Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2025 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, Leslie DiCarlo, Jeff Gritsavage, Tad Roemer, Geoff Wood, and Karen Cavotta-present as alternate. ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, City Planner, Julia Destino, Junior Planner, Anthony (Tony) Izzo, City Counsel. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from October 23, 2024 & December 4, 2024. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger- Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-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. Geoff Wood recused himself from the vote for 171 S. Broadway due to the proximity of the project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair made a motion to approve the application for Arrow Bank Signage 171 So. Broadway, Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, -Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 1. #20241001 145 Ballston Ave. Jacobson Rugs Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Gateway Urban Commercial (GC-U) District. 2. #20241003 67 Putnam St. Wasabi door replacement. Architectural and Historical Review of Door Replacement in the Urban Core (UC) District. 3. #20241019 422 Broadway 5th floor extension application. Extension of Historic approval of a fifth-floor addition to an existing four-story mixed-use building within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 4. #20241022 31 Woodlawn Ave. Amsure wall mount sign. Architectural Review of wall mounted signage within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 5. #20241037 500 Union Ave. Regent Signage. Architectural Review of Signage within the Interlaken PUD District. 6. #20250024 191 Caroline St. Mini Split. Historic Review of exterior equipment installation within the Urban Residential – 3 District. 7. #20241020 92 East Ave. Cornerstone Veterinary Signage. Architectural Review of wall mounted and monument signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 8. #20241021 52 Marion Ave. Cooney & Tyner Ortho Signage. Architectural Review of wall mounted signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T-5) District. 9. #20250002 171 S. Broadway Arrow Bank Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T-5) District. 10. #20241005 91 West Ave. Arrow Bank Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T-5) District. 11. #20250021 184 S. Broadway Thirsty Owl Signage. Architectural Review of signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T-5) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 145 Ballston Ave. Jacobson Rugs Signage, 67 Putnam St. Wasabi door replacement, 422 Broadway 5th floor extension, 31 Woodlawn Ave. Amsure wall mount sign, 500 Union Ave. Regent Signage, 191 Caroline St. Mini Split, 92 East Ave., Cornerstone Veterinary Signage, 52 Marion Ave. Cooney & Tyner Ortho Signage, 91 West Ave. Arrow Bank Signage, 184 S. Broadway Thirsty Owl Signage, Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER HISTORIC REVIEW CONSIDERATION: 12. #20240119 169 Union Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of new construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 2 of 21 13. #20240922 219 Regent St. Siding. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 14. #20250023 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. 15. #20240229 Cherry St. Single Family Construction. Historic Review of new single- family construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 16. #20250039 115 Union Ave. Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 17. #20230391 177 So. Broadway & 28 Lincoln Stewart’s Demolition & Redevelopment. Consideration of demolition of an existing single-family residence (28 Lincoln) within the Neighborhood Center T-5 District. 18. #20240988 203 Lake Ave. Solar Panels. Architectural review of roof mounted solar panels in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 19. #20241004 16 Marion & Ave. A Partial Demolition. Architectural review of significance for demolition of southern portion of existing corner building within the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. 20. #20240720 30-301/2 Caroline Building Expansion. Architectural review of residential addition within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 21. #20240393 61 Lawrence Carriage House Conversion. Architectural Review of Carriage house exterior improvements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 22. 20250028 119 Van Dam Modification. Architectural review of a modification to a previously approved addition to a single-family home within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 23. #20240713 33 to 35 Caroline Construction. Architectural review of new mixed-use development within the Urban Core (T-6) District. ______________________________________________________________________ HISTORIC REVIEW: 12. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic Review of new construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 3 of 21 Leslie DiCarlo recused herself from considering the application due to proximity to the project. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the owner, Thomas Grossman. They have been before the board in the past and submitted plans in December with some of the changes that were requested. They were asked to bring the visual detail lower on the structure. They removed the dormers that brought your eyes upward, and added a larger gable on the side so it would present lower. They also added details to help break up the massing. Tonya said they believe their design is very consistent with the neighborhood (buildings, homes, carriage houses & garages along Morton Alley) as it is similar in height, detail, building materials and has more visual detail than the other buildings on the Lane. Tonya showed renderings of the elevations. Some of the materials proposed are a gable with cement board shakes, a small return with copper metal roofing that matches the main house, one double door that will look like two doors (spec for door in packet). The elevation facing the interior lot line (facing west) will only be seen as you’re heading east along the alley and has a small parking area on the side. They simplified the elevation facing the existing house and added lattice panels for some greenery or vines where it faces the garage. The two panels on the left are the garage and the one on the right is the utility area. They are proposing that all of the architectural details be on the facades that face the public. The metal roofing will match the main house. They brought down the height of the overall building. It’s approximately 37’ to the peak of the main house and the new garage will be 25.6’ to the peak. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she appreciates that the applicant listened to the board’s feedback and reminded the board that they are not designing the structure on behalf of the applicant. The board needs to look at what’s being presented and make sure it adheres to historical standards and guidelines. If not, is there a legitimate reason why it doesn’t and is it inappropriate enough to deny the application. Tamie said the project has come a long way and what’s being presented is entirely appropriate. She initially had concerns about the height of the carriage house and whether it would compete with the main house. She said given the measurements and details provided tonight she is prepared to move the project forward. Chris asked about the materials for the siding and shakes. Tonya said they are proposing wood siding and cement board shakes. Her client prefers the cement board shakes because they’re easier to maintain. Chris suggested a real cedar shingle for the shakes and cement board for the siding because the fake shakes don’t look very good in his opinion. Tamie reminded the board that because this is new construction modern materials are acceptable. Rob asked if the proposed Boral for the trim comes in five- quarter trim. Tonya said it would be a nominal 6”. Rob noticed the windows were changed from one over one to six over one. Tonya said they did that so they would be more consistent with the existing house, add character and make it more cottage like. She said one over one with a black window tends to just look like a hole. Jeff asked about the metal roofing. Tonya said it’s copper. Jeff agreed with Chris that the shakes would look better being wood because the synthetic material looks fake. The cement City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 4 of 21 board should be smooth and not have embedded grain. He said a Dutch lap would look great and is what was originally there. Jeff thanked the applicant for their responsiveness to the board’s concerns. Tad agreed with the other board members that the design has come very far and is really attractive. He also agreed that the fake flat siding would look better than cement board shakes. Tad said he has concerns about this really large structure being so close to the house. He said he understands that Tonya said the zoning board made them do that. He listened to and watched the zoning board meetings in this regard and didn’t see where they were made to do that. Tad said according to Susan the zoning rule is that the garage should be 5 ft. from the alley. Tonya said under the UDO an accessory structure can be 5 ft. from the property line but this is a second dwelling unit which requires 10 ft. Susan agreed with Tonya and said because it is a dwelling unit and the alley is considered the front, a 10 ft. setback is required. Tonya said initially they were seeking a variance to get a 9 ft. setback. They were asked by the zoning board to reduce the number of variances they were seeking, and this seemed to be the easiest one to eliminate. Tad said he would not support this project in this location because it’s too close to the house. Tonya suggested that the city change the way they look at projects if a zoning variance is being requested in a historic district and get an advisory opinion from the DRB. Susan said the structure is zoning compliant in its current proposed location. She agreed that an advisory opinion from the DRB in the future makes sense. There was a discussion about the light dividers in the windows and it was determined that the applicant will use exterior grills with spacers. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience regarding the project. There were none. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve the new construction at 191 Union Ave., Saratoga Springs NY with the following conditions: 1. Simulated divided lights which involve exterior grills and spacers between the panes of glass. 2. Wood shakes instead of cement board. 3. 5 quarter inch thick trim. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-N, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y. 5-1 in favor. Motion carried. 13. #20240922 219 Regent St. Siding. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Brendan Kelly, the owner, said he wants to remove the siding that’s in bad condition and replace it with James Hardie board and batten style siding. Tamie Ehinger, Chair read the historic guidelines that apply for this application noting that every effort should be made to restore/preserve original historic exterior cladding. If it is so deteriorated that it cannot be preserved then new cladding should be replaced in-kind and match the original or historical cladding in design, texture and other visual qualities. Tamie agreed that some of the boards looked damaged beyond repair and should be replaced in-kind, in this case with a wood product. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 5 of 21 There was a lengthy discussion between the applicant (the merits of Hardie board) and board members (historic standards) about the exterior modifications. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience regarding the project. Matthew Hurff gave suggestions about proper preparation of the siding to increase longevity. He said if it’s back primed when it’s cut and end primed when it’s put on and painted every decade or so, then the material should last a long time. Scott Wallant said the pine wood you get today doesn’t last as long as it used to. Chris Bennett said he’s talking about using clear Eastern white pine, which he’s using to build a sailboat that’s going to be in and out of water. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation reiterated the importance of what the board members said about following the historic standards. She encouraged the applicant to look at 65 Phila St., a structure that was vacant and had no paint on it for 30 years. The Foundation was able to scrape, prime and paint it and it should last for another 100 years. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to deny the application for exterior modifications using James Hardie board at 219 Regent St., Saratoga Springs, NY because the proposed materials and configuration were deemed inappropriate. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-N, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. The application was withdrawn by the applicant. 14. #20250023 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Chris Bennett recused himself from the application. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this applicant has been before the board in the past for various renovations and is before the board with a new proposal. Matthew Hurff, Frost Hurff Architecture thanked the board members for their service. They are proposing to remove a one-story porch and doghouse that goes down to the basement on the back of the existing structure and replace it with a two-story porch on the back. Matthew showed photos of the Slocum designed existing home facing Broadway. He said the primary design logic of the building is movement from a very ordered base to a gradual freer form style as you go higher up the building. Matthew showed drawings of the elevation of the house. The back of the house is rather “clunky” and they are looking to replace the porch & doghouse, replace the window with a doorway and the slab of the door with a door with a light on it. Some stone would have to be removed for a proposed window. Matthew showed a rendering of the north City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 6 of 21 elevation with the proposed porch. He said the scale of the design is being developed off of the scale of the front porches. The foundation of the porch would be removed. At the main level the opening of the door that goes into the kitchen would remain, but the door itself would be replaced. They propose cutting into the stone for the new window and the porch itself will be removed. The small window to the laundry room would be removed to install a new door. Matthew showed the floor plan and renderings for the new porch. They will match the columns with what exists on the rear porch now and they are different than what’s on the front porch. They are proposing openings in the wall of the porch (unlike the front) with a cast-iron railing system in between. The round window will be similar to the existing round window. Matthew showed a photo of a proposed lead-coated finial. The columns on the second floor of the porch will be roped with a substantial base and top to help accommodate the trim work. The standing seam roof will be an extension of the lead coated copper with new slate roofing on the main portion of the building matching exposure to the existing roof. A sunburst trim pattern will be installed on the diagonal gable. They are proposing a tile product for the floor of the new porch. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked staff if a determination of significance would be required for the removal of the porch. After a brief discussion it was determined that a determination of significance would be required, and the board members would like to make a site visit. The owner noted that according to the Sanborn maps the back porch is not original to the home. Matthew said the porch is not original but was constructed around 1905. Tamie said that will be helpful in the board’s determination and any support materials such as the Sanborn map should be submitted. She said first the board will determine if there’s any historic or architectural significance to the porch that’s being removed. If it’s determined non-significant, then a demolition permit with notice would be required. If the porch is determined to be significant, then the applicant would have to provide the board with good faith documentation in that regard. Once that’s provided and is satisfactory they could then talk about demolition. Matthew asked if it would be possible for the board to provide feedback on the proposal as designed so they can make any changes while going through the significance determination. Tamie said that would be appropriate. Comments from the board: • Tamie – very little visibility in the back of the house. Should the porch be determined insignificant she would have any problem replacing it with this design. The addition is distinct from the original by using different materials and a very distinct railing system. No concern about the change in materials. The whole foundation is changing in the back. Appreciate the nod to the arches in the front of the house. • Rob – the railing is appropriate in and of itself, not sure if it’s historically appropriate for the house. Tile was mentioned for the floor of the back porch – not inappropriate but there may be longevity issues as the porch shifts. Matthew said it would have to be a corrugated deck for him to stamp the plan. What’s being proposed violates a number of city guidelines; new construction should be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 7 of 21  a product of its own time and not mimic something historical; additions should be removable and not harm the existing structure – the applicant proposes to move doorways (original doors and windows must be retained). • Leslie – the addition fits well in shape and location with the rest of the house and in the backyard. Struggling with the cast-iron panels and still thinking about that. Maybe instead of a heavy stone foundation all the way around, it could be a little bit different. She has concerns about cutting the window into the stone wall. The owner responded that you have to make sure you find the right people to do the work. Leslie asked what the purpose of the window was. Couldn’t hear name said that the kitchen is on the other side and is an important room in the house. When certain lights are on at night the stained-glass windows act as a beacon to people to enjoy it in another way. The window is more decorative. • Geoff – shares Rob’s concern about the railing. The applicant said it will allow more air and while sitting there one will be able to see the full scope of the lawn. The applicant said they have a photo of a railing that might work better, and they passed it around to the board. Geoff said he has concerns about the window being cut into the stone wall and isn’t sure it fits within the guidelines. • Jeff – said the design is exceptional and very interesting. He didn’t think the window on the back was inappropriate. Jeff said he thoroughly reviewed the application and is prepared to advance it as presented. • Tad – altering the stone is a concern but he doesn’t want to get in the way of connecting the kitchen to the yard. The addition design is great and is of its time and respectful to the original house. He said he would try to make the back look a little less like it’s the front of the house. He really likes the plan and if they were voting right now it would get a thumbs up. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience regarding the project. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said these owners have cared for this home in the most loving way. Their investment and commitment have been incredible. She noted that most of the houses on N. Broadway do not have rear yard facades that could compete with the primary façade. The Foundation feels that simpler details would help differentiate between the primary and secondary façades. The cast-iron railing is beautiful but doesn’t seem appropriate for the rear of a house. It also doesn’t seem compatible with the architectural style of the house. The round window cut in the stone would be an irreversible change. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the applicant should get together with Julia and Susan to talk about the next steps for the determination of significance and the board will be meeting again on March 5th. The board scheduled a site visit on February 26th. 15. #20240229 Cherry St. Single Family Construction. Historic Review of new single- family construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 8 of 21 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant was given full approval for this proposal with the exception of the fence. The board had concerns about the proposed material and height of the fence. John Witt represented the applicants and said the house is under construction so they’re not looking to change anything. Walpole is the company constructing the fence. They are proposing a picket fence made out of Azek and the customer does not want to change the material. Regarding the fence height: On Cherry St. they have a 4 ft. fence with a gate. On the commercial parking lot side, east elevation facing Franklin St., the fence goes up from 4 ft. to 6 ft. and the owners would like to keep it that height. The north elevation would also be 6 ft. and return back to the garage. John showed slides of the various elevations with fencing and a spec sheet for fence. He said a new project being built in the area used Azek for all of their fences and trims as well as the houses across the street from this project. John said he’s asking the board to approve the style and materials for the fence. John said wood is recommended in the city’s guidelines, but it doesn’t say you can’t use Azek type materials. Tamie said she is fine with the height of the fence all the way around. The Azek material is not appropriate, and she would not move the project forward with that material choice. Chris said he is fine with the height of the fence but objects to the Azek material from an environmental standpoint. Rob agreed with Tamie and Chris and said the Azek type material is not durable building material especially on a free-standing element like a fence. Leslie said it’s in the historic district and non-natural materials can’t be used. Geoff said he doesn’t have a problem with the height but feels the material choice is inconsistent with the regulations for the historic district. Jeff said the house has come a long way, but the applicant wants a house in the historic district that’s maintenance free and those two things are incompatible. When synthetic material fences get damaged they look really bad. The material is not appropriate for the historic district. It needs to be a wood product. He has no problem with the height of the fence. Tad said he’s okay with the 6 ft. height because of the parking lot next door. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience regarding the project. There were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the fence at Cherry St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. The material be wood. If not, the applicant shall return for approval of materials. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 16. #20250039 115 Union Ave. Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger recused herself because she owns a unit in the building. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 9 of 21 Chris Bennett recused himself because he owns property within 100 ft. of the building, and he is being paid by the applicant to do work on the property. Leslie DiCarlo declared that she owns a property within 500 ft. of the property. Karen Cavotta, alternate sat in to hear this applicant. Steve Hitchcock, ACW Builders said the main support beam that holds up the upper balcony of the porch has rotted out and is failing. They have temporary posts supporting the porch. They plan to remove and replace the rotten post and replace the roofing and decking of the roof. It was EPDM roofing with Trex decking on top which will be replaced with Intellideck (applied similarly to EPDM) which is designed to shed water but still be a walkable ADA compliant surface. With the current configuration water is unable to drain and it freezes and thaws where the porch is sagging, and the beam is damaged. Steve showed a photo of the front of the house with the porch and said they would like to add another column in the center on the left side of the porch to support the new beam that will not stretch across the span. They plan to pitch the new roof with a gutter that will collect the water and direct it to drain through the existing scuppers in the parapet wall. Rob asked if they would be replacing all of the columns. Steve said one or two will need to be replaced in-kind and the rest will be repaired. The spacing of the new column will match the right side of the porch. Rob said the board would need to see photos of the deterioration of the columns and which ones will be replaced. They will also need a drawing of what the new column configuration will look like. Rob said instead of changing the look of the porch he would like them to figure out how they can stiffen the beam and not have to add the center column. Leslie said she thought the front of the building was altered about 20 years ago and that the parapet wasn’t even there. Steve said originally there was just a roof structure that slanted down and in 1998 they added outdoor space for the condo on the second floor. Steve noted that the beam wraps entirely around the porch, so they don’t want whatever they add to be any wider or taller than what’s there. Jeff said they could use fish plates of steel in the engineered wood to cut down the deflection. Tad, Geoff & Karen agreed that they should not add the column because it would not be architecturally appropriate. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said there are many homes along Broadway with porches that have similar spans so she’s hoping there’s a solution without installing another column. If they have to install the column there needs to be a detailed drawing of what it will look like. Also, it appears that the column would be placed directly in front of the window. Amelia Deidrick, member of the Saratoga Trackside Condominium Association and a condo owner reiterated that there is a tremendous amount of wood rot damage due to City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 10 of 21 the slope and it is a safety concern to the community. She said they are trying to maintain every aspect of historic preservation and said any insight the board could provide would be helpful. It is considered a common area but not really treated as one. The owner of the unit is the person who added the level to the second floor. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked that the applicant return with photos of the front of the building and close-ups calling out the deterioration of the columns and where they’re located. He said they should see if their engineer can design it so the column won’t be necessary but if it is then the applicant should return with a detailed drawing showing how it fits into the front façade. None of the other work they are proposing is inappropriate. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 115 Union Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. If the additional column needs to be added the applicant is to submit drawings and photos of the deteriorated columns scheduled for replacement. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-0 in favor, Motion carried. ____________________________________________________________________ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 17. #20230391 177 So. Broadway & 28 Lincoln Stewart’s Demolition & Redevelopment. Consideration of demolition of an existing single-family residence (28 Lincoln) within the Neighborhood Center T-5 District. Libby Clark, Counsel for Stewart’s represented the application. She said additional information from Stewart’s was submitted following their meeting with the DRB in December as it relates to subparagraph 3a1 and 3a2 in the demolition hardship section of the code: Larmon House Mover’s letter/email and Green Springs Capital Group letter about purchasing the property. For reasons stated at the last meeting, they were unable to put the house on the market, but efforts were made to contact buyers who vetted the space in the past. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized as follows: • June 12, 2024, Board determined property proposed to be developed was historically and architecturally significant. • Good Faith documentation required as to why the structure cannot be preserved. 5 criteria must be addressed by the applicant – provided by the applicant on July 17, 2024, October 16, 2024, and January of 2025. • The board extensively reviewed documentation provided and determined at their December 2024 meeting that all requirements had been met with the exception of requirement #2 and clarification on #5 (post demolition plans). The board found the plans acceptable, which is different than approvable. Tamie said the post-demolition plan is not approvable but is acceptable in that a post-demolition plan was submitted. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 11 of 21  • With regard to criteria #2, “the applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure”. The board will finalize their opinions about this requirement as it applies to the applicant’s circumstance: Tamie – there are unique extenuating circumstances involved in that the applicant does not own the property and can’t offer it up for sale. The situation won’t allow them to satisfy requirement #2. She is comfortable with moving the application forward, and to consider the burden of proof with all of the good faith efforts requested from the applicant to have been met. She emphasized that moving forward with an approval on demolition allows the DRB to dictate the circumstances under which demolition can occur. Rob DuBoff was unable to attend the last meeting on this application so the Chair allowed him an opportunity to address any concerns he may have regarding any of the Good Faith criteria presented. Rob agreed with Tamie that the applicant can’t meet #2 because of extenuating circumstances. He said because of what the applicant is willing to pay the owner for this property there’s little incentive for the owner to list it for sale. It’s much higher than what could be obtained on the market. Regarding #5, Rob said what has been submitted is acceptable but will require further review. In looking at what the city provides as guidance for the board; the Complete Streets Policy adopted in 2012, and Comprehensive Plan 2015, promote sustainability, affordable housing and reuse of vacant, underutilized buildings. He would vote to allow demolition with the expectation that the plan will require further approval from the DRB, and demolition would be predicated on the post-demolition plan being approved. Chris agreed with Rob regarding #2. Leslie said she’s okay with #2 because of the letter from Green Springs Capital. Although, she noted that the applicant could buy the property and try to sell it, then go through this process if it didn’t sell. They have self-created hardship. Karen said she believes every effort has been made to meet the requirements for #2. Jeff said “this is absolute lunacy” that the board is going to give an applicant with no ownership of the property the right to eject 3 working class families from their home, demolish a historic property for an eighth large Stewart’s gas station with products and services that we already have. The applicant did not fulfill the requirements because the property wasn’t put up for sale and he will not vote for the project. Tad asked why the owner didn’t put it on the market. Libby said the Ordinance requires that they make their best effort to find a buyer and that was done. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the bar has not been met in accordance with what the board has required in the past, especially since this is a self-created hardship. She said that the building should not be demolished until the final design plans have been approved. She noted that the requirement is not that the property has to meet the best rate of return on investment as described by the applicant’s representative. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 12 of 21 Jeff Gritsavage said that if the property had not been neglected, the owner could have gotten the price Stewart’s is willing to pay from another buyer. He said Stewart’s knew their case was tenuous and that’s why they waited to buy it until after demolition approval. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition of the structure at 28 Lincoln Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. with the following conditions. 1. The full understanding that the post-demolition plan is not approvable. We are allowing it to be labeled acceptable only in the sense that professional post-demolition plans for redevelopment have been presented. Acceptable in the sense that it contains professionally drawn up plans. That is required as good faith documentation that the site will be redeveloped, it is not an indication that the plans provided are approvable. The applicant will need to reconsider placement, orientation and overall design prior to coming back in front of the Design Review Board for a full review. 2. The applicant must obtain all necessary approvals and permits for the post-demolition plan, including full review and approval from the Planning Board as well as the Design Review Board. Such approvals and permits must be obtained before any efforts at the demolition of the building are undertaken. 3. The applicant will make all the reasonable efforts to salvage materials and components from the building that may be used in period renovation efforts for other buildings and structures. For the reasons stated above, this applicant’s application for demolition is approved upon the conditions stated. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, L. DiCarlo-Y, Chris Bennett- N, & K. Cavotta-Y. 5-2 in favor, Motion carried. 18. #20240988 203 Lake Ave. Solar Panels. Architectural review of roof mounted solar panels in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Scott Ference represented Kesselman Solar and returned with some changes for the proposed solar array based on comments from the DRB at the last meeting. Scott said originally they had 19 panels for a total of 8.07 kilowatts which has been reduced to 18 panels with 7.65 kilowatts. They removed one panel that the board was concerned with in the dormer. Tamie recalled that the board asked that a few of the panels on the left front be removed for aesthetic purposes. Scott said if they did that the project would no longer be feasible. Tamie said those two panels don’t work from a design or visibility perspective. She said she could not move it forward as designed. Tad said he wants to support all the solar he can but they’re not a good effect on a hip roof on a highly visible historic building. Tad said the applicant pointed out that the next-door neighbor has solar panels but that’s on a gable roof and it blends in. He cannot support the project with the two extra panels on a hip roof. Jeff said this was not an appropriate green application for this house but there are many ways to lower your carbon footprint and lower energy usage. Geoff said he’s okay with approving the project with one panel being removed and contingent on the roof being replaced. Tamie said if the roof is replaced with black material she would consider approving the project. Leslie said she would be okay with it if the roof were black, and the panels didn’t stand out. She still has concerns about the two front panels. Rob said he thinks they should put panels on City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 13 of 21 the east side also. He said it does not detract from the historicity of the building and it’s encouraging green energy. He supports the project as is and encourages more panels. Chris agreed with Rob and supports the project and panels on the east side of the house. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. There were none heard. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve solar panels at 203 Lake Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: 1. The roof replacement shingles will have to be submitted for color approval to reduce the visibility of the panels. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-N, R. DuBoff-Y, T. Roemer-N, J. Gritsavage-N, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y & C. Bennett-Y. 4-3 in favor, Motion carried. 19. #20241004 16 Marion & Ave. A Partial Demolition. Architectural review of significance for demolition of southern portion of existing corner building within the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the Tanner’s who own the property at the corner of Marion Ave. and Ave. A (also called 16 Marion Ave.). Tonya said this application has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board. They were before the ZBA because the owners would like to sell the property that has 2 two-family structures on it, 4 dwelling units on one property, and they wish to subdivide the property and needed zoning variances for side setbacks. They received their zoning variances with the condition that the portion of the building that’s on the Marion Ave. lot would be removed. The project went to the planning board where they approved the project with the same condition as the ZBA. Tonya displayed photos of the house that was added on to in 3 sections. They would like to remove the two sections to the left of the garage structure. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it’s the Board’s task to determine if the structure has any historical or architectural significance. She said in reviewing the information that was submitted she does not see anything significant about the building. Rob noted that the middle structure likely dates back to the 20’s or 30’s, but he doesn’t feel it’s architecturally or historically significant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. There were none heard. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the southern portion of the existing corner building at 16 Marion Ave. and Ave. A, Saratoga Springs, NY is not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger- Y, R. DuBoff-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, Chris Bennett-Y, & G. Wood-Y. 7-0 in favor, Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 14 of 21 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that she is not opposed to the demolition of the non- significant structures and asked the board members their opinion. Rob asked what the intention is for the remaining structure. Tonya said the owner wishes to sell the property. Once the additions are removed there will be a remaining window and side stair that will be sided using some of the leftover siding from the demolition. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board would need to perform a SEQRA review prior to a motion for demolition. Susan said it’s not subject to SEQRA because they will be demolishing a portion of a single-family residence. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. There were none heard. Geoff Wood asked if the stairs on the side coming from the apartment over the garage infringe upon the new lot line. Tonya said they would and that and the door are being removed. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve partial demolition of the southern portion of the existing corner building at 16 Marion Ave. and Ave. A, Saratoga Springs, NY and classified as a SEQRA Type 2 action with the following condition: 1. The applicant is encouraged to reuse siding from the demolition to properly cover the exposed portion of the remaining structure. 2. Removal of the stairs and door on the side of the garage. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, Chris Bennett-Y, & G. Wood-Y. 7-0 in favor, Motion carried. 20. #20240720 30-301/2 Caroline St. Building Expansion. Architectural review of residential addition within the Urban Core (T-6) District. George Olsen, Olsen Associates Architects said they were before the DRB in September for a height bonus and the board agreed that they could have it and that they would like to see additional details. They never received the official height bonus from the DRB in order to move on to the planning board and are seeking that tonight. The applicant has returned with added details and design. George said they are removing a portion of Sperry’s in the back of the building and will need to return for a determination of significance. Tamie asked Susan if the board can move forward tonight with mass and scale without having made a decision about the portion of Sperry’s that’s being removed. Susan said the typical approval is for height, mass and scale but it can be a partial approval for the height to allow the applicant to move on to the planning board for consideration of the bonus action. Tamie clarified that the DRB is determining if the height being presented is appropriate for the area. Tony said partial approval is fine as long as it’s not something that’s dependent on something else that’s outside the jurisdiction of the board, which in this case it is not. George displayed the floor plan for Sperry’s and the proposed new building. He said they can’t attach Sperry’s to their new building because it would downgrade their City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 15 of 21 construction to type 5 (wood frame) because Sperry’s is a wood building. To remedy that they are proposing to come over the top of Sperry’s down the other side over to where the columns are and wrap it with a firewall. George said they will have further details and documentation when they return for the demolition permit for the back of Sperry’s. Regarding the new building, George said they went to the ZBA to get a 2 ft. variance because the sewer line easement runs on an angle next to their property line. The building steps back because of the sewer easement. George showed 3D renderings of their proposed new building and how it incorporates Sperry’s. The building is 4 stories with a fifth and sixth floor setback. Tamie said she doesn’t feel the height is inappropriate. Four stories with a 5th floor set back is what was approved at 30 Caroline St. She still has concerns about the design to discuss. The support columns don’t present appropriately, they need a lot more weight. Sperry’s should stand proud, and she believes they have achieved that with their proposal. Chris Bennett agreed with Tamie on the height of the building but is still concerned with how Sperry’s will look with the final design. Rob said the height is appropriate. He continues to struggle with what’s happening over Sperry’s and the appropriateness with that. Geoff said Sperry’s stands out in this proposed design and he's good with the height of the building. He agreed that the columns need to be beefed up. Jeff said he’s good with the height presented. He said it’s challenging to design with so many constraints – 2 historic properties, sewer easement, setbacks, coverage requirements, etc. It’s a good design. Tad said he continues to support the massing and the height bonus. He suggested they make Sperry’s look like a second building, so it doesn’t look overpowered by the rest of the building behind it. Tad asked that they present a 3D rendering with the tree removed in front of Sperry’s. George said they have a rendering where it would be all glass on the fourth floor above Sperry’s. He will return with some ideas. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked that Susan relay the DRB’s opinion on the height, mass and scale of the building and that it matches 30 Caroline St. which was approved previously. George will return for the determination of significance and with some new design ideas for Sperry’s and the new building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. Kevin Decker said he owns the property adjacent to this proposal (the former Dango’s, now the Wild Horse) and they just purchased 43 Phila on the other side of the street and he wanted to welcome “Louie” to the neighborhood. The redevelopment of Caroline St. is long overdue and they’re happy to have them as neighbors. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation noted that there was a letter issued by the State Historic Preservation Office regarding this project and their comments are as follows: “the building façade proposed for 30 Caroline St. lot, the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 16 of 21 location of the former Sturgess building, is generally appropriate in terms of massing, materials, fenestration, pattern, setback, storefront and overall design. It is however at least a story taller than the adjoining historic building at 24 Caroline St. and multiple stories taller than 36 Caroline St. (Sperry’s). Design features such as the setback, upper floors and fenestration of any public facing …. should be compatible with the historic district. 2. Massing and study of proposed 36 Caroline St. addition (Sperry’s), the addition would substantially alter the appearance of the historic building, its structural components as well as potential interior features (may be different based on what George said tonight). The proposal would likely only preserve the front façade of 36 Caroline St. which is not recommended preservation approach. Siting of the addition including the setback and the open piers extending to the east also does not reflect the traditional character of the historic district.” Samantha believes there’s another way to build around Sperry’s without making it look like it was swallowed up by the new building. She said the DRB should look at the guidelines for the addition with respect to Sperry’s and not 30 Caroline St. If this were an addition to a historic structure, the height bonus over Sperry’s would not be appropriate. One single mass height is too much over Sperry’s. A variation in height and materials over Sperry’s would be helpful. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board finds the height to be acceptable and that information will be forwarded to the planning board. 21. #20240393 61 Lawrence Carriage House Conversion. Architectural Review of Carriage house exterior improvements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Scott Wallant represented the applicant. Scott said he was before the board in the past (6/26/24) and has returned with design changes based on comments from the DRB meeting: • All existing windows (possible exception – window 3, 2nd floor east) will be repaired and re-used for the project. Storm panels will be added to meet the energy code. • New windows will be fabricated with materials and details in-kind, single glazed, wood windows with details matching the existing windows. Storm panels will meet the energy code. • The “eyebrow” window at the shed dormer will be eliminated. • The existing unused chimney on the south roof will be removed. • All new areas of trim will match existing. • All new areas of stucco will be traditional stucco, (Portland cement, sand, and lime) not synthetic (EIFS). Tamie Ehinger, Chair was pleased that the applicant considered the recommendations from Chris Bennett and Rob DuBoff regarding the windows. She has no concerns and is willing to move the project forward. The other board members agreed and had no further comments. Rob added that the recommendation was that any windows on the second floor could be replaced in kind if it was necessary. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 17 of 21 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. None were heard. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the carriage house conversion at 61 Lawrence St., Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, Chris Bennett-Y, & G. Wood-Y. 7-0 in favor, Motion carried. 22. 20250028 119 Van Dam Modification. Architectural review of a modification to a previously approved addition to a single-family home within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Dennis Gosier, Homeowner & Chris Adams, Saratoga Engineering Design represented the project. Dennis said they were approved for a two-story rear addition and now it’s going to be a one-story rear addition. They kept the same footprint and took all of the board’s suggestions; indentation from the historical part of the house to the rear addition, keeping all the wood windows, and using cement board siding in the rear. The only change is that it will be a one-story addition instead of two. One window will be smaller on the right rear elevation, which was approved in September. Tamie said she has no concerns about the proposal. Jeff asked what the skirting on the porch would be. Chris Adams said there is no skirting on the back porch, it’s a concrete frost wall with a slab. The concrete will be parged to match the rest of the house. Rob said he has a concern about the pitch of the roof as it’s not in keeping with the style of the house. He asked if they would consider a flat roof. He said where the roof sits under the sills of the second story windows is very close and there could be snow build up there. Chris said he’d rather see a shingled roof instead of the EPDM for longevity and to avoid potential problems. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. None were heard. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve modifications to a previously approved addition at 119 Van Dam St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, G. Wood-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 22. #20240713 33 to 35 Caroline Construction. Architectural review of new mixed-use development within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has returned to present their most recent revision to their project. John Cannie, Attorney Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna & William “Buddy” Christopher, 686 Architects represented the applicant, Oldest Lighthouse, LLC and presented the following revisions: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 18 of 21  • Approved for height bonus action with the planning board in December 2024. Window Design: • All windows from the second floor up shall be one over one – consistent throughout the project. • All windows will have cut stone sills (has sample). • All non-curved windows will have vertical brick courses. • All curved windows will have running bond coursing over custom steel lintels, which will not be exposed. Balcony Design: • The balcony will be made of concrete. Approval Standards – UDO Sec. 13.9(I) Major building elements • Flat roof consistent with neighboring projects (City Tavern and proposed at 30 Caroline) • Colors Similar Extruded Brick used at 385 Broadway and Hampton Inn. Materials • Brick similar to surrounding buildings. • Wrought iron fencing chosen in relation to City Tavern. • Board & batten copper siding (18” on center) utilized to blend in better with surroundings but differentiate from “main” building. John showed a 3D video of the proposed building without the updated window changes. Buddy said they took a list of the information they received at the last meeting and from the workshop last week and incorporated them into their presentation tonight. He said they reorganized the first floor so there’s over 5,000 sq. ft. of retail space. They slid the entrance off the 5 two-bedroom residential units to the left to they could widen the path in the back where the cars park and have access to quick parking for drop off and pick up. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors have two 2-bedroom units and one 1-bedroom unit. All the decks are now flush with the building. The fifth floor is set back 5 feet from the primary façade, the top of the building is 6 ft. back. There will be two spacious residential units on the 6th floor. Buddy showed slides of 3D renderings of the building from various vantage points. He said they would like to walk away tonight with a punch list of things the board would like the applicant to look at. They’re open to making changes. Tamie thanked the applicant for the presentation and especially the 3D video which was very helpful in understanding the mass and scale of the building. She asked for a map of the mechanicals. Buddy said there’s an area to walk out on the back of the 6th level for the mechanicals/deck area. Screening will be provided if needed. Venting will be through the roof. Tamie asked about the emblem shown on the rendering on the corner at the top. Buddy said the design hasn’t been decided yet, but the owner is working on it with a local artist. Tamie noted a logo, or signage would not be allowed on a building at that level. Something morphed into an architectural feature would be acceptable. The applicant will have to return with the details on the building’s signage and awning materials. She said the design has come a long way and they’ve been successful in minimizing the mass and scale with the 5th and 6th floor setback. She finds the building City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 19 of 21 acceptable for a corner in the downtown historic area and is comfortable moving the project forward. Chris agreed with Tamie that the applicant did a good job working out the mass and scale of the building. He said the board will need details about the copper board and batten and how the materials all come together. Rob agreed that the materials have to be detailed regarding the copper and cornice on the upper penthouse. He asked the reason behind the arched doorways on storefronts. Buddy said they can change it to square doorways. Rob said he researched buildings with penthouses on top and some of the most successful buildings were ones where the penthouse has nothing to do with the building below. He feels the applicant has been successful in doing that by introducing the copper. It’s very appropriate. Leslie asked the applicant to explain how the 5th and 6th floors are behind the parapet wall. The 5th floor has a 4 ft. parapet wall, and the 6th floor has a 2 ft. wall. Geoff asked what was approved so far by the DRB and PB. Susan said the bonus action associated with the height of the building was approved by the planning board which is that the applicant will provide for one affordable housing unit within the project. Site plan review will also be required. Jeff said he doesn’t see a problem with the arched doorways in the storefronts. Tadd said the cornices on the main structure seem too small for the size of the building. He would like to see drawings and details showing how the cornice interacts with the piers that run up the façade of the building and sections through all the windows so you can see the setback in the brick in both directions and you can see through the jams. Tadd agreed with Rob regarding the penthouse and the copper. He said he would like to see a regular storefront system door instead of arched. He likes the idea of internal drains for the balconies. Tadd said a granite water table would stand up to the elements better than limestone. He questioned the heavy piers between the balconies on the façade coming down over the entrance. Buddy said they can work on that design. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone from the audience that wished to make a comment. Kevin Decker commended the board on their professionalism. He was on a zoning board for 10 years and it’s a tough job. He said the reclamation project of Caroline Street with this project and the Sperry’s project will say a lot for Saratoga. He applauded the applicant and board for all that they’re doing. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the details for this building will be important: the storefront doors, the decorative detail on the Kearneys block entrance on Caroline St. above the transom needs to be articulated. Samantha said the Foundation feels the building should be 4 stories with a 5th floor setback. She doesn’t see how the fenestration relates from the 5th to the 6th floor and needs to be more thought out. She would like to see the cornice detail with the copper ends. She agreed with Tadd that the cornices look diminutive. She said there is a process for making copper patina sooner. It’s important what color green patina the copper will become. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized the board’s comments and items needed to move the project forward: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 20 of 21  • Details on the cornice and how it interacts with the rest of the building, specifically the caps on top of the vertical elements. • A section drawing detailing the windows and trim. • Mechanical plan showing that visibility is minimized (ideally without a screen). • Color of the mortar. • Details on the storefront doors and consider a redesign of what was proposed with a more modern look and feel. • Consider the water table detail and material – preferably granite or similar product. • Details on installment of the copper and how it relates to the board and batten on either side. • Details on the transoms of the storefronts and storefront sections up and down and across. • Exterior lighting fixtures. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON MARCH 5, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 21 of 21