Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tammy 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, Karen Cavotta & Leslie DiCarlo. ABSENT: Ellen Sheehan 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 25, 2024. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett- Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, 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. #20240775 26 Fifth Ave. Gutters and Downspouts. Historic Review of gutters and downspouts within the Urban Residential-1 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda item. There were none. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the application for 26 Fifth Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY, gutters and downspouts.The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer- Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 2. #20240778 30 Whistler Court Scupper & Downspout. Architectural Review of exterior modifications to address drainage issues within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the applicant is not present but asked if anyone on the board or in the audience had any questions. Mark Richardson, 30 Whistler said he is a resident but not the applicant. He said he understands that the DRB’s purview is the aesthetics and not the functionality of a project. Mark said he wanted to be sure that his email comments had been received by the board. He received a reply from Julia Destino but some of the attachments didn’t carry over properly and will discuss further with Beige administratively. Mark said he’s aware that there were engineer plans that were sent in showing the elevation on the west side of the building, but there were no elevations showing the northern or southern side. He said this involves a diverter that was added to the building before they did their homework, so it’s already been installed. The engineer came in after the city shut down the project, and the plan doesn’t show the northern and southern elevations where the diverter extends approximately10 ft. Tamie said the application was reviewed at a workshop and the applicant was present to answer questions. She said she thought they walked around every side of the building. Rob said he didn’t think they did. He said the applicant presented photographic evidence of what it would look like on other facades of the building in lieu of having plans. Rob said he specifically recalled discussing the southern façade. Tamie asked Mark what his concerns were, the appearance, functionality or location of the gutters. Mark said everything but the appearance. He’s concerned with the functionality because it’s coming off of a flat roof with little to no slope. Photos of the installed diverter on the western side were displayed. Mark said the diverter extends 145 ft. on a flat roof where the rubber membrane was pealed back to install the diverter and then re-sealed it to the diverter. What is being addressed is from the parapet wall to the edge. Mark said the water flows freely off the parapet wall and falls down onto the area below – pavement, patios, etc. He said they do have issues with water seeping into the building which is likely hitting the pavement and bouncing off and getting behind the fascia. If it’s windy, it blows right into it. Mark said the diverter will solve some problems but create others because there is no slope. The water just beyond the parapet wall is still going to hit the ground. Since the city and engineers have gotten involved, they’re calling for two additional downspouts and scuppers, but at 145 ft. there’s 50 ft. between each scupper and downspout. Mark said he believes there will still be flat areas where the water will pool and freeze and thaw on the rubber roof. He said they should be working from the ground up and sealing the building where the water’s hitting. Down the road this will cause problems. The city is now making the contractor do the right thing. They want the drainage to run down the side of the building with the downspouts underground and tapped into the storm sewer system. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said some members of the board agreed with Mr. Richardson that there may some functionality issues, but in terms of the downspouts and materials presented to the DRB at the workshop, there was enough information provided that the board is comfortable with moving forward regarding the aesthetics of the project. Tamie directed the concerned citizen to the building department to discuss the functionality of the project. Tony I. asked if a copy of the DRB minutes could be sent to the building inspector for review. Mr. Richardson noted that there are 30 owners of the building and there’s no named applicant or signature on the application to the city. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 2 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. There were no further comments from the audience. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for downspouts and scuppers at 30 Whistler Ct., Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted, with the condition that the DRB meeting minutes be presented to the Building Dept. for review. Chris Bennett seconded the motion. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-N, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-1 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 3. #20240653 142 Henry Three Family Construction. Architectural Review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential – 4 District. 4. #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. D. HISTORIC REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS: 5. #20240777 248 Broadway Window Replacement. Historic review of window replacement within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 6. #20240774 33 Franklin St. Fire Escape & Windows. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-4 District. 7. #20240752 76 Walton St. Second Floor Addition. Historic Review of renovation and new construction within the Urban Residential – 3 District. _____________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review: 3. #20240653 142 Henry St. Three Family Construction. Architectural Review of new residential construction within the Urban Residential – 4 District. Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture represented the applicant and said he received feedback from the DRB at the last meeting and returned to present the changes: • The overall massing of the roof was a concern, and it has been reduced by 2 feet. • Added two windows in front of apartment 301 which brings in light and adds functionality. Shawn said his client is fine with or without the windows. The windows increase the visual height of the building so whatever the board decides is fine with the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 3 of 12  • PVC column wraps on the front porch will be replaced with a HB&G fiberglass column which has been used on other projects in town. • Spandrel panels – DRB was concerned with the size and that they could warp. Shawn said he has used James Hardie fiber cement panels many times and has not seen them warp. He said they considered a bead board panel, but his client was not receptive to it. • The pitch on the gable end of the porch was steeper. They reduced the size of the gable and lowered the pitch. • Added a corner pilaster on the side and on the porch. The pilaster is not needed structurally but helps to visually support the weight of the roof. • They considered adding windows to the blank wall on the north elevation but it’s the head wall for the bedroom and would interfere with the bedroom furniture arrangement. • Pulled back the brackets in the gable on the southeast elevation. • DRB commented about the polyurethane brackets and dentals at the last meeting, that they could be made of Boral or wood. Shawn said they specified Fypon brackets and would like to stick with that product. He said he’s used it on other projects (737 N. Broadway, all the trim is Fypon & the apartments at Market Center on Railroad Pl. the brackets are Fypon). Tamie said this is a very challenging lot and project and they’ve done a really fantastic job in laying it out so that the mass is broken up on the 3 structures. She agreed with Shawn that the windows add to the appearance of mass when the goal is to minimize it. She said lowering the roof and adding the corner pilaster is fine. Fypon is acceptable for new construction. Chris said he likes the windows that were added and feels they’re an improvement. Lowering the roof is good. Adding the pilasters and lowering the pitch on the porch roof makes it look more like a porch. Chris said he would really like Wood versus the Fypon. Leslie said she could go either way with the windows. It would be nice for the light on the inside, but they do call attention to the building. All of the other changes are appropriate. Jeff asked what the material was for the board and batten. Shawn said it’s James Hardie fiber cement. Jeff said he likes the addition of the windows to break up that area. He said he thinks the spandrel panels will warp. Tad likes the added windows but said the spandrels may look weird because they’re perfectly flat. Tad said he can support the project as presented. Karen said it’s a very nice project. She suggested a secondary trim similar to what’s at the end of the gables to frame out the spandrels. She likes reducing the roof but is struggling with the roof over the porch on the north elevation. She said the building looks heavy sitting on the small porch. Karen suggested setting the porch inward so that it’s offset from the outer edge and create a separate small roof over it, if it could work structurally. She said she could go either way with the added windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience regarding the application. There were no comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 4 of 12 Tamie summarized that the board was okay with the addition of the windows and the Fypon was acceptable. There was a discussion about adding the trim in the spandrels as Karen suggested and that will be an option for the applicant. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the new construction at 142 Henry St., Saratoga Springs, NY as presented. The motion was seconded by Karen Cavotta. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-N, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, Leslie DiCarlo-Y. 6-1 in favor. Motion carried. 4. #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, the owner presented updated plans of her home. Erin summarized the board’s comments: • They increased the ridge of the roof on the side elevation – extended up to meet the middle ridge roof. • Added board and batten to the peak of the roof and extended the pattern to the new side gable roof in the front. • Spoke with her carpenter brother and referenced the window detail from the Grand Ave. application - 4.5” header above the window, 1” trim, 4” sides with no trim on the bottom, just windowsills. • Confirmed that there is smooth siding at LP siding. • Removed grids and separated the ganged windows. • Same board exposure as siding on the front of the house (around 5”) Updated table to show 6” siding. • Removed the wide band in the new drawing of the front of the house. • Asphalt roof will match what’s on the addition. Tamie Ehinger, Chair paraphrased a letter from the Preservation Foundation indicating that they support the restoration. They have concerns that the gable is off center and said it should be clad with horizontal wood clapboard siding, not vertical board and batten. They said if a window is necessary in the gable, it should not be arched and should be one over one. Rob said the changes are appropriate. He said they need details for the roof over the historic part of the house. The east façade overhang should be uniform on both sides if they are going to return to what the roof was historically. He agreed with the Foundation that it should be shingle or clapboard siding in the gable. It should be horizontal siding in the gable with a delineation between the gable and fascia board – a band between the two to help reduce the massing. Shingles in the gable would be acceptable with a facia board separating. Rob said he would like details of how the new roof over the historic part of the house will be trimmed out. Tad said he has a book called “Traditional Construction Patterns” where there may be some pages that would be helpful to the applicant. Karen said they’re looking for architectural detail that shows City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 5 of 12 the materials that layer up to create the structure and framing. Leslie said the Preservation Foundation would be able to help with those details and would have examples. She also suggested a book called “Get Your House Right” that has drawings and details of things that might be helpful. Chris said the template for the trim is in the photo that Erin displayed. She needs to say that she’s going to replicate the trim detail on the oldest part of the house that exists right now. Erin said she submitted photos of the original trim at a previous meeting. She will include that with the plans and note that all the trim will match that image. Tamie said that could be done administratively. Jeff said the drawings aren’t architectural, they’re diagrammatic. He said it’s difficult to perceive what the structure will look like. It would have been best if the applicant had hired an architect from the very beginning so the board would understand what the details are. Erin said she doesn’t have the ability to hire a professional to do the drawings for her. Tad said he agrees with what’s been said and told the applicant that he appreciates her patience. The gable end details are needed. He said what was built on the back of the house 6 years ago is not an example of what they want on the historic front. A 3-D sketch would be very helpful. Karen agreed that the Preservation Foundation would be a great resource to help the applicant do some sketches with details which will also help the contractor. A full-blown set of drawings is not necessary. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. Sydney Hedge, Saratoga Preservation Foundation said they are a free resource with multiple people with historic preservation degrees available to help. She said that 31 Franklin St. is a good example of a side gable. Sydney said the applicant qualifies for restoration credits. Chris Bennett noted that the applicant may need to match molding that can’t be gotten off the shelf. He recommended Northern Hardwoods off Exit 21 and they’re reasonable. He said if they wanted to add the same historic gable ends to their addition it wouldn’t cost that much more because they would already have the mold made and they would only be paying for the wood. Tamie said the board seems comfortable with the mass, scale and form of the project but needs additional details; window profiles, roof trim detail, shingles or clapboard with and a facia board to delineate the new clapboard/shingles from the old. Tamie asked the board if they were comfortable moving forward with approving the application now and approving the details administratively. They agreed. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 153 Van Dam St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions and exclusions: 1. The existing board and batten in the gables be replaced with shingles or clapboard siding. 2. A fascia board will be added to delineate the exterior clapboard with the new material being applied in the gable. This approval excludes the approval of roof trim and arched window profile details until that documentation is provided. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Discussion: Jeff Gritsavage said there were far too many exceptions City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 6 of 12 for this to be an approval. Rob said there will have to be stamped drawings at some point to be submitted to the building department. Tamie said they could add to the motion that it’s conditioned upon approval by the building department. Tad asked if this would get the applicant in the queue with the building department and Beige said it would. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, K. Cavotta-Y, Leslie DiCarlo-Y. 6-1 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair told the applicant that the application has been approved, but there are certain elements of it that have not yet been approved. She said the applicant should return with those details as soon as possible so they can be reviewed by the board. The applicant may have to return to the board for approval of those details. ______________________________________________________________________ HISTORIC REVIEW: 5. #20240777 248 Broadway Window Replacement. Historic review of window replacement within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Ashish Gandhi, the owner, said they are in the process of renovating 2 buildings that were built in the 1950’s-60’s. Some of the windows are original and are damaged or non-functional. Ashish said he acquired the property in 2022, and they noticed that some of the windows were randomly replaced with vinyl. They would like to replace all of the windows now, but they have a plan to eventually renovate the entire exterior of both buildings. They are working on building 1 at this time which has 22 guest rooms. They have 130 replacement windows in stock already. Ashish showed photos of the motel and windows. The windows are currently green, and they will be replaced with white vinyl. Each guest room has 3 windows (2 in front and one in back). The only original windows remaining are the large wooden windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this is a great motel and a good example of mid-century modernism. It represents the 50’s and 60’s era and speaks to old Saratoga and what it was like being a tourist in the city. Tamie said original windows are a really important feature in any historic district. She explained the guidelines to the applicant regarding original windows and that they must be repaired if necessary. If they are determined to be beyond repair, they must be replaced in-kind. The existing smaller windows can be replaced with vinyl because they already exist. The original windows must stay and be repaired if needed. If the applicant can provide documentation that the windows are beyond repair, they would need to be replaced with custom wood windows. Chris agreed with Tamie that the vinyl windows, while not the best replacement option, would be okay. The double hung picture windows have to remain wood. Rob agreed and said the picture windows are architecturally important. He said it’s a fabulous motel. Leslie said if the vinyl windows were painted green, they would be much more cohesive and have a charming look. She said people are interested in mid-century and they don’t want it to feel new, they want it to feel mid-century. Jeff said vinyl is not a commercial grade product. He said any of the vinyl windows that are currently 6 over 6 should be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 7 of 12 replaced with one over one. He said the applicant is very well positioned with a motel that is walkable to the downtown. Karen said there may be a code requirement that the windows be operable for light and ventilation in this type of space. She asked if there were screens available for the windows. Ashish said he would like to replace the locks on the doors with Smart locks that have a code. Tamie said the applicant should provide a photo/detail of the lock when he comes back before the board. Ashish had a photo of the lock with him and the board had no concerns with the proposed lock. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. There were none. In the matter of 248 Broadway window replacement at 248 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY Tamie Ehinger made a motion that the Design Review Board approve the application with the following conditions: 1. replacement in-kind of the smaller vinyl windows with vinyl. 2. The applicant may replace the door locks with the black door lock presented to the board this evening. 3. Should the applicant wish to pursue the replacement of the original windows, additional documentation including a window schedule must be presented to the board showing why the windows cannot be repaired. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, Leslie DiCarlo-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 6. #20240774 33 Franklin St. Fire Escape & Windows. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-4 District. Greg Green, Green Springs Capital Group said they are looking to replace the1980’s existing wood windows and fire escape. He said it would be a rebuild of exactly what’s there now beginning with footers and walls, a steel structure coming up, steel on the reveal with a composite decking on the inside that you can’t see from the street. They would continue using EPDM on the roof off the existing flat roof into a low-pitched roof, which is the best option for ice and snow. There are 54 windows, 3 different sizes that will be replaced in the Andersen 400 series, clad outside & wood inside. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board was able to review what they’re doing with the fire escape and they’re very comfortable with that. She said it’s wonderful to see the vinyl windows being pulled out and a quality window put in. She said the window opening alterations were made previously and they’re grandfathered in. Tamie said nothing that was presented is inappropriate and she has no objections. Karen asked about the EPDM and whether it was a metal roof instead. Greg said no, it should not show a metal roof. It’s a wood trussed roof showing basically the same shape and format that it is now. She said the drip edge could be cleaned up based on what the existing edge looks like. Jeff asked the color of the aluminum clad. Greg said black or bronze. Jeff said bronze would be more attractive. Leslie asked the applicant if he considered restoring the front façade windows to their original size. Greg said they City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 8 of 12 hadn’t because the inside has already been completely reconfigured. Rob said he was going to oppose this project because he felt the windows should be restored to the original opening, but changed his mind when Greg said there were dropped ceilings inside that would require completely reconfiguring the inside. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. Sydney Hedge, Preservation Foundation said they are in full support of the fire escape, balconies & the porch. She said the building is a contributing building to the west side historic district and qualifies for the NYS rehabilitation credits should they decide they want to restore the windows back to their original shape. The applicant will provide cut sheets for the railings and fire escape administratively for the record. Karen Cavotta made a motion to approve exterior modifications to the windows and fire escape at 33 Franklin St. Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-N, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, Leslie DiCarlo-Y. 6-1, motion carried. 7. #20240752 76 Walton St. Second Floor Addition. Historic Review of renovation and new construction within the Urban Residential – 3 District. Kennedy Flak Studio K & Tom Brizzell, Custom Craft Builders represented the applicant. Kennedy said there’s a dilapidated porch on the back of the structure at 76 Walton St. that is visible from Clinton St. that they would like to replace with a new addition. The drawings showed several changes throughout the entire structure that were not intended for discussion at tonight’s meeting and are not being considered by the DRB. The following proposal and discussion are strictly relative to the actual proposal for the addition on the back of the house, the addition of a dormer on the side, clean up the front façade and roof top deck on the new addition. Kennedy said they are proposing to keep the same footprint except to extend the addition the width of the house and go up to a second level above that. She said in considering the design for the addition they kept in mind that it should be different than the historic part of the structure and tastefully done. They wanted to create an addition that could look like it was added at a later time from the original home but it’s undecided as to actually when that could have been added. It’s meant to have a timeless feeling to it. Tamie thanked the applicant for a very thorough presentation and for putting so much energy and thought into one of Saratoga’s beautiful historic buildings. Tamie said the DRB’s job is to make sure that any exterior changes to historic properties are historically accurate and they don’t negatively affect the character of the historic home or the neighborhood. Tamie read some of the historic guidelines and standards into the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 9 of 12 record. “Windows and doors are among the most significant character defining features of a building. They help to identify the style and period of the building. Every effort should be made to maintain and preserve these important features.” Windows – you should maintain original trim details – original configurations, size, shape and proportion of windows. Original size and location should be preserved. Window openings should not be changed or altered. Roofs: roofs shape, materials & details contribute to the historic character and significance. Introducing sky lights, sun tunnels, vents or attic ventilators is not appropriate. Additions: should not look as if they are original to the historic building. They should be distinct from and identifiable as an addition to the historic structure. An addition should be smaller in scale than the original building so that it does not overshadow the existing building. It should be located where it’s least visible and designed to minimally affect the perception of the original structure. Tom Brizzell said the front façade will remain as it is, there will be no changes. He said the current addition on the back of the structure will need to come down because it is very dilapidated. Tamie listed the items that ARE NOT being proposed: • Front stairs are to remain wood. • The knee wall is not part of the application. • The front door is to remain. • The brick wall is not part of the application. Should a fence be presented in the future, a wrought iron/black aluminum fence would be appropriate. • The window boxes are not part of the application. The chimney on the right side of the building that is not shown in the rendering is staying. Tom said there’s a chimney that comes through the middle of the house that’s falling down and will be removed (there are actually two chimneys). He said they are switching to a direct vent furnace. The chimney was only used for a hot water tank and old furnaces that were not direct vent. Rob said conditions should be discussed after they talk about demolition of the porch and historic significance. Tamie agreed there needs to be notice for the demolition, etc. so they won’t be voting tonight. Although, they will continue to provide feedback to the applicant. Tamie said it appears that some historic windows are being removed and they’re proposing to cut an arch window shape into the back of the historic façade, which would be inappropriate. Tamie said she thought the addition was great, the glass, the modernism. Very well done, very appropriate materials. She said she would like to see drawings that better depict the height difference between the addition and the historic structure. She talked about the proposed shed dormer and noted that the guidelines state that there should not be any penetrations or openings cut in historic roofs. Tamie said the board could provide general feedback on the proposal, but at this point what has been presented is not what the project will be. Beige said the property has not been properly noticed for demolition. It was an oversight on her part. She said the board could have a conversation about the significance, but they will have to wait to make any determination until it’s properly noticed. Tamie explained the process moving forward to the applicants and that no decisions on the addition will be made until each step in the process is followed. She said the board could provide feedback on what’s appropriate for the addition tonight. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 10 of 12 Chris said that all of the historic doors and windows should be kept. If they are replacing wood, it should be in-kind. Everything on the façade on the front of the building should be maintained. He said the addition looks great. Kennedy said all of the brick that is being covered with the addition will be preserved on the inside. Chris said it’s likely that at one time there was an internal gutter on the roof. He suggested that they replace the standing seam roof over the front entry. Rob asked if they would be doing anything to the historic front sidewalk. Tom said it would be repaired as needed. Rob said he’s not necessarily opposed to the shed dormer but questioned whether it’s stylistically appropriate. He said the shutters in the tower look to be original and asked if they intended to keep those. Rob asked where they would be venting the bathroom. Kennedy said it will come out the side gable where there is currently a window. It will be vented through the wood. Rob said the addition is appropriate. He said he’ll have to give more thought to the arched opening on the back gable and the window opening that’s changing on the west elevation from a double hung to a round non-operable window. Kennedy said they can make it square. Rob said when the windows were changed out in the past, they decreased the openings and likely put in windows purchased off the shelf. He suggested that if the applicant is getting custom windows, they could put the windows back to their original wider opening. Tom said at this time the vinyl windows will stay and the new windows will be in the addition. He said eventually all of the windows will be changed out to match what will be in the addition. Leslie agreed with what was covered by other board members. She said the shed dormer doesn’t look appropriate but agreed that something to give light to the area would be ok. Tom said they added the dormer for head space because they intend to use the attic. Leslie said the drawing shows it in white which makes it jump out. The colored rendering makes it disappear. Jeff said they should minimize cuts in the brick as well as changes that are visible from Clinton St. He commented on the shed dormer and offered ideas about minimizing the look. Tad thanked the applicant for a very thorough presentation. He said he’s not sure about the arched window and round window on the back. The shed dormer alters the defining volume, but the colored rendering helps to minimize it. He said if they were to put that shed dormer he would use less glass. Keep the tower vents. He said when they redraw the front it should be drawn to show the hidden gutter (the small flat part of the roof). Tad asked if it would be feasible to brick in the shower window. Kennedy said they could do that and use some of the leftover brick that they’ll have. He said they should keep the window on the right side and not replace it with a round window. Karen said she wanted to caution everyone that the construction drawings don’t match the renderings that were being shown by the applicant. She said when the applicant returns, they need to make sure that those two things match. She said the addition looks great. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Preservation Foundation said they were very excited that someone is investing in this house. She said the comments the board made about retaining the historic features are very important. Samantha said it’s disappointing that the two original chimneys are being removed and the chimney on the west side, which City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 11 of 12 is a later addition and not historic, is staying. She asked that that removal be reconsidered. She said the round windows don’t fit the style and aren’t appropriate. She agreed that the applicant needs to reconsider what the dormer should look like. Samantha said consideration should be given to centering the windows under the gables on the addition. She said the entrance to the balcony on the rear elevation (southwest gable) should maintain as much brick as possible and not be clad in cement board. She said the Foundation doesn’t object to the removal of the rear porch. Samantha mentioned that the applicant may be eligible for state or federal rehabilitation tax credits to help offset the cost of the project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicants were provided a lot of feedback. The next step in the process will be to determine significance and then demolition if no significance is determined. Beige will discuss further with the applicants. Samantha Bosshart announced that in partnership with the City of Saratoga Springs through a certified local government grant that the city received, the Foundation will be continuing the education series and will be having a program about infill design with two presenters from Cincinnati, OH, one being an architect and one with the City of Saratoga Springs to talk about their approach to how they’re looking at in-fill design and what has been successful. Thursday, October 24th at 7:00 p.m. in the City’s music hall. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 9, 2024 - Page 12 of 12