Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 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, Geoff Wood. ABSENT: Tad Roemer 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 January 29,2025. The motion was seconded by Tamie Ehinger. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-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. #20250064 125 Church St. Architectural Review of roof replacement in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 2. #20250069 160 South Broadway roof replacement. Architectural review of roof replacement in the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 3. #20250110 35 Maple Ave. Signage. Historic Review of wall mounted and blade signage within the Urban Core (UC) 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 125 Church St. roof replacement, 160 S. Broadway roof replacement, and 35 Maple Ave. signage, Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 5. #20240054 128, 132 Washington Ave. garage demolition and construction. Determination of architectural significance for demolition and review of new construction within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 6. #20240713 33 to 35 Caroline Construction. Architectural review of new mixed-use development within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 7. #20240720 30-301/2 Caroline Building Expansion. Determination of Significance and discussion of partial demolition of an existing building within the Urban Core (T-6) District 8. #20250083 21 Park Place Lot #2. Architectural review of construction of single-family residence and detached garage in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 9. #20250125 19 Washington St., Apt. 361 Exterior Modification. Architectural review of exterior modifications to third floor condominium balcony in the Urban Core (UC) District. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER HISTORIC REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 10. #20240752 76 Walton St. Second Floor Addition. Determination of significance and demolition discussion of rear addition within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 11. 20250023 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. 12. #20250063 115 Regent St. Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of portions of an existing two-story structure in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 13. #20240777 248 Broadway Exterior Modifications. Historic review of exterior modifications within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 14. #20250037 192 Circular St. Historic Review of exterior modifications of a two-family residence in the Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 15. 20250040 77 So. Franklin St. Construction. Historic review of construction of a new single-family residence within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 16. #20250061 44 5th Ave. Construction. Historic Review of construction of a new two- car garage with a second story in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 2 of 24 17. #20250098 21 Phila St. Awning and Modifications. Historic review of exterior modifications of a storefront in the Urban Core (UC) District. 18. #20250111 81 Phila St. Construction. Historic review of construction of a single- family residence with detached garage in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. ______________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review: 5. #20240054 128, 132 Washington Ave. garage demolition and construction. Determination of architectural significance for demolition and review of new construction within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board made a Determination of Significance on the portion of the building that was slated to be demolished, that it had no historical or architectural significance. After a discussion by the board at the previous meeting, there were no concerns regarding demolition but due to a technical error regarding postings and notices the motion could not be moved forward at that time. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns about the garage demolition at 128, 132 Washington Ave. None were heard. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the garage demolition at 128, 132 Washington Ave., Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood- Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture represented the applicant regarding the new construction at 128, 132 Washington Ave. Sue showed updated slides of the historical home before and after the siding was removed. Once the siding was removed they found remnants of what were historic brackets, and her client intends to replace those in-kind to bring back some of the historical character of the structure. The applicant will also be replacing pieces of damaged wood siding in-kind. They will maintain the features of the front porch and replace the front door and concrete slab under the porch. Sue submitted a list of materials that will be used. She said the siding sizes vary from 4.5” to 6” on the sides of the house. She displayed a slide of the updated survey and said they received zoning approval for the new building. She showed slides of the north elevation (front of the houses), east elevation and street view, and west elevation of what’s original and what’s proposed as new. They indicated a gabled dormer over the garage. The client would like to use the space on the second floor over the garage for an office. They will be keeping the existing two small, multi-pane windows at the top of the historic home and one of the double-hung windows on the first floor. They would like to put a new double hung next to it or take out the one that’s there and move it over and repurpose it and add a double window and a door in place of the window that was repurposed. The client is concerned about enough light coming in. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 3 of 24 Tamie said replacing the siding in-kind where necessary is appropriate and doesn’t require DRB approval. Regarding gable versus shed dormer, either one is appropriate and up to the owner’s discretion. The Board was given different options for the shed roof and in her opinion option B seemed more appropriate in the sense of drawing less attention to it. Regarding the replacement of the door, the board will need cutsheets and an example of what they are proposing to put in. Chris said with the front of the historic home should be maintained at all costs, building the addition doesn’t detract from the great little “worker owned” historic home. He likes how the streetscape has been enhanced, and the new house plays off of the original house next door. It helps to further define the street with a nice neighborhood feel. He has no concerns about the addition. He suggested that they try to find an old door that matches the historic home for replacement. He said Sue did a wonderful job with the design and he appreciates her attention to detail. Rob asked if a window schedule for the historic house had been submitted. Sue said they didn’t do a schedule but labeled the elevations with existing windows. She said the windows are varying sizes and because they will be repairing all the windows they didn’t prepare a schedule. The only new window would be the two over two. They’re proposing to put a door in where the window is now as shown of the plan. Rob agreed with Chris that the siding should be retained and any sections that are beyond repair should be replaced in kind. He asked what they will use for the siding on the new addition. Sue said her preference is to use True Exterior by Boral, but it’s dependent on what the client can afford. An alternative is LP Smart siding. Rob said LP is predominately wood that’s been treated with resin and Boral is predominately plastic mixed with ash. In his opinion there’s a big difference between the integrity of the products. As discussed in the workshop, the board will need details for the handicap style ramp that will be added. Also, details on the front door and fencing will have to be provided at some point. It will be noted in the Board’s decision which windows will be retained. Chris said ganging up the two new windows on the east side versus having two windows with a space in between changes the rhythm of the old house. Leslie agreed with Chris and other comments that were made. Jeff noted that imperfections of the siding on the historic house are charming and should be kept if possible during the restoration. He agreed with others that there should not be a paired window on the original house. On the porch, below the pediment where there are asphalt shingles, he suggested replacing them with flashing. Jeff said any older windows they find in the house would be best used to replace windows on the Beekman St. side of the house. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding this application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation thanked Sue for her diligence in designing this project. She agreed that the windows on the east side should not be paired. She suggested that the board ask for a bracket detail to approve administratively as well as the front door. The Foundation looks forward to seeing a house that’s been on their endangered list preserved. It will be a very nice addition to Washington St. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 4 of 24 Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve construction of an addition at 128, 132 Washington Ave., Saratoga Springs NY with the following conditions: This approval does not include fencing or the ramp, items to be reviewed at a later date. Windows on the north and west elevations are to remain. Existing siding and trim to be retained and may be replaced in-kind where it’s too deteriorated to repair and the bracket and front door details are to be submitted administratively. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 6. #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 board has seen this application many times and provided feedback. The applicant has returned with revisions to the project. Charles Gottlieb, Attorney with Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna represented the applicant, Oldest Lighthouse, LLC. Also present for the applicant; Cronan Dempsey, Eric Brodwin and project architects William “Buddy” Christopher and James Christopher. Charles said they are responding to comments from the January 29th meeting. He said the applicant is eager to get to the planning board for site plan review and are seeking approval with conditions if necessary from the DRB tonight. Some of the proposed changes are as follows: • Change the name of the building to the Kearney Block. • Reducing the wall width that’s separating the balconies on the pavilion elevation. • Signage boards added to the canopies. • Doorways to commercial entrances have been changed to standard glass. • The plan set provided includes additional construction details and building sections. Buddy showed slides regarding the changes mentioned above and asked the board if they had any questions. Tamie said the project has come a long way and reflects and lives up to the historic standards that it should in terms of its location within this very special area of the city. She thanked the applicant for listening to and working with the board to come up with a much better product than what was originally presented. She had no objections to anything presented at the meeting. The mechanical details will be needed at some point and there will be a condition for approval at tonight’s meeting. Regarding the reduction in width of the brick pilaster, Tamie said she’s okay with it either way. The new version does help to emphasize the main entrance. Rob feels the separation between the balconies is for the better. It was discussed in the workshop that maybe the separation could be metal instead of brick (double length). Buddy said if they used the metal clad they would want to use a darker color. Chris agreed with Rob regarding the separation being metal and asked what material would be on the balconies where people would be standing. Buddy said they are considering two materials: a synthetic composite or flooring tiles. The underside is a cement fiber board that will be recessed and painted City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 5 of 24 sepia, grey. Jeff said the double width brick for the pilaster looks like it could buckle (visually). He would like to see the metal as well. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding this application. There were no comments. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve architectural review of new mixed-use development at 33 to 35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: The applicant is to replace the double-wide brick feature with a metal product. The applicant is to submit a mechanical plan, venting plan, and lighting details for administrative approval. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. #20240720 30-301/2 Caroline St. Building Expansion. Determination of Significance and discussion of partial demolition of an existing building within the Urban Core (T-6) District Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board will make a Determination of Significance and based on that, they can discuss demolition, perform SEQRA review and give the applicant an opportunity to present any changes that have been made to the proposed new building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if the applicant had provided any information regarding the Determination of Significance. George Olsen, Olsen Associates Architects represented the applicant and said they do not have anything new to submit other than photos of the back of the building. Tamie said she doesn’t see anything of historic or architectural significance and the remaining board members agreed. Tamie Ehinger made a motion finding that the structure noted for partial demolition at 30-30 ½ Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY does not have historical or architectural significance. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she has no concerns regarding demolition of this portion of the property. There were no concerns among the board members regarding the demolition of this portion of the property. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding demolition of this structure. There were no comments. Tamie Ehinger, Chair moved on to SEQRA Review: SEQRA, Part 2: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 6 of 24  1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to issue a Negative Declaration for SEQRA for the partial demolition of the structure at 30-301/2 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve partial demolition of the structure at 30-30 1/2 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood- Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie noted that the approval will expire 18 months from today’s date unless any necessary building permit has been issued and work begun. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that two additional meetings have been added to the calendar for the Design Review Board – March 19th and April 9th. George Olsen spoke about changes in response to comments from the board at their last meeting. There was a discussion about Sperry’s and keeping it a separate building, even though it will be joined to 30 Caroline St. They kept the same brick detailing from 30 Caroline for the second floor of Sperry’s and made the new structure behind Sperry’s, a beam and column structure. He said the concrete block addition that was added in the 90’s looked like an appendage to Sperry’s. They’re going to remove that and make it look like a conservatory/addition to Sperry’s. Regarding the “spindly” columns that were holding up the building; George said the front façade is the only location where they can beef up the column because of the parking below the building – the site is very tight. They will have to keep the narrower columns on the side and showed a photo of what they did with Bonacio’s building on Market Center. The building will be brick all the way around. George showed elevations without the trees as requested by the board at the last meeting. The rendering included the option of a third story over Sperry’s. Tamie said showing the elevations with the shadowing was very helpful and she appreciates the changes that have been made so far. Chris said he doesn’t have any problem with the steel columns holding up the building in the back. Rob said he did City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 7 of 24 suggest building an addition on top of Sperry’s because he thought it would make it more palatable for him. He continues to have concerns about the way the new building is looming over Sperry’s and how it relates to that historic building. He would like to see the addition dropped back even further. Rob suggested pushing the two bays above Sperry’s back. He said he cannot support the design the way it is. Tamie said they are trying to mitigate Sperry’s being swallowed up by the addition. Leslie agreed and said one of the problems she sees is that they’re trying to tie the two buildings into one massive one that’s hovering over Sperry’s. She agrees with Rob that the project is not approvable the way it is currently designed. Jeff pointed out that the brick on the building would help Sperry’s stand out if it were darker instead of “yellowish”. Pointers do not show up on the video so I’m not certain what area is being pointed to. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding this application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation reiterated the NYS Historic Preservation Office letter stating that “we believe that the addition would substantially alter the appearance of the historic building. The proposal would likely only preserve the front façade of Caroline St. which is not the recommended preservation approach. Siting of the addition including the setback and open piers extending to the east also does not reflect traditional character of historic districts”. Samantha said it’s rare that the NYS Office of Historic Preservation weighs in on a project and something the DRB should seriously consider. The Foundation is not opposed to an addition, but the mass and scale of the addition is inappropriate. She said the conversation about the client getting their highest and best use and rate of return on investment is not the DRB’s issue. The DRB’s challenge is to ensure that the historic character of a contributing building to a historic district is maintained and should be the board’s number one priority. Samantha said she doesn’t want this project to be another example of 395 Broadway or the building on Washington St. where they’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. In the case of 395 Broadway, the building probably should have been demolished and a new building built - and that building was not historic. What is currently being presented is not a successful creative solution in maintaining the historic character of Sperry’s. Sherri Gray, Fifth Ave. resident said she moved to Saratoga in the 1980’s and loves the Sperry building which you don’t even see anymore. She’s disappointed that there’s no historic elements to this new addition. An historic building was lost in a fire and is being replaced with a lot of glass and steel. She said she was on the ZBA when the variance was granted and suggested that if the DRB were to strongly recommend to the ZBA that some of the proposed building be cut back and a bigger variance given they would consider it. 8. #20250083 21 Park Place Lot #2. Architectural review of construction of single-family residence and detached garage in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 8 of 24 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this Lot has been before the board in multiple configurations and is not within the DRB’s district, but because of extenuating circumstances based on a past review the DRB does have purview over what is to be built on this lot. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. The proposed single-family structure is intended to be a gathering place for the owners and their adult children. They reside in Miami and the design is a collaboration between Bob and a firm from Miami. The structure is a single-family residence with a detached garage with living space above. The materials for the building are primarily James Hardie cement board and batten, and they are proposing a standing seam metal roof and Marvin Ultimate double hung, bronze windows. Tamie Ehinger, Chair read the guidelines as they relate to new construction and new additions. “Architectural styles for new construction should represent and reflect the period in which it is built. The style of new construction should be compatible with the surrounding buildings but should not give the false impression of being historic. Construction methods and materials can differentiate new construction from historic structures. The placement and orientation of new buildings should be consistent with neighboring buildings in order to maintain a consistent streetscape and same façade setback is recommended. An accessory building, garage, etc.,” a secondary accessory building should be distinct from and smaller in scale than the primary structure. While the shape mass and scale of a secondary structure should generally reflect the primary structure, it should not visually compete with the primary structure. The placement of accessory structures should be consistent with other secondary structures in the neighboring area”. Tamie said she feels the contemporary look is appropriate and the garage appears to be subservient to the primary structure. She said ideally the garage would be located further from the primary structure but there’s not a lot to work with given the lot size. The building materials and windows proposed are appropriate. Jeff asked if the pitch of the roof is 12 on 12. Bob said yes with the exception of the 6 small dormers which are 1 on 12. Jeff asked if the garage was set back as far as possible and Bob said it could go back a few more feet. Jeff said his reasoning is that immediately to the right of the garage is a historical Victorian style structure with interesting details on the side that could be better appreciated from the street if that was more open. Geoff questioned the depth of the garage bay. Bob said with the bathroom and staircase it’s 28.6’. Leslie noted that the Preservation Foundation suggested they add a front porch to bring the entrance up to the same plane as the house to the left. Bob agreed and said that was a valid comment to consider. Rob agreed with Leslie about the porch. He said he would like the applicant to consider the box bay and two windows on the front of the house and how they relate to the rest of the structure. The box bay seems to extend quite far. He appreciates and finds it appropriate that the structure echoes and references other neighboring buildings. When the applicant returns with revisions, the board would like to see how the new structure relates to the building next door. Chris said there has to be a porch at the front of the house so people can escape the elements, especially in the winter. He said the walkway between the house and the garage will present the same problem with exposure. Giving the house some street presence with a full-length porch will be really important. Chris said he has concerns City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 9 of 24 about the details of the design, especially the standing seam roof, drainage off the roof and the proximity to the small dormer on the front. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding this application. Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects said he believes the current language of the UDO allows a roof overhang of a structure to encroach into the setback. In this instance they could actually move the wall all the way to the back line picking up several feet. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation agreed with a porch being added and said any effort that could push back the garage structure is encouraged. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized the Board’s feedback: • Consider the addition of a porch to allow for the structure to be more inviting to the street. • Look at creative ways that allow the applicant to move the garage back. • Find another material to use that is not Azek. 9. #20250125 19 Washington St., Apt. 361 Exterior Modification. Architectural review of exterior modifications to third floor condominium balcony in the Urban Core (UC) District. Kathy Bush, the owner, said she loves their large balcony, but it faces a parking lot and gets a lot of sun during the day making it sometimes unbearable to sit on. Kathy said she’s before the board tonight for approval for solar shades. She showed slides of what the shades would look like on the building and talked about the materials used. She said if the DRB approves of the shades then she would also need approval from the HOA. Tamie said she appreciated the presentation, and the effort put into explaining the materials that would be used for the shades. Unfortunately, the way the shades present on the building changes the entire feel of the exterior façade. She said the DRB spent years working with the architects to come up with this amazing design. She said consistency is a big factor and she wouldn’t likely support the application regardless because other owners could want something different. She said the shades are not visually acceptable and she would not approve the application. Rob said the applicant should go to her HOA for approval first. He doesn’t think they would approve of it, especially if it were approved and a neighbor wanted something different. Rob said he can’t support the application. Chris agreed with Rob and Tamie and said they would actually be adding an architectural element that doesn’t belong there. He suggested the applicant see if they can do something on the interior and that doesn’t have a visual impact from the outside. Leslie agreed with other board members’ comments. Geoff said it would be better for him if the HOA showed what it could be rather than piece meal. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 10 of 24 10. #20240752 76 Walton St. Second Floor Addition. Determination of significance and demolition discussion of rear addition within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the board is only determining the significance of a small back portion that needs to be demolished in order to accommodate what’s being proposed. If it’s determined that there is no historical or architectural significance to the structure, the board can move ahead with a discussion about demolition. If significance is determined, the applicant would need to provide documentation regarding salvageability. The applicant (no name stated) said he doesn’t know the history of the structure, but he knows the materials that are presently there are not of historical value (windows, framing, siding, etc.). The applicant showed photos of the existing porch. It has a cinderblock foundation, vinyl siding, inoperable vinyl windows, baseboard heating, regular shingle roof that’s sagging in the middle and there’s water damage in the basement from the leaking foundation. Tamie Ehinger, Chair thanked the applicant for the presentation and said she did not see that the addition has any historic or architectural significance. The remaining board members agreed with the Chair’s assessment. Tamie Ehinger made a motion finding that the rear addition noted for demolition at 76 Walton St., Saratoga Springs, NY does not have historical or architectural significance. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she has no concerns regarding demolition of this addition. There were no concerns among the board members regarding the demolition of this portion of the property. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding demolition of this structure. There were no comments. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition of an addition at 76 Walton St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that two additional meetings have been added to the calendar for the Design Review Board – March 19th and April 9th. 11. #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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 11 of 24 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this applicant was recently before the board to review the proposal and it was determined that a Determination of Significance was necessary for a small structure in the back of the building that the applicant wishes to demolish to accomplish their exterior modifications. She said this is a Type II action so a SEQRA is not needed. Following the DOS determination, the Board will discuss the proposal that they began discussing at the last meeting and the need for a railing on the balcony of the back carriage house. The applicant (did not announce their name) presented an 1889 Sanborn map showing the house and wraparound porch and carport. There’s no back porch shown on the map. The porch was added sometime later and serves as an avenue for steps to go down to the grass. It’s too small to be useful for anything. They would like to build a larger porch which involves removing the current porch. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said clearly the porch is not original to the main structure and asked the applicant if they knew when the porch was added, which they did not. Rob said the porch is likely about 100 years old. He said he would lean toward some historic but not architectural significance. He said that does not indicate his thoughts regarding demolition. Tamie Ehinger, Chair opened up for public comment asking if anyone had information regarding the age of the structure. Matthew Hurff said the porch is shown on the first Sanborn map of the 20th century (1901). Leslie agreed with Rob that the porch has historical significance. Geoff said based on the age and that it was not built with the original structure, he doesn’t find it historically or architecturally significant. Jeff agreed that it’s old but not architecturally significant. He said he would lean toward allowing the demolition. Leslie clarified that it’s historic because of its age but it’s not historically significant. Tamie said it would be helpful to her to see some close-up details of the porch because it is over 100 years old and historic. She suggested a site visit by the board and that the vote be delayed until the next meeting when an alternate can be present. A straw vote determined that if a vote were to be taken tonight it would be 3-2 and a minimum of 4 votes in favor or against is required to pass a motion. Matthew said it was his understanding from the last meeting that a site visit was going to take place before tonight’s meeting and that didn’t occur. He said he can attest to the fact that there are a lot of replacement materials on the porch that compromise any significance that it might have had. Tamie agreed that the board did not make a plan to see the porch as discussed at the last meeting. The board members agreed they will set up a site visit in advance of the next meeting. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said significance and demolition won’t be decided until the next meeting, but they can proceed with a discussion about the railing that is required for the carriage house. The carriage house was approved by the DRB a few years ago and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 12 of 24 they did not think a railing was necessary. The building department has determined that it is required. The applicant suggested something on the inside of the carriage house balcony that’s less visible like tempered glass or a cable system that meets the code. Tamie said in her opinion a black cable system is a simple solution that would be virtually invisible. While glass is not inappropriate, it would be more visible if it were to get dirty. Leslie agreed with the cable – it would look cleaner and disappear more easily. Geoff and Jeff agreed with 3 black cables. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve modifications at 49 Bryan St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: That a black cable system be used. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, J. Gritsavage- Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that although significance has not been determined, they could continue to discuss changes that were made in response to the Board’s comments from the last meeting. Changes from the last meeting and comments from the board: • Tamie – asked if there had been any changes since the last meeting regarding cutting the kitchen window into the stone wall. The applicant said no, that is something they would still like to do. • The applicant said the railing was in question at the last meeting as to whether it was historically appropriate for the house. The applicant is now proposing a more delicate and open railing option and showed photo details and where it will be installed (between the stone pillars on the back porch). Tamie said it’s unique and in the back of the house. She doesn’t find it inappropriate. The remaining board members agreed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said they will plan a site visit before the next meeting. 12. #20250063 115 Regent St. Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of portions of an existing two-story structure in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the Board is looking to make a Determination of Significance and discuss demolition of portions of a two-story structure. Following those determinations the applicant can provide the board with an overview of the project. Archie Debraski (sp?) & Brett Balzar, Balzar & Tuck Architecture represented the applicant. Archie showed photos of the existing structure that was once a carriage house. He said there have been several additions on two sides and shed dormers on the second floor. There are two porches on the front and a deck on the back of the building all of which do not seem to have any originality or composure for the existing City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 13 of 24 building. He showed slides of the existing area in grey and areas in orange are proposed additions on the side and back of the building. There’s nothing proposed for the front of the building. Entry to the building is through the side where there will be a new driveway. Students and their parents will come in along a small ramp on the side of the building away from vehicles for safety purposes and to allow them to enter centrally and distribute to the three different classrooms. Archie showed a rendering of the east elevation (Regent St.) where they are proposing to remove the two porches that are being determined for significance. They met with Samantha Bosshart, and they agree with her opinion that there’s no historical value in the two porches and removing them would benefit the composure of the elevation. He said they are doing their best to maintain some of the original features such as the carriage doors on the left and the former apartment entry door that has two little arches that will be refinished in-kind. They are proposing to replace the windows, siding and roofing. As shown on the rendering where the entry for the students is they are trying to minimize the mass of the building by using existing roof lines and by not derailing from the existing architecture. The trim, freize boards and corner boards will be the same. Archie showed photos of the chimney in disrepair. He said it was an exhaust flue for the boiler which is no longer there, and there is no longer a fireplace below it. It’s a likely entry point for insects and rodents. They will add an addition where the back deck currently exists. They are planning to replace the wood siding with James Hardie fiber cement. There’s a lot of rot and decay in the building leading to insect infiltration and their clients said they require monthly pest control for the ongoing problem. Archie said there are currently three different roofs – asphalt shingle, metal (on the main gable) and EPM on the shed dormers. They are proposing asphalt shingles on all the roofs for consistency. The wood and vinyl windows would be replaced with aluminum-clad wood windows. Archie cited a Lead Based Risk Assessment Report from 2022 which notes there is lead in all the windows throughout the building. The elevations show that 6 of 8 windows on the east elevation are vinyl, side entry 6 of 10 are vinyl, back elevation all the windows are interrupted by additions and the side (south) elevation 2 out of 10 windows are vinyl. Brett showed photos of the existing porches they are proposing to remove. One is located under “The Beagle School” sign, what the school currently uses as their main door. The one to the right of that is an entry to an apartment that will be converted upstairs to a classroom. Brett said they met with Samantha Bosshart, and she agreed that the porches were not necessarily contributing historically. Chris said they don’t appear to be historically significant. Rob agreed and said they don’t show on the 1954 Sanborn map. The remaining board members agreed that they are not significant. Geoff asked if the removal of the chimney falls under the DRB’s purview. Susan said it does and can be discussed for significance now. Samantha said the Foundation does not object to the removal of the chimney. The board members agreed that the chimney was not a character-defining part of the building, and the porches were not historically or architecturally significant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding the historical or architectural significance of the porches or chimney. There were no comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 14 of 24 Rob noted that Google Street view shows that the chimney no longer looks like the one in the photo. The top of the chimney has been cut off and there’s a spark arrester on top. He mentioned that because any historical or architectural significance has been compromised and removed. Brett said his office got this project in 2019 and likely the photos presented tonight are from that time. Tamie Ehinger made a motion finding that the two porches and chimney at 115 Regent St., Saratoga Springs, NY are not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she has no concerns regarding demolition of this addition. There were no concerns among the board members regarding the demolition of this portion of the property. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or concerns from the audience regarding demolition of this structure. There were no comments. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition of the two porches and chimney at 115 Regent St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood- Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. The board commented on the proposed project: • Tamie – could not support replacing wood siding with fiber cement product – against standards and guidelines. Brett pointed out the location of the upper roof (standing seam) and lower roofs (shingle). They are proposing asphalt shingle throughout. Brett said they don’t see the roof as a character defining feature. A standing seam roof is 2.5 to 3 times the cost of asphalt for a not-for-profit with a budget. Is this truly a character defining feature that warrants $40,000 additional monies? Tamie said she understands the need for consistency for the roof but added that there is a lot of visibility, and they are part of the charm of the structure. She feels that the roof is important and standing seam is a more appropriate material. Regarding the replacement of windows, if there are wood windows that are not beyond repair they should be maintained. Currently if the window is not vinyl it’s wood. The board needs to see documentation regarding the condition of the wood windows. • Chris – suggested maintaining the historic characteristics of the front façade. Replace windows in disrepair with wood windows from elsewhere on the structure but maintain the front façade. • Rob – this client’s neighbor came before the board for wholesale siding replacement and the board did not allow it. This structure is of similar age and to be consistent, he would say no to replacing the siding. They need to work with what’s there by replacing and repairing where needed. The historic windows that are there should be retained. Rob said the standing seam roof appears to be in City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 15 of 24  good shape. Brett said it was poorly installed and is leaking. There’s flashing that’s over the siding and water’s getting in between the two. Rob said he would be okay with the entire roof being asphalt for consistency because there are areas where they can’t put standing seam roofing. • Leslie clarified with Brett that standing seam roofing could not be applied to the dormers because of the pitch. She agreed that the wood windows should be maintained and asked if the windows in the dormers were historic. Brett explained that there are two dormers with different configurations on either side of the building. On the north elevation it’s very haphazard – vinyl windows installed in kitchens and bathrooms with a piecemeal look. On the other elevation it’s much more orderly. They questioned whether it made sense to bring that order over to the other side as a starting point for a design. The windows on the south elevation dormer are mixed with the 4 on the right being in- swinging French casement windows and the 2 on the left are hopper windows. • Geoff – doesn’t think what’s left of the metal roof is character defining and he would be fine with asphalt shingles. He agreed with Chris about maintaining the historic front façade. He agrees with keeping the wood windows that are reparable. • Jeff agreed with keeping the front façade historic and that the bias should be toward the front as they go along. Maybe move the French casement windows toward the front of the building. It’s not as important at the back of the building. There are carriage houses along this street, and they should try to maintain the same rhythm and theme with this building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she appreciated the opportunity to meet with the applicant ahead of time to discuss the project. She said the history of this building is limited but she believes at one time this was a Skidmore building and that’s likely when the dormers were added, circa 1930. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that the majority of the board were okay with asphalt shingle roofing. The wood siding should remain and be replaced/repaired where needed. The wood windows should be retained, and the vinyl windows should be replaced with aluminum-clad windows. Chris interjected that there will be areas where the siding will have to be removed in order to do the flashing properly. Tamie said the wood siding that’s not deteriorated beyond repair should remain and the addition should be clad with wood. It was decided that the applicant would do more investigating regarding the wood siding and windows and will come back with documentation to show the board at the next meeting. 13. #20240777 248 Broadway Exterior Modifications. Historic review of exterior modifications within the Urban Core (T-6) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 16 of 24 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said they allowed this project on the agenda at the last minute to discuss paint color only. The Applicant did not state his name. He showed photos of the existing multiple colors of the building and said they would like to change the walls to white (including the brick) and the trim, doors and windows to black. They also want to change the lighting – wall sconces and corridor lights and presented pictures. Tamie said she has no concerns about the paint colors. They won’t be discussing lighting tonight. Jeff said this building is mid-century and black and white is an updated “hip” look. He would be opposed to painting the brick. Geoff said he’s not in favor of painting the brick. He agrees with the Foundation’s recommendation that masonry surfaces should remain exposed. Leslie agreed regarding the brick. (the video glitched, so I was unable to get the remainder of her comments). Rob said typically brick cannot be successfully painted. He’s fine with the black and white color scheme but suggested the balustrade be all black because white will not wear very well on a commercial building. The applicant said they are black; the rendering just isn’t clear. Chris agreed with the other board members that the brick should not be painted but the colors are fine. The applicant said the building inspector requested that they “box in” the air conditioning units from the exterior and paint them and to run it by the DRB at tonight’s meeting. The surround will be painted black like the window trim. The board had no issue with that. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said this hotel was built circa 1951 and is one of the rare, remarkably in-tact mid-century hotels they have in Saratoga Springs. She said the Foundation does not support painting the brick but does not object to the black and white color scheme. She noted that the applicant intends to replace all of the railings. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the majority of the board members agree that the brick should not be painted. The black and white color scheme is acceptable to the Board. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the paint scheme colors for 248 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: The brick shall not be painted. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Noted in the motion that black paint for the enclosures for the air conditioning units is acceptable. 14. #20250037 192 Circular St. Historic Review of exterior modifications of a two-family residence in the Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Erin Conklin, North Street Architecture represented the applicant. They are proposing to remove the windows and framing around the windows on the front porch City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 17 of 24 and replacing them with four wood columns across the front and two half columns where the porch meets the house. All other elements of the porch will remain the same. They would like to reopen the porch to provide a space for the owners to sit and form a connection between the public and private spaces. Tamie said she has no objections and thinks it’s a great project. Jeff asked if the columns would be square. Erin said they are proposing square in part because there isn’t a lot of architectural ornamentation on the house in its current form, and there are some square columns on a side porch that fronts North St. The remaining board members agreed with Tamie. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were no comments. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 192 Circular St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 15. 20250040 77 So. Franklin St. Construction. Historic review of construction of a new single-family residence within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering/Engineering America represented the applicant, Tim Holloway, owner of the property. The building lot is at the corner of Cobb Alley and Franklin St. They have a zoning variance for the project. The owner purchased a portion of the adjacent lot so the area would be less dense and allow for more creativity with their plan. There will be the Holloway’s house, the other half of the lot they purchased, and a new house that was recently built. Tonya showed photos of the vacant lot, adjacent houses, and site plan. The house presents to South Franklin St. The floor plan shows a two-story house with a porch. A portion of the house is a one-story, and there’s a two-car garage with a recreational room on the back, that’s accessed from Cobb Alley. For materials they are proposing LP Smartside smooth brushed siding that will be applied horizontally on the lower portion of the house and vertically on the top with some shakes in the peak. Tonya showed a rendering on the Alley side of the house showing awning windows to accommodate the placement of outside furniture underneath, a bump out where the bathrooms are located, and a two-car garage with a shed dormer. The garage, shed dormer, front porch and side entryway all have metal roofs. The west elevation shows several different roof lines to reduce the mass. The back of the house is a one-story with a kitchen and dining area with skylights. Tonya showed a photo for comparison to the materials the owner is proposing. The front porch will have dark cedar posts and beams and thick trim around the windows. They are proposing black windows and trim and blue color (Rapids Blue LP Smartside) for the siding. Tamie said the LP siding is not inappropriate for new construction. She asked what the windows would be. Tonya said they would like to use Andersen 400 which are a vinyl City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 18 of 24 clad but not a vinyl window. Tamie said she’d much rather see an aluminum clad window and it would be more appropriate. Tamie said an attached garage is not appropriate. Tonya said there’s a house down the street with an attached garage. This is not only an attached garage; behind it is living space, along the whole north part of the structure. Jeff said the other buildings on the Alley are carriage houses and this is not. Tonya said there are no other carriage houses on Cobb Alley. Jeff said he would like to see a separation between the house and the garage (breezeway) and a gable going the other way with two separate garage doors so that it looks like a detached garage. He talked about the windows (video glitching) and how the black color will stand up to UV rays. Jeff said the fenestrations seem very small and he wouldn’t use roof windows because of their performance. He suggested beefing up the fenestrations on the vertical surfaces, which give plenty of light. Geoff said his only concern is the same as Jeff’s with appearance of the garage door. Tonya said the garage is too small for two doors, but they can look for something that looks like two doors. Leslie said she’s having a hard time understanding what portion of the house sits on the alley – what’s up front and what sits back. Tamie suggested an elevation with some shadowing would be helpful. Tonya explained that the garage is flush with the rest of the house, but the dormer sits back with a small bathroom addition that sits out about one foot. Rob agreed with Jeff’s concerns about the windows and the proportions and how they relate to the building. He feels the success of this project will be by minimizing any relation to historic buildings. He suggested removing the shingles on the front and removing the piece that should be meeting the roof return and just put siding all the way up. Chris agreed with everything said by other board members and added that he’s disappointed with buildings that have been built on the alley that are architecturally a “mess”. For this project, the windows are too small, the porch is too weak and there are no detailed finish drawings. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. . Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation agreed that the two- dimensional drawings make it difficult to understand and appreciate the building. Some shadowing or a 3-d drawing would be helpful. She agreed with the comments about the fenestrations and that the shingles should be removed to give it a more modern, clean look. Sherri Gray, 5th Ave. said that when this was initially proposed the 3 lots on Cobb Alley and 1 on South Franklin were all pre-existing, non-conforming so zoning had to allow the tiny lots on Cobb Alley and the one on South Franklin. The reason for the garages on Cobb Alley is because every house requires a parking spot. No on-street parking is allowed, which meant they needed an open-parking spot in the front or build a house around a garage. She thanked the owner of this project for purchasing the lot on South Franklin and making it larger. It is possible to have a house and a detached garage like the one across the street and continue to have the historic nature. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board provided feedback and she hopes the applicant returns with some revisions. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 19 of 24 16. #20250061 44 5th Ave. Construction. Historic Review of construction of a new two- car garage with a second story in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board had the opportunity to review this project at their workshop and the applicant has returned to walk the board through the application. Eric Whiting, Saratoga Associates represented the applicants Ben and Beth Taylor who would like to construct a carriage house on their property. Their current garage is small and difficult to access. The owners do not live in the area but plan to move here in the future. They have four adult children who drive and will need additional parking. The entry to the garage is currently off of East Ave., and they are proposing to close that access, return the sidewalk, and access the new carriage house from Tipton. There’s some stone left over from the original building construction on the back edge of the property that they would like to reuse in the new construction. There are several trees around the property that they will attempt to maintain except for a few over- hanging the sidewalk that may have to be removed. Eric showed slides of the existing and proposed site plan and 3-d renderings and floor plans for the new construction. Tamie said she likes the fence and the landscaping – the bed on top of the stone wall. Eric said they are trying to source the stone to match what’s on the existing house. Tamie read the guidelines for secondary structures such as garages and carriage houses, “they should be distinct from and smaller in scale than the primary structure. While the shape mass and scale of the secondary structure should generally reflect the primary structure, it should not visually compete with the primary structure…The placement of accessory structures should be consistent with other secondary structures in the neighboring area. Accessory buildings and garages should reflect a secondary use and not compete with the primary façade. If available, garage access is recommended to be from an alley or secondary street. Building materials should be the same as or compliment the primary structure”. Tamie said the applicant has done a very good job in meeting the standards. If they can move the garage four or five feet it would be very helpful. She asked about the parking and the construction materials for the proposed roof canopy. Eric said it’s a timber framed structure with shingles that will match the existing home as much as possible. The stone base will be new, and they’ll match the railings with the fence in the front. Chris said he doesn’t have an issue with moving the garage, but they’ll have to be able to put a car on the tarmac. Otherwise, it will hang into the alleyway. Rob agreed that the carriage house needs to be moved closer to the alley. He suggested doing something similar to the next-door neighbor’s garage orientation – the structure closer to the alley and a paved area to the right or to the left. They could also add additional paved area next to the carriage house. Eric said they’re trying to be mindful of their impervious surfaces. Geoff said the proposed carriage house is 24.5’ from the alley and 17’ to the house so there’s room for the carriage house to come closer to the alley. Eric agreed and said 4 ft. would make it successful. Jeff said he’s not sure it was the architectural intent for East Ave. to be blocked off from the entrance. After some discussion, it was decided that there should be a break in the fence or a gate at the East Ave. entrance. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 20 of 24 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said that overall, the design is successful, although, the carriage house will stand out further than the other accessory buildings along Tipton Lane. Sherri Gray, 5th Ave. lives three houses down from this house and said some of the garages are close to the alley, but most are placed reasonably well back. She said this proposed carriage house will look awkward coming down the alley and having it set back further in. People work around parking during the racing season, and she doesn’t think the garage should be that far back to accommodate cars off of Tipton Lane. She said she understands there aren’t many height restrictions on garages but there’s one next door that’s pretty high and she’s hoping this carriage house won’t be higher than that. She’s happy to see that the blacktop through the property is being removed. Sherri told Jeff that the orientation has always been 5th Ave. She said if they want a fence higher than 4 ft. they’ll need a variance. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized saying that the feedback from the board has been mostly positive. It was recommended that the carriage house be moved closer to Tipton Lane. The board will need clarification on the fence height. The maximum without a variance is 48”. Tamie said the board would like to see a new site plan with the carriage house moved forward before proceeding further. They should also consider a break in the fence at the East Ave. entrance. They will need cutsheets on the stone they’ll be using and details on the fencing for the record. Jeff said if there’s no break in the fence at the East Ave. entrance he won’t vote for the project. 17. #20250098 21 Phila St. Awning and Modifications. Historic review of exterior modifications of a storefront in the Urban Core (UC) District. Zac Denham, Clark Gayle owners of Bocage Champagne Bar and the Fortunata space at 21 Phila, the storefront they would like to enhance. They are proposing to replace the awning with a new awning made by Adirondack Signage. It will be vinyl, the frame welded and run the entire length of the storefront. They will pull it upward to expose more light. They are not replacing windows. They plan to remove the residential AC unit above the entry door and replace it with a transom window that matches the one at 19 Phila St., which is wood frame. They’re proposing steel framing for the window but are fine with wood if that’s what the board wants. There’s a mural on the side of the building that was painted in the late 1900’s that’s faded and has not been well kept. They are proposing to paint it over and commission a “ghost” sign. If they can’t paint it over, they’ll abide by what the Board wants. They want to be able to open the restaurant soon. Tamie reminded the board that they do not have purview over art or if they can paint their building. They do have purview over the color an applicant puts on their building. She further explained that an applicant is allowed one sign per frontage and this City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 21 of 24 applicant has two fronts. She said painted wall signs (currently a mural) are allowed per the UDO. The maximum height can be up to 50 % of the façade or 200 sq. ft. whichever is lower. She said she has no problem with the awning or replacing the window where the AC is being removed. The board will need a cut sheet with those details. Chris said he’s happy to see the AC removed and a window made to replace it. He’s not crazy about the mural being painted over but the board has no purview over that decision. Rob agreed with Chris about the mural and added that it’s a shame to lose art for advertising. Geoff said he would like documentation from the owner of the building stating that they approve of the mural being painted over. Tamie said a ghost sign would be appropriate and fun and speaks to Saratoga’s history. Jeff said it’s a great project, but he wouldn’t like to see the mural go away. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie suggested that the board move forward with a vote on the awning and wood window with the dimensions approved administratively. The sign/mural discussion will be at a later date. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve exterior modifications of storefront awning and window replacement at 21 Phila St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: that the AC opening be replaced with a custom wood window and the dimensions be approved administratively, and the mural discussion be tabled to a future date. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 18. #20250111 81 Phila St. Construction. Historic review of construction of a single- family residence with detached garage in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited walked the board through the floorplan for the project. He said he did a floor plan for a different owner in the past where the elevator and the stairs go from the basement to the third floor where there are two bedrooms and a bath. That will remain the same. The house is a 3-story wood frame structure with living space on all three floors so it will be sprinklered. Bob said they had zoning approval when he presented this project before. It was 30’ wide with a detached garage in the back with a driveway on the left, and that equation in terms of site plan is still the same. The variances had expired so they returned to zoning and got new approvals. The house is 5 ft. lower than what was approved of with the prior application. He said the prior plan did not have a front porch. The proposed porch is 8.5 ft. deep, requiring them to reduce the first-floor square footage. It’s a more traditional look than what was approved before. The windows will be aluminum clad Andersen E series – simulated divided light with a 2 over 2 grid pattern. The cladding is LP Smartside (smooth), LP trim, standing seam roof and siding colors to be determined. Thee trim and windows will be white LP Smart trim. The second story bay initially hung over the porch and it has been revised by making it smaller and pulling it in from the corner. It has 5 feet wide facets and a three-foot window within it. The front door has been reduced from 42” to 36” because it was too big for the context. They went froment City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 22 of 24 from an 8” wide to a 6” corner board. Bob said the frieze on the second floor was into the top of the window, so he raised the plate, and it reads much better. He showed the driveway elevation and noted that the prior application had a stairway and another unit in the basement so there was a 12 ft. driveway and a four-foot stairwell. The stairwell has been removed, and the setbacks have improved. The driveway is now 15 to 16 ft. wide. Tamie was glad to see the bay size reduced. Shadowing would be helpful, but 3-d is not necessary. The dormer makes sense from an internal programming standpoint but externally it appears way too off/wide and doesn’t fit proportionally. She appreciated the explanation of the foundation height. Bob said the only change from the prior approved plan is the front porch, the height is the same, it’s just that the façade was closer before. Tamie said the materials are not inappropriate for new construction. Jeff said the porch makes a lot of sense, they’re all up and down the street. Bob said Julia brought up that the windows were too close to the corners on the side elevations, so he went from an 8” corner to a 6” corner and pulled them in 6” creating more space. Geoff likes all the changes made. He understands the elevation is a 1 foot minimum and asked what constraint requires that elevation. Bob said the lot is 50 ft. wide with 3 adjoining properties with a retaining wall to the downhill side. There was an agreement with the neighbor to reconstruct the wall (now 2 ft. high stone wall). There’s a 2 ft. drop as you go down the hill. Bob has a survey with a topo and site plan that he will bring with him when he returns for the next meeting - that will give context. Geoff said he doesn’t understand the site grading and why it can’t be regraded. Leslie asked if the windows were moved on the rear elevation, second floor because one was hanging off to the side. Bob said he moved it over some but there’s 3 rooms there. Rob said the proposed 2 over 2 windows on the front with simulated divided light would look better as one over one in his opinion. Rob asked if he considered a flat roof on the second floor instead of a shed roof. Bob said he will look at other options. Rob asked if there is a reason the second window from the right on the second floor (front façade) is not aligned with the window below it on the first floor? Bob said he will fix that. He asked how they would be treating the foundation. On the east corner of the porch there will be a lattice panel under the porch at 8.5 ft. Bob agreed that a lot of foundation will be exposed, and they could do a stucco finish or parge it like their Park Ave. project. Rob asked for details about the porch. Bob said he will detail it for the board – columns and beams, etc. for the next meeting. Chris agreed that the roof should be brought down (Rob’s comment) so you don’t infringe on the gable. Chris said the fenestrations are all over the place. Chris would like to see the window trim blown up. The casings should be about 4.75” wide, 5 quarter casing. Paul Darazio, homeowner asked if 2 over one in the bays would be okay. Yes, come back with the plan, 2 over 2 with the rest. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said they are excited about this project. She suggested that the paired windows in the gable would look better City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 23 of 24 if they were raised up a bit more. She said the house appears to be higher by about a foot. She said the highest porch on the street is 46” and this porch will be 6 ft. Jeff said that’s not unusual on Lafayette St. because the slope is extreme. There was further discussion about the porch corner board detail with a laser pointer involved that does not show up on the video. Rob asked if the rear could be re-graded to bring the whole thing down like Geoff Wood said. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON MARCH 19, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 5, 2025 - Page 24 of 24