Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 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, Geoff Wood, Jeff Gritsavage 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 April 9, 2025. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage. 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. #20250270 130 Excelsior Ave. Young and Bloom Sign. Architectural Review of wall mounted sign within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 2. #20250284 84 Weibel Ave. AT&T Utility Antennas. Architectural Review of addition of three wireless small cell antennas to an existing monopine utility pole within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 3. #20230392 78 Church St. New 5 Story Mixed-Use Development. Architectural Review of finishing details on a new five-story mixed-use structure within the Neighborhood Center/T-5 District. 4. #20250275 295 Excelsior Ave. Exterior Modification. Architectural review of exterior modifications to an existing structure in the Neighborhood Center and Urban Core (NC & UC) Districts. 5. #20250276 190 Ballston Ave. Exterior Modifications. Architectural review of exterior modifications to an existing structure in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Rob DuBoff had a question regarding 419 Broadway Sara’s Kitchen Sidewalk Café, so that item was moved to the regular agenda. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 130 Excelsior Ave. Young and Bloom Sign, 84 Weibel Ave. AT&T Utility Antennas, 78 Church St. New 5 Story Mixed-Use Development, 295 Excelsior Ave. Exterior Modification, 190 Ballston Ave. Exterior Modifications, 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. DISCUSSION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM: 6. #20250314 419 Broadway Sara’s Kitchen Sidewalk Café. Historic review of a sidewalk café in the Urban Core (UC) District. Rob DuBoff expressed concern about there only being 5 ft. clearance to walk through. Julia spoke with the applicant today and they submitted a revised plan with 8 ft. clearance. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for 419 Broadway Sara’s Kitchen Sidewalk Café with the condition that there be an 8 ft. width clearance for the walkway as presented today. 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. NOTE: THE DISPLAY WAS NOT ON TO SHOW ANYTHING PROJECTED BY THE APPLICANTS. HISTORIC REVIEW: 7. #20250168 129 Circular St. Addition. Historic Review of exterior modifications to an existing structure within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant was before the board at the last meeting. The board made recommendations, and the applicant has returned with a revised proposal. Dan Chadwick, Balzer & Tuck represented the applicant. Dan said the only door to access the side porch on the house is through a bedroom. For that reason, the porch doesn’t get much use when they have guests staying. They are proposing to relocate the door by providing a new door from the public space within the house. The initial proposal was to provide a new opening but that was not acceptable to the board in a historic district. They are now proposing to utilize the existing opening from the lower left window and place a new door at that location. The new door would have divided light to City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 30, 2025 - Page 2 of 6 match the 3 other existing windows, and they would reclaim the existing window and trim and locate it in the opening left behind by the existing door on the porch. Tamie said the change is completely appropriate and she would have no problem supporting it. Chris agreed with Tamie and thought it was a great idea. Rob also supports the change and asked what the applicant is proposing to use for the door. Dan said it will be a wood door (Simpson) with divided light and finished matching the existing doors on the house. Tamie asked that the applicant submit specs for the new door for her to approve administratively. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. There were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the application for 129 Circular St. with the following conditions: the historic window and trim to be relocated to the current door opening and a spec sheet on the door be submitted administratively. 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. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 8. #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 the board provided feedback to the applicant at the last meeting and they have returned to present their revisions to the project. George Olsen, Architect represented the applicant and talked about the revisions: • Differentiating Sperry’s building: comment from the board was to use more glass and darker colors. They are now stepping the third floor back. George noted that there’s no structural attachment to Sperry’s whatsoever. • SHPO’S concerns • Negative letters from public – Historic Preservation encouraged people to write letters about Sperry’s Restaurant as a Saratoga tradition, the design isn’t compatible with the historic district, changing the character of the district, etc. George noted that this is not a historic district, Sperry’s is a historic structure. • Displayed the new plan – removed the brick, the columns will be a dark material (TBD), added a column to separate from the building next door. The third floor is stepped back, and they added more glass. Since the third floor has no balconies, they thickened the mullions to match the upper floors. The building is setback as far as it can be and still be in compliance. • Research-Sanborn maps show that there was a street in the late 1800’s where the sidewalk goes to the library. George using pointer to explain further but display not working. George said the building (Sperry’s) was likely built with the façade because there were other buildings built next to it, and that’s what still exists. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 30, 2025 - Page 3 of 6 Board Comments: • Tamie – new rendering shows they have mitigated the public’s concerns about Sperry’s being “swallowed” up by the other buildings. There’s enough distinction between Sperry’s and the building next door. Sperry’s stands out. George’s point about the façade of Sperry’s is very validating. Sperry’s began with its façade, which is being preserved. It will be a standalone building with no attachments. Tamie is in support of the project as presented. • Chris said he was all in the last time and agreed with Tamie that Sperry’s pops even more. • Rob – agreed that the building is not in the historic district, but it is a contributing building to the Broadway historic district. He noted that it’s not in a Saratoga historic district but is in the National Register of Historic Places. Rob asked what kind of windows they’re proposing. George said they are transoms with sliders (8 and 9 ft. high) in the middle. They may also consider 7 or 8 ft. casement windows. Rob said he can’t support what’s being proposed because it doesn’t relate to the historic building, fenestration, design & mass and scale above Sperry’s. Rob added that he appreciates the changes that have been made to try to make this project work. • Leslie agreed with Rob and said she’s been struggling with the height of the building. She said if Sperry’s wasn’t there it’s not a building that would be approved as designed. She can’t approve the proposal. • Jeff said by darkening the brick as the board requested and narrowing the columns the building is distinguished from the other. There was a discussion about A versus B but no monitor to decipher what was being discussed. Prefer the first option. In favor of advancing the project. • Geoff asked about the reduction in square footage of option b compared to its initial presentation to the board. George said about 7 ft. by 30 ft. The building isn’t that deep. They will be losing one or two units per floor. Geoff said it was originally a façade building and their proposal retains the building intact in its entirety. It’s been scaled back as far as possible under the UDO at a loss of one to two units per floor, the materials and colors surrounding Sperry’s were purposefully designed per the board’s feedback with the emphasis on Sperry’s, and in his opinion Sperry’s has been treated appropriately. He’s in favor of option B. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the application. Sydney Hedge, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation read a letter from the Foundation for the record. “The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has reviewed the most recently submitted application for the addition at 30 301/2 Caroline St. While the Foundation acknowledges the change in materials and fenestration that slightly reduces the perception of one large building surrounding the historic structure, the mass, scale, setback and design remains inappropriate. The Foundation again reiterates the concerns raised in the letter from the New York State Historic Preservation Office, which rarely comments on local proposals. It stated ‘the addition City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 30, 2025 - Page 4 of 6 would substantially alter the appearance of the historic building. The proposal would likely only preserve the front façade of Caroline St. which is not a recommended preservation approach’. More than sixty public comments regarding this proposal have been received; none in support of the project as it is currently designed. To the Foundation’s knowledge, these are the most comments ever received for any project. The responsibility of the Design Review Board is not to ensure that the applicant has the best rate of return on investment but to preserve the integrity of historic buildings. Approving a project that largely only preserves the façade sets a dangerous precedent. The Foundation strongly urges the Design Review Board to continue to work with the applicant to achieve an appropriate design that preserves and respects the existing historic structure.” Michele Funiciello disclosed that she is the president of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation and said she fully supports Sydney’s comments. She said one concern is the mass and scale of the building. If you are surrounding a contributing building, it’s an honor. The architectural capability should be the best they can possibly be. Speaking as a resident of Circular Manor, Michele said she has lived in the community for 30 years. When they were before one of the Boards to propose their Circular Manor project, they would oftentimes stop at Sperry’s following the meeting for a drink. She said one of the reasons the board may be getting so many comments is because Sperry’s is this community’s “Cheers” and it’s been there for so many years. It’s architecturally and culturally relevant within a historic community. There are many individuals within the community that can relate to that. We’re hoping the project moves forward in a way that is as respectful of Sperry’s as it can possibly be. Michele gave some history of the previous owners of Sperry’s and said this project should be the best it can be in their honor. Tamie said because this building is surrounding Sperry’s and is not an addition to Sperry’s it is doing something more than preserving the façade – it’s preserving the building and allowing the façade to continue to pop. She said the majority of the board is in favor of what was presented and asked how they can help the applicant move forward with the project. Susan said the board could approve mass and scale. Tamie asked if the board would feel comfortable doing that. Jeff said enough has been presented and discussed and he feels that approval would be appropriate. The details can be approved later on. Jeff noted that the Preservation Foundation can muster a lot of support but he’s yet to see a compelling case against this project. They likened Sperry’s to Cheers but Sperry’s isn’t even open. He said the DRB is passionate about preserving this building as well as the Foundation and he’s comfortable that it is being preserved. He is in favor of moving forward with mass and scale approval and prefers plan A. The railings on plan B might cause some confusion with the cornice of Sperry’s. He'd like to see the completely independent façade. It would make Sperry’s more independent and in his opinion is a better design. Geoff asked if they had to approve option A or B. Tamie said it’s her understanding that with mass and scale they are approving the footprint and height of the building, but there would still be discussion regarding setbacks, etc. later on. Susan agreed and said the board can review mass and scale and leave details for further review. Geoff said he is comfortable moving City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 30, 2025 - Page 5 of 6 forward and would expect to see details for option A and B moving forward. Regarding the letter from the Foundation, Geoff said he takes exception to the sentence “the responsibility of the Design Review Board is not to ensure that the applicant has the best rate of return on investment but to preserve the integrity of historic buildings”. He said he certainly does not have that attitude. Rob and Leslie are not in favor of the project. Rob pointed out that the dimensions had not been defined for approval of mass and scale. George said they have provided those numbers in the past and the board has enough information to move forward. Susan said the board could ask that the dimensional information be submitted as a condition of the partial approval. Chris said he approves of voting for mass and scale. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve mass and scale only for the construction of a mixed-use building at 30-30 ½ Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: The applicant is to return for continued discussion of step back details, materials, fenestration, window details and all other details prior to full approval. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-N, C. Bennett-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-N, G. Wood-Y. 4-2 in favor. Motion carried. Chris Bennett made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON MAY 14, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – April 30, 2025 - Page 6 of 6