Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 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, Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, Chris Bennett, Tad Roemer, Jeff Gritsavage, Ellen Sheehan, Leslie DiCarlo. ABSENT: Karen Cavotta (Alternate) STAFF: Beige Berryman, Senior Planner, Anthony (Tony) Izzo, City Counsel A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the minutes from June 26, July 10 and July 24, 2024. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, T. Ehinger, Leslie DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any "approvable" applications without the need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, that item would then be pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered individually. 1. #20240601 327 Broadway, Edward Jones Signage. Historic review of new signage within the Congress Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. 2. #20240650 20 Marion Place, Deck Replacement. Historic Review of rear deck replacement within the Urban Residential – 3 District. 3. #20240651 170 S. Broadway Post Time Wine & Spirits Signage. Architectural Review of new sign faces within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 4. #20240714 437-443 Broadway, Staircase & Gate. Historic Review of rear exterior stair modifications within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the applications for 327 Broadway Edward Jones Signage, 20 Marion Place, Deck replacement, 170 S. Broadway, Post Time Wine & Spirits Signage, and 437-443 Broadway, Staircase & Gate. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 5. #20240697 636 Rt. 29 Lake Ave. Demolition. Architectural Review of demolition of several outbuilding structures within the Rural Residential District. 6. #20240535 59 Myrtle Saratoga Hospital Zoning Amendment. Advisory opinion to City Council for consideration of zoning text amendment to transfer a portion of the remaining development area in Zone A to Zone B to provide for a new 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building in the Saratoga Hospital PUD. The PUD involves property within the Architectural Review Overlay District. 7. #20231003 119 Van Dam Rear Addition and exterior modifications. Architectural Review of rear two story addition and exterior modifications to an existing single-family residence including new siding and select window replacement within the Urban Residential – 3 District. 8. #20240653 142 Henry St., Three Family Construction. Architectural review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential-4 District. 9. #20240713 33-35 Caroline St. Construction. Architectural Review of new mixed-use development within the Urban Core (T-6) District. D. HISTORIC REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS: 10. #20250632 2 Madison Ave., Windows, Roof & Attic Fan. Historic review of window and roof modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. 11. #20240457 172 Caroline St., Roof, Windows, Porch, Driveway. Historic review of exterior building and site modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. 12. #20240662 130 Circular St. Chabad Center Basement Windows and window wells within the Urban Residential-3 District. _____________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review: 5. #20240697 636 Rt. 29 Lake Ave. Demolition. Architectural Review of demolition of several outbuilding structures within the Rural Residential District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the applicant is before the board to determine the historic or architectural significance of the structure. She said that based on that City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 2 of 20 determination the board will then discuss demolition and perform a SEQRA evaluation at a future date. Francis Vincent Connolly, Jr. said he purchased the property for demolition and to keep the property as open space. The outbuildings: house, out house, tiki bar, a hut in the rear and a trailer are all in deteriorated condition. Francis said he purchased the property with no real intent other than his daughter and her husband live next door and the property is unsightly. Francis said there’s a horse barn that is subject to asbestos review due to the metallic paint on the roof. He said he had Apex Environmental do a report that was sent to John Barney from the City’s Building Department. He said he has a demolition firm lined up to come and do the demolition and understands that upon approval there needs to be an air test performed once demolition happens. Francis said Apex Environmental will perform that test. Francis said he plans to demolish every building but one which is where he is housing his tractor. Tamie Ehinger said it’s clear to her that none of the structures have historic or architectural significance. Tamie asked if any board members disagreed with her determination, and they did not. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience had any comments about the historic or architectural significance of the structures. There were no comments. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the structures at 636 Lake Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY are not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said they can discuss demolition tonight but won’t be able to move forward with a motion until the paperwork is submitted by the applicant for a short form SEQRA review. Tamie said the SEQRA review can be performed at the next meeting and the applicant would not have to be present. Tamie asked if the board members had any concerns about the demolition of the structures. There were no concerns among the board members. Tamie suggested that the applicant submit the SEQRA application to the planning department and discuss the procedure for approval with Beige. 6. #20240535 59 Myrtle Saratoga Hospital Zoning Amendment. Advisory opinion to City Council for consideration of zoning text amendment to transfer a portion of the remaining development area in Zone A to Zone B to provide for a new 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building in the Saratoga Hospital PUD. The PUD involves property within the Architectural Review Overlay District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant gave a very thorough presentation at the last meeting which was discussed by the board. She said at that time they were unable to move forward with an official motion because the City Council had not officially requested an advisory opinion from the board, which they now have done. Tamie City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 3 of 20 asked the applicant’s representative, Matt Jones, if there was anything further to share with the board. Matt said that there was nothing outstanding other than a motion for the board’s determination for an advisory opinion and a deferral on SEQRA to the City Council as Lead Agency. Matt asked that the record reflect that the applicant met with the board in August and reviewed the application in detail and that that discussion become part of the formal record should any action pursue related to the determination of the DRB. Tamie Ehinger made a motion incorporating the entire proceedings of August 7, 2024, and September 11, 2024, into its considerations which included the following general comments: reiteration of requirements that all structures must come before the Design Review Board for architectural review in the future, once building or parking structure designs are created and are ready for public presentation. Reiteration that any new signage will be shared with the Design Review Board and reviewed as appropriate for the PUD. Clarification and questions about the extents of the proposed PUD amendments. Following the City Council’s resolution seeking Lead Agency under SEQRA, the Design Review Board defers Lead Agency under SEQRA to the City Council. The DRB hereby finds that the proposed PUD revisions located at 59 Myrtle St. are consistent with the intent and objectives of the architectural review overlay and the design process. The DRB issues a favorable recommendation on the PUD amendment application to the City Council while acknowledging its authority as stated in the UDO to conduct architectural review for future proposed structures within the PUD. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. #20240713 33-35 Caroline St. Construction. Architectural Review of new mixed-use development within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the applicant has been before the board in the past and is presenting revisions to the original proposal. John Cannie, Snyder, Kiley, Toohey, Corbett & Cox. Also present: Applicants, Oldest Lighthouse, LLC, Crohn & Dempsey & 686 Architects, James Christopher, principal architect. John said the applicant was before the board in July for demolition and they are now seeking approval for height, mass, scale and open space. The proposed uses for the project are mixed-use, commercial space on the ground floor, residential condominiums on upper 5 floors. The building is located on lower Caroline St. at the corner of Pavilion Row and Caroline. There are currently 3 tax parcels that would be combined into one for this development. It will have frontage on Caroline & Pavilion and an access driveway off Pavilion to enter the parking structure. John reminded the board that the oldest known record of improvements at the site is from 1884 Sanborn Map showing “Kearney’s Block”. John said the buildout was like what is being proposed now. Anywhere from 3 to 4 stories with commercial uses on the bottom floor with residential on top. In 1955 Kearney’s Block was destroyed in a fire. John showed a 1926 photo looking south on Pavilion with 33 Caroline on the left and an City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 4 of 20 aerial photo of downtown looking north on Broadway with 33-35 Caroline on the right. John said the building dominated the surrounding buildings in height, mass and scale. He said the DRB approved demolition on July 24, 2024, and he and the architects from 686 have received some constructive comments from the Saratoga Historic Preservation. James Christopher said he is not a registered architect. The project architect, William Christopher, from his office is ill so he is presenting on his behalf. James talked about what has changed since July 24th: • The 3 lots will be combined, and they are proposing to build 5-stories with a penthouse. • Proposing a basement which would include 2 vehicle elevators with a 24-hour valet basement. 36 total valet spaces – 19 on the slab and 17 stackable on lifts. • Proposed 1st floor elevation – primary entrance off Caroline St. The Board asked for additional entrances to retail spaces along Caroline & Pavilion, and they can accommodate that. • Vehicular access is off of Pavilion to the rear. • The first story is commercial, 2nd floor is residential. They step in at the third through fifth floors, which is a revision based on comments from the DRB to break up the massing. • Penthouse floor plan steps in from the floors below – 6 ft. on the sides, 15 ft. at the rear and 13 ft. at the front on Caroline St. • Proposing limestone veneer along the elevation at grade with masonry above. • Incorporated wrought iron railings and balconies throughout. • In response to DRB comment about the pattern along the storefronts: James said they looked at other large buildings in the city and noted that the storefronts are proportionate to the width of the elevation. He said they feel their revision is consistent with what already exists in the larger buildings. • Incorporated ornamental brackets along the balconies and added vertical soldier coursing below in the brickwork to accentuate the verticalness of that portion of the building. • Rear elevation - no balconies, roof deck, 5th floor has roof decks. They will house the mechanical equipment in between the 3-season rooms, and it will be obscured behind a masonry screen. • The overall height of the building is 63. 6’ to the elevator hatch and 59.6’ to the average height of the roof. • Rendering showing the building’s overall height and the elevation of the building in comparison to the grades. Average height 60.97’. • Showed a slide of the building in context with the scale of the surrounding buildings. James said there are several buildings in the area similar in height and massing. John talked about how this building fits within the UDO section 13.9(I)(I). He said the DRB needs to consider whether the height of the building is compatible with the historic form and context, with neighboring properties and with the zoning district’s intent. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 5 of 20  • Historic form and context – Kearney’s Block, historically one of the largest and tallest buildings on Caroline St. – 3 to 4 stories, the highest number of stories on the street according to the Sanborn Maps. It’s a corner piece of property that deserves a level of prominence like some of the other more prominent buildings on the street such as City Tavern. The building also fronts on Pavilion where the other corner block is located at 30 Lake Ave. and is at a 60 ft. height. • Neighboring properties – 30 and 30 ½ Caroline receiving and/or seeking approvals for 60.5 feet. Returning Kearney’s Block to a nearly identical height will give that corner parcel the prominence it once had. 30 Lake Ave. – 60 ft. height. Clancy’s immediately next door is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and should not be looked at as appropriate within the district. It doesn’t meet the 24ft. requirement. Further west on Caroline St. four story structures is the norm, 16 Caroline, City Tavern. They have the perceived additional height due to the grading of Caroline. • Zoning intent – “is intended to accommodate the highest intensity and diversity of nonresidential and upper floor residential uses. The district focuses on high quality design and materials consistent with the historic downtown form and promotes an active pedestrian oriented public realm”. John said this project fits directly within this intent with commercial on the bottom and residential on top. “Highest Intensity” – this District is where the most intense and dense projects in the city should occur. John said this proposal is potentially less dense and intense than other possible proposals due to larger unit sizes. There won’t be larger density because these will be condos with larger floor plans than most apartments in the area. He said many of the principals involved in this project will be residing there. The intensity is further mitigated by the step back. UC Zoning permits height of 55 feet as of right (1.1x of ROW width). UC zoning provides incentives to new developers with bonus actions. John said the clear intent of the zone is to allow for larger developments when there is to be a community benefit provided as part of the development. • Applicant is seeking 2 bonus actions – affordable housing option A and high-performance construction, which could be approved by the planning board up to 15 additional feet. The applicant is only seeking 5.97 feet of the bonus. John said that failing to approve the proposed height works contradictorily to the zoning intent of larger development coupled with community benefit. Why would developers provide the City’s requested benefits if they do not have a chance to receive their own benefit in return? Scale approval: • The scale of the proposal relative to neighboring buildings, namely Clancy’s is large, but that is a nonconforming structure so should not be considered. • Scale relative to 30 Lake, 30 and 30 ½ Caroline is nearly identical. • Scale relative to the properties west on upper Caroline, is similar especially when considering the change in elevation, creating a larger scale for those buildings than ones in the lower Caroline. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 6 of 20 Mass & Open space. UDO section 13.9 (I)(I) provides: The Design Review Board must consider whether the relationship of the dimension and mass of a building to the open space between it and adjoining buildings is compatible with the character of the neighboring area and with any specific zoning intent.” 1. Compatible with Community Character – the mass and open space is compatible with community character. It’s like 30 and 30 ½ Caroline, 30 Lake. Other examples of larger buildings next to smaller structures (Rhea on Broadway, Tap and Barrel at 13 Caroline). Majority of Caroline has full buildout with no open space between any of the adjoining structures. Consistent on upper and lower Caroline and majority of UC zone. 2. Zoning Intent: Highest intensity zone. Full buildout permitted without variance – i.e. no requirement for open space. 80% buildout is required. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board received a large amount of public comment regarding this application and the letters have been uploaded and are available to look at by the public. Tamie gave a quick summary: • Majority of comments were not in support of the building as presented. “The building does not connect with the city and is not unique to its location”. “The building is too big and too tall”. “The architecture has the look and feel of nowhere”. “Does not reflect the historical and architectural values of Saratoga Springs”. “The building’s mass and scale should conform to other buildings on Caroline St.” “It does not complement the neighborhood”. “The building is highly visible from popular visitor spots and prominent historic areas; architecture should respect that”. “No green space”. Tamie said most of the public comments were in support of the growth of downtown. One commenter in support said, “the honesty of this contextual, contemporary structure with an historic setting is welcome”. Tamie said she appreciated the presentation and the fact that the applicant heard the feedback the board provided and made the revisions to address those. She reminded the board that they’re tasked with making sure that the applicant meets historical and architectural standards of the city – mass and scale, proportion of the building, contextual appropriateness, street orientation, fenestration, directional expression, emphasis of main entrances and the quality of materials. Tamie said what was presented is a big improvement over last time; it reads as much more pedestrian friendly. The new detailed cornices add to the visual interest of the building with the changes to the first-floor trim and windows, and the entrances are better emphasized with the use of the awnings. She said she still struggles with the height of the building and feels 4 stories with a 5th story stepped back would be more appropriate. This is a prominent corner on a historical street and should be given the attention it deserves. She said despite the height of the building and the directional expression, the building still reads very horizontal on a street full of vertical elements. The applicant needs to look at how the corner itself can be emphasized. Rob DuBoff said on one hand no matter what is put there the building will look big next to Clancy’s and the Saratogian parking lot. On the other hand, it is a rather large building. He would like to see how the building height relates to the other buildings in the area (not Clancy’s) but the building behind it for example – the Trotter’s building and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 7 of 20 Indian Restaurant. John noted that the code doesn’t call out the number of stories, just the height of the building. They want that number of stories because that’s what will drive the project – how many units they have. Rob agreed with Tamie about the prominence of the corner and asked why they decided to step the building back at the third floor. It seems more appropriate not to step that back and just go straight up. He understands they’re trying to address the pedestrian feel but thinks there are compatibility issues with other buildings in the city. The building seems to fade away at the corner on all sides except the rear. Something more prominent is needed. Rob wondered about the architectural rhythm on the storefront versus the upper floors; there seems to be a contradiction in the design and how everything lays out. He encouraged the applicant to take a look at that and see if there’s some way to establish a coherent rhythm of the building. He likes the limestone, brick and metal materials. Rob asked what was being proposed for windows and trim. James said they would use aluminum windows, and all of the trim would be masonry. Rob said the board discourages the use of sliding glass doors on balconies and encourage French doors. Regarding the affordable housing height bonus; the DRB doesn’t approve that, it’s the planning board, so the DRB has to put that idea to the side in deciding the height approval. Rob said they’ve seen projects that did not pan out to be affordable housing after being approved for the bonus. Chris Bennett said it’s a much more successful building than the last rendition. He agrees with Rob, Tamie and the Preservation Foundation and said that he also struggles architecturally with the building; it has two identities, one horizontal and one vertical. Chris said the windows on the first floor are more like a hotel; they typically see more of a storefront design. He agreed with other board members that there’s an opportunity to do more to emphasize the corner. He likes the cornices, they’re important for keeping water off the side of the building. Four stories with a 5th floor setback would be more architecturally appropriate. When you’re making comparisons to other parts of the neighborhood; Lake Ave. or Broadway, they’re different contextually. They have wider streets and can carry a bigger mass. It’s not fair to compare them to Caroline St. The smaller city streets would be more relevant of a comparison. He said the product they use will be important. To summarize, Chris said the first floor is in conflict more horizontal than vertical. Breaking up the first floor into smaller retail spaces would be much more architecturally appropriate. Tad said that Caroline St. is the important datum that’s the driving force of the 1.1 height limitation. John said when they were before the board the last time the height measurement was 63.5 ft. and has been reduced by 2.5 ft. Tad asked why the roof elevation is the underside of the roof (page 13 of document). 59.6 ft. is the roof, but it’s drawn as if it’s the underside of the overhang. John said because the top piece is decorative, a raised cornice, and it doesn’t count toward it. Tad said the board would be interested in knowing how high the highest element is, which is the parapet. It looks like it's another 12-16 inches. He said he read all the letters from the Foundation and understands the concerns. The City has a zoning code that allows for this building, and he tends to lean on “as a right construction”. He’s not opposed to the size of the building and agrees with John that Clancy’s is not a good comparison. There was a discussion about the 24’ minimum street wall. They have a 12-foot first floor and a 9 ft. second floor, and it doesn’t add up to 24 feet. John said he will check on it, but he thinks it’s the building height that’s considered and not a “street wall” number. Tad said City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 8 of 20 he sees the building in 3 parts: the podium/first & second floor, middle floors and penthouse. He likes the podium idea but maybe it should be a height that’s more consistent with the older neighborhood on Caroline with two- and three-story buildings. The discretionary stripe along the second floor is accentuating the horizontality of the podium and they should consider removing it. The cornice of the podium is too small and is currently lined up with the floor of the 3rd floor. They could raise that up 18” and have an 18” parapet and a 24” glass rail making it 42” tall. The windows on the first and second floors lack rhythm. It could be a structural challenge because the piers on the second floor are all over windows on the first floor. It helps to line those up so you can have a column and not have to span all those windows. The water table is high, they should consider a lower sill for the retail windows. Tad agreed with the Foundation about adding more entrances on the ground floor and said if they’re going to use the podium approach, they should consider not having wide gaps above the doors. Looking at the elevations, the overhang above the main floors seems very thin and the brackets are small. He suggested using another material for the penthouse to help with the visual height of the building. Tad asked if the 80% buildout requirement was by volume. John said you must have an 80% buildout and can step back 6 feet for 20% on the main frontage. Tad said a visual for context showing a long section along Caroline St. going down in the gut and showing the slopes and various buildings from Broadway to Circular St. would be very helpful for the board to understand the mass of the building in context. Tad agreed with anchoring the corner but isn’t sure if it will work with the podium idea. He said using limestone is a great idea. Leslie DiCarlo noted that the infill building next door to Hamlet and Ghost originally wanted 6 stories and they brought it down to 4 stories with a penthouse. They made the ceilings higher on each floor giving the building more verticality. She said the height bothers her because it seems like the ceilings aren’t high enough, making each floor seem squatty. She’s happy to see the brick and limestone. She said the balconies seem flimsy and the railing around the top seems thin on such a massive building. Leslie agreed with the other board members who spoke about having multiple entrances on the ground floor. Jeff Gritsavage said the height of the building was decided as the desired limit in the UDO and the applicant is adhering to that. This building is in the gut and it’s not going to dominate the skyline. It is a substantial architectural improvement over the last submittal, and he appreciates the applicant’s responsiveness to the board’s comments. Jeff said there’s no need for greenspace, there’s a park down the street that was just built. He said the infrastructure supports this density. He said the building will dominate the corner until the surface lots get completely developed downtown. Regarding the retail on the first floor; this building will be built in the second quarter of the 21st century and they won’t necessarily have 19 ft. wide boutique retail spaces because retail is now done in a different way; online shopping, etc. He thinks the current setup is good with two retail spaces, that could be one retail space – flux space. Saratoga Springs is a resort town with destination retail like clothing stores. Something that structurally makes sense on the balconies for the 4th and 5th floors is necessary. He doesn’t think the pilasters on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors necessarily need to line up with what’s on the podium level, but it does need to make sense between the first and second floors. Jeff said what he’s seeing so far is leading in the right direction and he’s leaning toward approval of mass and scale. Ellen Sheehan said this is a step in the right direction and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 9 of 20 she thanked the applicant for listening to the board. The corner needs to be more prominent. Sliding glass doors are not appropriate. The storefront windows are not appropriate for Saratoga. She’s confused by the step back because one part is 6’4” deep and another part is 5’9” – it looks like it should be a walkway and not just a ledge. Making the cornice bigger as Tad suggested might be helpful. The applicant referenced 30 Caroline St. which has been approved for 60’6” and they’re right about the height, the height isn’t the only thing. That building is tall and narrow while this proposed building is not balanced for Caroline St. It’s quite massive. She said the other difference between 30 Caroline and this proposal is that 30 Caroline is one story less. This proposed building is reading much more horizontal than the rest of the street. Tamie Ehinger, Chair opened the floor for public comment. Gordon Toleman, 26 York Ave. said he frequently walks in this area and enjoys that 30 Lake Ave. sidewalks are wide and the setbacks in the building allow pedestrians to get out of the rain when they’re waiting for an uber, etc. He said right now the sidewalks on Pavilion are wide because the buildings are set back. His concern with this proposal on Caroline St. is that the sidewalk is narrow and there’s a tight feel to it. He’d like to see some notches put into the building where people can stand and get out of the elements. It would be nice to have a restaurant with seating next to the sidewalk and not forced out into the roadway like Hamlet & Ghost and along Henry St. Gordon feels the mass and height of the building are fine and he’s in favor of it. His concern is at the street level where people will be walking and socializing. He'd rather see residential on the first floor with porches and people interacting with one another. Restaurants would be fine, but Saratoga has enough bars. Griffin Clancy, second generation business owner of Clancy’s Tavern next door, said they’ve been there for 28 years and fully support the project. Eventually the entire street will be developed similarly and there will be fewer bars and restaurants. He said it will also help off-season business and help the gut develop and push more people down on Caroline St. Michele Funiciello, Board President of the Preservation Foundation said she attended the meeting as a homeowner at Circular Manor and that she and her husband restored the building at the top of Caroline St. and Circular. The proposed building is massive but is better than the first iteration. Michele said speaking as a person in the neighborhood, she feels this development is important. What’s done here is critical to the development of the area and needs to be respectful of the neighborhood nearby. She said the project is headed in the right direction, but it needs to be more special. She said she would like to see the design be more accepting of the neighborhood feel. Kathy Kreger, Owner of Walt & Whitman Brewing, 20 Lake Ave. thanked the board for the work they do. She said she moved specifically to Saratoga and purchased her building in 2018. She said they went through a year and a half of interior renovations on their building and then hit the Covid Pandemic. She’s excited about what’s going on in Saratoga ans feels this proposal is the beginning of ongoing development in the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 10 of 20 neighborhood, which she very much supports. She agreed with Jeff Gritsavage that the building looks large now, but there’s a parking lot across the street and in years to come the landscape may look different. She’s excited about what this project will bring to that side of Broadway which is really needed. Brian Granger, 126 Circular St. said looking into the future, if someone were to buy the Clancy’s and Trotter’s property and build something there, what would be the space in between the buildings? It would be blocking the porches at that site. The proposed building with balconies on the side would limit future building on that side. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation clarified that the Preservation is not against development. They are supportive of growth but managing it in a meaningful way that keeps the character of the city, the reason people come to Saratoga. She agreed that there will be other similar buildings built on the block but it’s really important that this block transitions to a residential neighborhood. Samantha noted the success of a 4-story building on Phila St. (the Spencer), a tall building that relates the same as other buildings. This building is not close to Broadway, it’s in the gut and then goes into a residential neighborhood. The Foundation feels strongly that a 4-story building with a 5th story setback is appropriate. Consideration of floor height ratio is also very important. Samantha said the DRB had an important discussion with the applicants for 30 Caroline St. and suggested they revisit that conversation. She agreed with many of the comments that were shared by the DRB and said there’s a lot of great opportunities for new contextual design that is mindful of the character and context of this area. She provided examples of historic and modern infill designs that have a prominent corner to the DRB as well as examples of streetscapes. Samantha said the first floor is critical to the success of the building. The mass of the building needs to be broken up in some visual manor. Verticality is important as well as strong cornice details. Samantha reminded the board that their purview is looking at the architectural review standards: height, scale, mass, open space, proportion, directional expression, architectural rhythm and front setback. She said if the applicant continues in the direction he’s going, he will have a successful project. Jeff Gritsavage said that the Phila St. building that Samantha referred to is on Henry St. He said if they were looking at the parking lot across from Trotters, or the strip mall with the tattoo place on Henry St.to be redeveloped, 6-stories would not be appropriate. He said this building starts to step and taper down to the context appropriateness of the rest of Caroline and noted that the building will be mostly residential, which is in keeping with the neighborhood. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that based on everything that’s been talked about, the applicant has been provided with a lot of feedback. She summarized the comments as follows: • The board is concerned with how the corner is being addressed and would like it revisited. Anchoring the corner is important. • Concerns about height and the ratio in terms of the floors. • Sliding glass doors are considered too suburban for this portion of downtown. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 11 of 20  • Concerns about the storefronts and fenestration. Much of the board feels it needs to be reworked or creatively looked at. Also, multiple entrances need to be looked at for pedestrian engagement. Different options for the storefronts might mitigate those concerns and allow for what the community is looking for. • The applicant should provide a height comparison for the street. Tamie said the board is not going to fly through this project but if they continue to work on it together with the applicant, it’s getting better and better and more appropriate. At the end of the day, they’ll have a project they can be proud of. John asked for clarity on the “prominent” corner. He said they can’t do the proposed step back if there’s to be a prominent corner. Tamie said that’s what the board is suggesting and perhaps removing the step backs, at least on that side, might enable them to make the corner more prominent. The board is leaving those ideas up to the applicant. The DRB is not meant to be designing projects. 8. #20231003 119 Van Dam Rear Addition and exterior modifications. Architectural Review of rear two story addition and exterior modifications to an existing single-family residence including new siding and select window replacement within the Urban Residential – 3 District. There was no one present to represent the application. Tabled from earlier. Applicant now present. Dennis Gosier, Homeowner said that he and his wife attended a DRB meeting in January and were given a lot of positive feedback from the board. Dennis said he hired an engineer, Doug Adams, Saratoga Engineering Design, who redesigned the project with the specifications recommended. Dennis said they are proposing a 1,200 sq. ft. two-story rear addition to their existing home. Doug said the addition will make his kitchen bigger and add more living space on the first floor and add a master suite on the second floor. Dennis listed the changes as recommended by the board: • Added fiber cement Hardie board siding. The existing house is aluminum which they would like to remove and replace with Hardie board. • Windows are Andersen Woodwright – aluminum clad. • Aluminum clad windows in the rear. • Keeping historical wood windows in the front. • Porch will remain the same. • Stepped in where the new addition would start. • Adding 1 window on the left elevation of the existing structure. The addition will cover up the existing window, so they’re adding one. • Shrinking 1 window on the right elevation of the existing structure. • Balusters and handrails will complement what’s on the front of the home. • Extended soffits out on the rear elevation of the second floor. Tamie Ehinger, Chair thanked the applicant for taking the board’s feedback and incorporating it into some of the changes being proposed. The board’s feedback is to ensure that the addition and changes maintain the architectural standards they are meant to. She said the applicant has created a better distinction between the existing structure and proposed addition. It’s important that the original structure is not over- City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 12 of 20 shadowed by the addition and that there’s a clear-cut difference. The fiber cement product they are proposing in place of the originally proposed vinyl and the aluminum clad windows are appropriate for the architectural review district and the neighborhood they’re in. She has concerns about removing the window and replacing it with a smaller one. The standards say that original window openings should be maintained. There may be some creative means to allow the opening to remain, such as trim detail or architectural features that allude to the original opening while allowing changes to the actual shape and size of the window. The applicant said that the window is not highly visible on the lower floor on the alley side of the house, and he wants to make it smaller for more cabinet space in the kitchen. Tamie said if they find salvageable wood siding under the aluminum on the original structure, it could be restored and add value to the home. Ellen Sheehan said she’s fine with making the window smaller and the location of the windows on the back of the addition. She’s fine with the project. Tad Roemer said it looks great and he has no objections at all. Jeff Gritsavage said the cut away bay with the upper jettied bay above it is character defining. He thought the asymmetry of the third window is awkward, especially if they’re going to use a different size. Also, it is visible from Van Dam St. He would consider reworking that and asked if they could put a window on the other side. Doug said the window is larger because it’s an egress window. The windows that are currently there don’t meet egress. Jeff said he finds the cornice return inappropriate. Rob DuBoff asked about the treatment of the foundation for the addition. Doug said it would be parged. Rob said he’s supportive of the project and thanked the applicant for working with the board. Chris Bennett said he was glad the applicant listened to the board’s suggestions, it’s a much brighter project. He agreed with Tamie that they should try to salvage it if there’s clapboard under the aluminum. Chris also suggested that the applicant keep some of the aluminum from the back of the house to put around the window they’re making smaller if they decide not to take the aluminum off the original structure. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience on the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation asked for clarification with regard to the siding being removed. She said the Preservation would be strongly opposed to Hardie board being used on the main original structure. Samantha told the applicant that there are New York State homeowner tax credits that would give them 20% of their rehabilitation costs back. She said it won’t assist with the addition, but they might want to consider it for restoring their wood siding. There was discussion among the board members regarding the removal of the aluminum siding on the front (non-addition) part of the house. The board agreed with Samantha that should the applicant remove the aluminum siding and wish to replace it and not restore what’s underneath, they will need to return to the DRB for approval. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve a rear addition and exterior modifications at 119 Van Dam St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: if a change in material is needed for the original portion of the building, the applicant would be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 13 of 20 required to return to the Design Review Board for approval. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 9. #20240653 142 Henry St., Three Family Construction. Architectural review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential-4 District. Tabled from earlier. Applicant now present. Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented Joel & Sara Sovie, owners. Shawn said the house is located at 142 Henry St. which is bordered by McTygue Pl. to the north, and Bank Alley to the east. Directly south is the Moderne Condominiums, a large condominium building about 60 ft. tall. To the west is the Spring Valley apartments and across the street to the north is a vacant lot. A little further north of Henry St. is a two-family structure that was approved by the DRB. Shawn showed context photos of the previously mentioned locations and the site plan for the project. He said the Moderne Condos are very close to the south and there is an easement on the applicant’s property for the transformer, switch gear and generator serving the Moderne, as well as an ingress/egress easement to allow for maintenance of the neighboring building. They are compliant with the zoning setbacks. They are proposing to continue the sidewalk that the Moderne built in front of the condos along Henry St. to McTygue Pl. and add a few street trees. There are two curb cuts; one from Henry St. that serves the first-floor unit, and the other to the rear on Bank Alley that serves the second-floor unit and the unit above the garage. Shawn said there’s a very large change in grade from Henry St. to Bank Alley, 20 ft. from front to back. He said on the property itself the difference is 12 ft. at the front door of unit 101 to the main entrance of unit 201. They are essentially building into the hill. Shawn displayed the floor plan. Units 101 and 201 have 3 bedrooms. Unit 101 is accessed from a covered porch facing Henry St. on the ground floor. The driveway off Henry St. comes to a one-car garage in the back with a side door. You enter the house from the garage or the driveway. The second floor is nearly identical, only the entry point is from the rear of the house. There is a second level porch that leads into a foyer where you access the apartment. There is a two-car garage. The southern garage bay is for unit 201. The other garage bay is for unit 301 and is accessed from the driveway, into a foyer, up a set of stairs into the unit. Unit 301 is 800 sq. ft. and has one bedroom with a small kitchen, living room, bathroom and walk-in closet. Shawn displayed the elevations. It is a two-story building with a 12 on 12 pitch on the main portion of the façade. The garage and two-story section are set very far back from the main facades and 65 ft. from the road. They are proposing asphalt shingle roofing and standing seam metal roofing on the covered porch and shed roofs over the garages. The shed roofs are supported by timber brackets. The columns are PVC wrapped and Fypon polyurethane brackets support the gable end. They are proposing Hardie board smooth lap siding for the first and second floors. The gables and upper unit above the garage in the back will have Hardie smooth board and batten siding. The trim is True Exterior poly-ash siding painted to match the James Hardie colors. Shawn showed the north façade coming up McTygue Pl. where they repeated the gable end from the front. The east elevation with the two garages and entrances to the two upper units is up about 12 ft. above Henry St. Shawn said the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 14 of 20 volume from Henry St. looks large but is only two stories. The south elevation faces the Moderne and is where all the bedroom windows are located. Shawn showed renderings of the proposed structure. He said his clients intend to use the property for rental purposes but eventually would like it to be a multi-generational home. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the renderings are incredibly helpful. It’s wonderful to see some infill on a lot that’s been empty for a long time. She noted that it’s a very challenging lot in an unusual neighborhood context. She likes the variety of materials with the mixed use of board and batten and clapboard breaking up the mass of the structure. She noted there’s a lot of roof exposure, but they did a good job of breaking it up. Tamie encouraged them to use a different material besides PVC for the columns. Chris Bennett said it’s an interesting design. He suggested they not use Fypon and go with Boral instead. He asked how they would address the grade as they go up the hill against the side of the house. Shawn said there will be a foundation that will step down. Chris suggested putting some windows in on the Henry St. side of the garage apartment. Rob DuBoff agreed with Chris and questioned the appropriateness of the very visible blank wall. Transoms or something to break that space up is needed, at least on the Henry St. elevation. The guidelines suggest that buildings should be a product of their own time, and this was an opportunity for something more modern. In his opinion he would have liked to see a building that’s more in keeping with the times, like the building next door rather than a very good copy of an historic building. He said although, what has been designed is perfectly appropriate. Leslie DiCarlo said she thinks it’s a brilliant design, the use of the space and fulfilling everyone’s needs, their own garage, etc. She agreed with Chris and Rob that some type of window is needed on the west side to break up the wall, and that something better should be used for the porch posts. Tamie said for the record, she doesn’t see a faux Victorian design. If anything she sees the opposite, more suburban. Jeff Gritsavage said the spandrel panels between the upper and lower windows on the front gable create a very flat, bare area and asked what material they intended to use there. Shawn said they would be using the James Hardie panel. Jeff said that material could warp, and they might want to consider breaking that up. Jeff said the pediment above the porch and the side of the porch is large and the applicant might want to consider some treatment to prevent a wavy panel. He suggested screening the utilities by the Moderne with fencing or vegetation. Jeff said the pyramidal roof is large and overbearing. He agreed with other board members concerning the opportunity for a more modern design. Tad Roemer said it's really a wonderful solution. So many problems were solved on such a challenging site. He agreed with Jeff on the spandrel panels and the size of the roof. Shawn said he can look at lowering the slope. Ellen Sheehan said it’s amazing what Shawn was able to accomplish with the design and landscaping. She said all the suggestions are good ones and should be taken into consideration, but overall, she feels the design is successful. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience on the application. There were no comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 15 of 20 Tamie said overall the board is impressed with what has been done with the lot and the configuration. There’s a consensus that windows or transoms on the Henry St. façade of the back building would be helpful in continuing to break up the mass. The PVC for the columns should be upgraded to a more appropriate material. Tamie said there were some comments about the roof that the applicant may want to address as well. She said the project is quite impressive and great infill. Rob reminded Tamie that there was a public comment about the driveway. Tamie said there was a neighbor who had a concern about where the driveway exits on Bank Alley but she’s not sure where the DRB’s purview starts and ends in this case. She said the concern was about the traffic pattern and the ability to maneuver a car in and out. It’s a valid concern but not in the DRB’s purview. Leslie said she would like details of the columns when the applicant returns. ______________________________________________________________________ Historic review 10. #20250632 2 Madison Ave., Windows, Roof & Attic Fan. Historic review of window and roof modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. Chris Bennett & Leslie DiCarlo disclosed that they are within 500 ft. of the property location. Alden Russell Newhall, the owner, said they are trying to complete a 28-year project. He said they took the house over in April of 1996 and are trying to finish a massive reconstruction. Alden said they have replaced the mansard roof, windows on the first floor, and the bay windows of the upper floor front bedroom. Alden said that there are 3 types of upper sash form for the dormer windows in Second Empire houses in the Saratoga area; squared off, semi-circular and triangular like his. He said the upper sash is fixed and the lower sash is movable. He has a total of 7 dormer windows. Alden said in researching the history of the house with the Preservation Foundation, the best he can tell, the 7 dormer windows are original to the home from 1873. He said they are in very bad shape and have lead paint. One of the options would be to install a double- glazed panel in the frame but the frames are not strong or thick enough to do that so they would have to rebuild the window. Alden said they considered external and internal storm windows, but they aren’t very attractive. He said he would like to replace the windows with double glazed reproduction windows. They would maintain the two over two divided light, and the windows would be functional. Alden said when they bought the house the roof was asphalt shingle. It hasn’t leaked, so they haven’t replaced it. He said they would like to replace it now and try to improve the ventilation in the attic. He said you can’t see the top of the roof because there’s a shallow cap. It’s a hipped roof and he is requesting a ventilation fan. He said a design problem with the Second Empire style is that typically in a gabled roof house you have an overhang and soffit vents that allow air into the attic to allow it to be ambient temperature, and he doesn’t have that. He said it gets incredibly hot in the attic in the summer and he’s trying to figure out how he’s going to properly ventilate it. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 16 of 20 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this is a beautiful home and a stunning example of old Saratoga. One of the most important character defining features of this house and most historic homes is the original windows. Many people think replacing the windows makes the home more valuable but in an historic home such as this it’s exactly the opposite. The things that you most want to maintain in the home are the windows and the roof. The windows really need to be repaired versus replaced. She said these are historical standards that apply in every major historic district in every major city. If there’s so much damage that they can’t be repaired, then they could be replaced with appropriate materials like what Alden suggested earlier. If the applicant wants to pursue having the windows replaced, the board will need images and a letter from a contractor stating that they are beyond repair. Tamie said based on what she’s seeing right now, she doesn’t see a need to replace the windows. Ellen said she’s in agreement with Tamie. Alden noted that he was able to replace all of the other windows in 1996 with double-glazed wood frame windows. Tamie said she can’t speak to what was allowed then, but the standards are very clear now. Tad said he supports what the applicant would like to do on the very top roof for ventilation. He said looking at Google Streetview, the downstairs windows that were replaced in 1996 look like a really successful replacement. Jeff said if the windows are rotted and beyond repair, he would be okay with a true divided light double paned window. He’s fine with the roof replacement and attic fan. Leslie said she would not be able to approve the window replacement because of the guidelines. She is fine with the roof and fan. Rob said he is also fine with the roof and vent. In looking at the cost to replace the windows, Rob said it would likely cost less to restore what’s there. Alden argued that even if the windows are restored, he won’t have the energy efficiency because they won’t be double glazed. Rob noted to the board that if they support the replacement of the windows, that will also include the wholesale removal of the trim. Chris said he’s fine with replacement in kind for the roof and the addition of an attic fan. He suggested a local craftsman who could replace the windows. He said when he’s done restoring the windows, they’ll look spectacular and any of the wavy glass that needs to be replaced will be done with wavy glass, a character defining feature of the windows. He said historic storm windows wouldn’t look great but are appropriate in this case. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience on the application. Joe Logan said he loves the house. He shared with the applicant that “Distinctive Cabinetry” did an amazing job at a lot less cost for 20 windows (and the sashes were in bad shape) than what the applicant’s estimate is to replace 7 windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board is able to approve the asphalt shingle replacement for the roof and the attic fan for ventilation. If the applicant feels strongly that the windows can’t be repaired, he can return before the board with more evidence regarding that. The recommendation is to repair the windows rather than replace them. Ellen Sheehan made a motion to approve replacement in-kind of the asphalt shingle roof and placement of an attic fan at 2 Madison Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. and the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 17 of 20 condition that the 7 historic windows will be repaired. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 11. #20240457 172 Caroline St., Roof, Windows, Porch, Driveway. Historic review of exterior building and site modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the applicant has been before the board previously and was provided feedback. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the applicant, James Stockwell. Tonya said her client has a stop work order for a violation on the property that he purchased in 2023 where he removed and replaced windows along the first-floor level of the existing house. The original windows were wood, and he replaced them with a vinyl Pella window. Tonya said she researched and found that the other windows in the house were replaced in 2010. She submitted information showing that the applicant at that time went before the DRB and it was noted in the minutes that the windows had already been replaced. There was no violation on record. Tonya submitted additional information about the porch rails to the board. She said the rail was removed because it had deteriorated, and when her client purchased the home there was just a fence up against it. Tonya submitted a picture with the application showing what the railings will look like. She also included what the windows look like now and updated a concrete driveway spec that would be per the city standards with an updated plot plan depicting that. Tamie said she was okay with the asphalt driveway, it’s not inappropriate within the context of the neighborhood. She asked Tonya to clarify which windows the applicant wants to replace. Tonya said the previous owner went before the DRB in 2010 proposing to replace the first-floor windows. The second-floor windows were already replaced at that time. He was not given permission to do that and never came back before the DRB. Her client purchased the house in 2023 and seeing no violations on the property, went ahead and replaced the windows on the first floor. Tonya said her client understands he’s responsible for the windows he removed without permission, but is asking that this board not require him to replace all of the windows, including the second-floor windows which were not his responsibility and had been done 13 years prior to him purchasing the property. Tonya said her client is willing to replace all the windows on the lower floor with wood windows except those on the west elevation which were replaced prior to him purchasing the home. Tamie said she feels very strongly that the windows that the applicant replaced (front façade and Nelson St. side) be removed and replaced with an appropriate material. She said it’s very unfortunate that the original windows are gone. Chris said the applicant is not responsible for the second-floor windows. He bought the house in a pre-existing condition. He said everything that the applicant willingly and knowingly replaced should go back to what was originally there. Rob said he agrees, but the board needs cutsheets on what’s being proposed. He said from the Google Streetview in 2019 the windows were 6 over 1. He suggested that the Historic Preservation Foundation verify that. Rob said, at City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 18 of 20 least administratively, the board needs to see what’s being proposed. This is a very important corner of the Historic District. Ellen that any window the current owner removed should be replaced with wood and they need a cutsheet. She asked about the diamond window at the top of the house on the Nelson St. side. Tonya said she forgot about that and will look into it. Ellen asked if the vinyl lattice work on the front porch is being replaced. Tonya said her client will replace that. Tad questioned the idea that a homeowner can sell a house that has code violations, and the new owner doesn’t have to worry about it. Tony Izzo said it’s difficult to impose the requirement on the new owner of the house because there really isn’t much of a way they could have known about the violations. He said if it’s something severe, they would have to enforce the laws. If it’s more moderate, most often the enforcement agent goes easy on the new owner and doesn’t try to place too much responsibility on them. Jeff said buyers are responsible to do their due diligence prior to buying a house. He asked if the window replacements will be double paned windows with a true divided light. Tonya said they haven’t gone to any manufacturer or craftsman to have them done yet, but they would look at what was there originally. Jeff said they were single pane, and asked if they would do storm windows with that. He said they make divided light with a double pane, and it looks better and would return some of the visual value of the windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience on the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation recommended that if the west side windows on the lower floor are not to be replaced, that the applicant replace the top three windows on the front façade with wood windows. She encouraged the applicant to look at historic Albany for some 6 over 1 window sashes. She said she would prefer that the primary façade have a uniform appearance. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked the board members their thoughts on what the Foundation presented as an option. Ellen said having all the ground floor windows wood versus just the front façade is a toss-up for her. Tad agreed with the front façade idea. Jeff said because it’s a corner lot, it would be better to have it uniform with wood windows on the first floor at pedestrian level. Leslie said the windows at pedestrian level on the east side of the house look terrible. Rob said focusing on the Caroline St. façade is a decent solution. He said the windows that were put in in 2010 have almost reached their life, so the applicant will likely be back before the board to change out the second story windows. Chris agreed that the focus be on the main façade. After a straw poll, the board determined that replacing the windows on the first floor with a true divided light, double paned custom window would be appropriate. This excludes the windows on the first-floor west side of the house. The applicant will return with cut sheets for the windows and information about the diamond window. 12. #20240662 130 Circular St. Chabad Center Basement Windows and window wells within the Urban Residential-3 District City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 19 of 20 Rabbi Abba Rubin represented the application. Rabbi Rubin said he runs the synagogue on Circular St. and because of safety issues in the city, it was recommended to them that they make the basement window wells an escape route. He said the windows are very small and they’re trying to make them larger. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she had no concerns with what was proposed. Chris clarified with the applicant that the brick above the window opening will not be damaged. Rabbi Rubin said they will not disturb the brick above. They’re going down but not higher than the window currently is. Rob asked about the egress window underneath the porch. Rabbi Rubin said their engineer spoke with the building department and they said it’s okay. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience on the application. Joe Logan said he lives across the street from this building and is concerned about the way the “bubbles” (wells) are going to look. Rabbi Rubin said they will be on the south side behind a privacy fence in their yard. Joe asked why egress from storage rooms was necessary. Rabbi said it’s just an escape route if needed. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve replacement basement windows and window wells at 130 Circular St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer- Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Rob DuBoff made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. All in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 11, 2024 - Page 20 of 20