Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, Chris Bennett, Tad Roemer, Jeff Gritsavage, Ellen Sheehan, Leslie DiCarlo. ABSENT: Tamie Ehinger, 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 September 11, 2024. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer- Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, Leslie DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 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. #20240719 34 Marion Ave, Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural review of wireless equipment in the right-of-way. 2. #20240721 35 Henry St. Bilbulous Signage. Architectural review of building sign within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 3. #20240750 30 Lake Ave. Omakase Sushi & Grill Signage. Architectural Review of a building sign within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 4. #20240770 569 No. Broadway, Front Porch & Window. Extension of previous approval of Historic Review of a porch replacement, siding replacement, and rear second floor addition within the Urban Residential-4 District. (20221147) Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair made a motion to approve the applications for 34 Maion Verizon Utility Pole, 35 Henry St. Bibulous Signage, 30 Lake Ave. Omakase Sushi & Grill Signage and 569 No. Broadway front porch & window. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 5. #20240768 438 Broadway Caroline & Main Signage. Historic Review of building signs within the Urban Core T-6 District. 6. #20240697 636 Rt. 29 Lake Ave. Demolition. Architectural Review of demolition of several outbuilding structures within the Rural Residential District. 7. #20240773 Pitney Meadows informational Panels, 223 West Ave. Advisory opinion of interpretative panels in the Pitney Farms PUD within the Architectural Review Overlay District. 8. #20231041 153 Van Dam Addition and exterior modifications. Architectural Review of one-story side with deck and exterior modifications within the Urban Residential–3 District. 9. #20240678 195 So. Broadway, St. Charles & St. Francis Replacement Doors. Architectural review of multiple exterior door replacements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 10. #20240720 30-30 ½ Caroline St. Building Expansion. Architectural Review of residential addition within the Urban Core (T-6) District. D. HISTORIC REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS: 11. #20240723 15 Lafayette St. Porch Steps. Historic Review of replacement of exterior steps within the within the Urban Residential-4 District. _____________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review: 5. #20240768 438 Broadway Caroline & Main Signage. Historic Review of building signs within the Urban Core T-6 District. Heidi Owen West, owner represented the application. Rob said it was bumped from the Consent Agenda because the sign they’re requesting is internally lit and the board needs to look at it before it’s approved. Heidi said the sign is very similar to her neighbor, Wheatfields’ sign. She said the area is very narrow for the lettering of the sign. She’s using a Heritage font, which is very fine and will be difficult to see even with the internal lighting. Jeff said this is a box sign that’s backlit and they usually don’t approve those. He suggested using laser cut, push through, halo type letters. They City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 would be approvable. Beige said because the sign maker was unable to attend the meeting, she interjected that the sign is push through, halo lit letters. Tad said the gooseneck lighting is much more elegant. Heidi agreed, but said the area is very narrow and it is cost prohibitive to put the gooseneck lighting. Ellen agreed that the goosenecks are preferable, but Heidi makes a good argument for the backlit sign since many other businesses have them. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. There were none. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair made a motion to approve the Signage at 438 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff- Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 6. #20240697 636 Rt. 29 Lake Ave. Demolition. Architectural Review of demolition of several outbuilding structures within the Rural Residential District. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said the DRB decided at a previous meeting that the buildings did not have historical or architectural significance. The first step tonight is to perform a SEQRA Review followed by a discussion about demolition of the structures. 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. Tony Izzo said the board may be able to determine small or no impact based on the geographic size of the building and the distance from other buildings in the area. Beige said that an asbestos report has been prepared for the Building Dept. in order to receive a demolition permit so the city will be made aware of the study. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. There were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion that a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA be issued for 636 Rt. 29 Lake Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 3 of 10 The board was satisfied with the demolition plan. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve demolition of buildings at 636 Rt. 29 Lake Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. #20240773 Pitney Meadows informational Panels, 223 West Ave. Advisory opinion of interpretative panels in the Pitney Farms PUD within the Architectural Review Overlay District. Brooke McConnell, Pitney Meadows represented the application. Brooke said they received a grant from the Land Trust Alliance (NYSDEC), for interpretive signage across the campus. They are proposing 14 signs that will go around their perimeter trail that goes around the farm fields and two signs in the community garden. The signs are to inform the thousands of visitors who come to Pitney Meadows as to what they’re all about; the history of the Pitney family, the original caretakers of the land, the Mohican and Algonquin tribes who lived there, farm practices, native plants and animals, and their conservation practices. They will be using all ADA compliant colors (the way the colors are layered) and fonts. An example sign was displayed that will be done in collaboration with State Parks. They have worked in partnership with ASA (holds their conservation easement) and the city to look at a mockup of the signage and to see if there was any impact on their view shed. The signs will be fabricated in aluminum and be on 4” aluminum black posts. Rob said it was a fabulous resource for the community. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. There were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion to give a favorable recommendation on the interpretative panels in the Pitney Farms PUD, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #20231041 153 Van Dam Addition and exterior modifications. Architectural Review of one-story side with deck and exterior modifications within the Urban Residential–3 District. Erin Maciel, owner presented slides of her home. They previously built an addition on the back of the house that was approved by the DRB. They are now proposing to replace an enclosed porch and add a roof that will extend from the back addition to the front of the house and restore the original gabled roof on the front. Erin showed a slide of the footprint of the proposal which she said is not that different from their previous presentation before the DRB. There was an original bump out that was agreed by Historic Preservation and the DRB no longer made sense because of the window that was removed several years prior. They are looking for a much more simplistic, rectangular extension to the house. Based on a comment from Historic Preservation City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 that the addition should not be too far out from the house detracting from the original façade, they are proposing 5.5 ft. width that was 8 ft. They updated the cross sections and will be adding a side entrance to the house that will be set back in. Erin said in looking around the neighborhood and city at two-story additions, it’s very typical to see one row of windows that match the same rhythm of the front façade. Erin showed a historic photo of her home and noted that it originally had a gabled roof on the front which they always thought was a flat roof Greek Revival style. Materials used will be Andersen windows and a plain farmhouse type door with no grills with white trim. Erin said the Hardie board has gotten very expensive, so they are proposing to use LP Smartside siding (Desert Stone, smooth). Chris B. said that LP siding is a particle board and questioned if they offered that in a smooth surface. Erin said yes, she checked today. Chris said he believes the smooth has been discontinued. Nothing with a grain texture would be approved. Rob said the photo shows a side-to-side gable and not the usual front to back. Very odd for the time period. He said he’s wondering if that’s the best way to move forward and asked if they considered a roof slightly pitched toward the driveway, which would shed the water in that direction, and they could tie into the existing roof. Rob said the house now has more of an Italianate look and he’s wondering if that’s what should be retained or should they go back to the original look of the house. He asked if there was a way to treat the addition without having to change the front structure at all. Erin said they looked at that and when they bring the roof that’s in the back up to the front, it’s not high enough and doesn’t look proportional. They could bump it up and make it step back but they don’t like the look of that. Erin said they are attempting to have the drainage go to one central downspout to avoid ice jams on the house. Rob clarified that they will be using one over one windows and not divided light. Chris B. said he likes their solution. He thinks the difference in price between the LP and Hardie board is in the labor for the installation – wood versus cement. He said the cement is a better product because its fire rated and won’t deteriorate like the wood product. He said they could do some major improvements on the bump out because it looks awkward. Erin suggested separating the siding. Chris said that would help and perhaps raising the peak of the addition to give it more pitch. Erin said they can do that. Leslie asked about the wide band shown in the south façade drawing that goes across before the roof begins. Erin said that will not be there, it was left over from another drawing. Leslie said the ganging of the windows make it look heavier than the rest of the house. She said she doesn’t feel comfortable approving the LP product without knowing anything about it. Jeff said there is a side gable example at 140 Grand Ave. for a Greek Revival as opposed to temple fronted. He agreed with the bump out having a steeper pitch. Tad agreed about increasing the pitch of the bump out roof. He asked if they will be replacing the corner boards when they replace the siding. Erin said yes. Tad said if the correct exposure was not used on the addition, they should consider using the appropriate historic exposure for the work they’re doing now to match the historic front of the house. Tad agreed about the ganged windows and that there should be more space between them. Ellen said the photo of the original house is a game changer. She said the applicant seems open to the guidance she received from the board tonight. Erin summarized the board’s comments: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 5 of 10  • Increase the pitch of the roof on the side bump out. • More details on the triangle in the gable. • Separate the ganged windows. • Same board exposure as siding on the front of the house. • Remove the wide band in the new drawing of the front of the house. • No grids on any window. • Asphalt roof will match what’s on the addition. • No picture frame casings around the windows. The header needs to be wider and the jams narrower and then the sill. Chris will supply info on the windows (Grand Ave. mockup). Rob asked if it was the applicant’s intent to paint the aluminum siding. Erin saint they will paint the aluminum siding if they decide not to reside it. The paint color will be the same on all siding surfaces. Rob said they will also need a gutter on the front of the house where they are adding the gable. Jeff said they will need a ½ round gutter and it likely will have to be special ordered. Erin will measure a piece of the exposed siding under the aluminum siding and take a photo to show the board that the new siding will match. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said the board will not be able to give mass and scale approval tonight because there are lingering details. He said the applicant should return at the October 9th meeting with final details. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. Sydney Hedge, Preservation Foundation said the historic photos of the house and roof were helpful and it’s going in the right direction to maintain the primary façade for the future. Sydney said because the applicant’s house is a contributing house to the westside historic district, they qualify for the New York State Rehabilitation Tax Credit. 9. #20240678 195 So. Broadway, St. Charles & St. Francis Replacement Doors. Architectural review of multiple exterior door replacements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the applicant. Tonya said the business was formerly known as the St. Francis Motel. She said her client made modifications prior to getting approvals or asking for advice. One of the changes they made was to replace the deteriorated entry doors. Tonya provided a spec sheet for the new doors. Other changes the applicant is proposing: • Stringer under staircase is red – want to paint it white. • Change outdoor carpet on balconies and walkways to a dark blue carpet panel (spec included) • Applicant added a new aluminum screen door on the back of the basement entrance. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 Tonya said her client is asking to be able to keep the doors that were replaced already. Rob asked about the carpet in the sitting area in the front. Tonya said they would also like to replace that with the dark blue carpet. Rob said he would not support replacing the carpet in the sitting area. It should be left as is or removed entirely. He said the doors that were chosen are not historically appropriate for a 1950’s – 60’s architecture. Rob asked if the doors met the Code and Tonya said there are no requirements in the code for exterior doors for this use. Tad said he doesn’t have a problem with any of the requests. Ellen agreed with Rob that the doors are not appropriate, but because the they’re perpendicular to Broadway and not very visible it’s ok. She said she wished they had asked permission before replacing the doors. The carpeting in the sitting area outside is inappropriate. Jeff said white curtains on the inside of the doors would help to mitigate the look. You would just see a white door while driving past. He recommended some landscape architecture for the front seating area and the carpeting be removed. Leslie said should the applicant decide to change to a solid door in place of the ones with windows, they will need to return before the DRB for approval. The carpeting on the walkways and balconies is fine but not out front in the sitting area. Chris agreed with other members that something should be done with the sitting area outside that makes it look really nice. He said the doors look a primer color and asked if they would be painted. Tonya didn’t know if they were painted, but said they will remain white. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. There were no comments. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve replacement doors and other minor modifications at 195 So. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: The carpet on the outside seating area will either be removed or remain but cannot be replaced. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Historic review 10. #20240723 15 Lafayette St. Porch Steps. Historic Review of replacement of exterior steps within the within the Urban Residential-4 District. Pete Lopatka, owner showed photos of the front steps they are proposing to replace with stone and as close to the original as possible. He showed a photo of the house from the 1900’s with the original stone steps. They would also like to widen the sidewalk from 53” to 92” with cheek wall. They will have Belgium block under the Indian Bluestone treads. The handrail will be black piping galvanized steel that will attach to the treads. Rob thanked the applicant for the presentation and for supplying the historic photo. Leslie said the cheek walls look like they have a peak in the photo and asked if that would be replicated. Pete said it could, but he hadn’t considered it. Leslie said the railing looks too contemporary and she would like to see a pipe rail. She said it won’t look historic; it will look like a contemporary stair. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. Jim Gold, 199 Woodlawn Ave. said the photo shows a smooth finished riser and Belgium block is a rough surface. If they’re using granite, it should be a smooth finish like the historic photograph. Rob the board is encouraging the use of black pipe railing, and the cheek wall face should be a smooth stone. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve replacement of exterior steps at 15 Lafayette St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: Use black pipe railing and smooth faced stone on cheek walls and a bullnose or smooth edge tread. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarl0. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 11. #20240720 30-30 ½ Caroline St. Building Expansion. Architectural Review of residential addition within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Dave Carr, LA Group, George Olsen & Randy Hall, Olsen Associates represented the applicant. Dave said they are seeking architectural approval, and they are focused on a height bonus. They were before the DRB in the fall of 2022 for the proposed building at 30 Caroline St. and received architectural approval in the fall of 2022 and site plan approval in the spring of 2023. He said the drawings were filed and they were ready to go when his client decided to purchase Sperry’s restaurant and the parcel at 30 ½ Caroline St. so 30 Caroline was put on hold. Because of a 30 ft. wide utility easement controlled by the city that impacts 30 ½ Caroline St. and cannot be touched, they couldn’t meet the frontage buildout requirement. He said they received a variance but if this project is successful the two properties will be merged and the variance will be small, about 6 feet. Dave showed slides of the proposed site plan. They are proposing to merge the two projects. They will keep the original 1,800 sq. ft. of commercial on the first floor, maintain Sperry’s and build additional apartments over Sperry’s. They will work with the planning board on reducing the curb cut significantly. It doesn’t meet the city requirement, but it would meet code. They are proposing to expand the patio area and neck the connection to Caroline St. down to 10 ft. wide. That would enhance the look of the 25 ft. driveway that services 8 parking spots that are under the upper floors. They would do a nice patio with landscape architecture and screening which is allowed to be developed over the easement. The restriction is on building construction. George Olsen said their approval for 30 Caroline was under the old zoning. He said while they were getting that approval the new zoning was adopted. George showed slides of the building as approved. The new zoning allows a 70’ high building which was deemed inappropriate for the site because the street is narrow. The street is 50 ft. wide and allows for a 55 ft. high building. They’re keeping the building as designed for 30 Caroline St. Under the UDO they are required to have no more than a 12 ft. setback City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 8 of 10 at the Sperry site and the building would be 55 ft. They would like to set that back and do the 12 ft. behind Sperry’s for the street wall, step back another 10 ft. and match the height of what was approved at 30 Caroline. He said essentially the 5th floor would be 22 ft. back from the property line, 32 ft. back from the street. The restaurant will remain, with the kitchen underneath. It may spill over to the building that was approved at 30 Caroline. The building that was approved is 3 units per floor and none of the exterior will change. They would like to add another 8 units per floor next to that. George showed slides of the massing models. They would be continuing the same scale as what was approved for 30 Caroline St. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said that any demolition at Sperry’s (3 season porch) would require DRB approval. He said it appears the approvals for 30 Caroline St. expired a while ago and they would need to come back before the DRB. George said they have a building permit. The information will be clarified. Rob asked about the height bonus they’re seeking. George said they’re allowed 55 ft. but they would need another 6 ft. to meet the height of 30 Caroline. Rob said he thinks the calculation for building height is 1.1 times the width of the right-of-way, not the street width. George said that was correct and the right-of-way is 50 ft. Rob said his concern is how it overwhelms Sperry’s, an historic structure built in the early 20th century. He’d be interested to see how they can mitigate that. He said he has architectural concerns and how the building is supported on the driveway side. Ellen asked what the board was considering tonight. Tonight is discussing a way forward for the applicant. George said they would like to match 30 ½ to the height of 30 Caroline St. Then they can move on to the planning board to discuss the height bonus (they need about 6 ft.) in the UDO. Ellen said she agrees with Rob that it’s overwhelming Sperry’s but understands that the first façade was driven by the requirement that it be 12 ft. off the property line. Dave said when they went before the ZBA they had to ask for the least amount of relief possible and that required a façade on the line. It’s stepped back because the easement is at an angle. It's where the twin storm pipes run that begin in Congress Park and end up behind EBI. He said even though they only needed a foot, DPW would not allow them to touch the easement. Tad said the height request doesn’t seem like it will be a problem. He will continue to support the initially approved design for 30 Caroline. He suggested that they color Sperry’s darker in the rendering so that it stands out. There was a discussion about reducing the number of piers by the driveway because Tad feels they’re harming the look of the project. Dave said they could have that discussion with the planning board about how they would get cars in and out and maybe reduce the 8 parking spots. George added that there is no parking requirement and it’s not a driving requirement from his client. Tad said the large parapet wall on the Sperry’s addition looks odd. If they made the addition two stories that would look better. Jeff said the height is appropriate. Sperry’s façade is historic, and the 12 ft. is sufficient. He said they do need to figure out what to do with the slender piers. He said the project is going in the right direction. Leslie expressed concern over the look of the Sperry’s building in the plan and suggested adding some floors above it, and to move the rest of the building back a little for more separation. George agreed that it was the weakest spot in the project, and they will spend a lot of time addressing it. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. Michele Funicello, Preservation Foundation said Sperry’s is a contributing structure to the Broadway Historic District, is on the national register of historic places and located in the Architectural Review District. “Additions to historic buildings should be designed to insure the original structure remains prominent and undamaged. It should be distinct and yet complimentary, positioned where they minimally impact the perception of the historic building. The addition should not obscure or harm the building’s character defining features or streetscapes.” Michele said the Foundation has concerns about the height, mass and scale of the proposed addition and it’s potential to overwhelm the original structure and neighborhood. She added that the Foundation does not object the to the removal of the one-story structure built after 1982 to allow for a more creative contextual design. Tad said technically this is an addition to Sperry’s. Sydney Hedge asked why there were going to be parking spots. Who would be using them? Jim Gold said he’s intrigued with George’s idea to extend the one-story addition; it would give more prominence to Sperry’s. He said the mass of the building has the potential to be overwhelming so it will be important how it’s treated in terms of finishes and materials. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair noted that the board recently approved a project on Broadway where an addition is being built above the Cooperstown Distillery and it’s being treated separately and independently. As mentioned by others, the proposed building is not really honoring Sperry’s, it’s going around it or even ignoring it. He asked if they could figure out how to honor the building. Go up and out to zero property line, building on top of Sperry’s and making it appear to be a separate structure. George said they could take a look at that. Rob said the materials and how the historic building is treated will make the difference. Beige said Article 4 talks about the DRB giving approval for height, which was part of the applicant’s request, but it’s also linking partial approval for mass and scale in the article. George said they still have work to do on the design and won’t go to the planning board until the DRB is ok with height, mass and scale, but it would be helpful if the board could state on the record that they’re ok with the building being lined up with 30 Caroline. No board members were opposed to that. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Tad Roemer. All in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 25, 2024 - Page 10 of 10