Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tammy Ehinger, Chair called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Chris Bennett, Leslie DiCarlo, Jeff Gritsavage, Tad Roemer, Ellen Sheehan & Karen Cavotta. ABSENT: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair STAFF: Susan Barden, City Planner, Julia Destino, Junior Planner, Anthony (Tony) Izzo, City Counsel. Tamie Ehinger spoke of the recent loss of City Planner, Beige Berryman and her contributions to the city: “Beige oversaw the Design Review Board and was known for her organization, her creativity, sincerity and positivity that brightened the lives of all of us who knew her. The values of community and mindful design guided Beige in a brilliant career. She showed her vivacious spirit in everything that she did. Beige grew up in rural Vermont where she developed her independence, her sense of adventure and her love of nature and animals. She excelled academically and pursued her passion for design and architecture at Philadelphia University. After graduating, Beige joined her future husband in Los Angeles where she decided to study Urban Design and City Planning at the University of Southern California. In 2008 Beige returned to Philadelphia as a City Planner where her talents, determination and leadership led to a speedy professional ascent. In 2023, to be closer to home, Beige accepted the position of Director of City Planning and Economic Development for the City of Saratoga Springs, a decision for which the Design Review Board are so grateful. Beige’s professional contributions extend from the facilities of the LA Zoo to the bike paths and commercial developments of Philadelphia to the historic districts right here in Saratoga Springs. To remember her wonderful spirit, Beige’s husband Mike, her parents Doctor and Mrs. Berryman and her sister Nina will host a Celebration of Life on December 7th at Tunison Funeral Home on Lake Ave. I’d encourage all who knew her and had the pleasure of working with her to attend. She was a great colleague in every sense of the word and her presence here will be duly missed.” A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: TABLED 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. #20240950 54Church St. Grewal Fuel Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 2. #20240903 189 Ballston Ave. Saratoga Federal CC Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Gateway Commercial-Urban (GC-U) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. There were none. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the applications for 54 Church St. Grewal Fuel Signage and 189 Ballston Ave. Saratoga Federal CC Signage, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 7- 0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER HISTORIC REVIEW CONSIDERATION: 3. #20240949 173 Nelson Ave. Replacement Windows. Historic review of window replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 4. #20240922 219 Regent St. Siding. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 5. #20240119 169 Union Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of new construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 6. 206 Lake Ave. Solar Panels D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 7. #20240924 31 Woodlawn Ave. Amsure Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 8. #20240054 128, 132 Washington Garage demolition and construction. Architectural Review of an addition and new garage within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 9. #20230391 177 S. Broadway Stewart’s Demolition and redevelopment. Consideration of demolition of an existing single-family residence (28 Lincoln) in the Neighborhood Center T-5 District. ______________________________________________________________________ HISTORIC REVIEW: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 2 of 14 3. #20240949 173 Nelson Ave. Replacement Windows. Historic review of window replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Jaclyn Papa, the owner, is seeking to replace three windows in her home that have cracked glass and are inefficient. It’s very drafty in her 3-year old’s bedroom and difficult to keep it a comfortable temperature with the old windows. She would like to update it with more efficient windows that will be in-kind, wood, double hung. Tamie explained that windows in a historic district are a character defining feature of a home and should be saved at all costs. If a window needs to be replaced it should be replaced with in-kind materials. Jaclyn said all of the other windows in the house have been replaced with Pella wood windows and they are looking to replace these 3 with the same windows. Tamie said she saw the cracks in the glass, but that can easily be replaced. She would need further proof that the windows are damaged beyond repair. Tamie said her home is also drafty and offered a solution of adding plexiglass internal storms up against the window with a foam strip around it to seal it. She added that if they were to do that, they should use mirror clips versus screwing it directly in so that the window can be easily flipped up for egress. Chris disclosed that he is within 500 ft. of the property. Chris said if you look closely, you can see that there are no weight mechanisms in the window jams to hold them open. He agreed with Tamie that the windows do not appear to be beyond repair. He suggested the applicant could put a better fitting storm that’s better looking and more historically appropriate and that would take care of the draft. Karen said she’s not crazy about the look of the storms and they take away from the character of the window. If a replacement is the same window only energy efficient it would look better. Tamie said the goal of the DRB is to preserve the original windows of the house. Storm windows can be removed. Jaclyn said the representative from Pella looked at the windows and believes only 1 of the 3 is an original window. Leslie said if the windows are original, they should be repaired. If they’re not, she doesn’t have a problem with replacing them. Tad agreed with Karen about the storm window aesthetic. He said if the other 20 windows on the house have been replaced with historically appropriate windows, he agrees with replacing these three for a more energy efficient window that matches the rest of the house. Jeff said he’s not in favor of the windows being replaced because they are still a part of the historic look. They’re a character defining feature, they still function, and the glazing can be replaced. Ellen asked Chris if the functionality of the windows (staying open) could be fixed, and he said it couldn’t. She said she would vote for replacing the windows because they don’t function properly and it’s uncertain whether they are original. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation suggested a site visit with Chris or Rob would be helpful. She said there are solutions to make windows more energy efficient and pins could be added as a mechanism to hold a window open. If the windows are replaced it should be with true divided light and not snap ins. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 3 of 14 Chris Bennett said that after looking more closely at the photo it appears that windows 2 and 3 have aluminum, spiral, spring-loaded balances which were popular in the 1960’s, or they could have been retrofitted. Window number one has nothing. Samantha added that according to their records, the house was built circa 1866 and most likely would have had six over six windows and not six over one. If they are to be replaced, the Foundation suggested they are replaced with six over six true divided light to restore more of the original historic appearance. Tamie summarized that Chris, a window expert on the board does not think the windows are original. The applicant can make the decision as to whether they want 6 over 1 or 6 over 6 but they need to be true divided light. She said if the board moves forward with the application, the applicant will need to submit cutsheets showing true divided light for administrative approval. Tad Roemer made a motion to approve the application for historical replacement windows at 173 Nelson Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: windows shall be 6 over 1 with true divided light with a spacer bar, with no screens and cutsheets to be submitted for administrative approval. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 4. #20240922 219 Regent St. Siding. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tabled 5. #20240119 169 Union Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of new construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Tamie said the DRB has seen this application before and determined that the structure was not historically significant and approved demolition. Regarding what’s being presented tonight, the board asked for additional details about the trim and had concerns about the horizontal siding. Height, scale, mass and the relationship to the main structure were also some of the board’s concerns. Leslie DiCarlo recused herself from considering the application due to proximity to the project. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the owner, Thomas Grossman. They have submitted plans for a carriage house with a two-car garage with a one- bedroom apartment above. At the last meeting the board indicated that they were not in favor of the proposed vertical siding on the second floor. The applicant is proposing all horizontal siding instead. Tonya said the overall height of the main house is approximately 38.6 ft. to the peak. The carriage house is 28’ to the peak. (23.7 ft. to halfway up the roof by City standards). City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 4 of 14 Tamie said she still has concerns about the height because it’s just an estimation. Tonya said the house was completely renovated and her estimation is within 4 to 6” without hiring a surveyor to measure to the peak. They are trying to keep within the historic character of the neighborhood. Tamie said she still has concerns about the height difference between the main house and the carriage house. Ellen mic not turned on. She would be ok with the height of the building. Tad disagreed and said the building overwhelms the primary structure. He said the frieze board is making the house look top-heavy. He said they should remove the corner cutout and look at the proportions of the building. There’s too much going on that’s not necessary. He said he could not get on board with a building this big next to the main structure. Karen said she doesn’t have a definitive answer about the height of the building because they’re looking at a flat picture. A 3-D rendering would put it more into perspective. She asked if the stained wood post and beam was intended to break up the element of the height. Tonya said it was to bring in another element. Chris said it’s good that they got rid of the board and batten. It simplified the building. He said he understands the reasoning behind having the alcove – to get out of the elements. He’s not concerned about the height of the carriage house. He agreed with Tad about the beam and that the garage needs to be simplified. Jeff said he understands that color is not in the DRB’s purview but the carriage house being white with black windows is the same as the modern farmhouse trend. If it were to be painted darker it wouldn’t seem as large. He said there are elements down the street that could help the building fit in better and not look as modern/trendy. Tamie reminded the board members that they should be looking at the applicant’s design and determine if it’s appropriate. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said they don’t think the height is an issue but the proportion of the first floor to the second floor is troubling. It looks top heavy. She said the recessed door doesn’t seem appropriate. If the frieze board could be moved up and the sill does not rest on the corner board, it would look better. Some of the details are calling more attention to the structure than there should be. It should be subservient to the main house. Stained wood has not worked in other places and painted wood would be more appropriate. The overhangs do not seem to serve a purpose. Most garages have two single bay garage doors and not one large garage door. The plan needs to be simplified. Tamie summarized that the board has concerns that the carriage house is competing with the main structure, it’s too complex. The historic main house should stand proud. A few members expressed concern about the size and mass and the top-heavy feel of the structure. Tamie suggested that the applicant return with a 3D drawing that better shows the height proportions of the carriage house to the main house. Tad said if the siding on the east elevation didn’t run all the way up into the dormer, the second floor would look smaller than the first floor. Tonya said she would work with her client on simplifying the plan. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 5 of 14 6. 203 Lake Ave. Solar Panels. Architectural Review of Roof mounted solar panels in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Scott Ference represented Kasselman Solar for installation of an 8.07-Kilowatt 19 solar panel array, roof mounted at 203 Lake Ave. on the chimney side of the house. The panels will be all black. Tamie said although the panels won’t be on the primary façade, they’re still highly visible on the side of the house. Understanding that they have to be placed so they will work, she asked if there was a way to place them further back, maybe on the other side of the chimney so they wouldn’t be as visible. She asked where the conduits would be placed. Scott said they try to run the chase internally through the attic. If that’s not possible then they’ll run them in the back and paint them to blend in. Ellen (mic not turned on) suggested reconfiguring the panels to be more symmetrical. Jeff said he’s concerned that the panels won’t be effective because they will be located on the west side of the house, the house has a shallow pitched roof and there’s a tree hanging over it. They’re proposing 8 KW which is more than a house needs, and it seems they are overcompensating because they don’t have the right exposure for a solar installation. Jeff said he would not vote in favor of the project. Leslie agreed and said she doesn’t think it’s appropriate to have such highly visible panels on a historic street. She asked if it would still be a viable project if the panels were to the rear and none of them were located in front of the chimney. Karen said the proposed location is the least visible of the 4 sides but thinks the panel that goes into the dormer should be removed. Otherwise, she doesn’t have a problem with the proposal. She added that the panels are removable. Chris agreed with Karen that the panel should be removed off the dormer but otherwise it’s a viable project. Tad suggested removing the southern two panels of each row and the one on the dormer. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Sue Davis, SD Atelier said that further down the street on Lake Ave. she worked on a project where the owner wanted solar panels on a very prominent house. They blend in very well. She also has them on her camp with a low-pitched roof and they lie flat, and you can barely see them. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said overall they don’t object to the solar panels except the one on the dormer. She said the panels are removable and technology will change so they likely won’t be permanent. Julia Destino said the applicant proposes to replace the roof. Tamie said a dark roof would help to mitigate the appearance of the black panels. Tamie said from a design perspective the applicant should remove the dormer panel, come back with the final configuration and confirm the color of the new roof. ______________________________________________________________________ City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 6 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 7. #20240924 31 Woodlawn Ave. Amsure Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Sign Co. came before the DRB for this sign and the bank has since changed where they want it located. Originally it was to the right of the entrance on Woodlawn, and they would like to move it to the front of the parking area to the left. They now want a double-sided sign versus the initial proposal for a single sided. Adam asked what the board would like to see for the base of the sign. Tamie said the board won’t design the sign, but typically what they would see in this area would be posts and no base, but there are other options. She said the shape and mass of the proposed base is very monolithic looking. Adam said they use this base for all of Adirondack’s (Bank) signs. Tamie also suggested bringing the sign closer to the building. Chris, Karen, Jeff & Tadd said the new location for the sign is better. Leslie likes the new location and that it will be visible from both sides. In response to a question about how the pad is constructed, Adam said they pour two Sono tubes, steel comes out of it with two posts and the whole sign slips on top of it. There will be landscaping around the sign once completed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Tad Roemer made a motion to approve the application for Amsure signage at 31 Woodlawn, Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted or shown on the attached plans. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #20240054 128, 132 Washington Garage demolition and construction. Architectural Review of an addition and new garage within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie said the applicant came before the board previously to determine the historic and/or architectural significance of the garage and demolition. It was determined non- significant, and demolition was approved by the board. The applicant is back to talk about the historical significance of the back portion of the main house that needs to be demolished to allow for the construction of the addition. Tamie said that will be all that the board can determine tonight. After that a posting will occur and the applicant will then return with good faith documentation and/or the board can approve demolition at that time and look at the proposed plans. Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture said she presented the plan to the DRB in April and they have since gotten an approved variance from the ZBA. Sue presented the updated survey with the lot line adjustment. The applicant purchased the property next door and combined it with her lot. Sue presented the 1852 Bevan Map,1858 Richard Clark Map, 1876 Louis Cramer Map,1888 Burleigh Map, 1895 Sanborn Map, and circa 1950’s Sanborn Map that were provided by the Foundation showing the evolution of the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 7 of 14 properties at 128, 132 Washington. Sue showed a photo of the current condition of the house after the siding had been removed. She said you can see the frieze board and an indication of where there were brackets. They are planning to maintain the windows, front porch and sidelights but will replace the front door. The stoop and stairs are over the property line so they will have to go before the Real Estate Board for approval, but they do plan on keeping the porch and will replace the stoop and stairs which are in disrepair. Sue showed the west elevation/rear additions of the house and what she assumed was a porch because there’s no foundation underneath. There is indication of roof sagging, structural settling and modifications made over time. Sue showed photos of the interior of the house, basement and crawl space. Tamie noted that the Preservation Foundation submitted a letter stating that they did not have any concerns about removing the back two additions to the house. Tamie said after seeing photos of the exterior and interior and understanding the age of the additions she does not feel they are architecturally or historically significant and has no concerns about their removal. Chris agreed and said what’s most important is that the main part of the house remains intact and retains its historic character. The remaining board members agreed that the additions do not have historical or architectural significance. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the two rear additions at 128 Washington St. Saratoga Springs, NY are not architecturally or historically significant. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie asked the applicant to show the proposed building plan so the board could provide some feedback for the future meeting. Sue showed the elevations for the houses and noted that while the houses will be attached, the goal is to make them look separate and distinct. The client has asked that the new house be more detailed than the original house. Sue said she would like to add some windows for more light and symmetry to the original house. The client would like to remove the parging on the foundation and expose the stone foundation that is there. Sue said her client would like to replace the siding on the original house with wood. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said Sue is moving in the right direction. With regard to the siding, if it can be repaired, it should be. Additional photos showing dry rot, etc. would be helpful for the board’s determination. Chris said he looked at the siding and feels it is repairable. Karen said she can’t speak to the siding because she hasn’t seen it, but she likes what Sue has done with simplifying from the first presentation. She’s curious to see what the transition between the two buildings will look like. She likes some of the new design elements and thinks it’s a great project. Leslie said she thinks it’s a great project. She said if they can keep the siding on the original house, it will help it to stand out from the rest of the design and not look monolithic. She likes how the portion that joins the two buildings is set back and simple and makes the two buildings shine a little bit more on the street level. Jeff said it’s a great project and because the site has so City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 8 of 14 many constraints they’re going to get an interesting building in the end. He said Sue is absolutely going in the right direction. He said the original siding should remain because they want it to look different than the new structure. He said the upper windows don’t make sense and there will have to be further discussion about that. Tad said he doesn’t have any real objections. When the board looked at the plan before he questioned the large dormer on the garage. Chris asked if a shed dormer instead of a gable dormer would look smaller. Tad said it looks better in 3D, and he has no objections. Ellen said Sue has done a good job without overwhelming the original house. Tamie Ehinger, Chair thanked the applicant for her presentation. When the applicant returns, they should be prepared to discuss demolition, SEQRA and what’s being planned for the project. The board took a break and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. 9. #20230391 177 S. Broadway Stewart’s Demolition and redevelopment. Consideration of demolition of an existing single-family residence (28 Lincoln) in the Neighborhood Center T-5 District. Ellen Sheehan recused herself from hearing this project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board determined that the structure being proposed to be demolished has architectural and historical significance. Because of that determination, the applicant must provide the Design Review Board with the Five Provisions of Good Faith Documentation to demonstrate why the structure cannot be preserved. The applicant presented documentation at the last meeting that the board found to be inefficient and asked the applicant to return with additional detail, specifically on criteria #1, #2, #4 and #5. Tonight, the board will review the new criteria that the applicant has provided. Libby Clark, Counsel for Stewart’s represented the application. She said additional information from Stewart’s was submitted on October 16, 2024: Letter from Counsel Mike Ginley, an appraisal report from the appraisal company in addition to materials submitted from Roohan Realty. Libby said the evidence predominately focused on alternatives to demolition, reasonable rate of return and Stewart’s position relating to post-demolition plans. Review of the Good Faith Documentation: 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 said as it relates to alternatives, the position that Stewart’s has taken is that an investigation was done in order to relocate the structure. Comparable vacant parcels and the price point for those were City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 9 of 14  investigated. The stumbling block was reaching out to a moving company because they could not get a quote or estimate to move the structure because of the condition the house is in and the distance it would need to go to a commensurate, compliant parcel. Once those numbers were added up it was well beyond the fair market value that was provided in the Tom Roohan letter of $567,000. This alternative became cost prohibitive. Board comments: Tamie said at the last meeting information regarding moving the house had not been submitted. Libby said this is information that was requested by the board at the last meeting. Tamie said she’s not surprised that the moving company has concerns about moving the house without compromising it. Tamie asked if there was a letter from Larmon (moving company) stating that they would not be willing to move the structure because of the liability. Libby said they did not provide a letter to that effect. She said Mike Ginley, counsel for Stewart’s signed the submission as fact. Tamie said documentation from Larmon specifically would have been best. Chris and Karen said they met the criteria. Leslie agreed that they met the criteria and added that moving the building would not have addressed the board’s concern that the house is architecturally and historically significant in an ever-shrinking neighborhood. Jeff said it’s plausible that it’s not economically feasible to move the building but there’s no written documentation from a subject matter expert. He does not find this sufficient. Tad agreed with Leslie about not moving the house out of the neighborhood and with Tamie about having documentation from the moving company. Libby stated for the record that the applicant’s position is that they could not find a provider to move the house, not that it can’t be moved. That’s what Mike Ginley signed on. Tad said if only one moving company was contacted then the applicant has not met the criteria. Tamie said the majority of the board has determined that the applicant has not sufficiently met the criteria for #1 because they did not contact more than one moving company and did not provide documentation from the company that said they would not move the house. 2. The applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. Libby said the criteria in the UDO indicates to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. She said there was a lot of conversation at the last meeting about what preservation means and what acquiring and preserving the structure would entail. The $567,000 valuation provided by Roohan Realty is the baseline with no additional dollars invested. William Moore of the appraisal company gave the four reasons listed in his letter why there would not be a buyer at that evaluation: 1. The determination of significance and all the implications it carries under the UDO; 2. The non-compliance both in use and area under the UDO; 3. The lack of any private funding, grant subsidies, or exemptions from real estate carry costs; 4. The unavailability of state or federal historic tax credits due to the property’s lack of qualification as eligible under the government programs to support historic preservation. Tamie asked if the board was satisfied with the new information provided by Mr. Moore. Tad said no, there haven’t been any efforts to find a purchaser. They simply said it might be hard to sell. Tony Izzo said an alternative to listing a property for a long period of time that the ZBA has City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 10 of 14  based their decisions on in the past was that the property would never sell at a reasonable price because of the condition it was in or the location it was in, etc. Tamie clarified for the record that when she commented positively to Tad wanting to comment on this item, she was just enthusiastic that he had an opinion and that he was able to defend it right away. Libby said the property is under contract and has a buyer willing to pay over market value. Tad agreed but it’s a buyer who has no intention of preserving the structure. Jeff said the criteria clearly says, “the applicant must find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure”. Tamie said it’s clear there’s no official documentation regarding a purchaser and she recognizes the applicant’s point about the complexity of where things stand with the applicant versus the current owner. She recognizes the unavailability of federal or historic tax credits and how that could impact a potential buyer’s willingness to buy, but the good faith documentation is that the applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser, not to just provide reasons a purchaser might not be interested. Leslie said she wishes the property had been on the market and then Stewart’s made an offer. She doesn’t see where efforts were made to acquire a purchaser. Karen said she agrees that the property likely would not sell based on the information the applicant provided, but there is no documentation testing that outcome. The house was not listed for sale. Chris agreed with the other board members. The board agreed with Libby that the situation is unusual in that there is a buyer who is willing to pay over fair market value for this property and that that buyer is not in a position to ask the seller to list the property for sale. Tamie clarified that it is an unusual situation, but the criteria is clear that the applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. Tamie said it’s between the owner of the property and the applicant to figure out how to meet the necessary criteria given the unusual circumstances. 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. The board did not ask for any additional material at the last meeting. Tamie said what it’s being used as right now, 2-family rental, is permitted as a non-conforming grandfathered use. Tad said the house can’t be converted to anything without parking or a variance. Libby added that the structure would have to be moved or a reduction in coverage to allow parking. Leslie said a zoning variance could be granted to help preserve a structure. Tad, Jeff, Leslie, Karen, Chris and Tamie agreed that the criteria were met for this question. 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. Tamie said the applicant submitted detailed information and asked if the board members were ok with it. Tad said the math was fuzzy. Libby said since the last presentation they engaged a certified real estate appraiser to look at the numbers and state what was standard in the market. The numbers being reviewed tonight are what were produced out of that work. Libby stated for the record that this is not comparing “apples to City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 11 of 14  apples”. Tad said the information that was provided is not clear enough to say yes. Leslie said she believes the value of the property is low because of the lack of maintenance/reinvestment over many years which has led to the poor condition of the building. According to the appraisal the applicant submitted; she believes there would not be a good ROI on this property in the condition that it’s in. Jeff said he accepts what the applicant submitted because it was prepared by a subject matter expert. Tamie, Karen + Chris agreed that the applicant has met the criteria for this question. 5. The 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. Tamie explained that the City’s interpretation of the clause “acceptable post demolition plan” was added to prevent the site from sitting vacant for an extended period of time. She said this is meant to insure that the project doesn’t just end when the building is gone. In no way, shape or form does this mean that the DRB will actually approve the plans once they come back in front of the board for approval. Tamie said under that interpretation and because the applicant has submitted post demolition plans, she feels the criteria has been met. Because there has not been an application before the planning board on this project, it would be appropriate for the DRB to comment on the post demolition plans if they chose to do so. Chris said the applicant submitted a post demolition plan, so that box has been checked. In his opinion it’s not approvable. He mentioned when the “Huck Building” was demolished they weren’t allowed to tear down the building until they submitted an approvable plan. Karen agreed with Chris and Tamie and added that she wished there was a way to approve demolition contingent on approval of a site plan that was acceptable. Tamie said if it were to go in that direction, she would encourage the board to condition the demolition approval upon receiving all necessary approvals from all land use boards and permits from the City. Leslie said they have checked that box. Jeff said what they provided showed what they intend to do with the property. It’s not approvable but is acceptable for showing their intent. Tad asked Tamie the difference between approved and acceptable. Tamie said that clause was added to the good faith documentation to insure that “acceptable” plans have in fact been presented and there’s a timetable involved to insure that the demolition of a structure doesn’t leave a vacant site for months or years on end. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said in terms of satisfying the conditions, based on the conversations and the math, it appears as if the DRB feels that the applicant has not provided sufficient information for clause #1 and #2. There was sufficient information, and the applicant did fulfill clauses #3, #4 + #5. Tamie Ehinger, Chair opened the Public Hearing at approximately 10:00 p.m. for public comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 12 of 14 Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said it’s important to have documentation beyond the applicant for criteria #1 and #2 with regard to not being able to move the structure, the cost, etc. from a subject matter expert. She said this house doesn’t need to be moved onto the same type of lot. The criteria talk about the preservation of the structure not the use. This building was originally a single-family building, and it could be relocated to a lot that would allow it to be returned to a single- family residence. It does not say it needs to retain its use. The applicant chose this property, and they need to meet the criteria. They went under contract and in her opinion it’s a self-created hardship. The applicant could revise the contract and allow the house to be put on the market for a period of time. She agreed that the applicant has met the other criteria. Samantha noted that after the loss of 66 Franklin St., where the post demolition plan at that time was a fence and sign, the term “acceptable” was added to the revised ordinance so that the end result would be a building, which this applicant is proposing to do. Jeff Wood 26 Lincoln Ave. said he lives next door to 28 Lincoln and would like to offer some information from his perspective as a neighbor. He said years ago the owner of 28 Lincoln wanted a driveway between their two houses for parking in the rear of the property. It wasn’t allowed because it was much too narrow for a driveway. Jeff said he would be vehemently opposed to a variance to waive parking requirements. He said when considering the economic viability of selling the historic house to someone to restore, repurpose or reuse, the board should also consider that perspective buyer’s costs to come before the land use boards for one or two years. Saratoga has a reputation for how long and costly it is to get through the approval process. Jeff said he is in favor of the proposed future use of the property by Stewart’s. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if the applicant wished to proceed tonight or provide additional information regarding criteria #1 and 2. Regarding clause #1 Libby said the concern she has on clause #1 is that relocating is permissive but not required. She said even if they do submit that it could be moved, it would be impossible and cost prohibitive to do. They were told not to add costs to the bottom line; returning the home to a single family or moving the house and buying new land for a house that’s already not returning a reasonable rate of return at $567,000 is costly. She said relocating the structure on its face is self-evidently not possible based on the straw poll already taken. She said if they were to come back with more evidence they would still end up in the same place. Tamie agreed that Libby was accurate with her summation, but she wants to be sure that the applicant feels they provided the board with everything they possibly could. Tamie agreed that some of the feedback provided by the board regarding the relocation was that moving the house really wouldn’t matter because an element of the historical significance is where the house sits on that property. Libby said assuming her summation of the facts for #1 is accurate; reasonable rate of return and moving be read consistently, you could not add cost at this point – that would take out the last sentence of clause #1. The first sentence of clause #1 says whether good faith efforts have been shown to seek an alternative. Libby said they’ve demonstrated that they can’t add costs which would be required to return it to a single-family use, there can’t be parking without City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 13 of 14 a variance and substantial cost. Her position is that clause #1 is satisfied. With regard to clause #2, Libby said they cannot meet the criteria because they cannot put the house on the market because they don’t own it. What they did instead was produce real estate evidence and a certified appraisal, showing that this property is unlikely to be purchased even at the Roohan number of $567,000. Libby said she doesn’t think the applicant can comply based on the information they’ve heard back. Karen asked if there was some other way of knowing that the property would not sell. Why not have the owner list it and see what happens. Libby said they submitted a certified appraisal indicating the four reasons, and it is the highest and best evidence in real estate and there’s substantial evidence in the record as to why this is unique. Tony Izzo said in his 27 years of experience on the zoning board, there were times when the board looked at all the records and said based on everything in front of them they could reasonably find that there’s no way that anyone is going to buy a piece of property for a permitted use. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized where the DRB stands: the applicant has satisfied the criteria for 3, 4 and 5. The two criteria that the board feels the applicant has not fulfilled are the documentation of efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure, as well as documenting good faith efforts in seeking an alternative that would result in the preservation of the structure. Tamie said she feels her group and her team have been very thorough and fair and have made very relevant points and she backs their choice on this. Libby said they as the applicant cannot meet the criteria for #2. Libby stated for the record that their hardship is not the fact that they contracted for a rate with another party. Their hardship is the fact that they are the applicant but not the owner and they cannot market it for sale – a legal fact. Tamie said the question is whether the applicant documented efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure, and that was not done. Libby said it raises the question as to why their application was accepted, knowing that they can’t sell it. She said they are willing to produce the Larmon letter and condition that in a vote tonight. She said for the record they are completely willing to operate the Stewart’s shop until the rest of the approvals are in place. She said there’s no desire to have a vacant parcel or boarded up building. Tony Izzo asked the board to again review the evidence that would tend to let them conclude that no person can be reasonably expected to buy this property for permitted use. Libby said that evidence has been submitted. The standard the board is asking for as proof is on the market at 65 Phila St. and there’s no interested buyer. Tony said the board can consider that the appraisal was an “effort” to find a buyer. Tamie said 4 of the 5 criteria have been met and suggested that the board review what was discussed tonight and revisit it at the next meeting to finalize the one last portion of the application. Chris Bennett made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON JANUARY 29, 2025 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – December 4, 2024 - Page 14 of 14