Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 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, Karen Cavotta (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 March 5, 2025. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, Karen Cavotta-Y. 7-0 in favor, Motion carried. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any "approvable" applications without the need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, that item would then be pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered individually. 1. #20250127 168 East Ave. Roof Replacement. Architectural Review of roof replacement in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 2. #20250154 3368 South Broadway Expansion Extension. Extension of Architectural Review approval of an expansion of an existing hotel within the Gateway Rural Commercial (GC-R) District. 3. #20250166 223 West Ave. Pitney Meadows Deer Fencing. Issuing a favorable advisory opinion for installation of deer fencing in the Pitney Farms PUD within the Architectural Review Overlay 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 168 East Ave. Roof Replacement, 3368 South Broadway Expansion Extension, and 223 West Ave. Pitney Meadows Deer Fencing, 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, Karen Cavotta-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER HISTORIC REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 5. #20240369 385 Broadway Coat Room Outdoor Dining. Historic Review of outdoor seating within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 6. 20250023 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modifications. Determination of Significance and discussion of demolition of an existing rear porch within the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. 7. #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. 8. #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. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 9. #20250083 21 Park Place Lot #2 Construction. Architectural Review of construction of a single-family residence and detached garage in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 10. #20250118 178 Lake Ave. addition. Architectural review of a rear addition to an existing structure in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 11. #20250126 228 Washington St. Signage. Architectural review of signage within the Urban Neighborhood (UN/T-4) District. ______________________________________________________________________ HISTORIC REVIEW: 5. #20240369 385 Broadway Coat Room Outdoor Dining. Historic Review of outdoor seating within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this application was before the Board last August and the City determined there were some unusual circumstances, conditions and approvals that needed to be addressed before any approvals by the DRB could move forward. Mike Phinney, Phinney Design Group represented the application. He said they are hoping to be able to erect their outdoor dining area by early April. He showed photos of the existing conditions and gave a brief history of the hotel that was at that site. At one time it was the second largest hotel in the United States and had over 1,000 rooms. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 2 of 12 The design of the new building was partially inspired by that history. Once it was completed there was a small space in the rear of the building that was slated for retail space that eventually became the Coat Room. He said the bar is great, but the visibility is low so they would like to add the café seating, especially in the summertime. The sidewalk, pavers and park bench out front have been replaced and there’s a logo of “The United States Hotel” on the sidewalk. Mike said Kerry Fagan, the owner of Mark Thomas Men’s Apparel whose store front will be located behind the outdoor seating is in favor of the project. The planters on the storefront side facing Broadway will be lower to maintain visibility for Mark Thomas. Mike said they’ve gone over the plans with Kerry and the building’s owner and they’re both happy and excited about it. They’re using the same simple black, matte-finished fiberglass planters as Rhea’s next door and will also use their gardener who does a fantastic job. They will be creating a wall around two and a half sides to keep people in the seating area. The city had concerns about the slope along the seating area so they created a minimal platform to shore it up that can be removed seasonally. Mike showed slides of the seating elevation and details. They are proposing aluminum tables with silver finish because darker colors can get hot. The seating material will be the same as the adjacent park benches, tan or teak color. They are proposing simple black weighted umbrellas with aluminum poles and a secondary flap to be wind resistant. They will have “Coat Room” on the front valances. Tamie said it was well designed and really attractive. Chris said it’s a lovely design and they need to use all natural products. Rob asked if the umbrellas would defeat the purpose of having the lower barriers in the front and higher in back. He agreed with Chris that natural materials should be used. Mike said the umbrellas are high and the merchandise in the storefront window is at eye level so visibility should be fine. Leslie agreed with other’s comments and asked how many umbrellas there would be. Mike said a maximum of 6 umbrellas centered through a hole on each table. Karen asked if the umbrellas would be out all the time. Mike said likely July, August and early September; they are easily removed. Geoff said he understands the planters are being used to discourage access and asked what the spacing was in between. Mike said the NYS Liquor Authority requires a border wherever alcohol is served and the spacing is one foot. There was a discussion about where the employee station would be located. Mike said he will submit a drawing. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were none. Tamie asked about the seating arrangement because the fire department is asking that there be 14 seats and they’re showing 18. Mike said he wasn’t aware of that requirement, and they would discuss further with the fire department. The DRB is fine with the 18 seats being shown and also the arrangement if 2 tables for two are removed. The Board agrees that all of the products being used should be natural – tables, chairs and decking, with alternate options to be approved administratively by the Chair. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 3 of 12 Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve outdoor dining at 385 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: The chairs are not approved as presented this evening. The applicant may provide alternate chairs to the Board for administrative approval moving forward. The applicant is to submit revised drawings indicating where the employee’s station will be located for the file. Note: should the applicant need to move to 14 seats versus 18, the board is comfortable with that location as presented this evening by the applicant. The Trex should be a natural wood product as well. 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, Karen Cavotta-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 6. 20250023 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modifications. Determination of Significance and discussion of demolition of an existing rear porch within the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. Chris Bennett recused himself from the application. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has returned to present revisions to their plan based on comments from the board at the last meeting. Prior to the presentation tonight the board will make a Determination of Significance. Tamie asked if the applicant had any further documentation to help with the Board’s determination. Matt Hurff represented the applicant and presented slides of an 1888 lithograph of the city showing that the subject building had a wraparound porch in the back and perhaps a second floor sleeping porch. In 1889 the porch is not shown and the building stays in that state until 1901 through 1954. The doghouse doesn’t show up on any map. Matt showed current photos of the porch with details indicating that areas of the porch have been done over multiple times. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that she, Leslie and Rob looked at the porch in person and decided that while the porch is historic, it’s not historically significant. She said in her opinion, removing the porch will not negatively affect the character or integrity of the house. She said architecturally the porch has been compromised over the years but there are elements such as dental moldings and original columns that she would like to see salvaged. The remaining board members agreed that the porch was not historically or architecturally significant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the significance of the structure. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining the rear porch at 722 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY is not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 4 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair said with the structure being determined not historically or architecturally significant she has no concerns with the demolition. The remaining board members agreed with the Chair. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the demolition of the structure. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion approving demolition of the rear porch at 722 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Discussion: Geoff noted that the historic posts were to be salvaged. It will be noted in the resolution. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. Matt Hurff represented the applicant and said there are two primary changes based on the Board’s comments at the last meeting: • The round window that was proposed opening in the stone wall to the kitchen will not be installed. • Substitution of the originally proposed railing system with a more delicate French style railing. Tamie said she’s delighted that they will not be installing the window in the historic stone façade. She’s fine with either railing being proposed. While not historically accurate, they are appropriate. A previous concern of the board was the mass and scale of the porch and that it was a bit too grandiose for a back porch. She said she doesn’t share that concern but recognizes why others may. Rob agreed with Tamie and is not concerned about the mass and scale of the porch, especially because it’s in the rear of the house and has very little visibility from the street. Leslie, Karen, Geoff and Jeff had no concerns. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 722 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY. Note: Either option for railings has been approved by the Design Review Board and is up to the discretion of the applicant. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. #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 applicant received feedback at the last meeting and has returned with revisions to their plans that were also reviewed at the last DRB workshop. Eric Whiting, Saratoga Associates represented the applicants Ben and Beth Taylor who would like to construct a two-car garage on their property with the entrance off of City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 5 of 12 Tipton Lane as opposed to East Ave. They are proposing to eliminate the East Ave. entrance and replace it with a walkway. Based on comments from the last meeting, the applicant changed the layout of the fencing by adding a recessed area with a pergola (maybe arched top) at the East Ave. entrance way/architectural feature. They are currently proposing the applicant’s preferred 60” high fencing to match the Fastig Tipton fence, but it’s not a deal killer. They pushed the garage closer to Tipton Lane, from 24.5’ down to 20’. They will maintain as many trees as possible; some overhang the walkway. Proposed materials: • Asphalt shingles will match the color of primary residence. • Stucco finish to match existing color and texture of the primary residence. • 5/4” Hardie Trim to match proportions of primary residence. • Cast stone water table cap. • Full depth stone 14” shelf to match primary residence as closely in color, shape and size. • Black painted aluminum fencing. Tamie Ehinger, Chair clarified that the fence will be 4’ high, any higher would require a variance. She said she has no concerns about the proposal, it’s very appropriate. Rob asked for clarification of the dimension from the existing house (corner closest to East Ave.) to the new structure as that’s really the perspective the public will see. Eric said it’s at least 10’ to 15’ more. Rob said moving the carriage house further away from the house makes it more compatible with the neighborhood. Geoff thanked the applicant for responding to the board’s comments and he liked the idea of the arched pergola. Jeff agreed and noted that the arch should be segmental. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were none. Geoff Wood made a motion to approve the construction of a new 2-car garage at 44 5th Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Note: the pergola should be elliptical or segmental. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, K. Cavotta- Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, Chris Bennett-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #20250111 81 Phila St. Construction. Historic review of construction of a single- family residence with a detached garage in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has returned with revised plans based on comments by the DRB at the last meeting. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited displayed 2-d drawings and talked about the changes as follows: • Went from stone piers to 18” square brick piers with square lattice – better aesthetic. • Scaled columns back from 12” to 10” – stacked better over 18” pier and better proportions. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 6 of 12  • Recentered front door and the window above to keep the alignment because of the 18” pier on the right of the steps and for consistency. • Tucked the bay roof under the frieze. The roof is a 2/12 pitch, and they are proposing a welded seam. • Window trim details: 3.5” lag, 2.5” historic sill, 5.5” headpiece with a drip cap. Tamie said she appreciates the changes. Chris said the window fenestration is better on the east side of the house than the west side. He noted that there’s only about 4 ft. between this house and the building next door on the east side. The west side fenestration is far more confusing. After doing some research on bay windows he found examples of what Bob drew and found it interesting. He’s glad it was changed, and it should be much easier to frame. He said an appropriate trim casing package for that mass of house would be a 4.75” side lag instead of 3.5”, and he feels the corner boards are weak as well. Rob asked how the foundation would be treated. Bob said it will be parged. Rob asked if Bob did a comparison of the height of the buildings nearby to the subject property which is 42 ft. in the front. Bob said there’s a 4 ft. requirement from zoning which he took at the front step; 5 ft. from the sidewalk to the porch. Bob said he met with Rich Roman in zoning and he determined the grade in the back which controls the size of the foundation. This property touches 5 different properties. Bob said his client’s porch will be about 1.5 ft. higher from the sidewalk than other porches on the same side of Phila St. as you go down Henry St. Rob said he meant the height to the roof and how it relates to neighboring structures. Bob said there are houses up and down Phila St. that are clearly well above this height. He said this house is 5 ft. lower than the house he originally designed for this property. Leslie said the front door actually looks smaller than the windows. Bob said the windows and the door are all 3 ft. They reduced the size of the front door from a 42” to a 36” but they can go back to a 42” door if the board prefers. Leslie said the door looks too small for that space and the ganged windows on the third floor look too large for that space. Karen said she had the same concerns as Leslie and suggested sidelights on either side of the door similar to the neighbor to make it look like a larger door. She asked why the windows on the third floor were so large. Bob explained that it will be a bedroom, and they need to bring light into the room, and it's also a rescue opening. Leslie asked if the dormer would bring light in from the east side. Bob said it won’t, it brings the light into a hallway, not a bedroom. There are bedrooms in the front and back gables and a bathroom, stairway, elevator and a hallway connecting everything in the center. The shed dormer brings the elevator and stairs up to the third floor. It will also be sprinklered because it’s a 3-story wood framed house. The double windows in the center of the right elevation are centered in the stairway landings. Bob said they widened the shed dormer to accommodate the stairway and elevator and make it look centered on the house. Geoff said he understands that the property abuts 5 other properties, but it appears the grading could be changed somewhat. Bob showed a slide of the survey map and said the property on the left of the backyard has a stone wall and the left rear of the backyard has a fence, and they can’t affect either of those properties. The fence drops off about two feet to the west. Bob said he determined the grade at the setback line in the back at an elevation of 199/200 and he set the top of his foundation a foot higher. Geoff clarified that they are proposing to build a garage in the rear. Bob said it would be 5 ft. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 7 of 12 off of the two lines he mentioned. Geoff said it seems like there’s enough room in there to do an elevation change – maybe 1.5 ft. with a landscaping wall. It seems parallel to the front of the house, next to the garage in the back. Bob said they considered that option and it’s not feasible. Jeff clarified that the brick on the piers will be real brick, especially since it’s at eye level. No wire cut. He likes the look of the square lattice and asked that it be constructed out of wood, not a panel or plastic. The pediment above the entrance seems large. Bob said they can go to a 6” frieze on the rake. It was suggested that the casing on the door could be beefed up to make the door look larger. Chris said the front door will be a character-defining feature of the house and should be wood and preferably old and historic. Bob listed the materials for the porch: columns will be LP Smartside trim (field built), wood crown, rail and decking, white beaded ceiling. Wood rail for the stairs (white wood), mounted on the inside as you go up the stairs with a newel at the top; one at each side with a return rail. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she previously expressed concern over the overall height of the building and asked that the board consider the height of the other buildings in the neighborhood. She said this porch will be at 6 ft. and the second highest porch on the street is 44”. This porch will be 2 ft. above all the other porches on Phila St. She said the earlier design with the house set back from the street didn’t look like it was looming over the adjacent buildings. Samantha feels it’s really important for the Board to see this proposed structure in its full context before deciding. This house doesn’t relate to the context of Phila St. which is smaller homes and smaller scale. Regarding the fenestrations, the inside shouldn’t totally predict the outside and it’s the DRB’s purview to have a building that’s appropriate, has directional expression, and is in context with the neighborhood. The details for railings, etc. are necessary to see beforehand. There was discussion about Samantha’s comments and the height of the house/porch. Bob showed the board a photo of a house two houses down that is the same scale. Tamie noted that Rob and Samantha both brought up that they would like to see a height comparison as a pedestrian moves down the street and asked Bob to provide that. She also requested written details for the porch railings and the LP Smartside columns. Jeff said they should try to avoid short pieces of clapboard around the bay window and size the window to take up the entire space on the front part of the bay. The bay widow doesn’t have to look like all the other windows. Geoff said he would like to see a proposed grading plan that shows that a change in elevation is not possible. Rob said with regard to what Jeff said about the bay window, the applicant could introduce a different material there like a shingle, and consider it up above in the gable as well. It would be compatible with neighboring buildings. Rob said he looked at the Sanborn map and there was a 2.5 story building at that location at one time that had a side-to- side gable, not front facing. Chris suggested improving the west side fenestration by separating the triple ganged windows in the great room. Bob said he can work that out. Maybe the triple will go to two singles. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 8 of 12 Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that the board still has concerns about the height of the building and asked that Bob return with a height survey. The board commented on the fenestration and said they would like details for the porch as mentioned. ______________________________________________________________________ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 9. #20250083 21 Park Place Lot #2. Architectural review of construction of a single- family residence and detached garage in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. He said at the last meeting it was decided that the garage overhang could be pushed into the setback under the new UDO. Based on feedback from the Board, they pulled the front door forward (was recessed previously) to the exterior wall of the house and a front porch/stoop was added. He said his clients don’t intend to sit on the front porch because they have a great patio out back, but he agreed with the DRB that it now announces the entrance. Bob showed photos of houses in the neighborhood for context. Bob said they changed their material from Azek to fiber cement material. He showed 3-d renderings of the structure and back yard. Tamie asked how much further they pushed the garage back. Bob said 18”. Jeff said the porch is not what the board intended but in this neighborhood there’s a mix of porch types, so he doesn’t find it to be contextually inappropriate. Geoff appreciates the changes and has no concerns. Karen said it’s a lovely design. She likes the very steep pitched roofs that mimic some of the buildings on the street in a modern interpretation, and the building has some really nice design elements. Leslie said the changes are an improvement, but the porch is more of a covered entryway than a porch. It should be more interactive with the pedestrians on the street whether you use it that way or not. She said she’d like to see the porch be the length of the stepped back façade. Rob agreed with Leslie and said it looks like a porch that was added because you were told to, an afterthought. He said he has concerns with the materials for the porch – “brutalist” concrete steps and platform decking. It looks like the rear entrance to an administrative building. Bob said the posts would be wood and he can provide details. He disagreed with Rob and said to him the porch has a more minimalistic feel. Chris agreed with Leslie and Rob and said this house is in the Urban Core and the pedestrian scape needs to be addressed. He said the concrete steps are inappropriate. He suggested a simple wooden porch that comes out 6’ with simple columns, deck and roof that meets the span and will give it the street presence the board is looking for. Chris added that the house is not just being built for the current owners, it’s for future generations as well who may want a porch to sit on. He said he has a concern about how the upper dormers will be outfitted for longevity. Bob said that’s why it’s a complete metal roof as opposed to metal dormers because they have to be in metal. Chris would like to see that detail because it could be problematic later on with how the water sheds off. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that at least three board members feel strongly that there needs to be more of a front porch. Otherwise, the structure is appropriate. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 9 of 12 Bob said they will develop the porch a bit more and come back in two weeks. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. There were none. 10. #20250118 178 Lake Ave. addition. Architectural review of a rear addition to an existing structure in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. David Smith, Engineer represented the applicant. He addressed two questions from the workshop: 1. Existing windows versus new windows – one new window in the addition. 2. Roofline – showed a sketch with no break in it. The addition has a slightly shorter roofline due to its lower width and to keep the pitch the same. Tamie Ehinger, Chair explained to David that there was a workshop last week where this application was reviewed to make sure that if there was something that needed to be addressed it could be relayed back to him so he would be prepared to come before the board tonight. She said there were the two questions that were addressed at the workshop that David spoke about, but the board may have additional questions tonight. Tamie asked if David could walk the board through the project slides. David showed the drawings that were submitted and photos of the house. The addition will be at the rear of the house to the left of the existing addition. It will fill in that corner and extend out another 6 feet toward the rear of the house. The existing doorway at the back of the house will be moved over to the addition and a dual double hung window will be placed facing into the kitchen and dining room. The kitchen, dining room and mudroom will all be one room. Mike Renda, resident at 178 Lake Ave. further described the addition. The new entrance will be tucked around the corner of the new addition. Tamie asked about the materials proposed. Mike said they’ll be exactly what’s on the house now, a vinyl product for the siding and windows. Tamie said she doesn’t have any objections to the addition because they’re squaring off the building and there’s low visibility to the street. Typically, no vinyl would be allowed but because the existing structure is already vinyl, it should be consistent. She had no major concerns. Chris said the reason the board talked about stepping back the roof at the workshop is because the applicant will have to marry the new roof with the old roof, and it will be problematic. Mike said the existing roof is not old and they can get the same shingle. Rob said currently there are 4 windows on the western elevation but they’re showing 6 on the plan. Mike said they’re adding two windows and remodeling the whole exterior of the house. Replacing vinyl with vinyl. Rob clarified the applicant’s proposal for the roof saying the house currently has a hip roof, an architectural feature of a foursquare house, and the applicant is proposing to demolish part of it somewhere in the back of the house and replace it with a standard gable all the way back. Mike agreed that was their plan. Karen said there will be a big change in the roof gable with the addition. She said she didn’t have a problem with the addition but agreed with Rob’s concern about the roof. David explained that if they were to put the addition onto the hip roof it would dump all of the moisture – rain, snow, ice into the backyard and onto the entryway. Jeff City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 10 of 12 said the modifications are too drastic for an American foursquare with a pyramidal roof. You lose the character of the house. He said the addition needs to step in from the east wall and he would not support the window arrangement. He said this heavy modification of a historic house needs drawings that are more thoroughly developed for him to vote for it. He said the way this house is currently; the 4 windows are all symmetrical and they are proposing to change it in an irreversible way. If they were to remove the vinyl siding and install wood windows today, you could get the historic home back. What is being proposed is visible from the streetscape and strips the character of the house. Tamie said Jeff made a really good point. She said for her, removing the two windows from the plan would be more appropriate. Karen said the addition that’s on the house right now is stepped in slightly from the line of the house, and if that was done on the other side it would preserve the American foursquare. One of the two windows they’re proposing is on the original house and that should not be allowed. The second window is within the addition so that would be appropriate, and it would preserve the foursquare. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation agreed with the board about maintaining the foursquare and stepping in the addition. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said if the applicant makes the suggested changes and provides them to the Board they should be able to move the application forward at their next meeting in two weeks. There was a discussion with the engineer about additional costs for the applicant with the reconfiguration of the addition. Tamie said the overall objective is that the original structure needs to be preserved as it is, and there should be a clear delineation between the original structure and the addition. 11. #20250126 228 Washington St. Signage. Architectural review of signage within the Urban Neighborhood (UN/T-4) District. Carl Wheeler, AJ Signs represented the applicant. They are proposing a push through, halo lit sign with blackout vinyl on the face to prevent light coming through. Tamie said it was originally on the consent agenda, but a board member had a concern about a switch in lighting from external to something internally lit. Rob said he wanted the Board to be aware that the sign is currently externally lit and prior to that Islander Pools had an internally lit box sign. He said he’s assuming when Saratoga Cleaners moved in about 10 years ago that the DRC required an externally lit sign. The current proposal is to go back to an internally lit sign. Tamie said Rob’s assumption could be inaccurate. Saratoga Cleaners may have proposed an externally lit sign at that time because that was their preference. Rob said the DRB has been moving away from approving internally lit signs and he wanted to make sure the Board fully understood that. He said he wasn’t at the workshop, or he would have brought it up at the time. Tamie asked Carl if his client would consider an externally lit sign. He said they really prefer the halo City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 11 of 12 lit sign for better visibility. They intend to use the existing power at the sign and run conduit up through the post box, so it won’t be visible. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. There were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the signage at 228 Washing St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that the conduit be installed so it’s least visible on the back side of the sign. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger- Y, R. DuBoff-N, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, Chris Bennett- Y. 6-1 in favor. Motion carried. 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 APRIL 9, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – March 19, 2025 - Page 12 of 12