Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221116 November 16, 2022 Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2022 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair; Leslie DiCarlo; Chris Bennett Jeff Gritsavage; ABSENT: Ellen Sheehan; Tad Roemer STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, made a motion to approve the October 20, 2022, and November 2, 2022 Minutes of the Design Review Board Meeting as submitted. Leslie DiCarlo seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that is “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. DISCLOSURE: Chris Bennett disclosed that he will be a future Board Member of the Saratoga Joinery. 1. #20220649 SARATOGA COWORKS SIGNAGE, 92 Congress Street, Architectural Review of new wall sign within the Transect-6 (T-6) Urban Core District. 2. #20220996 3 BROOKVIEW PREFAB SHED, 3 Brookview, Architectural Review of a proposed prefabricated woodshed in the Rural Residential District in an Architectural Review District. 3. #20220986 BEST WESTERN RT. 9 MODIFICATIONS, 3291 US Route 9, Architectural Review of façade material and color changes in the Gateway Commercial Rural District in an Architectural Review District. 4. #20221009 SARATOGA JOINERY SIGNAGE, 69 Caroline Street, Architectural Review of a proposed 12 sq. ft. sign to replace the existing Children’s Museum Sign in the Urban Residential-4 in an Architectural Review District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 16, 2022 - Page 2 of 8 5. #20221000 53 SPRING CLADDING COLOR CHANGE, 53 Spring Street, Historic Review of a proposed modification of Nichiha cladding finish color from Vintage wood Cedar to Vintage wood Bark in the Transect-5 District in an Historic Review District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone on the Board had any questions, comments or concerns on either consent agenda items. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience regarding these applications. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of Saratoga Coworks Signage, 92 Congress Street; 3 Brookview Prefabricated Shed, 3 Brookview; Best Western RT. 9 Modifications, 3291 US RT. 9; Saratoga Joinery Signage, 69 Caroline Street; and 53 Spring Street Cladding Color Change, 53 Spring Street, these applications be approved as submitted. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 C. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. #20220974 10 MARION PLACE PROPOSED RENOVATION,10 Marion Place, Architectural Review of proposed renovation to an existing home in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District in a Historic Review District. Applicant: Judith Heller & Bradley Green Ms. Heller stated they purchased this home 1½ years ago. They have done a tremendous amount of work completing structural repairs. Most recently the rear wall of the home collapsed. They are proposing to refresh the siding, windows, and doors in line with our neighbors’ homes. Photographs of the windows and siding of the neighbors was provided as a frame of reference for the Board. The footprint of the home will remain the same. We would like to keep the windows and doors the same location as existing. They are aged and in poor condition. Many of the windows do not open, are broken, and missing. Ms. Heller provided a window survey and detail form and reviewed all elevations with the Board. They would like to replace all these with windows in the same location and pattern as previously existed with vinyl windows, cut sheets provided. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the applicants are looking to replace the windows and remove the existing shingle, expose the existing clapboard, and replace that with a Hardie Board product. Ms. Heller provided information on the condition of the cedar which is deteriorated and rotted in most sections of the home. The side porch on the front will remain. Examples of the proposed doors were also provided. Ms. Heller stated she would like to put shutters on the home. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, thanked the applicant for restoring and investing in this great little historic home. The Chair stated the applicant is looking at replacing windows, doors, and siding. The DRB is tasked to review projects such as this to ensure that renovations being made to a historic home meet historic standards and guidelines set by the city. These standards and guidelines are derived from the State Historic Preservation Office and The Secretary of the Interior Standards. These standards dictate what work and materials are appropriate. Windows and doors are the most character defining features of a building. They help to identify the style and period of the building. Every effort should be made to maintain and preserve these important features. Replacement should only be considered when windows and doors are beyond reasonable repair. If windows do need to be replaced a replacement window should match the existing in material and design and should be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 16, 2022 - Page 3 of 8 based on historic evidence, maintaining original trim, details, size, configuration, and proportion. With exterior cladding, every effort should be made to repair existing cladding versus replacing it. If wood exterior cladding is so deteriorated or damaged to such a point where it needs to be replaced it must be replaced in kind cannot be preserved it must be replaced in kind. It must match the original historic cladding or design, texture, and other historical qualities. The Chair stated this is an interesting structure which has two front facades. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner stated in terms of the façade that abuts the neighbor on the left, and the rear facade due to fire code and under 5 ft. proximity to the neighbor’s property the materials both siding and windows and doors on that side must be fire rated. This would be the north side and eastern sides of your property. Chris Bennett stated only if work is being done. If it is pre-existing non-conforming nothing must change. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated it is not easy to restore a historic home in Saratoga and the Board recognizes that. These guidelines can be difficult, but at the same time they make our city magic and why people want to live here. The window survey was helpful in providing information on the state of the windows. Replacing them with vinyl is not an appropriate material. They should be replaced in kind with wood windows on the side and the back. In terms of visibility, they are far less visible than the other two sides. In reviewing this application, allowing unnatural materials on those two sides is certainly not out of the question. In terms of the facades that face the street it is particularly important that those windows be replaced with wood. With the exterior cladding the same principal applies. When you speak of plank what exactly are you referring to. Ms. Heller stated she is speaking of a Hardie Board product. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated again Hardie Board is not a natural product. It would not be appropriate. It is fire rated and because of the scope of work on the north and eastern sides, Hardie Board is not out of the question for these areas. For the two visible facades, it is important to maintain wood. When you pull off the shingle and expose the original clapboard underneath, you may be surprised at how well preserved it is and potentially may be able to re-use that original clapboard. Lastly, in terms of shutters, if there is historic evidence that shows shutters on the house, then certainly they would be appropriate. Again vinyl, plastic or unnatural materials would not be appropriate. Ms. Heller stated the most important thing is the windows. They are about to insulate the house. She is open to removing the cedar on one side to see what it looks like contemplating maintaining it if possible. Shutters would be nice, but it is not a deal breaker. It seems to her that all her neighbors have vinyl windows and wood windows are four times the cost of vinyl and do not have the same insulation properties. Ms. Heller questioned if there was a way the Board could review the windows and doors for now and table the remainder of the application for now. Also, the side porch on Mitchell Street, a visual was provided, the applicant would like to retain the porch, enclose it, and use it as a sunroom. The proposal submitted does include this as a part of the application. Ms. Heller noted the area of the home on the rear between the house and garage and the kitchen/mudroom was brick had fallen. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated we can certainly focus on doors and windows tonight. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, thanked the applicant for restoring this old house. It is great for the neighborhood and the town. The Vice Chair questioned how the applicant knew the age of the windows. Ms. Heller stated she had a contractor help her with the window survey assessing if the windows could be repaired or replaced. He determined they were unsalvageable. Leslie DiCarlo questioned if the applicant had documentation of that survey and could it be provided to the Board. Ms. Heller stated she does have that information and can submit it to the Board. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, stated he is unsure of the age of the home. It does appear in 1889 and it is possible the top windows are original and were 6 over 6, and the bottom sash was removed and replaced with a large pane of glass. It is possible that the 6’s are original to the house and factors into the discussion. It is likely that the one is not original and may City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 16, 2022 - Page 4 of 8 date to the 20’s, 30’s or 40’s. He echoed the Chairs comments and could not support vinyl windows on the facades in the public right of way, it is not appropriate. Your reference to neighbors with vinyl windows those may have been approved by other Boards and were installed without approvals. Just because they are there does not mean a Board approved them. He also agrees with the Chair regarding the siding. Once you remove the shingles you may find that you might be able to reuse and restore the wood siding. The vinyl windows will not last, and you will need to replace them. The Vice Chair stated he would like to see specs regarding the porch fill in next to the garage and on the western elevation. Just a detail on how you proposed to treat that area. You have indicated information concerning the water table. We would need further information on what you are proposing and how that is to be treated and how it is to be applied. Any trim that must be replaced or applied that is currently not there will need to be a wood product. There are items on the drawing that do not exist and will be applied. Any trim on the house that would need to be replaced or applied would need to be wood product or whatever you propose to use will need to be presented to the Board since it is not called out anywhere. Ms. Heller stated she has proposed to use all Hardie Board products on the home, they are not wood. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, stated you have trim on the house that you are proposing to scrape and paint. Ms. Heller stated she believes they are not in a condition to be scraped and painted; they are beyond reuse. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, stated now you are speaking about removing all the exterior finishes, all the trim, the siding. Ms. Heller stated she has provided information on the siding and trim and all the cut sheets. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, stated he appreciates the applicant providing this information to the Board, however where is this product proposed to be used. You just mentioned the trim is not in a condition to be worked with. Now we are talking about removing all the trim, soffits – everything. He does not understand the scope of the work. Ms. Heller stated the scope of the work today is replacing the windows and enclosing that porch. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the message that you are receiving loud and clear is that wood products are appropriate when speaking about exterior cladding. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, stated he does not think the shutters will work with the way the windows are configured. Chris Bennett stated he agrees with Rob concerning the windows. Once you start removing the cedar shingles you could have clapboard underneath. If that is in good condition, then you do not have to install the cement board. You can paint and scrape the clapboard and trim. The fascia and soffits will be repaired and/or replaced in kind where necessary and they will be painted as well. He has not inspected the windows himself but the ones on the front façade appear to be in repairable condition. His suggestion is to repair those windows and install a good fitting historic storm window. If you maintain, salvage and restore it will save money and add value to this restored this historical home. Vinyl is not appropriate, and he cannot support it for this project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, spoke regarding the non-permitted use of vinyl windows, and the ramifications of doing so. Ms. Heller stated could the Board allow vinyl windows on the less visible sides of the home and Mitchell Place and something more acceptable to the Board for the front façade. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated that the applicant has two visible facades. For this project on the less visible sides of the home having a non-natural product there, especially working with fire codes would have to be taken into consideration. On these two facades, Marion, and Mitchell, those would have to be wood windows. The others could be a non-wood product. Leslie DiCarlo stated our guidelines do not allow the Board to permit vinyl windows to be installed on the south or west facades. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 16, 2022 - Page 5 of 8 Jeff Gritsavage stated applicant noted the neighbors have vinyl windows. We have been in that neighborhood over the last few months. He stated 15 Marion Avenue does not have vinyl windows. We reviewed that home for an application. Stating most of your neighbors have shutters, they do not, and those that do have vinyl and you can see how they have weathered poorly. Regarding the windows are we talking about custom to the opening or standard size, having to fill in the trim to make up the difference. Your sashes and headers will be oversized because you cannot put a bigger window in you would need to use a smaller window. Are we talking about between glass light dividers, those do not work, they look slightly green because of the window tinting so I do not know if there are vinyl windows that have muntins that are exterior. It does not see how this would work. Are you speaking about custom windows? If not, you will be picking windows close to the size but smaller. If you are choosing off the shelf windows someone will have to detail them with aluminum flashing, and he cannot see how this will work. Chris Bennett explained the difference between a vinyl window with the muntin inside the two panes of glass versus the muntin on the outside of the glass providing depth to the window. Aesthetically it does not read appropriate. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the Board appears to be on the same page that vinyl is not appropriate. The Chair will now open the application up for comments. Then, we will circle back and provide the applicant with an action plan. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation stated she has spoken with the applicant when they first purchased this home. She did submit correspondence regarding this application which does mimic what the Board has already stated and references the design guidelines. Vinyl is not appropriate for the windows. This house could date back as far as 1850. Early Greek Revival which explains it would have had 6 over 6 windows. It still retains the Greek Revival trim that is the main part of the house. Later additions were added to the back over time. As far as the front door is concerned fiberglass is proposed and the current door is fiberglass. If you are replacing it in kind and is unsure if it is triggered here. Typically, we would want to see a wood front door and wood windows. As far as the siding there are two stories to tell about this building. You could keep the cedar shake siding and replace the damaged areas. This was placed on the home in the 20’s 30’s or 40’s. Or, if you wish to return it back to horizontal clapboard siding you could do that as well. The material on the two most visible sides of the building should be wood, with wood trim. It should be clear that the two walls closest to the property line are required to be fire rated. So, this needs to be researched. Regarding the porch, there has been a porch on the south elevation, and it has been so compromised that there is no integrity at this point. She recognizes that this is a small house and the loss of the porch to be expanded to be enclosed for a sunroom and kitchen is not an issue. We would like to see the specs for the garage. Our recommendations are to follow the city’s design guidelines There is a section regarding shutters as well. She questioned whether they would fit on the front section of the house or not. Speaking about the house across the street, three stop work orders were issued, and they continued to do the work and they unfortunately irreversibly damaged and changed the integrity of that house, and it is so unfortunate. She cannot speak to other projects in that area that have vinyl. Sue Davis, Architect, SD Atelier Architecture. It is great to see this house being restored. A suggestion or a bit of advice, in terms of the windows, Anderson makes a wood right product that is historic and wood, which might be worth looking at. Roscoe makes a wood window which is a bit more affordable as well. You can do Marvin, a great product on the higher end. Ms. Heller questioned if aluminum clad would be acceptable. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated Marion and Mitchell our guidelines state they should be wood windows. Aluminum clad product on the other two sides would be an acceptable product to use. Ms. Davis also provided information regarding the fire rated sides of the home which is provided in the building code. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, thanked Ms. Davis a very well-respected architect in the city and the Executive Director of the Preservation Foundation. Any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 16, 2022 - Page 6 of 8 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the applicant would like the Board to focus on the windows and doors. The two doors, which are fiberglass and not original to the home, the applicant is replacing in kind. The Chair suggested to allow the applicant to use an aluminum clad product for the windows on the other two facades which are less visible. It was the consensus of the Board to allow the applicant to proceed with the aluminum clad product for the less visible windows on the home. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the windows and what the applicant is proposing. Ms. Davis provided an in-depth explanation of window replacements for the Board and the applicant. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, stated his preference is that the sash be replaced if that is still possible. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, questioned the Board regarding the front door if a fiberglass replacement is acceptable. Chris Bennett stated if you are restoring the home with wood windows and bringing the historic home to life, a wooden front door is the most acceptable. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs, Preservation Foundation stated if the door is acceptable to be replaced with fiberglass in needs to be replaced with the same size and configuration. Jeff Gritsavage stated he is comfortable with the replacement doors as proposed. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, prefers the side door to be replaced without a grill pattern. He agrees with Chris regarding the front door, it is a statement. Leslie DiCarlo stated it will be a lovely project and it would be a shame to have a fiberglass front door. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the DRB as a group feels that the door the applicant is suggesting for a front door is inappropriate and this door should be wood. The side porch and rear door the Board is comfortable with what the applicant is proposing. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated in terms of the windows – the applicant has done a good job providing information regarding the fact that the windows need to be replaced versus repaired. Leslie DiCarlo stated she agrees with the Chair but feels a copy of the contractor/consultant notes would be helpful for the record. She feels it would be advisable to see if any of those windows could be repaired as a preservation of the existing windows. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, stated he can only support putting new windows in where the infill is. We are suggesting it needs to be wood on the south and western elevations. Aluminum clads on the others. He can only support that part of the application at this point because he feels there is homework which needs to be done on the existing windows. He cannot approve all windows at this point. You owe it to yourself and the neighborhood to do additional research. Chris Bennett stated he feels as Leslie and Rob do. We need to have documentation and the costs are irrelevant. What we need to know is if they can be restored or if they cannot be restored. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated what we are asking of the applicant is to go back and provide the information Ms. DiCarlo requested indicating that the windows are not repairable from the expert consultant. Once that is on file then we can move forward on those window decisions. The Board agrees that the two small upper windows are beyond repair and could be replaced with new wooden windows. We can move a portion of the application forward. If you can provide all the additional information to Aneisha in a timely fashion, we can place you on the next agenda for December 7th. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 16, 2022 - Page 7 of 8 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the Board is comfortable moving forward with the four windows we discussed and the side door. Ms. Heller questioned if the Board would like to make a site visit and look at the windows in person. They are welcome to do so. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated in terms of protocol we have done this before. Mr. DuBoff and Mr. Bennett are both extensively knowledgeable regarding windows. They have agreed to a site visit and will be able to provide honest feedback on the state of those windows and whether they are repairable or need to be replaced. This site visit is just that and nothing can be discussed with the applicant regarding what the determination is until the next meeting. Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, made a motion in the matter of the application of 10 Madison Avenue, Exterior renovations the DRB issues the following decision on November 16th to approve only the following - the front door to be replaced with wood. The side and rear doors installed as presented. Casements labelled #1 and #2 on the south elevation replaced in kind, with similar units and the infill windows on the south elevation which are not numbered on the porch need to be wood in a 6 over 1 pattern. The windows on the east and north side are to be replaced with an aluminum clad product. All other items as part of this application will return before the Board for further review. Jeff Gritsavage seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2. #20220873 PDT MARKET STOREFRONT MODIFICATIONS AND SIGNAGE, 55 Railroad Place, Historic Review of storefront modifications within the Transect-6 (T-6) Urban Core District. Applicant: Chris Martell The applicant provided a visual of the overall building. Currently there is one double doorway on Railroad Place. What they are proposing is to do is remove the smaller existing door on the rear of the building and place it where the existing double door exists, same color and configuration. The existing double door will be removed and replaced down about 75 ft., same color, and configuration. A visual was provided. This would provide two openings on the Railroad Place side. The reasoning for this is to help open the interior of the space and make it livelier and welcoming and create a better flow. If the new double door can be obtained quicker, we will leave the current corner door in place and add a second door 75 ft. further down, same color and configuration. So, there would be two double doors on the front of the building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated there was confusion regarding the application. This explanation was extremely helpful. The Chair stated she has no objection to either option presented. Her only concern with Option #1 is that it is framed appropriately using glass. It was the consensus of the Board that this application is straightforward, and no further questions or concerns were noted. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion in the matter of the PDT Market Storefront Modifications, 55 Railroad Place, the DRB issues the following decision on November 16, 2022 – Approve either option as presented to the DRB this evening. Jeff Gritsavage seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 16, 2022 - Page 8 of 8 VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair, in favor; Chris Bennett, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Ms. Davis stated she represents the applicant which appeared on the consent agenda. 3. #20220986 BEST WESTERN RT. 9 MODIFICATIONS, 3291 US Route 9, Architectural Review of façade Material and color changes in the Gateway Commercial Rural District in an Architectural Review District. Ms. Davis stated it was brought to her attention following the submittal of this application that the owner has an issue with signage. After December 1st he will no longer be under the franchise of Best Western. She provided a graphic of the proposed signage which is the same size and pre-approved just a different color palette which matches the color of the building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated that was not a part of the application presented and approved this evening. Unfortunately, you would need a new application. It sounds very straightforward. We cannot make a motion until we have an application. Ms. Davis provided a visual of what the applicant is proposing for signage. Same size and same type of lighting different logo. Color palette which matches that of the building. The brick base will be changed to match that on the building. The signage will be backlit same as previously presented. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this appears to be appropriate to be placed on the next agenda. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Design Review Board Caravan, Wednesday, November 30, 2022, at 4:00 P.M. Design Review Board Meeting, Wednesday, December 7, 2022, at 6:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Minutes approved December 7, 2022