Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 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 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair; Chris Bennett, Jeff Gritsavage, Tad Roemer, Ellen Sheehan, Karen Cavotta (Alternate). ABSENT: Leslie DiCarlo, Kennedy Flack (Alternate) STAFF: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from the April 24, 2024 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. 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. #20240231 188 Church 9N Z&Z Spa Signage. Architectural Review of a new sign face to be installed in an existing frame within the Office Medical Business District. Jeff Gritsavage is within 100 ft. of this project and will abstain from voting on this. 2. #20240109 67 Putnam Windows. Historic Review of window replacement within the Urban Core / T-6 District. 3. #20240224 210 Nelson Ave. Residential Charge Point Station. Historic Review of EV charging station within the Urban Residential -3 District. 4. #20240252 Pitney Meadows 223 West Ave. Chimney Removal. Architectural Review of partial demolition of chimney within the Urban Residential - 2 District. Rob DuBoff said this work is being done at the same time as their slate roof replacement, which they have approval for, and asked if it would be an in-kind replacement. Tamie said it is an in-kind replacement – same pattern and color. 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 application for 188 Church St. as submitted. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Abstain, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. Vote: 6-0 in favor, 1-abstain. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the following applications: 67 Putnam St. Windows, Pitney Meadows 223 West Ave. chimney removal, 210 Nelson Ave. residential charging point station. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 6. #20240202 198 S Broadway Stay Saratoga Sign. Architectural Review of new sign cabinet within the Neighborhood Center / T-5 District. 7. #20240218 38 Caroline St. Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Core / T-6 District. 8. #20240299 Cherry St Single Family Construction. Historic Review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential - 4 District. 9. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of garage demolition and new construction within the Urban Residential - 4 District. 10. #20240071 1 Kaydeross Ave. West Construction. Architectural Review for significance, demolition, and new construction within the Gateway Rural Commercial District. 11. #20240217 453,457 Broadway 3 Story Addition. Historic Review of new addition over existing structures within the Urban Core T-6 District. _____________________________________________________________________ 6. #20240202 198 S Broadway Stay Saratoga Sign. Architectural Review of new sign cabinet within the Neighborhood Center / T-5 District. Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Sign Co. Adam said they are proposing to replace the current cabinet with the new sign. He said he knew lighting was a concern so he is proposing an opaque (olive green) background and only the letters will glow. Tamie said this application was originally on the consent agenda. She said it’s a huge improvement over the old sign. Tamie said she had concerns about the lighting and the wording at the bottom of the sign, which has since been removed. She said if the glow of the letters is a warm light, the sign seems appropriate. Jeff Gritsavage said he can’t City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 2 of 16 support a back lit box sign. He said there are other choices like push-through letters halo lit and front lit, sand blasted, etc. Tad Roemer said the sign seems big. Adam said his client wants to keep the sign the same size that it was. Karen Cavotta said she wasn’t at the caravan and asked if there was any discussion about the thin, plywood fake brick that makes up the base for the sign. Tamie said the base exists and Karen can voice her opinion about it, but no change is required by the applicant. Karen said she feels the sign is simple and too large. She said it seems inappropriate in terms of how modern it is for the beautiful old building that sits behind it. She said the sign needs more detail. Ellen Sheehan said it’s an improvement over the last presentation. She said the sign was oversized to begin with. Adam said his client is struggling and doesn’t want to lose any visibility. He said the other option is for him to repair the broken face of the sign and put that back up because his client has approval for that sign. Ellen asked if the sign could be lower on the post and Adam agreed they could lower it. She agreed with Karen about the lettering. Rob DuBoff agreed with Jeff that they should be getting away from approving box signs. Rob gave examples of other businesses along Broadway that were not approved for box signs. He said he wouldn’t support the sign as is. Chris Bennett said the post holding the sign up is weak for the large sign. Adam said the post exists and it’s the same footprint. Chris agreed with others that the sign is too large and doesn’t need all that material around the words “Stay Saratoga” and thinks something smaller would be far more impactful. Rob said something more elegant would be more in keeping with the property, which is a beautiful brick Victorian building. Tamie asked the board if they would feel comfortable approving the application if the applicant were willing to lower the sign to 10 ft. with halo lit, push through letters. Tad said the sign looks bigger than what was there because the old sign was scalloped/octagonal. Adam said the new sign is 78” by 78”. The font is 18”. Ellen pointed out that this sign is in the Commercial Mixed Use District T-5, and according to the UDO the maximum height for this district is 8 ft. and the maximum sign area is 12 sq. ft. She said the proposed sign is 42.25 sq. ft. Beige Berryman said the previous sign was legal and approved even if the dimensions are larger than what’s given in the UDO. Ellen added that it should be no bigger than the square footage of the existing sign. Tamie asked Adam if he could do externally lit gooseneck lighting. Adam said it’s not what his client wants. He wants what he has. Adam said he could do the push through with halo lit, like “Old Saratoga” and “Frivolous”. Tamie summarized: Reduce the overall height of the sign to 10’ versus 13’. Reduce the sign itself by 1 ft. at the top and 1 ft. at the bottom. Reformat the lighting to be push through letters that are halo lit. Tad asked to have the sign presented with context for what a driver would see, and the new sign super imposed on the old sign. The other board members said they don’t need to see that. Tad said he still thinks it’s too big and Karen said it doesn’t have enough detail. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. There were no comments. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the signage at 198 S. Broadway with the following conditions: 1. The entire sign height is lowered to 10 ft. 2. The sign itself is City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 3 of 16 reduced by 1 foot at the top and 1 foot at the bottom, an overall 2 ft. reduction. 3. That the applicant uses a push through, halo lit effect for lighting. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: C. Bennett-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-N, K. Cavotta-N. 5-2 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie said they will need final drawings for the City’s files. 7. #20240218 38 Caroline St. Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Core / T-6 District. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited presented for the applicant, Ownership Group for Dango’s. Bob said there’s major renovations taking place and talked about some of the exterior changes they’re proposing: • Boarded up octagonal windows will be removed. • The building will be painted a uniform version of white. • The contractors were told not to do anything outside of the building by the building inspector. Bob said he went to the site and one of the windows (on the horizontal siding in the sketch of the existing building) was removed and blocked in. • Bulk of work in rear of the building and will be the VIP room. 2 casement windows that look toward the library will be removed. Behind the door to the left on the lower level there is currently a pit-bar that will become the kitchen. The door will be removed. • Once the windows are removed on the addition they will put new fiber cement siding. • 3 casement windows will be removed. • The air conditioning unit will be removed. • 4-panel simulated divided light; 8 ft. sliding unit will be installed in the center of the room. • A 6 ft. balcony off the addition, with a steel rail and posts in the ground to support it. • A kitchen off the balcony. Bob displayed a sketch of the proposed changes to the building. He said he will be returning with a front façade application to restore the building back to its original grandeur. They are proposing to remove the awning and logos off the windows and clean it all up. Tamie Ehinger, Chair read excerpts from the city’s window design guidelines: “Windows and doors are significant character defining features of a building and every effort should be made to preserve these important features. Replacements should only be considered when windows and doors are beyond reasonable repair. Should a window be beyond reasonable repair and need to be replaced, maintaining original trim details and the original configuration, size, shape, and proportion of the windows will be necessary”. Tamie said external changes should not be based on internal programming changes. Tamie said after reviewing the application she noted that the window that is City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 4 of 16 being removed on the horizontal siding is not on the original structure. The octagonal windows are not original to the structure. Tamie said she doesn’t have any concerns about the window being removed. She said that the gliding door and materials being used for the rear portion of the building are appropriate. She said her one concern is the expansive mass of wall that will be left once the octagonal windows are removed and suggested bricking them in to make them stand proud and notating where they are. Chris said he agreed with Tamie and said a wall mural would break up the mass. He asked if the railings on the deck would be iron. Bob said yes and it will be substantial. Chris said once it’s cleaned up and painted it’ll look great. Rob asked if the applicant had any plans for the east elevation which is currently a block wall. Bob said it will be painted the same as the rest of the building. Rob asked if the 6 over 6 windows on the historic part of the building are vinyl. Bob said it is, but they are proposing an Andersen 400 series Fibrex window, 1 over 1. Rob said once they make changes to the front of the building, all the windows should match. Ellen said she doesn’t have a problem with the octagonal windows being bricked up and left plain. Jeff asked if they were between glass light dividers on the patio doors. Bob said they are simulated. Tamie said there’s a discrepancy in the cut sheet. It says “full divided light” not simulated. Bob said it’s simulated divided light. Tad said he’s not concerned about the big brick wall. Karen said she thinks it’s more appropriate not to have windows on the wall. Karen asked what type of door would be on the rear elevation. Bob said a solid 6 panel door. Karen asked what color they’re proposing for the building. Bob said they’re in the discussion phase on that, but likely some variation of white. He said he has a historic photo where the building appears to be light gray so they may consider that. Tad asked if there would be any outside toilets. Bob said there are plenty of facilities inside the building, but he can’t speak for the ownership group. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments. No comments were heard. Karen asked if the applicant had considered not having divided light on the doors. She said it tends to give it a residential look. The other board members agreed with Karen. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve architectural review of exterior modifications at 38 Caroline St. with the following conditions: 1. One over one wood Fibrex or aluminum clad for the infill window on the west elevation. 2. The option for the patio doors without grills to be installed. 3. The applicant will return for signage, paint color scheme and lighting plan. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: C. Bennett-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 7- 0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #20240299 Cherry St. Single Family Construction. Historic Review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential - 4 District. Rachel Smisloff, Witt Construction showed the proposed site plan. The front of the house faces Cherry St., the side is Marvin Alley, and the garage faces Marvin Alley. Rachel showed the original design that was presented for the approved variances when the property was subdivided and their current sketch concept. Rachel displayed their City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 5 of 16 proposed south perspective (Cherry St.). She said they changed the windows on the front elevation after receiving comments back from the Preservation Foundation. They added some grills to make it look more uniform. Rachel displayed the following materials list and said she could provide samples if requested: • Roof – Asphalt shingles, Owens Corning Duration, color-Driftwood. • Painted composite casing and corner trim boards. • Standing seam metal roof over front door entry – color, dark bronze • Painted custom shutter with a shutter dog. • Black aluminum with glass Hinkley wall lantern • Front door – Pella Reserve Series, aluminum clad door, color-iron ore. • Stair risers and skirting painted composite material. • Porch flooring is TimberTech, English Walnut, tongue & grove composite material. • Railing & Newel post – painted composite. • Painted cedar shakes on the 3rd floor. • Lap siding is James Hardie cement board – color, evening blue. • Painted composite trim flowerbox with cedar corbels. • Windows – Pella black aluminum clad. • Stone – wood creek natural granite. • East elevation – James Hardie vertical siding, cedar mill, color, evening blue. Hinkley wall lantern. • West elevation – garage – Hinkley wall lantern, Clopay black fiberglass Overhead Door with clear glass windows. Rachel showed a site map. Across Cherry St. is a single-family townhome, and 3 more will be built. There are also 4 story town homes. Rachel showed a video of new homes built on Franklin St. 59 Franklin St. is on the land that has been subdivided. Rachel showed 4 story buildings in the area and feels their mass and scale fits in with the neighborhood. Tamie asked if they had a schematic showing the proposed structure next to 59 Franklin. Rachel said she doesn’t currently have one but can provide that. Tamie said she feels this is an appropriate structure. She said the modern materials are spot on for a new structure. She said the Hardie board should be applied smooth side out not showing any faux wood grain. Tamie said she likes how the garage fronts the alley and the house fronts Cherry St. She said the garage should be secondary in nature and not draw away from the primary structure. She said the cupola, while beautiful, takes away from the house. Chris said the overall plan is lovely. He said he would recommend wood trim instead of Azek composite with the cement board and a wooden front door. He said the Azek hardens the look of the structure, and it looks more like a townhouse. Chris said they need a heavier looking windowsill, especially in an historic district. He said he likes the natural shingles on the gable end. He said for the little decking they have; they might as well go with a nice mahogany wood. Chris said it would be nice if they did something to address the back of the house facing the alley. Rob said the house is perfectly appropriate, especially within the context of the new construction on Cherry St. He agreed with Chris about the Azek trim and would really like to see wood or Boral. Rob agreed that the Hardie board should be installed smooth side out. Rob said the only design he feels is inappropriate is the slider on the east elevation which has a suburban look. This fronts Franklin St. which is the historic City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 6 of 16 neighborhood so he would really like the applicant to address that. Ellen said she agrees with what’s been said by other board members. She asked if the windows were simulated divided lights and Rachel said they are. Ellen said there were 2 sliding windows noted in the specs but didn’t see them anywhere. Rachel said those are the window wells for fire escape. Jeff asked if the large windows on the west elevation were double hung. Rachel said they’re fixed and at the stair area. Jeff asked the board if they would prefer two garage doors instead of one and they agreed to two. Jeff said they should use black metal flashing on the eave returns and not asphalt. Tad thanked Rachel for a really nice presentation and design. Tad agreed with the others about the siding and wood deck for the entry way. He said he’s ok with the cupola, but it could be lowered. He said he’s ok with a single garage door. Tad asked about a fireplace. Rachel said there will be a gas fireplace in the vertical bump out on the east elevation. They do not show a vent on the drawing but there will be one. Karen said the mass and volumes of the building work really well. She said the building should be simplified. Karen said the windows on the west elevation should be balanced and centered. It appears that the windows are placed to fit the inside, but people will be looking at the house from the outside. She said she doesn’t think the cupola is necessary on top of the garage. Karen said she would like to see the house superimposed in the neighborhood so they can see how it fits in that corner. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. John Witt had surgery and Rachel read his comments from his phone. He said he’s ok with the Boral. The porch floor will have to stay because the client wants low maintenance. The side that borders the parking lot cannot change. There will be a row of landscaping and a fence. They are okay with 2 garage doors, and they can do metal returns to match the front porch. Tamie summarized the board’s comments. Cupola – consensus that it’s not appropriate based on where the garage is located. Small deck – should be a wood product. Wood door versus aluminum. Tad said the Tudor style windows and fireplace vent are his two sticking points. The board is split on the Tudor style windows – not a major concern. Boral or wood for the trim. Slider – how it presents to Franklin. Vent for fireplace and how it interacts with the back façade. Fence around the property comes to DRB. Chris mentioned that the post on the front porch is necessary and clutters up the porch. Rachel asked if the board would prefer the more cottage looking grills versus the diamond on the front. Tamie said the majority of the board was not opposed to the diamond but she could present both options when she comes back. 9. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of garage demolition and new construction within the Urban Residential - 4 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this application is before the board for determination of historical or architectural significance only, not demolition or what is being proposed. Tamie said the city is changing the language on the posting to allow for a more efficient City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 7 of 16 process for the applicant. Tamie said the procedure right now is that the DRB will determine significance, the posting is then made indicating that there will be discussion about demolition about a significant/insignificant property (historically or architecturally). After the posting is up for 2 weeks the applicant returns to the DRB to discuss demolition. With the new process, the posting will be posted as soon the city receives the application. The posting will indicate that there will be a discussion on significance followed by a discussion on demolition and a new proposal. Everything will be covered at once. Tamie said from this point forward the board can talk about significance and demolition depending upon the determination of significance. The application being discussed tonight was filed before the new procedure was in place. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented Mr. Grossman. Tonya said she has worked with her client to do a full remodel of his home and added a new rear porch. The porch received awards from the Saratoga Preservation Foundation. Tonya said the owner would like to continue beautifying this property located on the corner of Union (front of house), along Ludlow (side, across from Racing Museum) and Morton Place (back/north). She said the house was built in the 1890’s and the garage in the 1920’s. The garage is not original to the house and was never a carriage house. Tonya said it doesn’t have much historic character to it when you look at the rest of the neighborhood. She said the garage is not held up by much and is listing in 3 different directions. She said the floor lists about 6” to 8” from the east to the west. Tonya said there were doors that were located on different sides of the building that were then boarded up. There’s no sill plates or foundation. She said her client would like to remove the garage and build a carriage house that would house two cars and is more consistent with the neighborhood. Tonya said they had approval to demolish the garage about 12 years ago, but the owner didn’t continue with that because he wanted to focus on the house first. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the DRB received a letter from the Preservation Foundation stating that they found the garage was not historically or architecturally significant and had no concerns about demolition. Tamie said she does find the garage, which has been sitting on this footprint for over 100 years, does have some character defining features such as the diagonal supported door, 16 panel glass window and cornice returns. She said she cannot say it’s not historically significant. Rob said he doesn’t disagree with Tamie, but the fact that it was found not historically or architecturally significant 12 years ago and was permitted to be demolished holds a lot of weight with him in his decision. Karen agreed with Rob and said there’s not much left that makes her feel like it needs to stay. Tad agreed with Karen and Rob. Jeff said he was confused about the applicant wanting a carriage house with two garages when this building has two garages. Tonya showed a photo of the inside of the garage and how the floor lists 6” to 8”. She said trying to get a car in there would be very difficult. Tonya said they are proposing to move the new building further away from the alley for easier access turning into the garage. Jeff finds the garage is not historically or architecturally significant. Ellen said she does not find it significant but asked if the owner would salvage any of the doors or windows. Tonya said her client will donate the windows but City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 8 of 16 any of the wood inside could be salvaged for anyone who wants it. Chris agreed that it was not significant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. There were no comments. Rob DuBoff made a motion finding the garage at 169 Union Ave., Saratoga Springs is not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: C. Bennett-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, T. Ehinger-N, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-1 in favor. Motion carried. 10. #20240071 1 Kaydeross Ave. West Construction. Architectural Review for significance, demolition, and new construction within the Gateway Rural Commercial District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that this application is like the last application in that they are seeking a determination of significance but have met the deadline for the new posting procedure. The posting has already gone up so the board can move on with discussions about demolition and about what’s being proposed. Tamie said they will begin by just talking about significance. Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney represented the applicant. Also present: Mike Ingersol, LA Group, Aksel Solberg, HFA & Jeff Montagna, Engineer with GPI. Aksel Solberg showed photo slides of the existing single-family trailer on site. He said various aspects of the structure are in a state of disrepair and have not been maintained properly for many years. He showed photos of run-down ancillary structures that posed safety hazards. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the board members or audience. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion finding the structure at 1 Kaydeross Ave. West, Saratoga Springs is not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: C. Bennett-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked the board and audience if they had any comments regarding the demolition of the structure. There were none. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said they will move forward with a short form SEQR review: SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 9 of 16  3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. In the matter of the application for 1 Kaydeross West construction, specifically SEQRA, involving architectural review for demolition and new construction within the Gateway Rural Commercial District, we are specifically talking about tax parcel 191.2-26 within the City of Saratoga Springs and in accordance with 6NYCRR part 617, the Design Review Board classifies this request as a SEQRA Unlisted Action SEQRA assessment and determination. Tamie Ehinger moved for the issuance of a negative declaration of environmental significance because analysis of the information provided and presented in the environmental assessment form demonstrates that the project will not result in any large and important impact and therefore is one that will not have a significant impact on the environment. In conducting the SEQRA review this board has taken a look at all impacts that may arise from the proposed demolition. To the extent 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 board notes that but for the need for demolition approval, the overall project would be exempt from the requirements of SEQRA as a Type 2 action because of the scope of the development itself. It’s presumed not to have any significant adverse environmental impacts under SEQRA regulations. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. No further discussion. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made the following motion: In the matter of the application for 1 Kaydeross West construction, specifically demolition, located at 1 Kaydeross Ave. West involving architectural review for significance, demolition and new construction within the Gateway Rural Commercial District, tax parcel 191.2-26 within the City of Saratoga Springs and in accordance with 6NYCRR part 617 the Design Review Board acting as the only involved agency issued a SEQRA negative declaration of environmental impact on this day May 8, 2024, and in accordance with the objectives, standards, and guidelines contained in the UDO architectural review applicability and approval standards, the Design Review Board issues the following decision regarding demolition on May 8, 2024 to approve the demolition as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. No further discussion. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Stephanie Ferradino talked about the proposed construction at 1 Kaydeross West. Stephanie showed an aerial photo of the building to be demolished and PJ’s barbeque for context. Stephanie said the applicant received approval for a special land use permit in October of 2023 for a cannabis dispensary. She said they will be meeting with City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 10 of 16 the planning board within the next few weeks for a special use permit modification because the location of the proposed structure has changed since last October. Stephanie said they also have a lot consolidation application pending because they will be merging two tax map parcels into one, which will require site plan review. She said the matter will be heard again by the Saratoga County Planning Board because of its proximity to the highway. Mike Ingersoll, LA Group said that the restaurant (PJ’s Barbeque) will remain. He said they had originally located the dispensary building to the rear where the house that’s being demolished is located. Mike said the owner of the property purchased some paper streets in the rear that will eventually be part of one parcel (Dispensary, PJ’s Barbeque). Mike said they proceeded with a special use permit because it was important for the purchaser to know that the use was permitted. Mike said they have the proper amount of required parking, and they will utilize the existing driveway to the north. He said they’re going to clean up the curb cuts. Mike said there’s one open paved curb cut that will become greenery which will help with stacking and stormwater and screening of the parking. Mike said by bringing the building forward they’ll be more in compliance with the city’s guidelines where the building is forward, and the roadside parking is to the back. Aksel Solberg talked about architecture. He showed a schematic of the flow of the building – a sales floor, which will be the only space accessed by the public. The remainder of the building is to facilitate the fulfillment of orders – stockroom, administrative and employee amenities. Aksel said security is of vital importance. The sales floor is facing parking for ease of access for the customers and a controlled point of entry. The interior flow guides the customer to the checkout counter and there’s one point of exit so the customer can be seen the entire time. The loading and receiving is located adjacent to the service court and the vault storage area is accessed at one secure point. Aksel said those areas need to be adjacent to the checkout window to be compliant with NYS cannabis use guidelines. The product is stored in the vault and moved out into the staging area during hours of operation where orders are processed, packaged, and passed through a secure checkpoint to a checkout window and then passed on to the customer. The remainder of the layout is the administrative function - IT security room, utilities and mechanical, management office for the onsite manager and breakroom for staff. Aksel showed slides of the elevations of the building and said the exterior of the building is a form derived from the function inside the building. He said the materials and colors of the building are a direct translation of the tenant’s brand. The interior is natural wood, with dark green teal and a light bronze color. On the exterior the vault is a heavy opaque mass. Aksel said they used as much glazing as possible for the back of house areas to comply with the intent of using fenestration on public facing ways while conforming to the NYS cannabis use guidelines. Aksel said they haven’t completed the design for the sign, but it will be pin mounted with halo lit letters and in compliance with the zoning. He said the branding look is a high-quality experience so everything about it, light fixtures on the exterior, illuminating the sidewalk, signage, implementation of the laser cut metal applique applied to the exterior of the vault mass is intended to give the implication of a high quality experience and product. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 11 of 16 Aksel showed renderings of the proposed structure and discussed the materials to be used: • Architectural metal panels for most of the façade cladding element, including the wood appearance material. • Wood synthetic material is the basis of the design product. • At the semi-private areas, the metal panels are intended to add shadow lines increasing the texture on the building. • Showed rough concept sketches to illustrate how the massing appears from the road. • Screen wall required around the service court. There can be no visibility to the operations occurring. • Front façade with a lot of natural light above the roof structure. State guidelines prohibit transparent glazing at ground level so they will be opaque. • Canopy provides cover around the entire sidewalk. • The wood cladding on the façade is wrapped up into the soffit where they will have integral light. • The roof will be a “green” vegetative roof which is crucial to the tenant’s brand – sustainability, connection to the earth. Mike Ingersol was not speaking into the mic. Inaudible. Tamie said the board would be reviewing the new construction and making sure they meet the city’s design standards – the mass, scale, proportions, height, fenestration, main entrances, street orientation, contextual appropriateness, visual expression, and materials. They will not be discussing use because it’s out of the DRB’s purview. Chris noted that this project is in the Gateway Rural not architectural district. Tamie said she’s very impressed with the building. She said the mass and scale of the building is very appropriate and the use of the materials are very interesting and are appropriate. She said this is a modern building and these are new, sleek, modern materials. She said where the building sits on the lot makes sense. It’s a very successful structure. Tamie noted that the signage on the south side is on the second floor and that’s not allowed by zoning. Chris asked if the siding was steel. Aksel said the basis for design right now is insulated steel but there are aluminum products out there. Chris said he would like to see what part of the rural gateway guidelines they used to design the building. Aksel said they used the following from the guidelines: • Facades abutting a public right-of-way – effort was made to make sure they didn’t have blank spans that exceeded 30 ft. and is why they chose architectural metal panels that have texture and cast shadow lines. Embellishment of the façade with branding with the hexagonal language. • Separating facades into modules – for massing, especially for buildings that are 80 ft. in length, those modules can’t be any wider than 40 ft. All dimensions align with that guideline. • Commercial store fronts including traditional pedestrian oriented elements – display windows, etc. Aksel said they can’t literally comply with that because of the state cannabis use regulations. He said they did try to City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 12 of 16  mimic the storefronts that you would find on a traditional main street with horizontal mullions aligned with the door head. • Architectural openings and porch framings maintaining height equal to or greater than their width. Aksel said they tried to accent the verticality in most of the openings. The horizontal transoms up above eye level don’t comply but they are the same proportion as the openings which do have functional eye level transparency at the office areas, they are just rotated 90 degrees. • Changing materials where there’s a physical change in the detail in the massing of the structure. Nothing 2-D or fake. • Mechanical equipment is 100% screened by the parapets. • 25% fenestration on ground floor façade. • Roof design guideline - hipped roofs. Aksel said with a retail structure like this with the intent to screen mechanical equipment on the roof and for function and cleanliness of the details, a flat roof is most conducive to the use. Parapet walls are used to conceal the equipment. • Reflective roof surfaces that produce glare – using a green/vegetative roof. Rob said it was a well thought out presentation and project and completely appropriate. Ellen said on the south elevation the octagonal windows seem slightly dated because they’re floating separate and asked if they could be ganged. Aksel said yes, but they’re separate to modularize them and make it easier for the storefront fabricator to provide one window type for the hex windows. If they’re put together it increases the cost of the storefront. Ellen asked what the post on the east elevation was made of. Aksel said steel. Jeff said he liked the design but was confused about the white soffit and slender columns. He said it looks like a mid-century flare with a 2025 design. Maybe dark brown would be more appropriate. Tad said it was a really nice design and agrees with what others have said. He suggested that the sconces that are centered below windows on the north side could be placed between the windows or brought up higher. Aksel said they are located for foot candle distribution across the sidewalk. Tad asked if the roof was sedum and how it drained. Aksel said yes and it drains in the interior of the building. Karen said she loves all the green that’s coming back to this corner. She said the green roof is amazing. She agreed with Jeff that a darker color on the soffit would compliment the roof. Karen asked if there was some way to take the columns out and put a bracket or something similar. She said the columns take away from the beautiful mass of the building. She suggested bringing a green element onto the building to tie in with the green around the site. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the design of the building. Ken Fansiwala, lives next door at the motel. Ken asked how the traffic will be coming in and out. Tamie said the DRB is only discussing the design of the structure and suggested that Ken attend a planning board meeting where traffic, etc. will be discussed. Tamie summarized what the board had to say: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 13 of 16  • Everyone is impressed with the project and feels it is appropriate. • 2 comments on the white on the soffit and suggested the use of a more natural color. Aksel said they considered a darker color, but it gave it a heavy feeling. He said they could do something a little more off white. Optional. • Cantilever – remove the columns and use brackets. Optional. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for the design for new construction at 1 Kaydeross Ave. West, Saratoga Springs with the following condition: That the applicant use a more natural shade of color for the facia and trim work. The color sample should be submitted for administrative approval. The motion was seconded by Karen Cavotta. No further discussion. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 11. #20240217 453,457 Broadway 3 Story Addition. Historic Review of new addition over existing structures within the Urban Core T-6 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has been before the DRB in the past and was provided feedback that has been incorporated into their proposal and is now back for review of the revised proposal. John Bartolotti represented the applicant. John presented phase 2 of the project which is next door to phase one (apartments above Compton’s), three stories above the existing distillery. The building extends to the road behind and wraps around the back of Compton’s for a total of 20 apartments. The building is a residential use on top. John said they lifted the building high enough to get above the Distillery’s roof top units and give them some space in there, to establish the first floor of the new construction, and to meet with a stair that they’re building inside on the Compton’s side. John said that floor level has enough clearance for cars to park underneath in the back – 9 parking spaces. John addressed some of the past comments from the DRB: • Fenestration size – adapted and pulled back to align with the other buildings, sizing was adjusted. • Cornice work on top – was reduced and simplified – built up composite material. • Height of the building – brought down to 56’9”. • Façade – thin brick because of challenges with weight. Have to go down through the structure below. There will be full corners on the brick, not mitered. • Lintels & sills – cast stone. • EIFS – has all been removed. • Trim – wood or PVC – painted (Azek or Boral) • Garage - included standard steel screening based on DRB comments. • Detail – soldier courses, full recess on all the windows to add depth. • Windows – aluminum clad – simple black, John said they’re calling for single hung but may have to do double hung. John said there’s a property line between the two buildings and the two buildings will likely be combined. He said the code has changed since they started the project, and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 14 of 16 they are not required to combine the properties if they provide the proper reciprocal easements, and the code enforcement officer agrees with it. It depends on what makes more sense to the applicant. It would allow for more flexibility with windows and openings as well. John showed slides for scale and massing of the building and the rear of the building. Comment from DRB that the back looked cut off at the bottom, so they capped that off. John passed around material samples. Upcoming Meetings: May 8, 2024, at 6 pm. Workshop Wednesday May 1, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall. Tamie said the height of the building is not a concern. She said the window fenestration works and the relief and detail to break up the façade is very well done. She said the cast stone lintels, headers, and square architectural features really work well and are very appropriate. Tamie said wood product versus PVC for the trim would be most appropriate. She said the Preservation Foundation sent a letter today and they have some concerns about the connection between the existing one-floor building and the addition. Tamie said she disagrees, and thinks they’ve done a very good job there. She said they’ve also done a good job with the fenestration at the back of the building. Tamie said the garage screening product is good and if they chose to use a live wall it would have to be live and not artificial plantings. Tamie said she doesn’t have any concerns with the think brick and is glad there will be full corners. Karen said the changes are fantastic and she thinks they look great. She agreed with Tamie about the brick and said the installation is important. Karen suggested making the trim piece around the garage area thicker to make it look more supportive of the building. John agreed. Tad said it was an overall nice design and agreed with Tamie about the detailing. Tad said he’s concerned about the cornice and how the end should wrap around. He said he liked Karen’s suggestion about making the trim piece thicker over the garage. Tad suggested adding another column in the parking garage area. Jeff said regarding the windows, the lintels should be flush, and the sill should be out. He agrees with widening the band visually. He said he would have no problem with a steel frame being added at the bottom of the parking garage. Ellen asked if the windows would have full bricks like the corners. John said yes, it will be a full cut. Rob agreed that the cornice needs to be corrected and should be wood and not a composite material. Rob said the transition between the columns and the structure itself (on the back of the building) is called out as wood or PVC and it should be cast stone. Chris said he agreed with all the other comments. He asked about the application process for the product. John is inaudible, not speaking into mic. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the changes are much more appropriate for the location. She said except for the cornice corner detail and the back façade at the bottom, they pretty much nailed it. Tamie said the board would like to see the window design. Tamie suggested that the board approve the mass and scale of the building tonight and the applicant should come back with the final details listed above. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 15 of 16 Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve the mass and scale of the 3-story addition for 453, 457 Broadway, Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Upcoming Meetings: May 22, 2024, at 6 pm. Workshop Wednesday May 15, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall. 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 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 8, 2024 - Page 16 of 16