Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, Chris Bennett, Tad Roemer, Jeff Gritsavage, Ellen Sheehan, Karen Cavotta (Alternate). ABSENT: Tamie Ehinger, Leslie DiCarlo. STAFF: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner, Anthony Izzo, City Counsel A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the minutes from June 26, July 10 and July 24, 2024. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-0 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. #20240553 513 Broadway Cowell Law Group Sign. Architectural review of new face sign within the Urban Core/T-6 District. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda item. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the application for 513 Broadway Cowell Law Group Sign. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20240574 138 Church St. Exterior Door. Architectural Review of exterior modification within the Urban Residential-3 District. 3. #20240535 59 Myrtle Saratoga Hospital Zoning Amendment. Advisory opinion to City Council for consideration of zoning text amendment to transfer a portion of the remaining development area in Zone A to Zone B to provide for a new 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building in the Saratoga Hospital PUD. The PUD involves property within the Architectural Review Overlay District. 4. #20240266 67 Van Dam Roof. Architectural Review of roof replacement within the Urban Residential – 3 District. 5. #20230391 Stewart’s Demolition and Redevelopment. 177 South Broadway & 28 Lincoln Ave. Determination of architectural/historical significance for an existing single- family residence (28 Lincoln Ave.) and determination of demolition within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. D. HISTORIC REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS: 6. #20230992 140 Grand Partial Demolition and New Addition. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. _____________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review: 2. #20240574 138 Church St. Exterior Door. Architectural Review of exterior modification within the Urban Residential-3 District. Richard Bryan, Owner 138 Church St. said he would like to place a new entry door on the blacktopped driveway side of his house for easier access to his upstairs. He said the building has a history of commercial use and it’s a very long building. He’s proposing a prefab concrete step and landing with a black wrought iron railing and will put 3 large potted arborvitaes next to the landing to make it more conspicuous. There’s a garage about 20 feet across from the house on the opposite side of the driveway with a gravel/planted area running alongside it. Richard said they currently drive over the gravel area if necessary. Rob asked the width of the blacktop. Richard said approximately 15 ft. so after installing the landing it would be about 12 ft. Rob said he had safety concerns about people driving in to the stairway. Richard said they will take extreme measures to make sure everything is well lit and will make it clear the path of direction. Jeff suggested putting hard space (brick pavers, etc.) where the gravel is to avoid a mess when snowplowing while trying to avoid the steps. Karen asked what the steps would sit on to keep them structurally sound. Richard said he wasn’t sure but thought they were brought and placed there and that the engineer would know how to install them. Chris said they may eventually have to add a roof type covering over the steps because the calcium chloride will eat away at the concrete. Tad said he thinks it will look a little sloppy and asked if they could enter on the opposite side of the building. Richard said that was considered but it would be entering into a bedroom. Tad suggested they could City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 2 of 11 also move the gravel and planting bed to the house side instead of the garage and it would look better and be easier to drive up the driveway. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience. Ellen Sheehan made a motion to approve the application for an exterior door at 138 Church St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, K Cavotta-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 3. #20240535 59 Myrtle Saratoga Hospital Zoning Amendment. Advisory opinion to City Council for consideration of zoning text amendment to transfer a portion of the remaining development area in Zone A to Zone B to provide for a new 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building in the Saratoga Hospital PUD. The PUD involves property within the Architectural Review Overlay District. Matt Jones, Attorney & Mike Ingersoll, LA Group represented the applicant, Saratoga Hospital. Matt said the PUD before the DRB and proposed amendment before the City Council derives from legislation adopted by the Council in 1987 and has been amended six times. Matt said each time the city and the hospital have recognized a medical need over the years they have presented options to address that need which has resulted in a draft amendment to the City Council six times. Matt said the PUD developed as a matter of projects over the years such as the emergency room, surgical suites and cancer center. Matt said the hospital has been at that location since 1915 after moving from the south side of Church St. Matt said the application was heard by the City Council on July 16th and they made a Determination of Merit for further review. A formal referral by the City Council to the Planning Board and Design Review Board is currently pending and expected to be acted on later this month. Matt said the applicant is not asking the board to take any action until they get the formal referral. Matt said a need has been identified for the aging population. They propose to build a 60,000 sq, ft. “Center for Successful Aging” that will address “the unique needs of an aging population who experience multiple medical conditions, geriatric syndromes, and social needs that are associated with aging, and enables seniors to receive comprehensive, coordinated care of chronic and complex conditions, all in one convenient location”. The Medical Office building of up to 60,000 square feet to include medical practices and providers such as: • Primary Care Physicians • Specialists • Care Coordinators • Social Workers • Pharmacists • Dieticians Matt showed an aerial view of the hospital PUD and “Area B” where they are proposing to remove the current structure (Pulmonology & OB/GYN practices which have been relocated to the mall) and construct the new 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building. Matt said Saratoga Hospital established their own separate zones outside of the UDO: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 3 of 11  • Zone A – • Zone B – proposed structure at the south end of this zone • Zone C • Zone E – large parking area Matt said the structure they are removing is 10,000 sq. ft. and they are proposing to replace it with a 60,000 sq. ft. building. He said on the PUD sketch plan they have made notes and identified the parameters of the construction as follows: • Permitted in Zone B-1 – Project B-1 Building 10,200 Sq. Ft. • Permitted in Zone B-2 – Project B-2 Building 21,000 Sq. Ft. Total Zone B 31,200 sq. ft. 2024 PUD Amendment proposes Zone B – 60,000 Sq. Ft. building Transfer 28,800 sq. ft. from Zone A to Zone B Matt said they will have to borrow development capacity from Zone A where they have 100,000 sq. ft. remaining, and transfer 30,000 sq. ft. from Zone A over to Zone B. This is so they don’t exceed the full limits of the PDD, they’ll shift it from one side of Myrtle St. to the other side. Matt said there is a second building permitted in Zone B – called B-2 (currently a parking lot) that was never built and allows for 21,000 sq. ft. Matt said there are two reasons the DRB has some jurisdiction over the project – the architectural review district runs along major corridors and is along Church St. He said there are about 100 ft. in that district which triggers the DRB’s review and opinion and anything they wish to tell the City Council about the proposal. Matt said the second reason is that they are proposing new signage that will include coordination with Albany Med Health System Marketing and Communications. Matt noted other PUD Amendment changes: • Add child daycare as an accessory use. • Allow structured parking (parking deck) in Zone E. • Update signage to improve wayfinding. • Add technical amendments (incorporate UDO, for example) • Structure parking – they are seeking permission from the City Council by way of PUD Amendment to build parking structures in Zone B. Parking deck in Zone E. They are not permitted now. PUD Amendment – Technical Amendments (site plan): • Spread CSA parking 75% on site and 25% remainder of campus. • Remove site plan approval expiration dates. • Updates to 2013 PUD sketch plan to reflect existing building coverages, building square footages and other metrics. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said the DRB has been tasked with providing an advisory opinion with the proposed change to the City Council, but the applicant has requested that the board wait and not formalize their advisory opinion tonight. Rob said they can have a discussion and ask questions but there won’t be a decision made. Rob said the substantive change that the DRB will be discussing is the building going from 30,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft. and the applicant’s proposal to increase the building height from the current allowable height of 40 ft. to 50 ft., as well as allowing a parking structure in the vicinity. Rob asked why zone B was capped at 30,000 sq. ft. and 40 ft. building height. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 4 of 11 Mike Ingersol said it was the first move to medical office buildings which were Rueben Dialisis and the administration building. He said they weren’t sure at the time how much square footage they would have to lease off campus. Mike said Saratoga Hospital did studies to add two floors to the existing structure for treatment and beds which has changed drastically to more day treatments. He said it was all that was requested, not all they could have had. Rob asked about the difference between the current footprint of the building they would be demolishing and the new building. Mike said the current building is 10,000 sq. ft. Including the pad area around the current structure, part of the parking lot at the front door and a 30 ft. setback off Myrtle St., an 18,000 to 19,000 sq. ft. building can fit in the area without disturbing beyond the parking. Rob said he’s trying to visualize the impact of the mass and scale of the new building on the neighborhood. Mike said they’re asking for the 50 ft. height but will likely be under that calculation at 40ish ft. He said medical buildings in the past had equipment that required 15 ft. floor heights and now it’s more like 12 ft. Rob asked what zone the parking structure would be located in. Mike said it would be in zone E. Tad asked if they were just looking to transfer air rights at this time. Matt inaudible not speaking into the mic. Tad said it would be helpful if the applicant could put together a handout for the next time they meet showing the zones and sub zones because it’s a little confusing. Jeff said the campus clearly evolved incrementally and is not something that was thought out. He suggested they should have a masterplan moving forward that keeps the services in the city for better accessibility for people using the bus line. Ellen said the plan seems straightforward but she’s relying on the fact that the DRB has purview over the design when it comes through. Chris agreed with Jeff about the necessity for long term planning. He noted that Complete Streets should be involved in the planning process to integrate the bus lines, bike paths, etc. Tad asked if there was an easement where you can enter the polo club at Myrtle Street. Mike said there was a land swap with the Polo Club to get a connection point to the church. The club has an easement over hospital land for that driveway. Tad clarified with Tony that the DRB will continue to have purview over the design after the transfer of air rights. Matt said they are expecting the City Council to act later this month and will be back before the DRB in September to act. 4. #20240266 67 Van Dam Roof. Architectural Review of roof replacement within the Urban Residential – 3 District. Greg Cuda, owner, said the current roof is partially shingled and partially metal. He said the original roof on the main part of the house is cedar under the metal roof. They are proposing a black metal roof over the wrap around front porch and charcoal colored asphalt shingles for the entire house that are all the same color. Rob noted that a letter was submitted by a roofing contractor indicating that the current roof as it stands could not be repaired. Greg said they tried painting the roof but it’s not holding paint. The metal will be replaced on the front porch. Jeff clarified with the owner that the roof should be standing seam – flat, no striations. Karen asked what the front edge profile looks like of the standing seam roof. It will be bent and then crimped around the edge. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment. There were no comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 5 of 11 Karen Cavotta made a motion to approve the roof replacement at 67 Van Dam, Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that the metal roof will be flat profile. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: K. Cavotta-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 5. #20230391 Stewart’s Demolition and Redevelopment. 177 South Broadway & 28 Lincoln Ave. Determination of architectural/historical significance for an existing single- family residence (28 Lincoln Ave.) and determination of demolition within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said that the board determined architectural/historical significance on June 12, 2024, and the applicant has returned based on Article 13, Section J3 regarding structures that have architectural/historical significance and their 5 criteria. Ellen Sheehan recused herself and left the meeting. Libby Clark, Attorney & Ryan Robideau, Stewarts represented the application and discussed the five standards. Structures with Architectural or Historic Significance. a. For the proposed demolition of a structure with architectural or historical significance, the applicant must demonstrate good cause as to why such structure cannot be preserved. The applicant must provide the following: 1. The applicant must document good faith efforts in seeking an alternative that will result in the preservation of the structure including consultation with the Design Review Board and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. The relocation of structures may be permitted as an alternative to demolition. Libby: Stewarts looked at alternatives permitted under zoning. (1) Those uses that required no parking but would require demolition by their nature were community garden, family home daycare (has significant parking restrictions on the front yard), a drive-thru facility, food truck dining, outdoor dining & parking structure, none of which would preserve the structure and were eliminated. (2) Uses requiring parking, but no demolition would be a multi-family residential via a special use permit and two spaces per unit (there are 4) or a parking waiver or variance. (3) To continue as a non- conforming use without parking. Libby said this would likely be the continued use so that is what they analyzed as a possibility for preservation. Libby said when they considered the non-conforming use, because of the determination by SHPO, the property does not qualify for historic tax credit eligibility. Libby also submitted a market value analysis from Roohan Realty which shows that a multiplier of 10.5x (what residential rental properties are selling for in the City) would result in an offering price of $567,000. An additional $350,000 investment would be required to bring the building up to preservation level (average of two estimates). Libby said attempts to market for preservation would City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 6 of 11 require locating a cash buyer because the additional $350,000 would be above the appraised value and there would be no lending involved. DRB comments on #1 of the standards: Rob said from his perspective relocation of the building as an alternative to the demolition has not been fully addressed. There’s no documentation on whether estimates were sought out for relocating the structure or that it was even a possibility. Karen said there wasn’t enough done in this category to make that determination. Tony Izzo said if a board should find based on the evidence before them that it’s likely that there’s no buyer out there who’s going to relocate the house or make a huge investment to bring the house up to preservation standards based on the numbers presented, that’s okay. Libby questioned whether a contractor alone was enough or if a preservationist is required to determine the estimate to preserve the building. She said the number they were given was not for an alternative, it was to preserve the structure Jeff said the applicant has a contract to purchase the house if they can demo it. They’re not looking to preserve or move the house and if they can’t demo it, they’ll walk away from the contract. He said he’s not seeing the hardship. The owner who bought the property is using it as a rental and will continue to use it as a rental. It doesn’t have parking because it was built prior to cars and it’s a historic structure. He said they’ve been able to rent it because it’s walkable to downtown and several amenities – grocery stores, shops, library, etc. It is viable to rent without parking. Karen said it’s difficult because it’s being presented through Stewart’s, and they don’t own the building. The question to the board is are we okay with this building being demolished. If the owner of the building were asking to demolish it, they would have to prove the cost to bring this “significant” structure up to a viable building. Jeff said it is a viable property to continue to rent without parking, and the case for it not being economically viable to rehab in Saratoga Springs is not a good argument. He said people do buy properties in Saratoga for $500,000 and then throw another $500,000 in to rehab it. It’s walkable to downtown and has everything you need nearby. Tad and Libby discussed the calculations for bringing the house up to a preservation level. Libby said the building could continue as a non-conforming use but the point of J3 is for preservation purposes, not continuing a non-conforming use. She said the goal of the estimate was to bring the building up to preservation standards and there’s nothing to indicate that that preservation level would necessarily equate to an increase in rental return because the focus would be on preservation not on interior amenities that would make it more rentable. Libby said in the ROI equation “gross” means “total”. Tad said the building could be left as it is. Libby agreed but said that’s not the point of preservation. Tad said the worksheet shows the amount that it would take to renovate the outside to improve the historic appearance. Libby said it would take more than 10 years to return on a positive investment. Chris said basically the house needs a paint job, new windows and a porch and it doesn’t need to be museum quality. He said the discussion is about preserving the structure the way it is. Chris said rents aren’t stagnant and it should show that in the analysis. Libby said they included a 1.5 to 2% rent escalator for the 10 years. Jeff talked about the scarcity of historic homes and vacant land in Saratoga Springs. He suggested that there are vacant lots where City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 7 of 11 Stewart’s could build one block away instead of “shoehorning” their most efficient type of store in an area that is becoming more urban. 2. The applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. Rob asked if it is possible for the current owner to list the property for sale. Libby said practically speaking yes, but she said in going back to number one, what is the preservation standard? Libby said the house would have to be on the market for the purpose of preservation. Rob said the DRB is required to follow the law (UDO) and one of the criteria is that you’ll document efforts to find a purchaser that will restore the property. Libby said according to the UDO the house has to be on the market for the purpose of preservation. Rob said “preserve” is used in this context as the opposite of demolition. They would simply have to put a “for sale” sign out front. The new owner would not be required to historically rehab or to change anything. If they wish to renovate or rehab, they will need to come before a board and the renovations would have to conform to code. Karen said she thinks there’s another set of numbers that need to be considered; what would be the cost to fix up the outside of the house – repair/replace windows, new roof, etc. Libby said this is challenging for Stewart’s because they’re not the owner and can’t market the property, and they are under contract to purchase. Stewart’s has already offered over fair market value for the purchase. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the structure cannot be adapted for any other permitted use, whether by the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return. Libby said they previously discussed this in number 1, but continuance of a non-conforming use is possible. 4. The applicant must submit evidence that the property is not capable of earning a reasonable return regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible. “Dollars and cents proof” is required to demonstrate such hardship. Libby said the 10.5x is the return standard for the investment in the property and based upon the existing rents coming back at $54,000 a year, that return is a net loss of 5.1% over the annualized return of 10 years. Libby said the average hold time for an investment property is 7.5 years, so they used between 5 and 10 years to get an average. Over that period the annualized ROI is negative because of the starting at 10.5x 5. Application for demolition of a structure with historic or architectural significance must include acceptable post-demolition plans for the site. Such plans include an acceptable timetable and guarantees which may include performance bonds/letters of credit for demolition and completion of the project. The Design Review Board may condition the issuance of a demolition approval on the applicant’s receipt of all other necessary approvals and permits for the post- demolition plan. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 8 of 11 Post Demolition plan – proposed post demolition site plan submission provided to ZBA and planning board. Libby said Stewart’s looked at their post demolition conditions for SHPO and other municipalities in the past and found that if demolition was authorized, some conditions have included: • A requirement to incorporate key architectural elements in the vocabulary for the new structure such as porch posts, cornices with brackets, window cornices, dormers; things that continue the architectural rhythm in the design of the structure itself. • Installation of a display panel in the shop with the history of the location. (done at the Brunswick Stewart’s) • Requiring monetary contributions to a local historical society. • A salvage company be identified for any parts and materials available for restoration work at no charge. Rob said with what has been presented he doesn’t find it acceptable. There are questions about where the gas canopies, building and parking would be located that haven’t been addressed. Does DOT need to be involved? Do the gas canopies need to be moved because of the way a truck needs to enter the site? Weight restrictions..., etc. Libby asked Tony about the section regarding a historic home being demolished, the board would need to see what the home would look like reconstructed. She said in the circumstance where there are several review processes with the planning board, DRB and ZBA having jurisdiction, they would be able to comment on the post demolition plan. Does this provision preempt site plan review? Tony said he thinks it’s located in the section relative to this land use board – the DRB. Libby said she wanted clarification of the process moving forward. Beige said they will discuss it further. Rob asked Beige if the DRB has given demolition approval and the planning board has already given approval, does the DRB have any say in the location? Beige said it’s an overlapping area. Tad clarified that the demolition approval doesn’t necessarily endorse the site plan. Libby said if demolition were to go forward the DRB could still set conditions that relate to preservation, historic or architectural elements beyond what the planning board’s authority is. There was a discussion about the location of the gas pumps. Libby said the pumps will stay where they are because that’s where they’re authorized by NYS to be located. Libby will return with answers to the board’s questions. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment. Sydney Hedge, Saratoga Preservation Foundation gave a definition of preservation from the Secretary of the Interior “stabilize and maintain all of the historic fabric (like putting a glass dome over the building), reconstruction – build new to replace what was lost, rehabilitation - support a continued or new use while retaining historic character, restoration – preserve and restore historic fabric to a specific point in time. Sydney said that information is from the Secretary of the Interior regarding the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 9 of 11 Tad asked Tony whose definition of preservation should be used by the board. Tony said to his knowledge there is no definition of preservation in the UDO. He said the board would have the authority to make the decision about what is most appropriate. D. HISTORIC REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS: 6. #20230992 140 Grand Partial Demolition and New Addition. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. Joe Snyder, applicant/owner of 140 Grand Ave. thanked the board and Beige for their help and feedback. Joe listed the main changes that he’s made since the last meeting: • Switching the windows from a 400 series to an E series (vinyl with wood interior). • No gutters on the original structure at this time. Will come back after meeting with the Real Estate Committee. Jeff said gutters on the new part that they’re constructing would be okay. No gutters are needed on the original structure because it doesn’t overhang the sidewalk. • Refurbish the gable vents if they’re underneath the siding or put one in on the front of the existing building if there isn’t one. Jeff said they likely do exist, and they should preserve what’s there. • E series windows on the additions wrapped with 4.5” wooden side rails and a wood drip cap. Joe showed a mock-up of the window. He said the facia overhang remains the same. • The roof for the addition will have 5” K gutters – standard aluminum. • Will use a ridge vent (core vent with a shingled cap) for the back and middle section. • Install the electric meters on the bump out facing down Beekman St. • Joe marked up the drawing for the proposed location for the bathroom and dryer vents. • Changed the rear entry from a small gable with vinyl posts and added a column detail showing crown molding and wood wrapped in Hardie board. • The turn no longer goes all the way across. Rob said the board appreciates the applicant taking on this project. Rob said wherever the foundation is exposed it needs to be parged or faced with stone and that the window trim on the main part of the house be maintained. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment. There were no comments. Tad Roemer made a motion to approve exterior modifications and new addition to 140 Grand Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: Exposed foundation, if any, to be parged and window trim on the original house to be preserved or replaced in- kind as needed. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Roemer-Y, C. Bennett-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, R. DuBoff-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 10 of 11 The next workshop will be September 4th at 5:00 p.m. The next DRB meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 11, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 7, 2024 - Page 11 of 11