Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Chris Bennett, Tad Roemer, Jeff Gritsavage, Ellen Sheehan, Leslie DiCarlo. ABSENT: Rob DuBoff, Karen Cavotta (Alternate). STAFF: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner, Anthony Izzo, City Counsel 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. #20240515 55 Railroad Franklin Square Market Signage. Architectural review of sign modifications within the Urban Core/T-6 District 2. #20240562 64 Ludlow St. Garage Door modification application. Historic review of exterior modifications of accessory garage within the Urban Residential-1 District Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 55 Railroad Franklin Square Market Signage and 64 Ludlow St. Garage Door modifications. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 3. #20240561 67 Ludlow St. sidewalk and landscaping. Historic review of landscape improvements within the Urban Residential-1 District. 4. #20240458 96 Union 28 North Exterior modifications. Historic Review of exterior building and site modifications within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 5. #20240369 385 Broadway Coat Room Outdoor Dining. Historic review of outdoor seating within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 6. #20240486 89 Court St. Carriage House Construction. Historic Review of a new garage structure within the Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 7. #20240560 191 Union Ave. National Racing Museum Mural. Architectural review of an exterior mural in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. 8. #20240464 33-35 Caroline St. Demo. Architectural Review for significance and demolition within the Urban Core (T-6) District. _____________________________________________________________________ 3. #20240561 67 Ludlow St. sidewalk and landscaping. Historic review of landscape improvements within the Urban Residential-1 District. Chris Arnone & Tricia Arnone, applicants for the project. Jeff G. said modern paver bricks work great, but he asked the applicants to consider using monochromatic instead of the two colors on the bricks. He said it has a more genuine look. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Hearing no comments, Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for 67 Ludlow St. sidewalk and landscaping as submitted and the use of a monochromatic paver if the applicant choses. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 4. #20240458 96 Union 28 North Exterior modifications. Historic Review of exterior building and site modifications within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America and Y Engineering represented the applicant. Tonya returned to present some changes to the original proposal for the south elevation of the building. They are proposing faux doors framed in wood with wood awning windows above each door. Tonya said they will be removing the stucco block chimney at her client’s request and adding another window. Tamie said that Tonya had asked if they should use Boral or wood and Tamie said given the location, wood is appropriate. She said she has no problem with the chimney being removed and filled in with a window. Ellen said she had no problem with the chimney being removed and the design as proposed is successful. Jeff agreed that the proposal is successful. He said they will need to fill in the block where the chimney is removed. Tonya said there will be adding a window and will fill in the block. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Tad Roemer made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 96 Union St. 28 North, Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that wood be used and not Boral. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 5. #20240369 385 Broadway Coat Room Outdoor Dining. Historic review of outdoor seating within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, chair said they had discussed this project during caravan and the applicant has returned with their proposal. Brennan Drake, Architect, Phinney Design Group represented the applicant. He said they are proposing 6 tables with a total of 18 seats and a planter surround to enclose the seating area. Brennan said no changes to the exterior are permanent, they will be sitting on the concrete and can be taken in. He said the planters are like those used at Rhea, so they will blend well. He said they chose products that complement the existing color palette of the building (black, dove gray accents). Brennan said the planters in the front will be stepped down, so they don’t negatively impact the visibility of the storefront. He said they provided a letter of support from Kerry Fagan/Mark Thomas Men’s Apparel. Kerry said clients sitting and eating will be looking at his merchandise longer and will boost sales. Brennan said the outdoor seating will help people to recognize that they are open for lunch. Tamie said the DRB looks at 2 factors when looking at outdoor seating: sidewalk café’s which are meant to be directly in front of the business, and outdoor dining. Tamie said she would need documentation from the city as to whether this proposed outdoor seating meets the code or the definition of either of those. She said she’s not comfortable having outdoor seating in front of a business that’s not associated with the restaurant, even if the retailer supports it because it doesn’t make sense. Tamie said if they were able to produce that approval from the city, the location would be great. She said the use of planters with live outdoor plants is what the DRB suggests. She said when the DRB set the standards for temporary outdoor dining they were adamant that chairs, tables, planters, etc. be made of natural materials, either metal or wood. She said the tables are fine but the resin material for the chairs would not be acceptable. Anthony Izzo said there are places in the city where food service is in front of businesses that are not food establishments but recommended that the court administrator could be much more helpful with that. Leslie said she thinks the enclosures for the seating must be of a certain height to keep people inside of the space. The planters in the front look like they are too low and could be a tripping hazard. Tad asked if the applicant considered putting it in front of the dress store on the other side. Brennan said both tenants were approached, but Mark Thomas was more in favor of having the seating in front of it. Tad said if the City’s in favor, he thinks it’s a great idea. Jeff thanked the applicant for the visualizations, they are very helpful. He said from an aesthetic and functionality standpoint he doesn’t have a problem with the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 3 of 10 outdoor seating. Tad suggested better signage might let people know they’re there. Mr. Cohen said they try to have staff outside to guide people into their establishment as well as a menu, but it doesn’t make sense during the day. Tamie said the board provided feedback regarding the materials that are appropriate; “natural materials, metal and wood should always be used in the City’s historic district. Plastic, vinyl, artificial plantings and artificial floor surfaces are not acceptable”. She said the applicant should return before the board once they have approval from the city. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. 6. #20240486 89 Court St. Carriage House Construction. Historic Review of a new garage structure within the Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant is proposing a new garage structure as well as exterior changes for the primary structure. Sue Davis, SD Atelier represented the applicant and they are proposing a small carriage house with a one-car garage and a potting shed on the side. She said the lot is small and they have received a zoning variance for the garage. Sue said there is precedence for single, detached carriage house style garages in the neighborhood. She showed photos and the site plan of the existing house and said they would like to have some of the detailing on the carriage house (trim around windows, etc.) match the house. She said they will be removing a small shed in the back that was required to obtain their zoning variance. Sue said the windows on the side elevations were intentionally made small because the neighbor raised concerns about privacy. The doors on the carriage house will open out with a separate door that goes in and up the stairs to the second floor. She talked about the materials they’ll be using and said the main part of the roof will be basic asphalt shingles, with metal on the shed roof below. They are considering wood for the siding and possibly Boral for the board and batten. They are looking at Therma-tru carriage house style garage doors with something more unique on the pottery shed side. Sue said they would like to do something that would address the two roof lines coming together for the cupola and showed an example of what that might look like. Sue showed a photo of the porch area where the owners would like to pull the entryway forward to almost meet the house to allow for entry space and better access to the basement. They would also like to reconfigure the interior of that area for direct access into the basement and an area for a pantry. Sue said her client would like a decorative window (diamond) in the pantry and a double-hung window for the stairwell. Tamie thanked Sue for a very thorough presentation. She said the design of the carriage house is lovely and the materials are all appropriate. Tamie said the mass and scale of the carriage house to the main house is important so as not to compete with the original historic structure. She said the height of the carriage house does compete with the house, but because it’s located far enough back it’s not as much of a concern. Tamie said the cupola is beautiful but adds to the complexity of the problem of City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 competing with the historic structure. She said she doesn’t have any concerns about the infill to the existing structure. The materials and lighting make sense. It’s in a small back corner with very low visibility. Chris said it’s a lovely structure and he views it as being subservient to the main house. He said it might be more appropriate to have a single double-hung window on the second story over the garage doors but understands the need for more light. Chris said the small decorative window on the main house is close to the gable of the small roof and may cause some rotting issues. A gutter with flashing would help. Leslie said she had concerns about the height of the house as well but if the proportions are close, she doesn’t have a problem with it. She said she’s okay with the mixture of board and batten and clapboard. She said she doesn’t know if the cupola is appropriate. Jeff asked if the cupola was to let in light and Sue said no. Jeff said he doesn’t mind the board and batten but would prefer that it be wood, even if it’s weathered. He said the changes to the house are fine. Tad said the modifications to the main house are fine. He said he feels the carriage house is subservient to the main house. Tad said he would like to see the house with just one siding type but has no real objections to what’s been proposed. Ellen said out of the three options submitted for windows on the house she would select B (half triangle). Sue said her client picked C. Ellen said any of them will work. She said her preference would be all board and batten for the siding. Ellen said the cupola needs something in it – light, louvers, etc. She feels the carriage house is subservient to the house and has no problem with the size. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the Foundation doesn’t have any objection to the exterior changes to the main structure. She said regarding the siding on the carriage house; typically, if you are using two different types of siding on a structure there would be one type on the first floor and the other on the second floor, not a mix on each floor. Samantha said the Foundation recommended a double hung window instead of the half size windows proposed for the planting shed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair and the board decided to entertain a motion for approval excluding the cupola. Sue will return with a drawing for the cupola approval. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the construction of a carriage house and exterior modifications to the house at 89 Court St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that the applicant will return with finished drawings of the cupola for approval. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. #20240560 191 Union Ave. National Racing Museum Mural. Architectural review of an exterior mural in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. Cate Masterson, Director of the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame and Maureen Pasco, Development Director. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 Maureen said in 2025 they are celebrating their 75th anniversary as an institution and to commemorate this event they would like to commission a local artist, Celeste Susany, to create an original mural for the Ludlow side of the museum. They are seeking conceptual approval to move forward. Maureen said the mural will demonstrate thoroughbred racing history and the history of the Museum and Hall of Fame. Cate said they have applied for a NYS Council of the Arts grant, and they likely will not hear back from them until the end of the year. Cate said this would help with cost funding. It’s for the arts in the community and New York State. If the DRB approves of the mural but the Museum is not awarded the grant, there’s a board member who has offered to pay for the mural. Maureen said Celeste is working on a draft concept that they would like to come back and present to the DRB. She said she submitted some of Celeste’s prior work as an example of her style, both photorealistic and impressionistic in color. The mural would be directly applied on the red brick. Maureen said Celeste began as a billboard artist, so she’s used to large scale painting. She said the mural would be on the side of the building on Ludlow in between Union and Mitchell where there’s an emergency exit. Maureen said as visitors pull into the parking lot they would see the mural. She said the campus includes a lot of other sculptures and exhibits. They have “Against All Odds” (near life size bronze sculpture) on the corner of Union and Ludlow, Seabiscuit on the opposite corner and a Steeplechase exhibit in the back. Maureen said the mural would enhance their campus and public free offerings. Maureen said there is a streetlamp and 2 sconces on the building that they would like to replace with up lighting. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that they do not have purview over art, but they do over exterior changes to the building. Tamie said it would be inappropriate for the board to comment on the actual art/design that the museum choses to project on the wall. She said the board will look at the scale and size of the mural to determine the visual impact o pedestrians and on the city. Tamie said she feels a mural is a good idea but does have concerns about the size and scale as presented. She said it’s a beautiful building and in terms of continuity of the brick, how could they make it work? Tamie said she thinks the mural should be reduced and have a border of brick remaining. Chris B. said it looks like a modern-day brick versus an old brick which can spall when painted so that will need to be considered. Jeff G. said they should keep the mural within a rectangle of a running bond of brick. Tad R. said he has no objection; he likes murals but agrees with Tamie on the border. Ellen S. said she would prefer no border; it would make it more interesting and fresher. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Cate said that Celeste is putting her conceptual designs to paper, and they’re hoping to return before the DRB in the fall. 8. #20240464 33-35 Caroline St. Demolition. Architectural Review for significance and demolition within the Urban Core (T-6) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board will be determining if the two structures being proposed for demolition are architecturally or historically significant. She said once that determination has been made and the structures are significant the applicant would need to go back and provide some additional documentation prior to the board discussing demolition. If they are determined not to be significant, the board can then discuss demolition and will need to do a SEQRA review. Tamie asked that the applicant provide any history they have of the building. John Cannie of Snyder, Kiley, Toohey, Corbett and Cox represented the applicant, Oldest Lighthouse, LLC, who is under contract for the purchase of the two properties. John said it’s currently 3 tax parcels and if everything goes through it will be combined into one with a single building constructed on it. The parcel is in the Urban Core District, and they are proposing mixed-use commercial space on the ground floor and residential Condominiums on the upper 4 floors. The project site is on the north side of Caroline St. at the corner with Pavilion Row. John said there are three separate and individual taxed lots with two single-story concrete block buildings with some brick siding built in. The remaining property is parking. John showed the oldest known improvements at the site from the 1884 Sanborn Map showing “Kearney’s Block” where there were five 4-story buildings sharing common walls. The 1954 Sanborn Map shows porches on the residential units on the upper floors with commercial use below. In 1955 a fire destroyed the entire Kearney’s Block. John showed a 1939 aerial photo of downtown looking north on Broadway with 33-35 Caroline on the right and said that there were 3 to 4 story structures in that area. He talked about the current property conditions. There are 3 tax parcels owned by D’Andreas Pizza (constructed in 1957) and Union Coachworks (constructed in 1978). The buildings are single-story brick and cinderblock structures and are pre-existing nonconforming under the UDO minimum height requirement of 24 ft. John presented a significance evaluation: • No appealing or interesting architectural features. Any historically or architecturally significant buildings were destroyed in the 1955 fire. • Near the East Side and Broadway historic districts but the Hudson Cultural Service’s report indicates they do not warrant listing on the National Historic Register. • SHPO has issued a letter indicating no architectural or historic significance from New York State. • The current retail businesses have no significant historical events or persons occurring or residing at those locations. • Neither current business has been open at this location for more than 40 years (Union Coachworks 1988) and less than 20 years (D’Andreas 2007). • Both businesses intend to open in new locations following necessary approval for proposed project and subsequent sale to applicant. John said the demolition is consistent with the intents and purposes of the Architectural Overlay District. Both the buildings are pre-existing nonconforming under the UDO for minimum height. Low-cost construction materials were used in 1957 and 1978 and the buildings are not visually appealing nor consistent with the quality of neighboring properties and likely reduce surrounding property values. The buildings do not enhance City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 the community character of lower Caroline St. Demolition will allow for more housing units, which will promote a sense of community in the area, including workforce housing sought under a Bonus Action through the Planning Board. Tamie Ehinger, Chair clarified that just because a structure in the City of Saratoga Springs may not qualify to be listed on the National Registry, doesn’t mean it isn’t historically or architecturally significant locally. Tamie said she doesn’t find the Coachworks building significant. She said she considers D’Andreas to be iconic and funky and it’s been there a long time but that does make it significant. She said it will be sad to see the building go, but for her it does not have any historical or architectural significance. The remaining board members agreed with Tamie that D’Andreas was iconic but not significant and that the Coachworks building was not significant. Tamie said that Jeff suggested the new owners take a photo of the D’Andreas building, frame it and place it in the new building as a nod to D’Andreas and as a very community friendly thing to do. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the Foundation does not find the buildings to have architectural or historical significance. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the structures at 33-35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY are not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board is required to perform a SEQRA review prior to a motion for demolition. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to issue a Negative Declaration for SEQRA for the demolition of the structures at 33-35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 8 of 10 Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition of the structures at 33-35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that there were 3 comments from the public that came in late in the day and will be uploaded. Two were not in favor of what is being proposed tonight and one was. She suggested that members of the public and board look at those comments. John Cannie, Attorney & Buddy Christopher, 686 Architects represented the applicant. Proposal for 35 Caroline St.: • 5-story structure with residential on the top 4 floors and commercial and retail on the bottom floor. The residential entrance will be off Pavilion Row and retail entrances along Pavilion. • Subterranean parking (19 spaces) as an amenity for residents who purchase condos (although no parking required in the zone). Will have a valet serviced parking deck with 2 elevators. • Total of 26 units – 24 residences and 2 penthouses (on 6th floor and stepped back with a balcony that goes around the building. All units are 2 bedrooms and have a balcony. • The building will be a combination of brick, wood and Hardie plank panels. The windows are floor to ceiling. Tamie Ehinger said to clarify, the building is 6 stories. She said it would be nice to have an anchor on the corner, but this building is too tall. She said 30 Caroline, across the street, was approved for 4 stories with a 5th story step back, and that would be appropriate. She said Caroline St. is a narrow street and the massing of this proposed building is too much. She said the use of brick is wonderful but she’s not sure about the fenestration. John noted that the building that was approved at 30 Caroline is 60.5 ft. high and there’s would be 63 ft., only 2.5 ft. more. Ellen said context is important when you’re building in an architectural district, right off of Broadway which is in the historical district. She asked Buddy to explain what makes this building fit into the context of Caroline St. Buddy said materials are important to him. He has used brick on office buildings. Buddy not speaking into the mic. Ellen said the building is not context sensitive, it could go in many places. Tad said the height datum is positioned at the lowest corner of their site and asked Beige to help with where the Code requires them to establish a height datum. Tad said if the proposal is for 63 ft. height on Caroline St., that’s where the datum should be, not half a block away down the hill. He said it would be helpful if they label the elevations on the drawings, so the board knows what direction/street they’re looking at. Tad said a defined opening for the garage instead of a cantilevered look would look better. He said heavy volume over a single post just doesn’t look right. Tad said he wouldn’t use wood anywhere on a commercial building. He suggested opening the penthouse to the north. Tad said the two balconies facing City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 east and west would be better if there wasn’t just a thin brick wall separating them. Jeff said this building will be down in the gut and height has less of an impact there and doesn’t overwhelm the other buildings. He said he doesn’t think they’re going to get the votes for a 6-story building so they need to consider that with the programing of each floor and how they can make it work. He said 30 Caroline started out as a 6-story building, down to 5 story, down to 4 story with a step back for the 5th floor. Jeff said the Pavilion is 4 stories with a setback on the 5th floor and the Hampton Inn is 6 stories. Jeff said there’s precedence in the past year that they can look at to keep from coming back for several iterations with the DRB. He said he likes the balconies, but right now the architecture is a little bit underwhelming. Jeff agreed with Tad’s comment about opening up the penthouse to the north for a better view. Leslie said she agrees with everything that’s been said. She said it’s a very important building that they’re building and particularly at the pedestrian level. She said the retail on Caroline and residential on Pavilion is good. Leslie said she is struggling with the height of the building and agrees with Ellen that the building doesn’t relate or fit in with the neighborhood. She said right now the building is not special enough to warrant being built on that corner. Chris agreed with what the other board members said. He also has concerns about height. Chris said there are no cornices on the building, and he thinks they’re important for keeping water from cascading down the face which would eventually cause a maintenance issue. He asked for the details of how the balconies will be finished off. Tad said he would like them to address the entrance to the building on Caroline St., it’s just a dark recessed door. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the proposal. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the Foundation referenced a letter she submitted to the DRB where she listed out the architectural review approval standards and she doesn’t believe this building as it’s rendered takes into the context of Caroline St. She said she understands that when the applicant looked at the aerial view and saw 25 and 30 Lake Ave., two buildings that were built largely in a void that was left from urban renewal with no historic context or historic buildings around them. Samantha said this area was a transition from Broadway with its prominent commercial buildings transitioning down Caroline St. into the residential district, so height is important. She agrees that 63 ft. building height is inappropriate. The verticality, fenestration and detailing, especially the storefronts, are simpler along Caroline St. They’re not large, wide commercial bays like what is being proposed. She said the Foundation agrees with a lot of the comments that were stated. Samantha said when the State Historic Preservation Office reviews something like this project it’s based on the state environmental quality review act and does not need to take into consideration the architectural review approval standards or the visual impacts for the Broadway historic district. Tamie said it’s great that the applicant came in early in the process and received feedback from the board. She said they look forward to working with them. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 10 of 10 Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 24, 2024 - Page 11 of 10