of 16 with the brick and wouldn’t look that great. Ellen said the ideal cannot be done anywhere in this area. According to Conrad Schmitt, Sussman is the best in the country. Ellen said it will hold up well into the future and she would be okay with the solution. Leslie asked what happens when the gas between the glass fails. Brett said it would be a lot to fix so you must go with a good manufacturer and a good warranty. There was a discussion regarding the look and construction of the storm windows. Leslie said the applicant clarified a lot for her and it’s a trade off with either one. She said you get the architectural look with the reveal and the setback which you would give up with the storm window. It’s a tradeoff. Chris said it’s also the longevity of the stained glass, the science behind it with the chimney effect and getting the ventilation through the windows. Tad Roemer made a motion to approve exterior modifications of the Woodlawn Club 188 Woodlawn Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: re-use stone where possible; simplify the bracket at the east door and approve the aluminum triple glazed window option for the stained-glass windows. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-N, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-1 in favor. Motion carried. Upcoming Meetings: April 24, 2024, at 6 pm. Caravan April 17, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. meeting at the Casino. 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 – April 10, 2024 - Page 16 of 16