Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 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, Jeff Gritsavage, Ellen Sheehan, Karen Cavotta (Alternate). ABSENT: Kennedy Flack (Alternate) STAFF: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from the May 22, 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. #20240320 3248 S. Broadway Verizon Antenna Pole NG 148½. Architectural review of wireless equipment in the right-of-way. 2. #20240326 3368 S. Broadway Verizon Antenna 175 ½. Architectural review of wireless equipment in the right-of-way. 3. #20240368 376 Broadway Berkshire Hathaway Awning. Historic review of replacement awning within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 4. #20240372 437 Broadway Booker & Bangtail Sign. Historic review of a new sign within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 5. #20240370 687 N. Broadway Alterations & Addition. Historic review of an expired application with a previous approval within the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. 6. #20240257 235 Washington mini split. Architectural Review of exterior equipment installation within the Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. 1 Franklin Square was removed from the consent agenda because the board members had questions about materials being used. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the applications for the 3248 S. Broadway Verizon Antenna, 3368 S. Broadway Verizon Antenna, 376 Broadway Berkshire Hathaway Awning, 437 Broadway Booker & Bangtail Sign, 687 N. Broadway Alterations & Addition, 235 Washington mini split. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-, E. Sheehan-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 7. #20240317 1 Franklin Square Phinney Design Group Signage. Historic review of two signs within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie said she did not see that there were vinyl sleeves and caps proposed, which are not appropriate, when she placed the project on the consent agenda. Tamie said there are two signs that they are considering, a free-standing and wall sign. TABLED Tamie Ehinger, Chair suggested the application be tabled and Beige have them submit a revised application and it will be put on the consent agenda for the next meeting. 8. #20240318 37 Clark Apartment 8 Mini Split. Historic Review of exterior equipment installation within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. No one was present to represent this application. TABLED 9. #20240257 307 Broadway, The Bunker Outdoor Dining. Historic Review of outside seating within. 10. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of garage demolition and new construction within the Urban Residential-4 (UR- 4) District. 11. #20240217 453, 457 Broadway 3-story addition. Historic Review of new addition over existing structures within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 12. #20240367 186 Circular two-story addition. Historic Review of 2-story addition within the Urban Residential- 3 (UR-3) District. 13. #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. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 8. #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. Beige discussed some items with the applicant but not the rationale behind the amount of conduit being used. Officially tabled. 9. #20240257 307 Broadway, The Bunker Outdoor Dining. Historic Review of outside seating within the Urban Core T-6 District. Troy Miller, owner of The Bunker is looking to do café seating along Congress St. and Broadway. They are proposing it be 5 ft. off the building and enclosed with black planters. The available full space is 12 to 13 ft. and allows for 8 to 9 ft. of additional space once the seating is placed. The furniture will be black aluminum (Troy showed a photo on his phone and will email the image to Beige). The planters are black and different sizes - long and short. Tamie said the planter solution is great and exactly the intent of planters. She emphasized that the plants need to be real. Tamie noted there were concerns about there being enough pedestrian access on the Congress St. side with the undulations of the building and location of streetlamps. She said if the board moves to approve the application it should be conditioned upon approval by the building department. She said otherwise everything is appropriate. Leslie noted that they serve alcohol and people can walk between the planters. She said it was her understanding that it must be completely enclosed. Tamie said there are other outdoor café’s that don’t have that. Should the State Liquor Authority (SLA) require them to completely wall it off, the DRB would need to see the changes. Troy said they need to submit the DRB’s approval into the SLA so it will go through that natural process. Rob asked where the seating begins and ends. Troy said it goes along the entire building. Rob asked if the planters would be left out all year and Troy said no, they’ll be removed. Jeff – furniture should be black aluminum. Tad said he’s concerned about pedestrian passage. Ellen said she’s in agreement with what has been said by other members. Jeff said the applicant needs to be cognizant of people being able to get around the planters. The furnishings are movable and maybe should be pulled in a little so wheelchairs can get past. Troy said his recollection is that it is a minimum of 4 ft. of clearance. Tamie added that the applicant will need approval from the building department. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience wanted to comment on the application. There were none. Rob Duboff made a motion to approve the outdoor seating and planters at the Bunker at 307 Broadway, Saratoga Springs with the following conditions: DRB approval is conditioned upon approval from the building department and the State Liquor Authority, and any required changes will need to be resubmitted for approval. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett . Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, J. Gritsavage. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 3 of 10 Tamie mentioned to Troy that the neon signs for parking and “open” that are in the window are not appropriate and not allowed on Broadway. 10. #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 board discussed demolition of the garage and there were no concerns. The board discovered that they would have to perform a SEQRA review, and the applicant would have to submit a short form and return for review. Tamie said it’s been submitted, uploaded and reviewed and the board will move forward with demolition based on SEQRA. They will not be discussing the new construction tonight. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented Thomas Grossman, owner of 169 Union Ave. 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. 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. Tamie Ehinger made a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration for 169 Union Ave., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, J. Gritsavage-N. 5-1 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the demolition of a garage at 169 Union Ave., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Discussion: Jeff said the removal of the garage changes the character of the alley. It would become more like a parking lot. He said if something gets built that’s set back, it changes something that’s character defining Saratoga, the alleys and carriage house type look. Rob said that Jeff had a valid point. He said this has come up with many other projects where the applicant seeks demolition, it gets granted, and the property just sits there. Something needs to be figured out by city hall to make sure that an applicant follows through with their plan to construct something on the site. Tamie said there’s been debate in the past about what the board can and can’t do and that’s not been completely answered. She said the board can include something in the motion, if Beige City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 feels it’s appropriate, that as a condition the proposed rebuild must take place within a certain period. Biege said the approval for demolition is 18 months but that doesn’t say something needs to be constructed in 18 months. Tonya noted that this is an accessory structure, it’s not like taking down a house and there’ll be a large parking lot left. Tonya said the building is leaning several directions and is going to come down eventually. She said fixing it would be difficult to do. She said she would question the requirement of putting another building there within a certain timeline. Rob said the application is predicated on building something to replace it. Jeff said for context, Saratoga is health, history and horses and this property denotes history and horses. It’s across from the Racing Museum and there’s an alley there that has carriage houses that are tight up against the alley - that’s the look. He said it’s just wood and it can be fixed. If it doesn’t get built it will look like a parking lot. It’s a prominent spot. Tamie disagreed. She said it’s not a large hotel being taken down, it’s a small accessory structure. Tad questioned why 225 Caroline was deemed historically significant, but this isn’t. He said the board should try to be more consistent. Chris said 225 Caroline was structurally sound, had a foundation and no rot. Tamie said when determining historic significance, the condition of the structure, generally, is not meant to be taken into consideration. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-N, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, J. Gritsavage-N. 4-2 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 said the applicant has been before the board many times with many revisions and has worked diligently with board. John Bartolotti said he did an abbreviated submission addressing the questions that were left after the last meeting. John showed two options for the upper right and left cornice details. John said option 1 has more detail. Option 2 has a cleaner look and is their preference. John showed a rendering of changes made to the rear of the building. In the previous proposal there was a very long expanse with no columns. They added steel structure that cantilevers out and pulled the columns back, so they don’t lose any parking spaces. He said it gives it a good heavy framework to let the building sit on and frames where to drive in. John said they increased the stone band between the garage and the building to 12” deep and 2 ft. feet wide. John addressed the window recess – sill detail 3.5” dimension, the pilasters that stand out between the windows, and the window is recessed an additional two inches in from there. Tamie said she appreciates them working with the board for new construction in the city’s historic district. She said the historic standards are met and they did an outstanding job. Tamie said if option two is their preference for the cornice, it’s ok. It’s the architect’s discretion. Jeff said the window detail showing the lintel with a split is not appropriate. It should be a single piece of whatever – wood, c-channel of steel, soldier course of brick, or thin yellow brick like the sill. He said it looks like it could collapse upon itself. John said they can eliminate that; it will be corrected. Chris said the board missed that at the Rip VanDam it has the same configuration, but he doesn’t disagree with Jeff. He said he likes the steel in the back, it’s a huge improvement. Rob clarified that the cornice will be all wood. John said wood or Boral, but Boral is their preference for upkeep purposes. Tad asked if there would be screens on the windows. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 He said screens would ruin the delivery. Half a screen would be ok on a single hung window. Tamie said if at some point they decide to install screens they will have to come back before the DRB. Ellen said the building is very successful and she likes the depth and visual interest. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tad Roemer made motion to approve a new addition over existing structures at 453, 457 Broadway with the following conditions: window lintels shall not have any joints, cornice should be made from wood or Boral, only half screens allowed in windows. Chris Bennett seconded the motion. Discussion: John said the sills are full cast stone and they do sometimes come with a joint in the sill and asked if that would be a problem. No board members had a concern about the split sill. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 12. #20240367 186 Circular two-story addition. Historic Review of 2-story addition within the Urban Residential- 3 (UR-3) District. Chris Bennett recused himself. Thomas Eletto, owner at 186 Circular St. said he’s looking to add a 9’ x 16’ addition on the back corner of his house. He showed photos of the house and where the addition will be. It will come out from the 3-story building about 9 ft. and back to the 2-story addition in the rear. Thomas said it will be a two-story addition that will match exactly the shape and structure of the current 2nd story section. He said they will have 2 dormers; one will be recovered from the corner where it’s almost touching the house and will be pushed out to the south end of the new addition. The other dormer on the back of the house will be built new to match the others. He said there’s a window in the ground that will be consumed by the new crawl space that will be there. The first floor of the addition will be the kitchen. Most of the first-floor wall facing the east will be removed, and the first floor will be a large open space/living space. Thomas said they currently occupy the third floor and will make the entire first floor their living space. He said the foundation will be insulated concrete forms. There will be a slab and Bilco door access to that space. The second story will be another room – gym, study. He said the mansard section of the second story will be slate, duplicating the new slate on the third story which replicates the original slate from 1860. The first story window will be the kitchen, will be double hung and have the same decorative features as the other large windows on the first floor. Thomas said the new siding will blend in with the Hardie cement board that’s on the rest of the house. The engineers made much more open space on the first floor. They will have radiant heat on the first floor as it is on the 2nd and 3rd floor. The insulation will be sprayed foam, which is his business. The roof of the addition will have asphalt shingles the same as the 3rd floor hip roof section so it will match the color. The caps on the dormers will be done with sheet zinc, which they have done on the third floor already. He said there will be a new window in the middle City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 section on the right side of the first floor and it will be the same as the others on the first floor. Tamie read excerpts from a letter submitted from the Preservation Foundation. They appreciate the significant investment the owners have made to restore the slate roof, the cornice and the decorative brackets. The Foundation does not object to the proposed addition. They’re pleased that the existing dormer will be salvaged and re- installed on the addition and pleased to learn that the vertical pitch of the roof of the proposed addition will be clad with slate that will match the existing roof of the historic residence. The Foundation does not object to the use of the fiber cement on the proposed addition because it is existing on the rest of the house from prior owners. Tamie asked about the roofing materials on the back elevations. Thomas said the hip sections will be asphalt shingles to match the third story and the mansards will be slate and match the pattern on the third floor. Tamie asked if windows on the existing structure will be removed to accommodate the addition, and if they would be salvaged. Thomas said the two windows on the second floor will be removed as well as the non- original window on the first floor. He said he’s looking to reuse the larger window from the second story on the first floor of the addition. Ellen thanked the applicant for saving the house, it’s really a gem. She asked if they were going to replicate the corbels around the house and Thomas said yes. Tad also thanked the applicant for saving the house. He asked if they are building a new fire escape. Thomas said they will put in a new fire escape but haven’t decided what yet. Jeff suggested they frame out the lattice on the porch skirting. Thomas said it’s on their list. Leslie said this is a really neat house! She suggested maybe an interior sprinkler system in the stairwell from the third floor down if code allows. She has one in her house, but it was approved several years ago, and the code may have changed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Ellen Sheehan made a motion to approve historic review of a two-story addition at 186 Circular St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried 13. #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. Ellen Sheehan recused herself. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said Karen Cavotta will take Ellen’s place. She thoroughly reviewed the application and was able to participate in the last meeting and discussion. Tamie said the DRB has had an opportunity to thoroughly discuss this application and will not deliberate it tonight. Mr. Gritsavage did not have an opportunity to express his thoughts because he was not at the last meeting and will have that opportunity now. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 Jeff Gritsavage said it’s a matter of community values here. He said when you’re looking at historical and architectural significance, how does a community value such a thing? He said he feels the DRB is trying to preserve the culture. He said there was a lot of debate, some of which was not relevant such as unsavory tenants, things that have nothing to do with the structure of the building. Jeff said the building has details that share a transition through two different architectural eras, Greek revival and some Victorian elements. These transitions of architectural styles happened. We value historic structures and it’s in the slogan of the city. Jeff said there is economic use of this property because it is mostly standing, even though there’s been discussion about demolition by neglect because it’s being used for a lower income rental. He said such a residence is needed in Saratoga because it’s not competing with the higher rents. Jeff said the house is salvageable architecturally. The outside is still part of the fabric of what is Saratoga and why people are coming to Saratoga. Jeff said he watched the last meeting and there were suggestions of arbitrary and capriciousness. He said he takes exception to that and said this board is not biased on decisions. He finds the statement confusing. He said during his time on the board he has never seen a decision that was arbitrary and capricious only decisions that have been split. Jeff said he believes the structure has value and is reflective of community values and hopes that it gets restored. He said he’s leaning toward it being a significant parcel. He said if you were to take a 5-mile radius around this house and look at statistical significance, this house becomes much more significant because houses aren’t built like this anymore and there’s so few left. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made the following motion: Involving determination of historic and/or architectural significance under Section 13.9(J)(1) of the Unified Development Ordinance for an existing single- family residence at 177 South Broadway and 28 Lincoln Avenue. This application seeks a determination of no historic and/or architectural significance under Section13.9(J) so that the applicant may proceed with demolition. The first two subsections of Section J read: J. Demolition 1. General (a) The Design Review Board must determine whether the proposed structure has architectural or historic significance. (b) Significance includes having particular important associations within the context of the architecture, history or culture of Saratoga Springs or region and may include listing as contributing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. 2. Structures With No Architectural or Historic Significance The Design Review Board may approve an application for demolition if it finds that the demolition is consistent with the intent and objectives of this section and that the structure proposed to be demolished has no historic or architectural City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 8 of 10 significance. The Third subsection, Structures With Architectural or Historic Significance, presents what the applicant in this matter submits is an onerous and impractical hardship. If the Board does not make a finding of no significance under Subsections (1) and (2), it is alleged that an applicant is presented with a list of requirements to prove in detail before demolition may be authorized, and that these requirements are disproportionate to the vague review standards in the threshold determination of the first two subsections. The Board finds that the structure retains: Significant architectural character: Features and materials: Much of the structure’s original architecture character is evident, the Board estimates about 75%-80% of the original exterior architectural details remain. In terms of materials, the exterior wood siding remains, although currently covered by vinyl siding, and the exterior trim details remain. In terms of architectural features, the gable cornice return remains, as do the transom and sidelights surrounding the entry door. The French doors leading to the porch also remain. Style and design: The structure’s architectural features represent the Greek Revival style. More narrowly, it is a noteworthy example of the Vernacular Victorian style. The original window and door openings remain true to the original design intent of the front façade composition. Finally, the building footprint and location on the site are true to the original site design. Significant historical character: Age: The structure has been standing for well over 100 years, its precise age has not yet been determined, but it clearly dates from the second half of the 19th century. Its age is a contributing factor to its historic significance. Culture and context: No individuals associated with this property over time can be considered significant to the city’s history. The fact that the property was originally owned by a woman is noteworthy for the second half of the 19th century. In terms of current context, the structure contributes to a neighborhood whose urban design is still intact but is experiencing transition. It represents the “end cap” of this transitioning neighborhood fabric and is therefore significant. Architecturally, the structure itself is an example of a transitional time period from Greek Revival style to Vernacular Victorian style in the city, adding to its significance. This is consistent with other Vernacular Victorian examples in other locations in the city that have been determined by the Board to be significant. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the subject structure has historic and architectural significance. The Board is mindful, however, of the challenges that can potentially be faced by any individual applicant in satisfying the requirements of Subsection 3. The Board is also aware that the quality and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 quantity of proof that may reasonably be required under Subsection (3) may depend upon the degree of historical and/or architectural significance present in a given situation. The Board has always endeavored to take such circumstances into account, and will continue to do so in exercising both its discretion and its responsibilities. This Decision moved at a regular meeting of the Board on June 12, 2024 Seconded by Chris Bennett. Discussion: Rob DuBoff said it is not clad in vinyl, it is likely asbestos siding. In favor of the motion: Chris Bennett, Rob DuBoff, Leslie DiCarlo, Tamie Ehinger, Jeff Gritsavage. 5 in favor. Opposed to the motion: Tad Roemer, Karen Cavotta. 2 opposed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that Beige Berryman would be happy to assist in helping to prepare additional documents that may be needed. 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 7:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 12, 2024 - Page 10 of 10