Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2021 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair; Leslie DiCarlo; Tad Roemer; Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the November 17th meeting. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appears to be “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. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated consent agenda item – Haller Deck & Railing Modifications, 73 Union Avenue has been moved to the regular agenda. 1. #20211038 LUKOIL SIGNAGE, 54 Church Street, 54 Church Street, Architectural Review of freestanding sign within the Transect-5 District. TABLED UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 17TH MEETING. 2. #20211052 THE BRICK SIGNAGE, 2 West Avenue, Architectural Review of a freestanding sign within the Transect-5 District. 3. #20210975 CITY TAVERN WINDOW MOULDING MODIFICATIONS,19-21 Caroline Street, Historic Review of window molding modifications for a commercial structure within the Transect-6 Urban Core District. 4. #20210984 3257 RT#9 EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, 3257 RT 9, Architectural Review of Exterior Modifications to a commercial building within the Tourist Related Business District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission regarding these applications. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on these consent agenda items. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of the The Brick Signage, 2 West Avenue, City Tavern Window Molding Modifications, 19-21 Caroline Street, and 3257 Route 9 Modifications, 3257 RT#9 that these applications be approved as submitted. Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, noted no new applications will begin after 10:00 P.M. If your application has not been called by that time it will be adjourned to the next meeting’s agenda. C. DRC APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. #20211022 LASH BOULEVARD SIGNAGE, 120 S. Broadway, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a freestanding 48in. x 72in. sign within the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Applicant: Alexandra Guidarelli Ms. Guidarelli stated they are proposing a 48 x72 in double sided sign with pillars. The proposed signage is black opaque in color internally lit just for the logo. It is like the Hilton Garden Inn Signage in the area. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the ZBA is concerned regarding the total square footage of the sign. We are requesting the overall size of the sign from the ground up. What the DRC has been attempting to do in the South Broadway corridor in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to lower the height of signage. The Chair has no issue with an 8 ft. sign. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated without having the calculations for the overall comparables make it difficult to comprehend. The Chair stated the 8 ft. height of the signage does not appear to be an issue. However, the overall square footage of the sign is in question since the zoning allow a 12ft. maximum. Leslie DiCarlo stated the applicant is requesting a sign which is the same size as those in the neighborhood. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding what the applicant is requesting. Additional information is requested from the applicant’s agent with regarding to neighborhood comparables. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, stated the signage will return before the DRC for Architectural Review and final approval. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated she does not object to the Mass and Scale of the signage since the height is at the appropriate level. The Commission is looking for additional information along with neighborhood comparables and the dimensions of the sign presented along with the mounting. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the DRC is looking for additional information along with the neighborhood comparables prior to issuance of an Advisory Opinion. Dimensions and information on the height would be helpful. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated the DRC will meet again in two weeks on November 17, 2021. 2. #20210788 FUREY REAR ADDITION AND NEW STRUCTURE, 42 Circular, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding mass, scale, and siting of a proposed accessory structure and exterior Modifications with a rear addition within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. DEFERRED TO LATER ON THE AGENDA DUE TO LACK OF REPRESENTATION. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021 - Page 2 of 8  3. #20210757 MYRTLE STREET NEW MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, Corner of Myrtle Street and Morgan St. 1 Morgan Street and 55 Myrtle Street. Advisory Opinion to the Planning Board regarding compatibility and Community character for a proposed project totaling 105,000 sq. ft. medical office use in the Office Medical Business-2 (OMB-2) and Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Agent: Justin Grassi, Attorney; Matt Brobston, LA Group; Kevin Ronayne, Vice President Operations & Facilities – Saratoga Hospital; Jon Primeau, Architect; Architectural Collaborative Mr. Ronayne stated they are before the DRC this evening per the request of the Planning Board for an Advisory Opinion for our project. Mark Torpey, Chair stated he was specifically interested specifically in the DRC’s thoughts on the roofline and the parapet on the building. In designing this building, the rooftop was proposed to have a parapet to help screen rooftop mechanicals. HVAC equipment is proposed to be housed on the rooftop. Priority was noise attenuation, with larger panels to accomplish that along with a proposed green roof. Mr. Brobston provided an overview of the site plan for the 75,000 sq. ft. medical office building for the Board like previous presentations noting the location being within 250ft of the hospital. For this project we will be creating a roadway that loops and connects to the adjacent hospital parking lot. This will allow vehicular traffic to travel and stay within the campus and provide emergency access. There is a small apartment complex to the east of the property as well as the Birch Run Apartment Complex to the northeast as well as residential neighbors to the south. This project will be constructed over two phases. The first phase is the 75,000 sq. ft. medical office building and Phase II two additional buildings up to 30,000 sq. ft. As part of the SEQRA review we need to show the entire site. Access off the site will be from the corner which is an improved intersection extending sidewalks down Myrtle and along Morgan Streets. Coming off Morgan and Myrtle there is a new proposed 3 way stop intersection. It is currently an unregulated intersection. We have attempted to save larger trees on the site, increasing the buffering and increasing the existing berm and increasing the landscape buffering on the berm as well as buffering to the neighbors. Mr. Primeau, provided a visual overview of the proposed project, noting the request of the Planning Board Chair for the DRC to determine if the proposed roof screening fits in with the character of the neighborhood. The building proposed is three story structure on the front but due to the grading it presents as a two-story building in the rear. Access to the building is available from all four sides. The internal layout of the building has not yet been determined. A roof plan was provided showing 6 rooftop units and sizes. We are proposing a green roof except for the location of the roof top mechanicals. We have a small screen wall runs behind each one of the gables, five gables to the north and south and two to the east and west. The screening walls are provided to offer visual control as well as sound attenuation. Mr. Primeau provided views of all four elevations. We have attempted to give the building somewhat of a residential feel. This was accomplished with a series of gables which caps a two or three story bump out from the building with the intention of attempting to bring down the scale of the building. This element was taken from the apartments near the site. Mr. Primeau reviewed the materials proposed for the building, a combination of lap siding, Hardie Board panels as well as vertical Hardie trim and siding. At the base of the building cultured stone is proposed. Views of all elevations was provided for the Commission. The proposed screen wall for the project will not be a standard louvered metal screen since it would not fit with the character of the neighborhood. What we are proposing here is a solid wall clad in the exact same materials as the building, Hardie Panels with Hardie trim. So, the materials will be the same from the top of the building to the base. In the design the roof screen is proposed behind the gables to allow for roof work as well as to allow for the green roof. Proposed renderings were provided of the building, noting the covered entry at the main entrance. The screening wall is 7½ ft. in height and the equipment is approximately 9½ ft. in height. Due to the concerns of the Planning Board Chair, we have provided an alternative design for the rooftop mechanicals noting the two pods with surrounding area to allow for air flow. The wall type will be constructed as presented earlier and the roof screen is approximately 9 ft. What this design does is reduce the amount of the green wall area. We have also extended the depth of the gable. Views of both designs were provided for the Commission as well as street perspectives. We would like to see the Advisory Opinion favor the original design since it does give the hospital more flexibility toward the future. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, reminded the Commission that we have been asked for an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board specifically advising them on the roof screening and its compatibility with the neighborhood. When the DRC reviews projects of this size there are many things, we would look at. Since this is not in an area under the DRC’s purview we are simply City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021 - Page 3 of 8 being asked to review the proposed roof screening. We would typically look at mass and scale, roof orientation, the articulation of the building, contextual appropriateness and how it relates to the surrounding structures as well as visual interest and quality of materials and many other areas. It is hard not to comment on those items when we have only been asked to review one item. The Chair also feels it would not be inappropriate to mention other areas but to keep in mind what we have been asked to comment on. In terms of the parapet and screening, this is a transitional neighborhood. It is an unusual area which transitions into a residential neighborhood which is why the Planning Board is wrestling with the parapet. Obviously, a parapet or industrial roof screening is commercial. The intent is to work with the character of the neighborhood and reduce it to the extent you can, and you have been working hard towards that. The roof screening not only screens the mechanicals but provides sound attenuation in respect to the neighborhood. No one wants to look at a parapet. What you have done in terms of Option B mitigates the original concerns and from the rendering reads so much better. It is a dramatic difference and makes it more appropriate for this transitional neighborhood. The Chair suggested pivoting the building might help and questioned if that was given any thought. Mr. Primeau spoke regarding why thought was given to siting the building the way it was due to concerns for access. Mr. Brobston stated regarding site issues we were able to drop the lower level of the building into the ground. We are removing quite a bit of rock even in this rendering. This would require additional bedrock removal. Leslie DiCarlo stated she is leaning towards the single parapet. Perhaps if the deeper color of the color palette for the parapet would help it to recede more than the lighter color. It will be most noticeable walking along Morgan Street for the neighbors. It nice that the building is facing Morgan rather than parking. Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate, stated he also had the same thought as Leslie regarding the parapet color. The first concept is more acceptable as far as obtaining the larger green roof. Tad Roemer stated he would not suggest doing two separate enclosures for the mechanicals. He stated he would focus on making the building more attractive. It would look nicer with larger windows at least on the Morgan Street side. The central volume area could be studied a bit more and consider other treatments for this area. He feels one single enclosure would work on the building. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Alice Smith, neighbor stated she has been opposing this for the past 5 years. There is nothing residential about this proposal. It is not a transitional area. It is a UR-1 single family home district. This will be a monstrous building. There is so much focus on the roof but what is really disturbing and what the neighbors look at when they walk on Morgan Street is a huge building with parking. When they finish with this building, they will move onto to the other two building to finish the project. This is deceptive and misleading. There will be no greenspace. They will destroy over 200 mature trees. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated Leslie and Jeff have less concern with the original proposed parapet than the Chair and Tad does. The goal of the DRC should be to reduce the visibility of any roof equipment. The Chair feels Option B better accomplishes that. Tad felt the one enclosure unit should be considered versus two HVAC sections Tad Roemer stated he feels one HVAC enclosure is the better option. This is not an attractive building. It does not really matter what you do with the parapet until you make the rest of the building nice. The size will be the size if it was more thoughtfully crafted. He does not endorse the design. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated we have been asked to provide an Opinion regarding the roof parapet screening. Tad has expressed his opinion. Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate, stated he has no issues with the parapet screening, but a color change might help the screen fade. He really does not have an issue with either option. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021 - Page 4 of 8 Leslie DiCarlo stated her issues is the weird floating gables. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, stated what the Planning Board is asking is it even appropriate to have a gabled roof coupled with a parapet wall. Or is that entirely inappropriate. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked what the Commissions thoughts are in this regard? What the Chair is gleaning from the Commission is that regardless of Option A or B roof screening that the roof itself is not working, screening aside. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, stated the information she was asked was the applicant presents an unusual design, which has including a peaked roof coupled with a parapet wall to hide rooftop mechanicals. It would be helpful if they obtain and receive high level guidance on the commercial design which respects the residential character of the neighborhood. Discussion ensued among the Commission about the roof. A mansard option might be the best option for this project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated based on this conversation and the consensus of the Commission does it make sense to issue and Unfavorable Opinion on the roof as is it presented this evening. The DRC suggests the applicant go back and review other options to better accommodate neighborhood contextual appropriateness. Justin Grassi stated the project is not within an Architectural Review Area or a Historical Review Area. What you are being asked is a very narrow scope which is very unusual. Keeping in mind that the functionality of the building and the mechanicals will be a Planning Board decision. We are limited in the options we are presenting to you given this has already been presented and gone a certain distance with the Planning Board. There is some contention among the Commission members as to whether we should be re-evaluating the entirety of the roof project. The DRC’s determination can be neither favorable or unfavorable but provide information to help guide the Planning Board by citing how the members feel regarding the roof and parapet. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated we tend to approach things this way as well. The Chair stated she would be inclined to provide what the applicant has suggested and would appreciate guidelines and advice from staff in this regard. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner stated this is a unique situation. The one thing the DRC must agree on is what is written on the Advisory Opinion since there are only four of you here. Whether it is favorable or unfavorable or simply considerations for the Planning Board. The other option is to ask for more information. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the Advisory Opinion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated based on the suggestion of staff in terms of this Advisory Opinion, the Planning Board is simply not looking for our individual opinions on this, but it would be helpful to have a Favorable versus Unfavorable Opinion. Based on the discussion we have had this evening there is no opportunity other than to issue an Unfavorable Opinion at this time because it is inappropriate to wrestle with the parapet and the gable roof adjacent to it does not seem to work. It is in the applicant’s best interest to return to the DRC with a larger attendance on the Commission to provide additional opinions to the applicants. Discussion ensued among the Commission on the wording for the motion for the Advisory Opinion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, based on the discussion tonight the Chair stated she feels it behooves the applicant to present this to a larger group of DRC members for additional input and insight. If you do not agree we will move forward with a decision this evening. Kevin Ronayne stated returning in two weeks he feels will not progress further. Mr. Ronayne stated he would like to proceed with the Opinion. Justin Grassi, spoke regarding the Advisory Opinion and how the Planning Board will view an Unfavorable Advisory Opinion from the DRC. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021 - Page 5 of 8 Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding what the consensus of the Commission is and the Advisory Opinion. Leslie DiCarlo stated she feels the consensus of the Commission would be indifferent towards either option. She also stated either option would not make any difference to the compatibility with the neighborhood. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of the Myrtle Street New Medical Office Building, 1 Morgan Street and 55 Myrtle Street, Advisory Opinion to the Planning Board regarding compatibility and Community character. The DRC Commission feels indifferent about the two design options that were presented for the roof screening. The question of the roof screening versus a gabled roof is inconsequential in terms of the overall compatibility/incompatibility of the building with the community character. The two options presented to the DRC showing varying setbacks and length of the screening would make minimal difference to the compatibility to the neighborhood. A traditional gabled or mansard roof would be a more appropriate roof line versus what has been presented. Jeff Gritsavage seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Tamie Ehinger, Chair, allowed for an audience member to comment. Alice Smith stated a comment of indifferent will be interpreted by the Planning Board any way they wish. It will not impact the project. NOTE: The agenda was heard out of order due to lack of representation for the following agenda item. 2. #20210788 FUREY REAR ADDITION AND NEW STRUCTURE, 42 Circular, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding mass, scale, and siting of a proposed accessory structure and exterior modifications with a rear addition within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this property was visited by the DRC on caravan. There was a concern regarding the drip edge on the roof. The applicant replaced in kind that included replacing the drip edge in kind. This is before the Commission tonight for an Advisory Opinion to the ZBA. The project will return before the DRC for full review. Applicant: Julie Furey Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture; Geff Redick, Landscape Architect Ms. Davis provided a site overview of the project, noting it overlooks Congress Park and is a prominent building in the Historic District. Views of the existing property were provided noting no defined driveway, no real deck. Views of the neighboring properties were provided. Along with the carriage house construction, the applicants are proposing to remove the rear deck, provide a rear porch, and upgrade the exterior to provide a rear mudroom entry and stairs to the basement. Currently the basement cannot be accessed from inside the house. We are proposing the addition of a small second story balcony on the home where a door currently exists as well as minor window changes and are working with the maintaining the original windows as much as possible. We are also proposing a new carriage style garage the second story of the carriage house will be used for storage. A small exercise room will be built off the garage with a small half bath and closet. There are no plans for finished space in this area. Reviews of all elevations on the home and garage as well as floor plans were provided. On the south elevation, which is more visible along with the front. On the second floor we are proposing City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021 - Page 6 of 8 changing two windows which are not original back to an original size. In the rear and will get into this upon further review is the kitchen area where we are challenged with functionality in the kitchen and windows. On the north elevation there is a window we are proposing to remove to accommodate a stairway which is required by code, and we will move it where a window existed on that elevation at one time. Ms. Davis provided proposed floor plans for the house addition, and garage exercise room. We are here to assure the project is moving in the right direction. Mr. Redick provided a visual and a review of the proposed landscaping plan for the Commission’s review. A new bluestone walkway is proposed for the front of the home. The applicant is proposing a historic style iron fence and the addition of a historic cobble curb. A cobble inlay is proposed for the driveway. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, the applicant is before the DRC for an Advisory Opinion to the ZBA for mass, scale, and siting of the rear addition as well as the new accessory structure. The Chair stated she feels the accessory structure is very straightforward in terms of mass and scale and should not compete with the primary structure. Obviously, it needs to be detached and located in the rear of the property. The Chair stated this proposed accessory structure meets all those requirements and it is sited in the appropriate location. The Chair recommended when the applicant returns before the DRC for full review it would be helpful in the landscaping plan to include the neighboring structures. Leslie DiCarlo stated the mass and scale is appropriate and the location of the accessory structure is perfect. Tad Roemer stated the design is wonderful. Jeff Gritsavage stated the proposed addition and carriage house is appropriate for mass and scale and is moving in the right direction. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, stated they have met with the applicants on the proposed mass and scale of the project and there are no concerns by the Foundation. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of the Advisory Opinion to the ZBA concerning the Furey Rear Addition and New Accessory Structure, 42 Circular Street, that the DRC offers a Favorable Advisory Opinion. The mass, scale, and siting of both the rear addition and the accessory structure are appropriate for the Historic District. Tad Roemer seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 4. #20211080 SMILEY-BRACKETT COTTAGE LANDMARK NOMINATION, 166 Excelsior Avenue, Advisory Opinion to the City Council regarding a zoning amendment to designate a City Landmark within the Urban Residential-1 District. Applicant: Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation Ms. Bosshart stated the Saratoga Springs Preservation has petitioned the City Council to allow the Smiley-Brackett Cottage on Excelsior Avenue to become a local landmark. A visual of the site was provided which abuts the Spring Run Trail. It was part of the Excelsior Spring Park. Ms. Bosshart provided a history of the ownership of the property by Sarah Smiley and her tireless efforts to preach and speak before congregations of denominations across the country and abroad. She spent her summer months in study in her cottage here in Saratoga Springs. She was controversial for insisting that women could study the scriptures themselves and founded a home Bible Study program for women. She authored books which are still City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021 - Page 7 of 8 published today. Upon her death in 1917 the cottage was left to the Society for the Home Study of Holy Scripture and Church History a group she founded to promote religious study by mail. Ms. Smiley built the house in the Gothic Revival Style in 1872. We have very few Gothic Revival houses in the City of Saratoga Springs. None of which except for this one has a rural setting, which is where this type of home was intended to be set. In 1921 Charles Brackett purchased the cottage. He authored novels and become a drama critic, and screenwriter. He won academy awards and an Oscar for Lifetime Achievement in 1958. Mr. Brackett built several accessory structures on the site. Prior to his death the property was sold to Daniel Jewett. The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has listed the property on its endangered property list in 1998. For the past 20 years the Foundation has attempted to assist the current owner. The Foundation has also attempted to seek a Determination of Eligibility for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The condition of the property continues to deteriorate and there is concern that the heirs of the current owner will not have an interest in preserving the structures. It is currently not located in a Historic District or an Architectural Review District, therefore, there is no review for demolition or new construction. Ms. Bosshart provided the criteria for inclusion on the National Register and the property qualifies. The Foundation is before the DRC to seek a local landmark designation for this property. This property has history that is worth saving and needs to be protected long into the future. We are hopeful that the DRC will support these efforts. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, stated this seems very straightforward to her to designate this as a city landmark. It is important that there is oversight with a building that is this delicate and this valued in terms of this history. It was the consensus of the DRC to issue a Favorable Advisory Opinion to the City Council for this application. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, made a motion in the matter of the request for an Advisory Opinion to the City Council for the Smiley- Bracket Cottage Landmark Designation, 166 Excelsior Avenue, the DRC issues a favorable opinion due to the historic nature of the home, the prominence of its owners, its location within the City of Saratoga Springs and the importance of oversight in maintaining the home in terms of its historical character and existence. Tad Roemer seconded the motion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, in favor; Leslie DiCarlo, in favor; Tad Roemer, in favor; Jeff Gritsavage, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 UPCOMING MEETINGS: Design Review Commission Caravan, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, at 5:00 P.M. Design Review Commission Meeting, Wednesday, November 17, 2021, at 6:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Tamie Ehinger, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: January 3, 2022 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021 - Page 8 of 8