Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 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, Leslie DiCarlo, Tad Roemer, Karen Cavotta (Alternate). ABSENT: Ellen Sheehan, Jeff Gritsavage, Kennedy Flack (Alternate) STAFF: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner, Tony Izzo, Counsel City of Saratoga Springs A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from the May 8, 2024 meeting. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. 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. #20210844 Larkin Marriot AC Hotel Construction, 176 South Broadway. Architectural review of minor modifications for a new 4 story hotel within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. (Project Index 20191122) 2. #20240268 80 West Dunkin’ Signage, 80 West Ave. Architectural Review of signage and clearance bar within the Neighborhood Center (T-5 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 applications for the Larkin Marriot AC Hotel Construction at 176 S. Broadway and 80 West Ave. Dunkin Signage as submitted. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 3. #20240318 37 Clark Apartment 8 Mini Split. Historic Review of exterior equipment installation within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 4. #20240257 235 Washington Mini Split. Architectural Review of exterior equipment installation within the Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 5. #20240251 Wendy’s, 24 Congress St. Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of exterior alterations within the Urban Core T-6 (T-6) District. 6. #20240266 67 Van Dam Roof. Architectural Review of roof replacement within the Urban Residential- 3 (UR-3) District. 7. #20240253 59 Franklin St. Porch Columns. Historic Review of porch column repair within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 8. #20240299 Cherry St. Single Family Construction. Historic Review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 9. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of garage demolition and new construction within the Urban Residential-4 (UR- 4) District. 10. #20230391 Stewart’s demolition and redevelopment, 177 S. Broadway & 28 Lincoln Ave. Determination of architectural/historical significance for an existing single-family residence (28 Lincoln Ave.) within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. _____________________________________________________________________ 3. #20240318 37 Clark St. Apartment 8 Mini Split. Historic Review of exterior equipment installation within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. There was no one in the audience to represent the application. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board can review and discuss the application and forward feedback to Beige or move forward with a motion. Beige displayed a photo of the building where apartment 8 is located. The proposal for the mini split is on the North Lane elevation. The sketch shows where the mini split and conduit would be located on the rear facade. The front façade will be untouched. Beige showed examples of neighboring exterior equipment close by. She showed detailed information about the equipment being installed. Tamie said the façade is already badly compromised with some poorly installed AC units. Does the addition of one more unit negatively affect the character of the back façade? Tamie said she needs clarity from the applicant about the conduit lines. Tad said they need both lines because the head unit is in two different rooms. Chris said they need to know where the power’s coming from. Chris asked if the two units that are currently on the building would be removed and replaced with the mini splits. He also wants to know what the vent is that goes through the roof. Tamie said the board has too many questions and will need the applicant to be present to address them. Beige will contact the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 2 of 15 4. #20240257 235 Washington Mini Split. Architectural Review of exterior equipment installation within the Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. Jonathan Ching represented the application. Jonathan showed a photo of the building and where they would like to locate the equipment by the front entryway. He said on the right side of the entry door is a Lab that is not getting good AC to the room. The mini split would be for that room only. Jonathan said they need to locate the mini split there because any other location on the back side of the building would require them to run line sets that would be over 100 ft. and the factory specs call for 80 ft. He said they would run power inside the building through the drop ceiling and there would be a disconnect outside where the unit would hang on the wall on the outside, not on a stand. Jonathan said there would be a 5ft. line set cover with white trim and the unit is 2 by 4 ft. unit hung to the wall and the wall mount will protrude 1.5 ft. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the goal with the mini splits, is that the conduit and power source are placed in the least visible spot possible. Tamie said in her opinion a unit that projects out in the front entrance way by a foot and a half is not appropriate. Jonathan said they don’t use that entrance. Chris Bennett asked why the air conditioning inside the building wasn’t working. Jonathan said when they built the building, they zoned the AC system, and the building is all sheet rocked. There are no vents, and the dropped ceiling is only in parts of the building. He said they are unable to get in the ceiling of the Lab room. Chris suggested they go back to the heating engineer and find out what’s wrong. They should have drawings of the duct work. Chris agrees with Tamie that it’s inappropriate to place the unit on the exterior. Rob agreed with Tamie and Chris that it shouldn’t be in the doorway or on the front of the building. He suggested maybe the unit could be placed on a concrete pad with a planting in front of it. Tad agreed with the others and with Chris about getting the AC to work correctly. He suggested they could also just put a window unit in which would be less expensive and could be removed. Tad said if they have to put a mini split, he suggested locating it in one of the niches on the east side of the building. Jonathan said they could do that and would run the line set inside. Karen said she was going to suggest the niche as well and it would be great if they could run it on the inside of the building. Tamie said it seems like a good solution, but the applicant will need to return with a rendering (sketch on a picture) of how it will look and any screening they are providing. Jonathan should submit the information to Beige and if everything looks good, they will add the application to the next meeting’s consent agenda. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments. There were no comments. 5. #20240251 Wendy’s, 24 Congress St. Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of exterior alterations within the Urban Core T-6 (T-6) District. Jason Terrance represented the franchisee and architect. Jason displayed older images (45-50 years old) of the Wendy’s building with solariums on the front of the building. Jason said they are obsolete, and leak and they would like to remove them. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 3 of 15 He said there’s a brick wall that goes around the front of the building. He said they would remove the concrete, put new glass and then landscape. The end result would be a new storefront and glass and a new façade on the front of the building made of brown corrugated metal that matches the new scheme colors for Wendy’s. They’ll also add the new logo and lettering. The existing panels will be painted the same color as the corrugated metal. They will put a new face on the Wendy’s sign with LED lighting. There will be a low voltage LED lighting strip that goes along the front of the building. They are adding sconces that illuminate upward and downward. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board will be discussing two signs, the alterations to the solarium, which affects the front façade, and the exposed wall behind the solarium. Tamie said the monument sign is just a replacement in kind and she has no concerns with it. She said the quasi-roof sign may be grandfathered in, but if it’s not, the lettering is too large and wouldn’t be appropriate. Tamie said today the maximum font size for a sign is 18” (the sign is currently 36”). If they’re not grandfathered in, they could go before the ZBA and seek approval for a 36” sign. Tamie asked what material would be on the newly exposed wall. Jason said it would be “M-1”-brake metal with brick on the bottom and under the front corrugated they would put a soffit with Azek and paint it the same color. Tamie agreed that the material changes were very appropriate. Karen Cavotta asked if the new corrugated metal would match the existing standing seam roof metal. Jason said Wendy’s has a color called Mississippi Bronze that will match everywhere around the building. Karen asked why what they’re proposing won’t match the Wendy’s out by the mall. Jason said the Congress St. Wendy’s is one of Dave Thomas’ original designs and they’re trying to keep the integrity of the building itself except for removing the solarium. Karen said she’s concerned about the materials all being the same color and if the metals will go together very well. Jason said they can remove the old Victorian panels and wrap the corrugated metal all the way around at the top of the store. Karen said that would be her personal preference. Jason said they have done that in the past but thinks the intent was to keep traditional stores with the new rendering. Tad Roemer asked if the doorway inside the solarium would be filled in with brick once the solarium is removed. Jason said yes, and they will re-use brick that has been removed from the building. Tad said he’s okay with what they are proposing. Chris Bennett agreed with Karen and doesn’t see how the materials will marry well together. Jason showed the board a photo of the store they completed in Latham with the new style, and they agreed that looked better. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that the monument sign was appropriate, they are waiting for a ruling on the font size for the letters on the building, and the board agrees that the applicant should chose a consistent material for the roof either way. The board agreed that the size of the font for the building sign can be approved by Tamie administratively. Tamie asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve exterior modifications to Wendy’s at 24 Congress St. with the following conditions: the roof should be consistent around the building either as is with existing curved panels or as proposed with new corrugated City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 4 of 15 panels. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Discussion: Tamie said it should be added that the applicant should return for further review of the wall signage which is excluded from this approval. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 6. #20240266 67 Van Dam Roof. Architectural Review of roof replacement within the Urban Residential- 3 (UR-3) District. Susan Cuda said she owns the house with her husband Greg. Susan said the back peak of the roof is asphalt shingles and the forward peak and roof are metal. Susan said the roof is old and leaking and they are proposing to re-roof it entirely with asphalt shingles. Tamie said when the board looks at roof replacements they look to see if the roof can be repaired rather than replaced, and then they review roof materials that would be used for appropriateness. Tamie said she drove by the house, and it looks as if the entire roof has been compromised and needs to be replaced. Tamie read from the guidelines “if roof repairs are needed, the original size, shape and pitch of the roof should be maintained. The material structure should be maintained.” “The roof should match the original design, shape, material and texture.” Tamie said taking the guidelines into consideration, for her it would be inappropriate to replace the original structure with asphalt considering it is standing seam now. Chris Bennett said he would be ok with the asphalt on the roof because it would be difficult to marry a new standing seam roof with the asphalt, but he feels the front porch should maintain a standing seam roof. Rob DuBoff asked if they have exhausted all possibilities of repairing what’s there. Susan said they hired someone to paint the roof who didn’t sand or repair the roof and it didn’t last. She said she has since hired someone to estimate the repairs/replacement and they said the roofs have to come off. Rob said the board would ask that the roofer submit a letter to them stating why the roof can’t be repaired and must be replaced. Leslie DiCarlo agreed with Rob that a letter would be helpful to the board in their decision. She said she likes the idea of the standing seam porch roof and would really like to see all the standing seam replaced in kind, but since they have an asphalt roof as well, she would be ok with it. Tad Roemer said he agrees with Chris. Karen Cavotta said she also agrees with Chris and that a letter should be submitted from the roofer. Chris said another option would be to put a standing seam snow slide on with the asphalt. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. There were no comments. Tamie asked that the applicant submit a letter from the roofer to Beige stating that he thoroughly inspected the roof and concluded that it cannot be repaired and must be replaced. She said it appears that the board is in favor of asphalt on the main roof with a standing seam on the porch roof. Chris added that the applicant should have the coating of the roof checked for asbestos before removing it. Tamie added that the standing seam snow slide would be worth looking into and would look great. The applicant will submit the letter and return for the next DRB meeting. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 5 of 15 7. #20240253 59 Franklin St. Porch Columns. Historic Review of porch column repair within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. John Mastropietro said 18 years ago they got the same exact detail approved for 63 Franklin St., which is next door, that they’re requesting for 59 Franklin. John showed photos of the detailing and how well it has held up over the years. John said originally a pressure treated base was recommended but they decided to go with the plastic (Azek) which has held up much better. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked why they are adding the base to the columns at 59. Aesthetics, etc.? John showed a photo of the column starting to rot because of the wood on wood where water and snow build up on the deck. Tamie said the makeup of the board has changed in 18 years and each application is looked at differently. She said she wanted John to understand that although the Azek was approved 18 years ago, it may not be today. Tamie asked if there was ever a base around the columns. John said he believes it always sat on the mahogany and there’s a pier underneath. Tamie said she would not approve Azek for a historic home because it's not appropriate material. Rob Duboff said it was designed to sit on the wood deck, that’s the detail. Rob said he understands why they did it with the other house, but it’s such a character defining element to have the columns terminate directly into the deck, he doesn’t know if he could support the proposal or the Azek. Chris Bennett said he agrees with Rob but understands that the column is going to continue to rot. He said he would use Boral instead of Azek because it’s a better product and more like wood but won’t rot. Leslie DiCarlo asked if they would be replacing the decking. John said they are replacing it, and it will be stained. Leslie said she understands the problem with the rot and asked if they could paint the plinth a color that makes it disappear. John said he feels it defines the base and the column itself. Chris said he would add more of a plinth, make it more substantial and have the decking run underneath it. Tad agreed with Chris and added that a 2 “thick circle of Azek under the bottom of the column with the deck continuing to the edge so that the wood is continuous across the front seems like a good solution. Karen said the columns are a major important character of the building and were probably meant to mimic stone. She said she understands the problem and empathizes with the applicant in trying to come up with a solution. Karen said she’s not a fan of Azek because it has a shininess to it. She said if they’re going with a thicker round disk at the bottom of the column it needs to have some creative profile to it with a fluted column base. She agreed that the decking would not have to be run underneath the columns, but the decking line should remain so that it reads like the deck is there. Rob said the columns are such a character defining feature he can’t see changing it. Chris said they could make the disk the same diameter as the column, scallop them, epoxy the disks and slip them in under the column. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 6 of 15 Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that the board is looking for a consistent line of decking, so that it’s not interrupted by plinths while providing the buffer necessary between the base of the column and the decking using a Boral product. Tamie said the applicant should take the feedback and come up with a solution that works for him and meets the criteria that’s been expressed to him by the board. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Mike Mastropietro (Father) did the original plinths at 63 Franklin St. He said at the time he proposed treated wood and was told to use the plastic product. 8. #20240299 Cherry St. Single Family Construction. Historic Review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential - 4 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that the applicant has been before the board in the past and was asked to provide additional details on the front door, venting, and fence. Rachel Smisloff, Witt Construction passed around materials for the deck, ceiling, fence, Hardie Board (smooth and wood grain), and standing seam metal roof. Tamie clarified that the material presented for the fence was a new material that the builder has not worked with in the past. Rachel presented a summary of changes from the last meeting: • All trim boards, facia and casing have been changed to Boral and painted white. • Lap siding will be smooth finish instead of wood grain. • On the east elevation added an overhang over the sliding doors facing Franklin St. • Added standing seam to the returns on the eaves and changed to a 3/12 pitch. • The column on the right side of the front porch has been removed. A more historic looking two-panel door has been added. • Added a fence to be reviewed by the board. • Removed the cupola from the garage. • Added a window on the gable along the north side of the garage that is facing the alley. • The stair windows have been realigned beneath the gable on the west elevation so they’re more centered. • On the north elevation the windows on the second and third floor have been realigned so that they’re spaced equally from the corners. • Showed street view photos of the proposed house facing the southeast and west. • They kept the composite for the porch deck. • Showed east elevation rendering facing Franklin Street with the cupola removed and showing the fence. The fence will be 6’ along the back and sides and slope down to 4 ft. in the front where the gate is. • Showed rendering of the north elevation with the windows realigned and added a window with shutters beneath the gable of the detached garage. • Showed west elevation facing Marvin Alley with the windows realigned on the 2nd floor and staircase. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 7 of 15  • Submitted the spec sheet for the fence (Wapole Outdoors Chesapeake Fence) with installation photos. • Submitted spec sheet on the new proposed front door - Cleary Millwork Heritage Flush Glazed Smooth 2-panel Fiberglass door with applied 6 lite SDL’s, painted black. • Submitted an overhang detail for the side sliding doors and horizontal termination cap spec sheet for the vent cap which can be painted any color. Tamie said she’s been impressed with this proposal from the beginning. The mass and scale of the structure is great, the materials are appropriate, the location of the garage is great, and she’s delighted that the applicant has listened to all of the feedback provided by the board. Tamie said the only thing she finds to be inappropriate is the 6 ft. height of the fence at the rear and sides of the house. She said because it’s adjacent to the historic district which was meant to be walkable and to engage with pedestrians, a tall fence makes it lose that character. Tamie said she’s fine with the materials for the fence but wouldn’t support the 6 ft. height. She said it should be moved down at least one foot and ideally it would be 4 ft. all the way around. Karen said she thinks it looks great. It has a lot of nice changes and great character. She said she’s not sure she has a problem with the fence. Karen said it was a nice use to a very small lot. Tad said it’s been a really thoughtful design from the beginning and a very well-done presentation. It makes it so much easier for everyone to understand what’s being proposed. He said he tends to agree with Tamie about the fence height but with the parking lot behind the fence he understands why they proposed 6 ft. Leslie said it’s very appropriate and attractive and the height of the fence in the back is not a concern. She said she likes how the fence drops down in the front to 4 ft. Rob said all the changes were fine, but he agrees with Tamie that he could not support a 6 ft. fence. He said it’s a bad precedent to set having a suburban privacy fence in a historic district. Rob said they would be introducing PVC fencing in the historic district that will attract algae over time and will not be maintenance free. Chris agreed with other board members that it’s a really nice design. He said he has a problem with plastic (PVC) because it releases chemicals into the environment and couldn’t support the fence but would support the project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie said that it appears that the board members agree that the project is approvable. There were two board members who were against the material for the fence and two against the height. The builder agreed they could reduce the height of the fence to 5 ft. but there was no agreement on the material for the fence. It was decided that a motion would be made to approve the bulk of the project excluding the fence. Karen Cavotta made a motion to approve the construction of a single-family dwelling at Cherry St., Saratoga Springs with the following condition: The fence is excluded from the approval at this time. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 8 of 15 Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 9. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of garage demolition and new construction within the Urban Residential - 4 District. Leslie DiCarlo recused herself from this application due to proximity of property. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant was before the board at their last meeting where the garage was determined insignificant. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented Thomas Grossman, owner of 169 Union Ave. located at the corner of Ludlow and Morton Pl. Tonya said they had approval to demolish the garage several years ago, but the owner did not go through with that project and renovated the entire home instead. Tonya said it’s a 1920’s garage in very poor condition. She showed photos of the garage with no sills or foundation, the walls are boarded up and the openings are in poor condition. The garage lists in many directions. Tonya showed photos of the character of the neighborhood. Tamie said the board will discuss demolition and then SEQRA. Tonya said she didn’t submit a SEQRA form as part of the application. Tamie said they can’t move forward without approving demolition which can’t be approved without SEQRA review so they can’t move forward tonight with a motion but said the board could look at what’s being proposed and provide feedback to the applicant. Tonya displayed the plot plan that was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. She said they originally asked for 4 variances because they wanted to place the building as close to Morton Alley as possible. She said it was originally only .9 ft. away from the property line, but in discussions with the ZBA they felt that the removal of the additional variance would be appropriate so the whole building was moved so it’s now 10 ft. away from the alley which meets the zoning requirements. They received variances for coverage and size of the driveway. She said they’re increasing the permeable space of the entire lot. Tonya said bringing the building 10 ft. back brings away the mass as it’s viewed from Morton Place. She said all the other accessory structures and the home across the street are very close to the pavement and none are 10 ft. away. Tonya said when people park next to their buildings on Morton Place they park in the alley. She said they’ve made the building smaller than their original proposal as requested by the ZBA. Tonya showed photos of the mass and scale going down Morton Alley and the floor plan for the new structure. She said they are proposing a two-car garage (28’ by 28’ with 30’ by 30’ roof overhangs). The upstairs is a one-bedroom apartment with a small office/second bedroom and living area. Tonya said they added shed dormers for headroom for the bathroom. She displayed the north elevation from Morton Alley and said they included a rake to break up the mass. She said there’s a full shed dormer facing west toward the neighbor and smaller shed dormers on the street side to break up the mass. They kept the rake on the south elevation to bring down the mass of the wall. They have two shed dormers on the east elevation with two smaller awning City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 9 of 15 windows and are suggesting some kind of panel underneath to break up the mass visually. Tonya said the structure will be white to match the color of the house. They are proposing architectural shingle for the roof with copper snowslides along the main roof and dormers. Tonya said they’re looking at Marvin Ultimate wood windows. Tamie said while the structure is larger than what’s there currently, Tonya’s done a great job at breaking up the mass and scale. Tamie said an elevation of the whole property and a colored rendering would be very helpful for their final determination. She said the materials proposed are all appropriate. Chris agreed with Tamie. Rob said he would like an overall height on how it compares to the existing house. He said he personally would not support the use of any synthetic materials in this location on Union Ave. behind an important historic house. He suggested having exposed rafter tails instead of soffits for more of a carriage house look. Rob asked why the south elevation, which is visible from the street, was not as developed as the north elevation. Tonya said only because it faces the house and the owner said to keep it simple. Rob asked what the material for the driveway would be. Tonya said asphalt. The driveway will be 10 ft. to the roof overhang. Rob asked about lighting. Tonya said they will only have one light in the small entryway because the area is very well lit. Tad noted that the dormers on the east and west elevations are not symmetrical as you look at the building at the north elevation or from the main house. Tonya said they’re trying to save space inside and because they’re on separate sides of the building she doesn’t think it will be noticeable. Tad said a 3D design would be helpful to evaluate that. He asked if the corner cutout was necessary on the first floor. Tonya said they wanted to have a covering so that the front door is shielded from the weather. Tad said he would like to see the footprint of what’s there now compared to what it will be. He said he agrees with Rob about the materials to be used. Karen agreed that a 3D rendering would be helpful. She said she would like to see more detail on the south elevation and suggested a covering over the doorway. Karen said a column on the east elevation instead of a post would help to tie the new structure to the original house. Chris noted that there’s a new company from Europe that has opened a factory in Tennessee that produces a sustainable wood called Accoya that’s been treated with vinegar that the applicant might want to investigate. He said there’s a 30-to-40-year warranty on the product and it’s highly paintable. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. There were no comments. Tamie summarized that the board would like to see a 3D view, footprint overlay of what’s standing there now and what’s being proposed, and a whole property elevation for a comparison of mass and scale. 10. #20230391 Stewart’s demolition and redevelopment, 177 S. Broadway & 28 Lincoln Ave. Determination of architectural/historical significance for an existing single-family residence (28 Lincoln Ave.) within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has been before the board multiple times and the board is working hard with them to give them every advantage in terms of the number of board members present to allow for a full and accurate review. The discussion tonight is about whether the structure is architecturally or historically significant. Tamie said the applicant has provided the board with a lot of information and asked if there was anything further they wished to submit. Libby Clark said they City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 10 of 15 believe the evidence is sufficient in the record for determination of non-significance given the materials and that’s what they are asking the board to do. She said there is no new information. Tamie said she has been wrestling with this for quite some time and she knows other board members feel the same way. She said she prides herself in doing her due diligence for every application in front of the board, but especially this one. She said she recognizes what’s at stake. Tamie noted that this is Stewart’s, a very well-respected organization looking to do this, and it adds to the stress of making this decision. She said she has driven by the house many times and each time she sees more of the original character. She said she looked hard not to. Tamie said originally, she didn’t think there was enough left to make it architecturally significant but now she does. She noted there are original character defining features left like the trim details, cornice return, transom side lights and French doors that have been part of this home since the 1880’s and are still intact. She said these features and the fact that the house has been in this spot over 140 years make it historically significant. Tamie said she finds the house architecturally and historically significant and feels that every applicant who comes before the board requesting this type of demolition needs to be treated equally, fairly and just. Tamie stressed the fact that should the board move forward with a determination of significance, it does not mean that the structure gets turned into a landmark or that it cannot be demolished. It means that it allows the board to determine the process that the applicant will need to take to allow the board to proceed with a discussion about demolition. Tamie said for the record she is not necessarily opposed to demolishing this structure, but she cannot in good faith say that it is not historically significant. Karen said like Tamie, she too has struggled with this decision. She said in looking at the definition of significance “the quality of being worthy of attention or importance” she doesn’t think this property meets the threshold of being a significant structure. She said she looked at the historical and architectural significance separately. Karen said she read through the history of the house, and she doesn’t see how it makes it significant to the city of Saratoga Springs. She said when she looked at the neighborhood and community, she felt at one time it was part of a little neighborhood of houses, but the entire area has transformed into more of a commercial area, and she doesn’t feel it’s a contributing factor in the community anymore. Karen said her background is architecture and every building has architectural features. She said this structure does have features that represent a Greek Revival home, but there are wonderful examples of this architectural style in Saratoga that are better maintained, have had more longevity and that really represent the history of the city when looking at this architectural style. Karen said she doesn’t feel the architecture tells a story. Tad said he agrees with Karen that he doesn’t see the historical significance of the house. He said he’s not taking into consideration its deteriorated state because he would never endorse demolition by neglect. He said he thinks the building could be restored to be photogenic, but he agrees with the findings of the Hudson Cultural Services and does not find it historically significant. Leslie said Karen’s definition of significance has made her rethink her thoughts about the house. She said this is the most difficult application to come before her. She said what is compelling to her when she drives by the house is that it’s been in this neighborhood for over 140 years, a neighborhood that she said is still somewhat intact. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 11 of 15 Leslie said she’s walked around the neighborhood and there are still 10 or 12 houses that are still there. She said this particular house is in an architectural district, so it’s protected and some of the other houses are not. Leslie said there are intact architectural features that are going to be lost as a cohesive whole, and that little part of Saratoga is going to be another thing that’s missing in perpetuity. She finds the house is significant and said she would not be against it being demolished but it must be done in the proper steps. Rob said he also looked up the definition of significance and pointed out that it doesn’t mean extraordinary or exceptional. His definition said, “meaningful or noteworthy”. Rob read his notes about the house into the minutes, and they are summarized as follows: • Not much is known about the person who built the house, Delia A. Morris, and how she came to own several pieces of property in the vicinity of Broadway and Lincoln Ave., a large lot containing the subject house, 145 Broadway (where she lived), a rooming house to the south known as the Manor house, the corner property on the north side of Lincoln Ave. (the site of the Springs Motel), and a house that is now McDonald’s restaurant. • There’s little information in the history of Saratoga stating that Delia was a meaningful or noteworthy figure in the history of Saratoga. • 28 Lincoln Ave. was a Planned Parenthood from 1975 to 1981 when they relocated to Church St. First Planned Parenthood office in Saratoga, known as the Southern Adirondack Planned Parenthood. • He believes the date of the construction noted by Beth Selig is incorrect and that the house was constructed likely 10 to 15 years after Delia Morris acquired the property in 1865, most likely between 1875 and 1877. • Cramer map from 1876 is misleading as the house was most likely potentially under construction while the survey was taking place. Surveys only included completed buildings. • An auction notification from September 15, 1874, from the Daily Saratogian indicated that the property owned by Delia Morris of 145 Broadway (now Duo Restaurant) was going to be auctioned off and the notification stated that the lot size was 130’ by 55’. The 1876 Cramer map does not show any lot lines; therefore the map is incorrect because Ms. Morris would have had to subdivide the property before the auction date of September 1874. It is possible she subdivided the property and used the auction proceeds to start construction on the house now standing at 28 Lincoln. • Rob believes the structure is 150 years old and has intrinsic historic significance by virtue of its age even if no famous person ever lived there. • The house’s significance derives from the fact that it had an important association within the context of the development of the vernacular Victorian Architecture in Saratoga Springs. • The structure itself is architecturally meaningful and therefore significant. The house is Greek Revival structure and still retains original details including wood siding underneath the asbestos siding, exterior trim, transom and sidelights surrounding the front door, French doors leading to the porch. • The footprint of the building and window and door openings have not changed. • The front door is not original but has a significant age. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 12 of 15  • There are very few Greek revival structures in town that date from this period, which makes it significant. • The structure represents the transition from the Greek Revival style that was beginning to fall out of favor in the 1870’s to what is now known as vernacular Victorian. • Historic photos show that the house was originally constructed with a single-story front porch with slender columns and a center stair – characteristics of the Victorian architectural period. Rob noted that the designer had one foot in the past and one foot in the future. • Discussion about the integrity of the interior of the home at previous meetings which is not within the purview of the DRB. There are many significant houses in the historic district that have been completely gutted and retain no interior historic integrity despite their outward appearance. • With respect to precedence, the DRB decided that the buildings at 65 and 69 Phila St. had historic and architectural significance. Why are those two houses that feature similar vernacular Victorian architecture and working-class associations more historically or architecturally significant than this house. Both of which are being restored. For the reasons stated above Rob feels the structure at 28 Lincoln is both historically and architecturally significant. Chris said he finds that the structure retains about 75 to 80 percent of its original architecture and is a historically significant house. He said he also finds the house is an anchor in this neighborhood, the last house in a bunch. It has significance to a struggling neighborhood that’s in transition. Chris noted that it has significance in that a woman owned it because women owning property at that time was not taken lightly. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. Joel Roberts owner of the property at 28 Lincoln since 1981. Joel said he was approached about selling 25 or 30 years ago by Mobil wanting to buy the whole block but only two of the three people wanted to sell. Joel said the window at the front top of the house is not original. Joel said he feels Stewart’s proposal would be a vast improvement to the neighborhood. He said fixing the house up for 40 to 50 thousand dollars for $200 a month more rent is not a sound investment. Also, there’s no parking available. Pastor Peter Berrios asked how much of the house was in its original form. How much of the outside structure has been replaced? He would like the board to consider that before making their decision. Joel said he walked through the house with some of the board members and he said that Chris said the soffit was the only thing of value. Chris said what he said was that the soffit had value as well as the other items listed previously. Chris said the board did the same thing on Beekman St. and Phila St. and Lincoln is being held to the same standards. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 13 of 15 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board is not meant to debate when they caravan a property. They’re supposed to walk through and ask questions, which is what they did. Libby Clark said that at the highest level the applicant agrees with the DRB Chair that Stewart’s does not deserve any different review. She said they also agree that should a finding of significance be made that there is a process in the zoning for moving forward. Libby said for the record that there have been areas of discussion with the DRB that have seemed to dominate beyond Section B, that they’re looking at. She said because that process exists really has no bearing on the board’s findings. It is a threshold matter that has to be reached first and that’s why the applicant is here, not whether or not they could meet a standard later on. Libby said she has tons of respect for the members who serve but for purposes of constitutional review there were factors cited tonight that are not reflected as standards in the UDO. She said the percentage of the structure that’s left or the later implications to the neighborhood are not reflected in the UDO. She said the materials used in the building are not a standard in the UDO. Libby said one particular concern she wanted to raise before the vote is recognizing that any time these types of decisions are made, they are difficult decisions. She said they’re difficult because they’re weighing multiple initiatives in the balance. She said the ones she heard tonight that were of a concern as it relates to issue B, the definition and application of significance, are listed below for the record: • Whether or not the neighborhood stays intact and its ability to protect the rest of the architecture for an already commercial district, as defined by the City Council, is outside of the scope of review. She said no building as defined in the UDO is neighborhood protection, so it’s not a factor to be considered. • The age of the structure is not a factor listed in the UDO. • There are two professional reports, which in the law is considered empirical evidence, and must be weighed over other forms of circumstantial or speculative evidence. The age of the structure is speculative. • She said the properties that were listed to serve as precedence are located in the historic district not the architectural district. Libby said it’s in the model ordinance for NYS that historic districts should be given higher levels of review because the district was created by the legislature. She said every owner in that district knows what is meant for them. Because of that higher level of property treatment, hardship appeals exist when there’s been a legislative determination. When the DRB is referencing the steps that are taken, this constitutional requirement of making a determination about the land and property rights of an individual is less important than the steps that can be taken to overcome the hardship. She said when we tell someone that they’re going to have to go through a process to rebut the presumption of the government to get to that place, it is more than one sentence. She said people deserve a better standard of review. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said there’s no doubt that the few sentences in the UDO are not detailed to the extent that most applicants would like. She said a word that’s in there is “may” and not “should”. Tamie said the DRB is determining and evaluating significance in the manner they have been doing it for many years, despite Libby’s dissatisfaction with what’s in the UDO. Libby said the word is “arbitrary and capricious” not City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 14 of 15 “dissatisfied”. They lead to arbitrary subjective results against private property rights. She said there’s a significant difference and she doesn’t take issue with the precedent. Tamie said this is above and beyond her skill in terms of the legalities involved with language. She said the board can only respond in the manner of the task they’ve been given. She said she can’t address Libby’s concerns. Tamie asked legal counsel to step in to address legal issues. Tony Izzo, City attorney said he agrees that the threshold standard is sparce. He said the threshold that comes at the next level is much more detailed. Tony said it would be his preference to have a discussion with the board, not at a public hearing but in an attorney/client setting regarding subsection B in the UDO and what he thinks it may have in terms of significance. Tony said he’s defended the DRB in three lawsuits; one is still pending, and he knows that Libby is a very skilled land use attorney. It was decided that the DRB and Tony Izzo will meet privately to discuss further. MOTION TO ADJOURN: A motion to Adjourn was made by Leslie DiCarlo and seconded by Rob Duboff. ALL IN FAVOR There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 22, 2024 - Page 15 of 15