Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 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. ABSENT: Karen Cavotta (Alternate). STAFF: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from the June 12, 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. #20240412 232 Broadway Holiday Inn Scupper & Down Pipe. Historic Review of roof drainage components within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 2. #20240461 486 Broadway Awning Life is Good. Historic review of new awning within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 3. #20240422 75 Weibel Silver Therapeutics Sign. Architectural review of new wall and freestanding signs within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 4. #20240385 27 Division Bank of America Exterior Modification. Architectural review of Bank Teller window improvements within the Urban Core – (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Rob DuBoff said the drawing for 59 Franklin was for one sign but two are being installed – one freestanding & one mounted to the façade. The drawing is for the one mounted on the building and Rob asked if they had a width measurement for the freestanding sign. Tamie removed it from consent for further discussion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the applications for 232 Broadway Holiday Inn Scupper & Down Pipe, 486 Broadway Awning Life is Good, 75 Weibel silver Therapeutics Sign, and 27 Division Bank of America Exterior Modification. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. 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. 5. #20240459 59 Franklin signage. Historic review of new wall and freestanding signs within the Urban Residential-4 District. 6. #20240460 98 Van Dam Mini Split. Architectural Review of mini split equipment within the Urban Residential-3 District. 7. #20240407 28 Marion Front Porch. Historic Review of porch railing improvements within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 8. #20240143 30 Church Stewart’s Siding. Architectural Review of exterior siding within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 9. #20230390 423 Broadway New Entrance. Historic Review of a new exterior door within the Urban Core/T-6 District. 10. #20240393 61 Lawrence Carriage House Conversion. Architectural Review of carriage house exterior improvements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 11. #20230992 140 Grand Partial Demolition & New Addition. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential- 3 (UR-3) District. 12. #20240327 38 Beekman St. Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Arts and Culture District. _____________________________________________________________________ 5. #20240459 59 Franklin signage. Historic review of new wall and freestanding signs within the Urban Residential-4 District. The measurement for the width that Rob questioned is 24”. Chris Bennett questioned why businesses are putting their freestanding signs so far from their buildings. After discussion it was decided that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to place the freestanding sign in the same location as the former real estate sign. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the application for 59 Franklin St. with the following condition: the freestanding sign be placed in the same location as the former Trevett Real Estate sign. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 6. #20240460 98 Van Dam Mini Split. Architectural Review of mini split equipment within the Urban Residential-3 District. Susan Stranburg, owner represented the application. Susan said she is looking to install 3 mini split units – one in the kitchen mounted to the rear facing wall, and the 2 bedrooms upstairs. The 3 units would be outside mounted on the rear wall. Nothing will be mounted on the front of the building. Tamie asked how far the units would extend off the building and if a ground unit was considered. Susan said there’s room to the right of the back door to place 3 units on the ground. Jeff said if they were to be mounted on the building, the board needs to know what mounting hardware is being used. He said if the units were on the ground there’s fencing, etc. that would block them somewhat. He said that would be his preference and the conduit should match the house. Chris said they need to establish if the units mounted to the wall are perpendicular or parallel to the building. He said if the units are mounted to the wall, there’s a line set that feeds the head, and then conduit and they don’t run in the same bay. If the unit is on the ground, there’ll be a line set to each unit, but the conduit will be on the ground. He thinks the board needs to decide what’s more aesthetically pleasing. In his opinion, the ground would be more appropriate. Rob said the location is ideal whether they’re mounted on the wall or a ground unit. He added that there is vibration that could be disturbing from the wall mounted units. Tamie asked if the board was in favor of approving the units tonight and if the applicant can follow up administratively for the final installation. The board agreed that would be acceptable. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the application for 98 Van Dam mini split equipment with the following condition: 1. The units are placed on the ground versus mounted on the wall. 2. The applicant provides final drawings to the City for administrative approval. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. 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. 7. #20240407 28 Marion Front Porch. Historic Review of porch railing improvements within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Matthew Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects represented the applicant. Matthew said they’ve been before the board in the past for this property for work going on in the back. He said it’s come up that the front wrought iron railings of the porch are considered not safe by the applicant’s insurance company. Matthew said there have been several sets of stairs over the lifetime of the house and he doesn’t think the railings are original to the house. Matthew said they are proposing an all-wood system with a 28” baluster with a two-part top and bottom rail and an acorn finial on the newel post. Tamie said she prefers the metal if it could be brought into compliance but what is being proposed is not inappropriate. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 3 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the application for 28 Marion front porch as submitted. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. 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. 8. #20240143 30 Church St. Stewart’s Siding. Architectural Review of exterior siding within the Urban Core (T-6) District. James Gillespie, Stewart’s represented the applicant. James said they’re looking to clean up the existing Shop. The brick has aged and they’re looking to give it a facelift. Tamie said the stone veneer and Smart Side Clapboard (wood strands and wood fiber bonded together by resin) that the applicant is proposing is the same product that has been used at the other two Stewart’s Shops. She said the board approved these changes previously at West and Washington and Circular and S. Broadway. James said the product is holding up very well at the other locations. He said instead of a faux stone as shown in the specs, they’re using manufactured stone. Ellen said in the description it says that stone will be placed on all sides, but the elevations show 3 sides. James said the elevations are correct. There won’t be stone on the back. Ellen said because the back side can be seen she thinks it should also have stone. It should be on all four sides. James said they can do that. Tad asked if the garbage enclosure on the west side would remain brick. Answer inaudible, not speaking into the mic. Jeff said instead of putting the brick veneer it would be better to freshen the brick with paint as they have done at other stores. He suggested that the service court/dumpster enclosure remain brick and be painted. Jeff said the architectural finishes on their new buildings like on Lake Ave. are appropriate and they pulled it off. It’s a little cumbersome on the retrofits. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for 30 Church St. Stewart’s with the following conditions: 1. The stone veneer base is to wrap all four sides. 2. The window trim details be executed as previously approved in other Stewart’s. 3. The dumpster/service court be painted and excluded from the stone veneer base. Should the applicant wish to paint the brick white rather than doing what is being proposed that would be approved as well. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-N, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-1 in favor. Motion carried. 9. #20230390 423 Broadway New Entrance. Historic Review of a new exterior entrance changes within the Urban Core/T-6 District. Rob DuBoff recused himself as the applicant is his office landlord. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 Tamie Ehinger disclosed that she has used Mr. West of Old Saratoga Restoration as a contractor but does not feel that that will affect her ability to be objective and impartial. Bob West, Old Saratoga Restoration represented the applicant, Vinnie DiMartino. Bob said that Beige asked for a cut sheet for a door. The door will have a wooden frame. The existing tile in the openings is an older marble – a small rectangular mosaic with no pattern. Bob said the outer entrance doors stay open most of the time into the foyer. The entrance door for Mystic World is just inside and that door is open when the store is open. The owner of Mystic World needs better visibility towards the street and the landlord needs better security for his building. Bob said with the doors open in the wintertime, homeless individuals sleep in the stairwell and corners and must be removed very often. He said it’s problematic for the tenants. Bob said they are looking to relocate the door to the right-hand side of the entrance and move the historic double doors back to make room to swing the new door. Bob said the vertical shiplap would continue inside and be painted. The building colors are off-white for the trim, brick and black is the accent color. Bob said the door casings could be left natural or painted black. Tamie Ehinger asked how far the doors would be moved back. Bob said about 36” to 40”. Ellen clarified that stepping from the sidewalk you step onto a marble step and then the next step has marble pieces, red terra cotta squares. The historic marble will remain. After you cross the threshold, what will be from there to the doors? Bob said the tile that’s there now or whatever the DRB wants. Ellen said her biggest concern is what it's going to look like on the outside. Ellen said she would like to see a drawing of what the threshold and entry will look like. Bob said a border similar to what’s there now with some infill with herringbone. Bob said it would be beneficial to the applicant if that could be done administratively so they can continue moving forward with their building permit. Tamie said the board could possibly review and then put it on the consent agenda if everyone agrees. Tad said moving the door back seems like a good solution. He agreed with Ellen that a floor pattern drawing and elevation of each side of the exterior vestibule, including the ceiling would be needed. He suggested painting the new door and that they not try to compete with the finish on the historic doors. Jeff agreed with retaining the herringbone with a frame around it for the floor. He suggested keeping the entryway lit all the time at 3,000 Kelvin or lower to bring out the richness of the door because it will be set back. Leslie said she agrees with moving the doors, especially since they’re open all the time and you can see into the hallway. This will be an opportunity to be able to see the historic doors closed. She agreed with what Ellen articulated about the floor tile. Chris agreed with Jeff about lighting the door. He said the applicant will have challenges with making the entryway floor level. He appreciates that the historic doors will be refinished. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board will need the following to make their final decision regarding appropriateness: 1. Elevation or details of both the vestibule, the ceiling, the entrance detail in terms of how it’s going to position in the location as well as the floor detail. (herringbone tile with the frame) 2. Lighting details for the vestibule. Tamie said if these details are provided before the next meeting and the board agrees, they should be able to be on the consent agenda. 10. #20240393 61 Lawrence Carriage House Conversion. Architectural Review of carriage house exterior improvements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair read a letter from the Preservation Foundation that was received earlier in the day that was not uploaded due to technical difficulties. The letter read as follows: The Preservation Foundation “has reviewed the proposed exterior alterations at 61 Lawrence St. The former carriage house located in the architectural review district was built circa 1880. The Foundation appreciates the significant investment the owners are making in the building. It does not object to the proposed exterior alterations, however, the Foundation does not support the addition of the eyebrow window on the south elevation, it is not in keeping with the architectural style of the building and visually competes with the cupola.” Scott Wallant, Architect is not speaking into the mic. Bits and pieces of information are audible. Scott presented renderings of the building. Tamie said it’s a great project. She asked if they are removing some of the original windows to accommodate the addition. Scott said they would be replaced in-kind as much as possible. Tamie noted that the original window on the west side is being removed and replaced and another window is being added, so there will be two windows. Tamie said that the standards and guidelines state that historic windows should not be removed unless they are deteriorated beyond repair. She said the documentation that was provided does not indicate that the windows are beyond repair. Tamie said she would need to see additional documentation showing that the windows are beyond repair. She said she doesn’t have any concerns about the eyebrow window. Chris agreed with Tamie that historic windows need to be preserved at all costs. He said overall the project is lovely. Chris said he agrees with the Foundation that the eyebrow seems to be unnecessary. Rob agrees about the windows and notes that the spec shows aluminum clad replacements which would not be in-kind, they need to be wood. Rob asked about the material for the railings on the second floor and the handicap ramp. (I think the answer is steel). He asked about the material for the siding for the shed door. (not clear what the answer is). Jeff agrees the eyebrow doesn’t fit. He suggested maybe a half round would work. Jeff said if the windows could be fixed, that would be ideal. Tad said it looks like a really nice project and he agreed with what was said by other board members. He asked about the chimney near the dormer and if it served a purpose. (answer inaudible) Ellen said the eyebrow window didn’t seem necessary or add anything to the project. She said if the client feels strongly about it, it’s not a deal City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 breaker for her. Ellen questioned whether wood window replacements instead of aluminum clad would be required since it’s in the architectural district and not historical. Tami said if it were new construction the aluminum clad would be allowed, but this is replacement of historic windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie said a good portion of the board agrees that the eyebrow is not necessary because it competes with the cupola. Tamie said the applicant should submit additional documentation about the condition of the windows they are proposing to remove. She said Scott indicated that the railings are painted steel, and the board will need to know what the stucco product is and not EIFS. Scott asked if the application would be denied if he returned with the eyebrow in place. Tami conducted a straw poll that showed the project would not be denied on that basis. 11. #20230992 140 Grand Ave. Partial Demolition & New Addition. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential- 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie said the applicant has been before the DRB several times. The last time they were granted approval for demolition and have returned with their new construction proposal. Joe Snyder, applicant/owner of 140 Grand Ave. Joe said he got permission from the Real Estate Committee to rebuild the middle section of the house where it currently stands. He received a zero variance for the middle section and a variance to build 3 ft. from the property line in the rear section from the ZBA. Joe presented the survey and proposed building footprint, and window, door, roofing, exterior cladding and soffit spec sheets. Joe said they will restore the original siding on the original section of the house with wood board siding painted Navajo Beige. He said all the windows will be replaced with 6 over 6 box Andersen 400 series windows. Joe said the siding and trim for the additions will be smooth Hardie board planks in Navajo Beige. The windows will be wrapped with smooth Hardie board trim, white, 3.5”. They will use a 5.5” piece of vertical smooth Hardie board trim to separate the addition from the main structure. Approximately 6” of foundation will be exposed and will match the existing structure. Joe said the windows on the addition can be 6 over 6 or one over one, whichever the board prefers. The soffit will be a vented smooth Hardie soffit, white. The roof will be Timberline architectural shingles in a slate color. The mid-section will have a gable roof line that steps down and runs perpendicular to the original structure. He said the rear section will also run perpendicular and slightly lower than the original structure. The rear addition will have a single panel door style painted green with side lights and will be like the front door. There will be a cornice return under the roof of the rear section to mimic the original structure and white crown molding to mimic the detail in the front. Tamie thanked Joe for investing in this property. She asked Joe to clarify that the middle section will be stepped back from the original section and the rear addition stepped back further from that. Joe said the middle section is being rebuilt exactly where it is so it will be flush to the front. The delineation is with the Hardie board. The City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 rear addition is 3 feet in from the property line. Tamie said the two windows on the rear addition are awkward in where they’re located. Joe said the gable ends will be siding but it can be whatever it needs to be. Tamie said a change in materials helps to break up mass. Chris said he thinks it’s a great project and he appreciates all the work that’s been put into it. Rob said he also appreciates all the time and energy being put into the project. He said he’s happy they decided to keep the chimney on the front part of the house. Rob said six over six for the front part of the house is appropriate but maybe one over one for the rest. He asked what material is under the gable ends of the original part of the house. Joe said they don’t know yet. Rob suggested whatever’s under there be restored and replicated. Leslie said she thinks the door on the front of the house should be the primary entrance and that the door on the back doesn’t need to be the same. She said she would like to see where the rear windows are going to be placed that are currently too close to the corner. Jeff said the porch columns are too slender. He said the applicant’s neighbor at 136 has a simple but elegant porch column that would look great. Jeff said he wanted to make sure that the door doesn’t have between-glass light dividers. Jeff said the windows on the rear elevation need to be proportioned better because the rear of the house is very visible. Dan Snyder asked if they could move the windows proportionately and leave the door. The board agreed that was fine. Tad said the project is a great improvement. He said he’s struggling with the drawing and is concerned that if it’s not drawn right how will it be built right. He said with such a simple design the success is going to depend on detailing and execution and that’s lacking in this design. He said plans and elevations would be very helpful. Ellen said new plans will have to be submitted to the building department anyway for the columns and windows, so those other details can be included. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie summarized the following: • The door on the rear elevation will be moved to under the window and a drawing that indicates a corner board and what will be happening with the window on the lower left should be submitted. • Drawings should reflect that the windows will be one over one in the back. • Once the original material is uncovered on the front gable end it will be repaired or reproduced in-kind. The board decided to give a mass and scale approval so that the applicant could move along with getting his building permit. He will return with detailed drawings for final approval. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for mass and scale only for 140 Grand Ave. and the applicant is to return for review of final details. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Discussion: Jeff said he would not vote to approve the current level of detail for the drawings. 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 8 of 10 12. #20240327 38 Beekman St. Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Arts and Culture District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she received a letter from the Preservation Foundation that was forwarded to the board members. Tamie said a public comment was also submitted that was in full support of the project but was not uploaded because of IT issues. Tamie read the comment into the record. (Jamen Tatino) “My wife and I are thrilled that the owner at 38 Beekman St. has changed course and is now planning to restore the building. This is terrific news for us, and the entire neighborhood, and I/we are in full support of the necessary exterior modification plan. We are particularly pleased with the plan to preserve the upstairs porch. Second story porches make up the character of Beekman St. as a whole and we have lost several over the years. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes represented the applicant. Bob said he started this project about a year and a half ago when the plan was to remove the house and take it over to a vacant lot with Marmon house movers, replace the foundation and move it back. He said the existing porch was removed and the columns weren’t saved. Bob said he has studied the photo of the house, and they plan to restore it to the original. He said the upper rail of the porch is short and he can’t replace it because it won’t meet code, but he will replicate the balustrade as closely as possible with just an increase in height. He will replace the columns with a new construction colonial column. Bob said there’s basically no siding left on the rear of the house. He noted on the plan that the location of the house is extremely close to the property line on the right side – 2.5 to 3 feet away and the back – about 5 ft. By building code they need to be non-combustible so that’s why they are proposing fiber cement. He said the siding is in rough shape, otherwise it could be restored. Bob said there are no first-floor windows on the left elevation and there were missing windows on the second floor when his client bought the house. He said the intent is to restore the building. Bob said the back 25% of the building will need to be rebuilt. He said they’re proposing all new windows, aluminum clad Pella. Bob displayed the proposed elevations. He said he lined the windows up as much as he could. The door on the lower floor right goes upstairs and they will maintain the staircase in that location. The new doors and the windows are all one over one as well as the Pella in-swing door on the second floor that accesses the balcony. Tamie said she’s delighted that this house is not being demolished and is being invested in. Tamie read some excerpts from the Preservation Foundation letter “The Foundation objects to the wholesale replacement of the wood clapboard siding with fiber cement siding. The wood clapboard siding should be retained.” “In addition, the Foundation has concerns with the window and door fenestration.” The Foundation also appreciates the significant investment that the applicant is making. They recommend wood doors to be more historically accurate. Tamie said upgrading the doors with wooden doors would be appropriate. Rob said the siding is not clapboard and not original. Rob said the siding must be fire rated if you replace it, it can exist as is. Rob asked what they would do with the existing concrete front deck. Bob said the only basement access is currently on the front porch. The owner, Erick Pankonin said City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 they’re still discussing what to do with the concrete porch. They’re talking about pouring a new concrete slab and putting a covering over it to match some of the other porches in the neighborhood. Rob asked if they would consider removing the concrete and building a wood framed porch. Bob said there’s precedent for that in the neighborhood and they would consider that. Chris said the house is simple, and the wood doors will be really important to emphasize the front of the house. Chris said he’s okay with the clapboard siding. He thanked the applicant for renovating it and said it will look terrific. Leslie asked what the columns would look like since the original column is not available. Bob said they’ll replicate what’s in the photo. Leslie agreed that the doors should be wood. Jeff said he thinks it’s a great project. He would like to see wood doors. Because the fenestrations are changing, he doesn’t have a problem with the project as proposed. Tad said it looks like they’ve made some great choices and have good solutions to all the problems. He said he’s fine with the Hardie board if it’s installed properly. He said a wood porch would be great. Ellen said it’s a great project. She asked if the handrails on the stairs are required. Bob said they will rebuild the porch, so that will change. Rob said the conditions are that the applicant return with plans for the front porch and that the two entry doors get changed out to wood. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the application for 38 Beekman St. as submitted with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will return with a plan for the front porch. 2. The three front entry doors be constructed of wood. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. 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. MOTION TO ADJOURN: A motion to Adjourn was made by Chris Bennett and seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. ALL IN FAVOR Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 26, 2024 - Page 10 of 10