Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 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, Leslie DiCarlo & Ellen Sheehan ABSENT: Jeff Gritsavage, 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 October 9, 2024. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, E. Sheehan, 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. #20240814 60 Weibel Ave. Bread Basket Signage. Architectural Review of new wall sign within the Urban Neighborhood T-4 District. 2. #20240816 3 Care Lane Signage. Architectural Review of sign replacements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 3. #20240849 500 Union Brookmere Signage. Architectural Review of signage within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) 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 made a motion to approve the applications for 60 Weibel Ave. Bread Basket Signage, 3 Care Lane Signage and 500 Union Brookmere Signage, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Ellen Sheehan. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-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. 4. #20240863 38 Caroline St. paint and windows. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 5. #20240865 188 S. Broadway Paint, Railings, Stairs, Patio. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 6. #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: 7. #20240457 172 Caroline St. Roof, Windows, Porch, Driveway. Historic Review of exterior building and site modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. 8. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of garage demolition and new construction within the Urban Residential-4 District. _____________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review: 4. #20240863 38 Caroline St. paint and windows. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. Bob said they are proposing to paint the building, changing the various tones of yellow to light grey (Benjamin Moore Bennington Grey). The trim will remain white. They removed the awning and restored the building to what it used to be. Bob showed photos of the building and pointed out 5 windows at the top, one of which has been filled in with zip sheathing that will be replaced with a window. All of the windows (which are vinyl) will be replaced with aluminum clad windows. Everything that is currently painted green will be black. Tamie reminded the board that they have purview over colors for commercial buildings and should be deciding whether what the applicant is presenting is appropriate. She said the colors the applicant chose are appropriate and she’s glad to see they are replacing the vinyl windows with Andersen 400 series aluminum clad windows. Bob said Andersen has vinyl cladding. He said he can change that to Pella which is an aluminum clad product. The board agreed that that change should be made. Tamie noted that the vinyl graphics inside the windows are allowed in the code, but they can’t take up more than 30% of the window space, which these do. Bob said Adirondack Sign is working on a sign panel and the vinyl “Wild Horse” logo that is currently in the windows will be removed. Chris B. said the windows on the top floor are curved at the top and suggested they get the tallest replacement window that will fit to give it more height and infill the curve with trim to give the building more verticality. Bob said that was a great comment and agreed they could do that. Tad noted that there were no specs for the windows. Bob City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 2 of 12 said he will provide those and asked to submit them administratively. Tad said the colors are great. Ellen S. asked what the color of the trim in the arch of the windows will be. Bob said he will provide that detail. She asked if they’re keeping the wood door on the front. Bob said they are, and it was sanded over the summer and will be stained. Tad asked if the small passageway to the west of the building is for the public because it’s blocked off with a sign that says it’s private, no entry. Bob said it was a way to get to the library. Bob said they’ve been in discussions with the library regarding other issues and they said it was a public walkway but had been abandoned. He said it is owned by Dango’s. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience had any comments on the application. None were heard. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve paint colors and windows at 38 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: Pella aluminum clad windows to be used and the brick opening details should be submitted administratively. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-N, L. DiCarlo-Y. 5-1 in favor. Motion carried. 5. #20240865 188 S. Broadway Paint, Railings, Stairs, Patio. Architectural Review of exterior modifications within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Tamie said this project includes a larger scope of work, but the applicant is specifically before the board tonight for approval of paint colors. Allison Barnette, Director of Operations, Weekender Hospitality. Allison said the hotel is being renamed the “Ambler”, previously known as the St. Charles. Future proposals will also include the house that’s adjacent at 3 Whitney. Allison provided slides of photos and elevations for the hotel. They are proposing a white base color for the entire brick façade, window frames & trim. The doors will be sanded and painted “Fresno” and kick plates will be added at the bottom of the doors. Some of the trim pieces will be black (facia, railing). Tamie said the color pallet is appropriate. She added that the black metal railing that they will be proposing is appropriate material to use. Tamie gave kudos to the owners for revitalizing the property, which has been needed for a long time. She said they may want to consider some articulation on the S. Broadway façade to make it a little more pedestrian friendly. Allison said in touring the property they decided to make the property more unique. She pointed out that the balcony reminded them of retro Palm Springs, and they are trying to capture some of that with the Fresno paint color on the doors and on the interior design. Ellen said the colors are great choices as well as the new name “Ambler”. Ellen said in the renderings for the main office it looks like they are beefing up the trim compared to what’s really there. Allison said there was no plan to expand or minimize the trim. It will remain what it is now. The rendering was done very fast using Google Street View. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 3 of 12 Ellen said the part of the property that’s at 3 Whitney looks residential and asked if the DRB has purview over the color on that side. Allison said they will paint the entry door Fresno, the brick white, and the garage doors will remain white. Rob clarified with the applicant that the railing should be metal because it wasn’t defined in their application. Rob asked if they had spoken to a contractor about painting over brick. Allison said their engineering team will be leading that up and she will make sure that they have that discussion with the painters. Chris agreed with Rob that it can be difficult to paint over deep red brick. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience had any comments on the application. None were heard. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve paint colors at 188 S. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 6. #20240713 33-35 Caroline St. Construction. Architectural Review of new mixed-use development within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicants have previously been before the board, received feedback and have returned with a revised version of their plan. John Cannie, Snyder, Kiley, Toohey, Corbett & Cox represented the applicant, Oldest Lighthouse, LLC. Also present for the applicant are James Christopher and William Christopher (Buddy) with 686 Architects. John gave a brief overview of the project they’re proposing; three parcels in the UC Zone, mixed-use commercial space on the ground floor, residential condominiums on floors 2 through 6. The project is located in “the gut” on Caroline St. at the corner of Pavilion next to the empty lot at the Saratogian. John presented the highlights of the changes that were made:  Prominence of the corner element.  Step-back of top two floors only. Previously stepped-back 3 through 6. Four floors will be built out with two stepped-back (5&6 floors) to make it look like a modification of an older building.  Modification of commercial spaces, in line with historic form of Caroline St. Added multiple entrances for a multiple store front look instead of single entrance.  Design building to read more vertically – reducing perceived mass.  Provide architectural rhythm with upper and lower floors. Everything is more lined up.  Step-backed floors to read like an addition – similar to other projects. Similar to 395 Broadway.  Confirmation of height measurements. John said the UDO says to measure a flat-top roof at the top of the roof, not the parapet wall. William (Buddy) talked about the changes to the building since the last meeting: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 4 of 12   Moved main entrance on Pavilion closer to the garage entrance allowing for two large retail spaces with multiple doors so they can be configured to accommodate whatever makes it work.  Floors 2 through 4 have 6 units per floor, 5 two-bedrooms and 1 one-bedroom.  The 5th and 6th floor step in. The sixth floor will not be seen from any of the adjacent areas. There will be 2 units on the penthouse floor with wraparound decks.  Showed slides of the building. Pavilion – garage with valet parking, main entrance to the building, retail spaces with doors in every other bay.  The corner section of the building the roofline is extended 4ft. from the 4th floor level to introduce more verticality. Having a local artist create a medallion with brass relief to add to the brick at the top of the 4th floor on the corner.  The brick is also extended up at the middle of the building over the main entrance for retail.  Each unit will have a balcony on the upper floors.  The rear elevation slide shows lower floor with no fenestrations, but they’re open to suggestions.  The average height of the building is 62.3 on all sides. All corner points are instrument measured elevations; the points chosen in the middle were interpolated to get the height.  Showed renderings with lighting looking down Caroline St. Extra lighting to help accentuate the corner.  Oversized the brackets on the 5th floor level. Segmented the lintels to breakdown the horizontal feeling.  Showed aerial view slides of the building. John said the applicant is here for approval for height, mass and scale. He cited section 13.9(1)(1) of the UDO “The Design Review Board must consider whether the height of the proposed structure is compatible with the historic form and context of the site and neighboring properties and with any specific zoning intent”.  Historic form – was one of the largest and tallest buildings on Caroline St. (Kearney’s block). Sanborn Maps show it was 3 or 4 stories from 1888 to 1955 when it was destroyed by fire.  The proposed development seeks to return this location to its historical prominence of being one of the more significant buildings on Caroline St.  Other properties on the street – 30 and 30 ½ Caroline – have received or are seeking 60.5 ft. height. Applicant feels 62.3 ft. height would return Kearney’s Block to a nearly identical height and will give the corner the prominence it once had. John mentioned that if the City Tavern were newly built today, they would have to receive variances or bonus actions to get to the 60 ft. 30 Lake Ave., the next corner north on Pavilion is approximately 60 ft. Clancy’s next door is pre- existing, non-conforming and should not be considered. Further west on Caroline, four story structures are the norm (16 Caroline, City Tavern) but have the perceived additional height due to the grading of Caroline.  Showed aerial map from the 1939 Bolster Collection. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 5 of 12 John talked about the height bonus they are seeking and the intent of the zoning district which is to accommodate the highest intensity and density use. It provides incentives for additional feet over the allowed 55 ft if you meet the requirements. They need 7.3 ft. of bonus height. Scale Approval Standard: UDO section 13.9(1)(1) provides: - “The Design Review Board must consider whether the scale of the proposed structures is compatible with the relationship of the building and its architectural elements to neighboring structures and community character.”  The scale of the proposal relative to neighboring buildings, namely Clancy’s is large, but that is nonconforming structure so should not be considered.  Scale relative to 30 Lake and 30 and 30 ½ Caroline is nearly identical.  Scale relative to the properties west on Upper Caroline – specifically 19-21 Caroline, is similar. When considering the change in elevation, creates a larger scale for those buildings than those on lower Caroline. Mass and Open Space Approval Standard: UDO section 13.9(1)(1) provides: - “The Design Review Board must consider whether the relationship of the dimensions 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.  Similar to 30 and 30 1/2 Caroline and 30 Lake.  Examples of larger buildings next to smaller ones – Rhea on Broadway, Tap and Barrel at 13 Caroline.  Majority of Caroline built out with no open space between adjoining structures. Consistent with upper and lower Caroline. 2) Zoning Intent  “Highest Intensity” zone.  Full buildout permitted without variance – i.e. no requirement for open space.  80% buildout is required. Tamie said this has been an exciting process to watch with this project. She said the presentation tonight is a huge improvement over what was last presented to the DRB and made the following comments:  The corner is much more prominent and anchored, and by rounding it they’ve allowed for more pedestrian engagement.  The storefront openings are much more appropriate.  Large improvement with the fenestration changes and material changes, specifically with the top two floors, helps to break up the mass and scale.  The change in the directional expression allows the building to appear much more vertical – more appropriate for the neighborhood.  Stepping back the 5th and 6th floors makes a difference in minimizing the feeling of height – a creative and successful solution. Comfortable with the 6th floor as presented tonight, especially since it is on a corner lot and should be prominent. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 6 of 12 Chris B. said the changes are a big improvement. He said overall the way they’ve worked around the height with the 6th floor, it seems less intrusive to the streetscape. He said details for the balconies and materials will be important moving forward. He said he’s still uncomfortable with the 6th floor but can’t say that it’s too imposing. Rob D. agreed with what Tamie and Chris had to say. He added that he doesn’t have concerns about the height, his is more from a design perspective. The building will present as a 4-story structure but how do the 5th and 6th floor fit within the historic context of the area. He said some things that could be addressed from a design perspective are materials, colors and by drawing attention away from the 5th and 6th stories by removing brackets and by toning down the color (not white as shown in rendering) so they blend in better with the rest of the building. Rob questioned if the applicant will be able to do 9.6 feet floor to floor as opposed to 10 to 12 ft. John said yes, they are able to do that. Rob asked if the balconies hang over the right-of-way on the Pavilion and Caroline St. facades. Buddy said the balconies are 8 ft. and could be cut back to 5 feet. Rob commented that the windows should be one over one and not mixed with two over one. He said there should be an HOA with the condos to prevent storage on the balconies. Rob asked what criteria they were basing their height bonus request on. John said there’s multiple criteria and they haven’t decided that yet. He said there are 6 options within the code; some give more feet and some less; he’s just not sure at this point how much they will need. Rob clarified with Counsel that if the applicant is given approval for mass and scale by the DRB and they don’t receive a height bonus by the planning board, that they will have to return to the DRB. Leslie said she doesn’t have a problem with having a 5th and 6th floor just with how they relate to the building. She agreed that the brackets call attention to the height. She said the proposal is a really good solution to the feedback that was given over the last few meetings. She said the curved corner of the building allows for more height. She agreed with Rob that the fenestration should be as simple as possible. Tamie asked Counsel if the details of the 5th and 6th floor can be changed once the DRB gives mass and scale approval. John said they will be returning to the DRB for approval. If they don’t approve of the details for the building, then the project is done. Tad said he doesn’t think they should approve mass and scale tonight and will go on to explain. He said they should dial back the lighting on the façade. The penthouse is two thirds the size of floors 2, 3 and 4 and proportionally doesn’t work. He said he’d rather see a regular full 5th floor with a penthouse for the 6th. If the penthouse is important for the 5th floor, then he would make it brick. He would like to see views in the model from other locations further away with higher elevations. Tad asked if there was a loading dock. John said there’s the garage entrance and also parking on Pavilion St. for people moving in and out of the building. He said many of the businesses on Caroline St. use that for their loading and unloading already. Tad said the big heavy pier coming down the middle over the residential entryway comes down and disappears. It appears to float over the main door. He suggested a singular expression there would be better. On Caroline St. the edge of the main building comes down and lands on the glass storefront (under the awning) – the last pier is slid out. Tad said because of the penthouse and the way it’s designed he doesn’t agree with approving mass and scale at this time. Ellen said this is a “quantum leap” better than their previous proposal. She said the top two floors aren’t successful. She said it would be hard to approve City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 7 of 12 something that’s not successfully done and agreed with other board member’s comments about the corbels, color, balconies, etc. She would like to see some of the renderings without the awnings so you can see what’s happening underneath. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience had any comments on the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. She agreed that the design is much improved with the vertical elements. The changes in the storefront and materials are helpful in reducing the large scale and mass. She clarified that the Sanborn maps say that historically the building was a three-story building. The applicant has compared their building to the height of City Tavern, which is on a different block, closer to Broadway, is a narrower building and doesn’t have the same wide massive scale, nor do any of the buildings on that block of Caroline St. The proposed building is between smaller scale buildings from Putnam to Phila and Caroline to where residential begins. Samantha said that’s the historic context and one of the criteria that’s mentioned. Pointing to one building on Caroline St. to justify the height is not fair or accurate. She said 30 Caroline was approved for the height with a fifth-floor step back and the floor height ratio was very important to that building being approved. There is some concern about the proposed 9.5 ft floor height and how that relates to other buildings on the street. She agreed with Tad that renderings showing both sides of the street and from various directions are needed. She said the penthouse looks like the top of a wedding cake. The penthouse is too big for the height of the building. Samantha said it’s problematic that the applicant is asking for a height bonus without the justification as to why. The Foundation strongly opposes the sixth floor as proposed. William Crager, business owner/resident said there are a lot of extraordinary parts of Saratoga, but the heart of Saratoga is coming up Caroline St. and it currently lacks community. He said this proposed building begins to restore the vitality to the street and changes the heartbeat of the center of the city. He said this will spark interest for investors in this part of the city, specifically to do something with the vacant lot near the Saratogian. This is a very important project for the city and the community. There was a discussion among the board members and applicant regarding the approval process for the application. Tad questioned why the planning board wouldn’t give their approval before the DRB. John said it’s in the UDO that the DRB gives height, mass and scale approval first. Tamie added that streamlining the process for the applicant was discussed with the planning board and it made more sense to proceed this way. John said once they have DRB approval for height, mass and scale they can go before the planning board just for the height bonus action then return to the DRB. Tamie said the DRB’s approval will be based on the footprint and height of the building. What the building will look like within that footprint and height will be discussed after the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 8 of 12 height bonus is decided by the planning board when they return to the DRB. Tamie listed the items board members said they would like to see from the applicant when they return:  Renderings without awnings.  Multiple pedestrian level perspectives. Rob said he doesn’t have an issue with the overall height, but he feels the building would be more successful if were 5 stories and they increased the floor to floor in keeping with commercial structures. The design of the penthouses doesn’t work for him. Chris agreed with Rob that the 6th floor is the “Achilles heel” of the project. He said he would go along with the approval of mass and scale but not the design as it is. Leslie said she doesn’t have a problem with the height, just with how the building is proportioned. Tamie said she is comfortable with mass and scale because in her opinion the 5th and 6th floors allow it to work. Tad said he would be comfortable allowing 60 feet. Ellen said she’s fine with approving mass and scale knowing that they have the option to go shorter if needed. Tony I. said it would be best if the DRB could give the planning board the most information possible about what it does not have a problem with. That will help to move the application along a little more quickly. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve mass and scale only, with a build up to 63 ft. for the application for 33-35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs all details and design specifics to be determined in discussions moving forward. The motion was interrupted by a discussion about whether SEQRA review is necessary prior to mass and scale approval. Tony said SEQRA would be needed if it’s on the type 1 action list and it’s within the DRB’s jurisdiction to act on it. If it’s a type 2 action no SEQRA is required. It was determined that it is an uncoordinated review and it’s an interim step with more review to follow. Tony said it does not seem as though a separate and distinct SEQRA review is necessary at this juncture. The motion continued and was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan-Y, C. Bennett-N, T. Roemer-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 5-1 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that while the mass and scale has been approved the design is not close to being approved, there are still major concerns by many members of the board. The board is looking forward to figuring out the final design and seeing all of the specific details of the project. ______________________________________________________________________ HISTORIC REVIEW 7. #20240457 172 Caroline St. Roof, Windows, Porch, Driveway. Historic Review of exterior building and site modifications within the Urban Residential-3 District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 9 of 12 Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the applicant. She said the last time they were before the board there was a discussion about what windows would be replaced with wood by her client who had placed vinyl windows on the first floor without approval from the DRB. The windows on the second floor were replaced by the previous owner and would not be the responsibility of the new owner. To make the Caroline St. façade look more uniform and within historic standards, it was decided that the Caroline St. upper and lower windows would be replaced with wood and the vinyl windows on the other three facades would remain. Tonya said the diamond windows in both gables will have new glazing and any frame or trim that is broken will be repaired in-kind. Tamie asked what would happen with the Nelson St. façade windows. Tonya said from what was discussed at the last meeting, they would stay as is. Tamie said she recalled a discussion about changing the first-floor windows. Tonya disagreed and said that was not how they interpreted it. She said her client was open to changing all of the windows on the first floor that he had replaced with vinyl. THE FOLLOWING IS THE RECORD FROM THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2024, DRB MEETING MINUTES REGARDING WHAT WINDOWS WOULD BE REPLACED: “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.” City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 10 of 12 Tamie said she’s not uncomfortable with the front façade being uniform and added that in an ideal world the windows would all be returned to wood. The remaining board members were comfortable with the proposal. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone from the audience had any comments on the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she was pleased that the board agreed with the submission that the primary façade will have one consistent appearance with its windows. Ellen Sheehan made a motion to approve historic review of exterior modifications to the roof, windows, porch and driveway at 172 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, E. Sheehan- Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of garage demolition and new construction within the Urban Residential-4 District. Leslie DiCarlo recused herself from the project because she owns property nearby. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the applicant. She said there was a 1920’s garage that has been removed, and with the City’s approval, a large tree that was diseased and pulling up the sidewalk on Ludlow St. The applicant got approval from DPW to replace the sidewalk all along Ludlow over to the corner because it was in disrepair. Tonya said they have received zoning variances for the size and footprint of the structure they are proposing to allow for a two-car garage with a small apartment above. The two-car garage faces the alley and there’s a door under a small, covered stoop that will lead to stairs that go directly upstairs. Tonya said when they were last before the DRB they proposed shed dormers on both sides of the building but couldn’t get the necessary headroom for the stairs, so they are now proposing a small knee-wall with two smaller gables. Tonya said the gable dormers instead of shed dormers reflect the patterns that are in the late 1800’s style home. Their last proposal had awning windows on the Ludlow St. façade that are now larger windows with a more residential look. In looking to break up the south elevation (looking at the house) with the one foot that they have to work with (because of roof overhangs & variances), they are proposing a small eyebrow roof that will run along the façade with brackets. It also shields the side door. The upper windows on the south side are for the kitchen and bathroom and can’t be made any bigger. There will be awning windows on the west side dormer for the bathroom and bedroom and they added windows along the west side lower floor (garage) for uniformity. Tonya showed an overlay, as requested by the DRB, of where the previous garage was and where the new garage will be. Tonya said she agreed with some of the board members that the garage would be better placed closer to Morton Place, but the ZBA required that they move it back so that they would meet the setback City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 11 of 12 and not require a variance. Tonya showed a rendering of their proposed garage and how it relates to two other structures going down the alley – a barn and a building with a two-car, side load garage with a full second story and another rendering of how their proposed garage relates to the existing home on the property. Tonya showed photos of similar properties in the neighborhood. Tamie asked about the materials. Tonya said it will all be wood. Tamie said the materials are appropriate, and it’s a very successful little house. Chris said the house is lovely and will be a great little carriage house. Rob asked what the height comparison is between the house and the garage. Tonya did not have an exact height on either building but said her rendering was to scale within 6 inches. She said the roof of the garage is a minimum of four feet lower than the house. Rob said the materials were great and totally appropriate. There was a discussion between Rob and Tonya on the design of the carriage house. Rob said if they are going with a historic design the details should be similar to the main house – roof trim, etc. Tonya said they are not making it an historic design but rather a product of its own time. Tad questioned why the ZBA would have them move the garage back when having it closer to the alley is more in line with the other carriage houses. Tonya explained that the ZBA focuses on the least amount of variances possible and by going along with their request they were able to eliminate the variance for the setback. The board disagreed with the ZBA’s decision to have the applicant move the garage back 10 ft. because it changes the character of the alley in not lining up with the other carriage houses in the neighborhood. Tamie said an appeal process to the ZBA would need to be initiated by the applicant. The DRB would support the location of the garage being closer to the alley, which would help the applicant on appeal. Tad said the structure seems top heavy and asked if they could move the band up that separates the top from the bottom. Tonya said the band falls at the bottom of where the floor will be over the stoop and the trim won’t match. Tonya said they could do all horizontal siding. The board agreed that would look better. Tad said the fiberglass garage door with the fake wood would look much better painted. Tonya said they will paint it white. Tamie said the board will want to see the change in materials from board and batten to the structure being all horizontally clad with a band around the middle. They will need the exact heights of the house and the proposed garage. Details of the trim, locations for venting and penetration, and how the foundation will be treated should be included. Tamie told Tonya that if the DRB can help make an argument about the location of a structure in the future she shouldn’t hesitate to ask. The ZBA likely would have come to the DRB for an advisory opinion. Tad Roemer made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON JANUARY 29, 2025 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 23, 2024 - Page 12 of 12