Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 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, Jeff Gritsavage (arrived after approval of minutes). ABSENT: Karen Cavotta (Alternate), Jon Zilka 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 19, 2025. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y. 5-0 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. #20250158 268 Broadway FAZ Forensics Signage. Historic Review of wall signage within the Urban Core (UC/T-6) District. 2. #20250215 (Adjacent to) 130 Regent St. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review o f the addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to an existing utility pole in the public right-of-way within the INST-ED District. 3. #20250217 (Adjacent to) 24 Underwood Dr. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural review of the addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to an existing utility pole in the public right-of-way within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. 4. #20250218 480 Broadway sidewalk café. Historic review of outdoor dining area within the Urban Core/T-6 District. 5. #20250222 (Adjacent to) 102 Nelson Ave. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural review of the addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to an existing utility pole in the public right-of-way within the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. 6. #20250236 551 Lake Ave. Accessory Structure. Architectural review of an accessory structure within the Rural Residential (RR) District. 7. #20250238 67 Putnam St. Historic review of door replacement and window addition within the Urban Core (UC) District. 8. #20250229 80 Henry St. Vessel Signage. Architectural Review of a wall mounted vinyl banner sign within the Neighborhood Center (NC District). Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Rob DuBoff has questions and concerns regarding 748 N. Broadway. The application was moved to the regular agenda. Geoff Wood said there was an email with some questions to Verizon that wasn’t answered. Tamie said Julia spoke with the people at Verizon and they were able to answer the questions that the board had at the workshop. They agreed with the board’s suggestion which was to paint them out. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 268 Broadway FAZ Forensics Signage, (Adjacent to) 130 Regent St. Verizon Utility Pole, (Adjacent to) 24 Underwood Dr. Verizon Utility Pole, 480 Broadway sidewalk café, (Adjacent to) 102 Nelson Ave. Verizon Utility Pole, 551 Lake Ave. Accessory Structure, 67 Putnam St. Historic review of door replacement and window addition and 80 Henry St. Vessel Signage, 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. DISCUSSION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM: 9. #20250234 748 N. Broadway Roof Replacement. Historic review of roof replacement within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Larissa Rosecrans represented the application. Rob said his comment/concern is with the Davinci Composite material which is a plastic slate product. The application referred to 385 Broadway as having used this product. Rob said it was approved by the board at the time, but there was a misunderstanding as to what the material actually was. Rob said he was led to believe it was actual slate. This same product was used at 172 Circular St. and Rob did not support it, but the rest of the board did, and it has currently been installed. He said his issue is the use of a plastic material in a historic district on North Broadway. Larissa said it is currently an asphalt shingle roof. She said the look of her home is really important to her and she wants it to appear like it’s always been there. She could replace the current roof with asphalt shingle but would prefer something that looks more historically accurate that’s affordable. She said 62 Greenfield also has the Davinci Composite and that’s where she got her information about the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 2 of 14 product. Larissa said she will be adding copper standing seam snow slides, flashing, and the round turret part of the porch to match her back porch. She is looking for a product that looks as real as possible, that’s affordable and doesn’t require a lot of maintenance. Rob said the product has not been time-tested and may not hold up as well as the applicant thinks it will. There are examples across the country where this product warps and fades. His concern is the integrity of the material. Tamie Ehinger, Chair noted that when the board is looking at roof replacements they look at the existing roof to make sure that it needs to be replaced rather than repaired and at the appropriate materials. The applicant demonstrated that the asphalt needs replacement and can be replaced in-kind. The board approved this exact product on 385 Broadway and on the church building on the corner of VanDam and Woodlawn that is being converted into a social club. Tamie mentioned that a discussion will be necessary in the future to explore alternative materials to replace slate, other than asphalt. Jeff G. asked the color of the slate and if the applicant is proposing real copper as opposed to an anodized product. Larissa said it will be black slate, and it is real copper. Jeff added that he considers this an upgrade to what’s there. Geoff W. said he would not like to see the roof replaced with asphalt. Leslie agreed and said if the original product was slate and not asphalt she would not approve of the new product. In this case, the Davinci product is an upgrade to asphalt. Leslie mentioned that she has a slate roof on her home, and it’s repaired quite easily and satisfactorily. She said people should not be discouraged about putting a new slate roof on their home because it should hold up for a long time. Chris agreed that it is an upgrade. He asked if the applicant considered other options, and she had. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation told Larissa that the NYS Homeowner Tax Credits would potentially provide 20% of the rehab cost for the roof in the form of a tax credit. She agreed with Rob and Leslie that a new slate roof has a significantly longer life cycle. Samantha said she would be happy to assist Larissa in exploring that option. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized that if this were an original slate roof and not asphalt the board would have to consider it differently. Because it is an asphalt roof that needs to be replaced, the board can be more considerate of this new product. She added that the board would always encourage any applicant to use real slate. Chris reiterated what Rob said about the Davinci materials and encouraged the applicant to look further into the durability of the product. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve roof replacement as presented at 748 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY. Note: should the applicant choose to move forward with real slate, a true slate product or a slate product, the DRB would approve that City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 3 of 14 simultaneously. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-N, C. Bennett-Y. 5-1, Motion carried. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 10. #20240720 30-301/2 Caroline St. Building Expansion. Architectural Review of construction of a mixed use building within the Urban Core (T-6) District. 11. #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. 12. #20250118 178 Lake Ave. Addition. Architectural review of a rear addition to an existing structure in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER HISTORIC REVIEW CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 13. #20250040 77 South Franklin Construction. Historic Review of construction of a new single family residence in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 14. #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. 15. #20250168 129 Circular St. Addition. Historic review of exterior modifications and additions to an existing structure and carriage house within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 11. #20240720 30-301/2 Caroline St. Building Expansion. Architectural Review of the construction of a mixed use building within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that the applicant has returned with revised plans based on comments from the board at the last meeting. George Olsen, Olsen Associates Architect represented the applicant. He said after hearing the board’s comments he met with his client who is willing to make some concessions as follows: • The second floor of Sperry’s will stay the way it is for now. Could possibly be an apartment. Will check with Code. • The addition above Sperry’s will step back. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 4 of 14  • Have to maintain 80% frontage. Needed 2 ft., received variance. They have to be within 0 to 12 ft. and no further back. • Third floor – previous plan was to continue the second floor up to the 3rd and 4th floor. They have now stepped the 4th floor back, and the 5th floor steps back yet again. • They were originally coming back 11 ft. from the face of Sperry’s – partially because of the easement they couldn’t come into. Now the 4th and 5th floor each step back about 6 ft. Tamie said she appreciates that the applicant tries each time to be responsive to the board’s comments. She noted that when the board looks at a project such as this they consider all of the following: mass and scale, height, contextual appropriateness, street orientation, materials, step backs, setbacks, fenestration, main entrances, all of which need to meet historical and architectural review guidelines for the city. Tamie said more than 30 letters were received by the city and she summarized as follows: Negative statements - mass and scale are overwhelming, it’s too large, incompatible with the neighborhood, overwhelms Sperry’s (dwarfing, swallowing, overshadowing, overpowering Sperry’s), does not fit in with the context of the neighborhood, eyesore, monstrosity, blight. Some of the positive statements: None. Tamie said she’s not opposed to an addition behind Sperry’s, but she feels even with the new changes Sperry’s is still overwhelmed. The step backs are helpful. Differentiating Sperry’s from the building to the right might help. She suggested using less brick on the building or a darker color or different material for the columns would help to distinguish Sperry’s a little more. Although 30 Caroline has been approved, it’s not been built. Tamie asked if there was a way to step that building back to help mitigate the “swallowing” of Sperry’s. She said she likes the use of glass and darker colors, it better helps to achieve the objective. Jeff said it’s a shame that the city allowed 30 Caroline to be demolished because it could have been preserved. He said what exists about Sperry’s that’s of value is its façade. The architect has been asked to have an ensemble of buildings on the streetscape rather than a single building that’s being enveloped by a huge building, and Jeff believes it’s successful. He said he’s in favor of the project. Sperry’s is being preserved inside and out, and it stands proud of the new part that’s being approved. There are strict rules within the UDO that the applicant needs to follow and land use boards help to work out the details. He feels a lot has been asked of the architect and it’s his opinion that he has delivered. Geoff said that like the public, SHPO also has concerns about this project, especially as it pertains to Sperry’s. He said he was hoping to see the third floor stepped back as far as the fourth floor and appreciates the fourth and fifth floors being stepped back. Leslie said it’s not quite there yet. She agrees with the comments that the building is massive and is swallowing up a historic building. It will change the look in an important part of the city. Leslie said the board and the applicant are very invested in the project and it’s going to require more thought. Rob said he feels the building is compatible with the architectural review district just not with the Sperry’s building. Rob said he has a copy of the working plan for historic preservation, adopted by City Council in November of 2001 and cited a section of the vision statement that says “the community desires to protect its attractiveness for the long term by marrying historic preservation to development in a way that allows the buildings City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 5 of 14 of the past to be carefully maintained and fully utilized”. Ultimately the goal of this board is to protect and honor the historic built environment in Saratoga. Under Section 8, Architectural Review Standards and New Construction and Additions it states, “new construction and additions should be undertaken such that the removal will not impair the original historic form and integrity of the structure and site”. Rob said he’s concerned that what is being proposed will substantially alter exactly that. Chris agreed with Jeff that the architect had done what he was tasked to do. He commended George and his client for working with the board and making changes based on their comments. Chris said he feels the project is successful, and in his opinion the only way Sperry’s doesn’t get swallowed up is to do nothing. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she does think there’s a solution and that there can be an addition, but the project is just not there yet. She encouraged the applicant to continue to work toward that aim, but the Foundation feels that just preserving 11 ft. of the façade is not best preservation practice. This building is a contributing building to the district. She suggested they use a more creative solution with a further setback and different height that doesn’t mimic the height of 30 Caroline St. Jim Gold, 199 Woodlawn Ave. echoed what Tamie said when she presented the comments. He said the applicant needs to go back to the drawing board and see what they can come up with that’s better and respects the integrity of Sperry’s and its history. Jim said the historic review commission was founded in 1977 and its mission statement which is still in place is “protect our historic buildings and neighborhoods, prevent unnecessary demolition and prevent insensitive new construction”. The UDO adopted in 2022 stated in part “protect and enhance and preserve the landmarks in the historic districts of our city”. This project is not the solution. It’s insensitive to the historic neighborhood of Caroline St. Jeff G. agreed that they should save everything about Sperry’s that’s worth saving but he’s not so sure that it’s more than what’s being preserved with the current plan. George referred to Jim Gold’s comment about preserving landmarks in the “historic” district. The subject property is not in the historic district. He said when his client purchased this property and 30 Caroline he was looking at building something that was compatible but new as cited in the UDO. His client said he was never going to demolish Sperry’s. George said they’re trying to make the building compatible with other new buildings on the street. Tamie said it’s an unusual situation because they’re building next to and on top of a historic structure. She said although the applicant has worked hard on the Sperry’s issue it has not been mitigated yet. Her continued concern is what is sitting above Sperry’s. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 6 of 14 George asked if there was a “no” vote tonight would the applicant need to reapply. Susan said they would have to reapply or keep the application pending. Tamie said she doesn’t want the applicant to give up. She wants to see the parcel to the left of Sperry’s developed and that the applicant should continue working on a solution. Two distinct looking buildings would help in terms of reducing the mass – the columns being a darker color. George said after the January 29th meeting it was their understanding that they were close to having a plan that was going to work. What he’s getting now is that many people backed by the Historic Foundation are coming out against the project. George said he thinks the project needs to go to a vote. Jeff G. said from a preservation standpoint he feels the value of Sperry’s is being preserved. He said there are competing constraints when you look at the intent of the UDO as decided by the people of Saratoga Springs over many years, and now people have letters against this, which is fine, but do we want it to look like it does now? Buildings have burned down and been demolished. You have a mixed-use project that is adhering to the UDO and it’s not in the historic district. Geoff asked if there was any room to step back the 3rd floor and still meet the UDO requirement. Susan said the upper floors can be stepped back, the “build to” line is just the frontage. A variance was required because of the easement, because the building frontage didn’t meet the required 80%. George said once the planning board makes 30 and 30 ½ one tax parcel the zoning variance goes away because they’ll meet the 80% requirement. George said he thought there was a height requirement on the build to line as well. Geoff said he would like clarification for that. Susan clarified that the “build to” is up to a height of 24 ft., so yes the 3rd floor could go back further. The applicant will return with proposed changes. ‘ 12. #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. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has returned with some revisions based on comments from the board at the last meeting. She said the board reviewed the revisions at their workshop as well. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. Bob said in response to the board’s comments, they’ve come back with plans for a more neighborhood friendly front porch. Bob responded to Rob’s question about what material the hardscape on the front porch would be. Bob said bluestone on the front porch and steps. Tamie said the applicant heard the board’s concerns and the porch is much more appropriate. Jeff noted that as a result of the changes that have been made the eave extensions beyond the shed dormers line up with the four pillars for the porch and make it look interesting. It’s attractive! Geoff thanked the applicant for their responsiveness about the porch and said he’s in favor of the project. Leslie said it looks great! Rob said it’s perfectly compatible. Chris said the design is excellent. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 7 of 14 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were no comments. Geoff Wood made a motion to approve construction of a single-family residence and detached garage at 21 Park Pl., Lot 2, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. 13. #20250118 178 Lake Ave. Addition. Architectural review of a rear addition to an existing structure in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this application was discussed thoroughly at the last meeting and the applicant has returned with a revised proposal based on that feedback. Michael Renda said he resides at the subject property and represented the application. He addressed the issues brought up at the last meeting. 1. West elevation – retaining the structure of the 4-square roof. 2. West elevation – no additional windows on that side. Keeping the four original windows. 3. South elevation – removed the second proposed window on the first floor and centered the only widow that would be proposed (where the current structure has an existing doorway). 4. The addition that’s on the house right now has been stepped in by 6” and that will be carried over to the opposite side to allow for a break between the original structure and the new addition. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that she appreciates that the applicant made the changes reflecting the board’s feedback. The changes allow the original historic structure to stand out and not be compromised by the new addition. She has no problem moving the project forward. Jeff G. said the 6” offset from the original structure broke the plane and preserves the original structure. Geoff W. agreed with Tamie and Jeff and thanked the applicant for their responsiveness to the four points. It’s a great project! Leslie, Rob and Chris agreed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were no comments. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve the addition at 178 Lake Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. HISTORIC REVIEW: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 8 of 14 12. #20250040 77 South Franklin Construction. Historic Review of construction of a new single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the application has been before the board in the past and the applicant has returned with revisions to be reviewed by the board. Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering and Engineering America represented the applicant and said 77 South Franklin is an empty lot at the corner with Cobb Alley. This is part of a project that was developed several years ago with another property owner. All of the lots down Cobb Alley were approved and the DRC at the time approved the homes. Since then, all of the approvals have expired and some of the lots were sold. The applicants bought this lot and a portion of the lot next door to allow them to build a home that was a little bigger. The house will front on South Franklin St. and the side on Cobb Alley along with a garage façade. Tonya showed a slide of the elevation they presented at the last meeting; there was a hip roof, different materials were requested, the windows were small along the front façade for the mass and scale. They made the following changes: • They simplified the front with one larger gable. The windows are now 3’ by 5’ double hung Andersen A series windows - wood on the inside and Fibrex material on the outside, versus the Andersen 400 series which is wood on the inside and a vinyl wrap on the outside. They added vertical siding on the top of the structure and horizontal on the bottom. They added larger 8” box wood columns on the porch and turned the gable to the northside. The porch roof is at a lower slope pitch and will be a standing seam roof. They increased the size of the windows to the dining room area. They were unable to make a detached garage because of the lot size and proposed finished living space above the garage. Also, they wanted to take advantage of the finished space behind the garage on the north side. Tonya showed a slide of the left elevation where they added some relief as requested by the board. They continued the bump-out all the way across at one foot and pushed in above that allowing for a bit of a gable over the bedroom. The garage has been pushed back 2 ft. and above the garage 4 ft. The area to the left of the section over the garage is pushed back 9 ft. Tonya showed the original west side elevation where there was a lot going on with dormers and the shed roof that came off the back. They changed the gable to the north elevation and added additional fenestration for more light. Tamie appreciated the applicant taking the board’s comments into consideration and making considerable changes. The larger windows on the east side make a big difference, and the roof line changes and removal of the shingles in the gable all help to simplify the plan. The new fenestration on the left elevation works well. While it’s not a detached garage, the changes better distinguish between it and the house. On the west, huge improvement on the roof configuration – simplifies it. The gable being on the northside really makes a difference and the window configuration, fenestration and roofline are more consistent. The materials are appropriate. Chris said the applicant made serious improvements – the color scheme with this design will look sharp. Geoff said it’s less complicated and looks much better. He asked to see the proposed garage City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 9 of 14 door window pattern. Jeff agreed that it was important. He said if they are adding screens he would prefer to see them only on the lower sash of the double hung windows. The casement windows will have screens on the inside. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were no comments. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve construction of a single-family residence at 77 South Franklin St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff- Y, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. 13. #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 documentation and revisions based on comments by the DRB at the last meeting. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. He said they surveyed the properties on Phila Street and presented the changes as follows: • Front elevation apron removed. • Reduced the structure by 1 ft. overall. Went from an 18” deep truss to a 14” (4” per floor, 1 ft overall). Has revisions of elevations. • Column and railing details discussed at workshop. • Dropped down the returns at the top (of the porch?) to 4/12. Bob took measurements and photos of the homes along Phila St. for context of the neighborhood with height and structure. He noted that the heights vary from 36 ft. to 45 ft. up and downhill from the subject property which is 42.4 ft. Tamie said the project has come a long way and it’s a great structure to fill in the spot. The presentation effectively demonstrated the variety of heights on the street, and she is now more comfortable with the proposed height. The applicant listened to feedback and incorporated it, and she is prepared to move the project further. Jeff said he is prepared to advance the application as presented. Geoff said he’s not concerned about height and the applicant did a good job of showing overall height. He said his issue is with the height of the porch. It looks awkward like it’s in a flood zone. He’s not convinced that they can’t find a foot or two in the back and for that reason is not in favor of the project. Leslie said it’s fine as presented. Rob said it’s compatible with the heights and the context of the street. The examples presented show that the building heights are comparable. Chris agreed and said he likes the improvements. The details will be important. They’ve come a long way with the project and the height was never an issue for him. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were no comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 10 of 14 Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve construction of a single-family home at 81 Phila St., Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted including the one-foot height reduction. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, G. Wood-N, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 5-1, Motion carried. 14. #20250168 129 Circular St. Addition. Historic review of exterior modifications and additions to an existing structure and carriage house within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Dan Chadwick & Mike Tuck, Balzer & Tuck represented the applicant Peter Rubacky. The applicants purchased the home because of the historic nature it had to offer and would like to update it to accommodate the needs of their large family. Dan said the existing west elevation has four windows at the top that do not have divided light. They discovered that the openings just have storm sashes, no windows. They are proposing to replace those with Marvin windows to provide divided lights that better fit with the character of the house. They want to maintain the pilaster that’s between the windows. There are 4 pilasters at the back of the house that mimic those on the front of the house. They feel that’s the defining historic character that the rear façade has to offer, so they definitely want to keep them. For the front gable entry – the current shed over the entry causes a hazard during the winter by shedding snow and ice onto the walkway that’s leads to the main entrance. They would like to replace the shed with a gabled entry to shed the water to the sides instead of directly onto the walkway. They propose to center the entry over the existing door with the window above and replace the steps at the now smaller entryway. The secondary entry on the right is not currently used, the main entrance is to the left. They would like to extend the addition and incorporate the secondary entryway space to make it useable for the interior of the home, while maintaining the full height pilaster on the right. They would maintain the large, divided light window on the north elevation and incorporate it into the addition. The only entryway on the side porch goes into and through one of the bedrooms. Consequently, the porch doesn’t get much use because people don’t want to trounce through the private space. They are proposing a secondary entry off the main space in the house next to the side porch. The current floor plan shows a kitchen on a lower level compared to the living spaces in the house – separated by a few steps from the family room, dining room and living room. They would like to incorporate the kitchen, living room and dining room so that when they’re hosting it can be an open area. They aren’t able to put cabinets along the right-side wall because they want to maintain the large historic windows, so they are proposing a pantry for additional storage. They are replacing where the kitchen was with a mudroom and a den (access existing side porch). The presentation moved to a discussion about the changes to the carriage house at the back of the property. The existing barn doors swing inward, and they would like to change them to swing out so they can provide weatherproof doors on the inside and seal the space off. They propose relocating the left door slightly to the left side of the building to provide additional storage and avoid the need to have a shed. The side elevation currently has four openings with shutters over them. There’s no City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 11 of 14 windows, just shutters. They propose installing actual windows to match the size of the openings and shift them upward from the current sill height of 2.6 ft. up to head height and align the windows with the doors around the front side of the carriage house. Tamie asked what the material would be for the carriage house windows. Dan said Marvin aluminum clad with wood shutters to match the barn doors on the front. Board feedback on the carriage house: • Tamie said she looked at the property. The doors are amazing and she’s glad they’re not proposing to replace the doors. Historic standards dictate that openings should stay as they are and not be compromised in any way. In this case they are proposing to shift them slightly and it doesn’t compromise the integrity or character defining feature of the door itself. She has no problem with shifting the boarded over windows. An aluminum clad window is not appropriate for an historic carriage house. They would have to be all wood interior and exterior on an historic structure. • Chris agreed 100% with Tamie. A nice wood window is far more appropriate. • Rob agreed with the comments on the windows. He said the carriage house appears to have been re-sided and a new trim added over the last 20 years. Joe Logan, a neighbor, said it was stripped and painted but not re-sided. Rob said he understands why they want to shift the windows but he’s not sure it’s entirely necessary. The carriage house is an accessory building at the rear of the property, and he doesn’t feel the changes impact the historic integrity of the structure. He’s not opposed to the changes. • Leslie asked if the windows would be operable. Dan said they are casement windows. • Geoff – agreed with the other board members’ comments. • Jeff – asked if the windows would be thermal double pane. Dan said yes, the building will be heated. • Mike Tuck added that in the past they have used a wood frame window with an aluminum clad sash to help with the maintenance of the building and the durability of the window. It allows the trim to sit on top of the frame in a traditional manner instead of having an awkward ribbed extrusion that goes around the window. Wood is fine if that’s not acceptable. Board comments on the side addition (driveway side): • Tamie said inserting a new opening into an historic home is against historic design guidelines. She is concerned about the addition of the door. • Chris – said it’s an awkward, clumsy detail and he’s not sure how they’ll mitigate it. • Rob – not sure how it would fit in with the existing trim with the door opening. He’s not sure how it would even work. Mike Tuck said there’s sufficient room, but they haven’t gotten to the level of knowing how the casing of the door abuts to the historic casing of the window. He’s confident they could make it work but don’t have details yet. Mike said the bigger issue is whether they can modify the existing opening or create a new opening. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 12 of 14  • Leslie asked if the porch was original to the house. Pete Rubacky – homeowner said the porch was originally on the front of the home. There were two – one got moved to the back and the other is probably somewhere in the neighborhood. • Geoff – clarified that the new door would be off the den and the existing door goes into a bedroom. He’s concerned about a new opening in an historic building. • Jeff – the current proposed opening is not something he could support. • Tamie – suggested a possible solution would be to take the existing window to the right of the door that’s being proposed and put it underneath the gable where the existing porch door is and use the opening where the window was for a new door. Board comments on the additions on the back facade: • Tamie - originally had concern about the pantry but that had been mitigated. Swapping out the shed roof with the gabled roof is fine – it doesn’t affect the integrity or character of the back façade. No concern with windows as long as they’re wood. • Jeff – do something with the pediment in the gable over the porch. Beef it up. • Geoff – fine as proposed. • Leslie – same • Rob – the back of the house has been changed over time with respect to moving a window and adding a pantry. What’s there now is not what was there historically. The windows likely came from what was originally the back of the house and moved. This side of the house is not original and has been played with over time. He’s supportive of the changes being made and pleased that they’re proposing to take the existing window and move it over. He supports it as presented. • Chris agreed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said making the carriage house doors centered and aligned is not in keeping with the character of the carriage house. The Foundation would advocate keeping door openings in their original locations. The Foundation agreed with Tamie’s idea of flipping the window and door and thinks it would be a viable solution. Tamie said the board seems comfortable with the changes being made to the carriage house with the condition that the windows are wood. They are comfortable with the two additions at the back of the main house but are still wrestling with what’s happening on the side and have proposed some solutions. Tamie asked if the group was comfortable with approving what they can or waiting for revised drawings. The board members agreed that the applicant should return with a rendering for swapping the window and door. Chris suggested they use a door with City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 13 of 14 divided light to match the windows. Rob said the back porch structure is on the Sanborn maps from 1884, 1889, 1900 & 1954. It was agreed that the applicant will submit final drawings for the porch and be added to the next agenda. The board agreed to approve the application with the exception of the porch façade. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve additions and modifications at 129 Circular St. Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: this approval does not include the proposed work on the north side including the new door opening, the carriage house windows should be wood. The applicant will return with revisions to the north side porch. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, J. Gritsavage- Y, G. Wood-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. Rob DuBoff 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 30, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2025 - Page 14 of 14