Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 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, Geoff Wood, Karen Cavotta. ABSENT: Jeff Gritsavage 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 30, 2025. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage. 4-0 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. #2050312 9 Hamstead Pl/60 Weibel Ave. Spring Family Veterinary Hospital Signage. Architectural review of a wall counted sign in the Urban Core (UC) District. within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience, there were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for 9 Hampstead Pl/60 Weibel Ave., Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB Applications Under Architectural Review: 2. #20250333 43 Caroline St. Clancy’s Tavern Exterior Modifications and Signage. Architectural Review of wall mounted signage and exterior modifications in the Urban Core (UC) District. Griffin Clancy represented the application. He said they are proposing to add a more modern aluminum sign on the front façade that will be raised an inch and a half and backlit and whitewash the brick and paint the trim and roof on the front of the building. Griffin showed a photo of the “Cantina” sign and said it would be similar to that. Tamie asked if they would be using the existing gooseneck lighting for the sign. Griffin said they will be leaving the gooseneck for the aesthetic but the backlighting on “Clancy’s” will be sufficient lighting. Tamie said she has no concerns about the backlit sign but has reservations about the goosenecks not being used. She asked that the applicant supply a color sample of the “Agreeable Grey” paint they will be using. Tamie reminded the board that they are determining whether the materials are appropriate for the building and the context of the neighborhood. She has concerns about whitewashing the brick because the natural brick ties into the context of the neighborhood. Rob has no problem with the brick being painted because there are painted brick buildings next door. He asked whether the corrugated metal roof could hold paint, and the applicant confirmed it would. Rob said the enhancements are compatible with the other buildings and completely appropriate. Chris agreed with Rob and said he’s okay with the painted brick and the goosenecks remaining; he likes how it fills in the space. Geoff agreed with the other board members. The board asked that the applicant choose lights with a Kelvin temp not higher than 3,000 K. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience, there were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for 43 Caroline St. 9 Hampstead Pl/60 Weibel Ave., Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. Karen Cavotta entered the meeting at 6:13 p.m. 3. #20231041 153 Van Dam Addition and Exterior Modifications. Architectural Review finishing details to a conditionally approved one-story side addition with deck and exterior modifications within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that the application has been approved, and the applicant will discuss four outstanding items. Erin Conklin, Architect updated the outstanding project items: 1. Additional details on materials and installation on the roof gables – on the front façade - changed from board and batten to real cedar shakes and painted to match the siding below. Running cornice along the gable ends. 2. Facia board dimensions the roof on the addition will be simpler with a 6” raised board to separate the shake and the gable from the siding below. 3. Trim details for the roof and windows Roof trim on the front – recreated the existing trim profile along the gable end and eaves. Applying composite siding, City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 2 of 10  shakes, and trim to the addition. Window trim – flat stock trim with a drip edge and sill. The two gables on the front façade will be painted wood and composite on the addition. 4. Window type on the east façade, within the gable windows were arched and now changed to rectangular one over one. Tamie asked about the Andersen 100, one over one windows. The Andersen 100 is a vinyl clad wood window. Rob said it shows Andersen 200 in the packet of information that was submitted by the applicant. An aluminum clad window is what was approved. Tamie noted that the windows cannot be vinyl. Chris said the cedar shakes in the gables look much better. He clarified that they will be using smooth LP siding. Rob asked what they intended to do with the existing aluminum siding. Erin said they will leave it for now but when it’s replaced it will be with wood. They talked about the one over one window in the front gable. Erin said the Historic Preservation Foundation asked for one over one, single hung window but if it can be fixed, that’s fine with the applicant. The space will be open to what’s below. Rob asked about the lack of venting on the gable on the east side of the house. The applicant will add a louvered vent. There was a discrepancy regarding the material for the windows. Tamie asked that the applicant agree to use an aluminum clad wood, they can submit spec sheets for the file post approval. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience and there were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the application for 153 Van St., Saratoga Springs NY with the following conditions: 1. The aluminum clad wood windows to be used. 2. A louvered vent be added in the gable on the east elevation addition. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. DRB Applications Under Historic Review Consideration: 4. #20250063 115 Regent St. Construction. Historic Review of exterior modifications and additions to an existing two-story structure in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the Beagle School received a determination of significance a few months ago from the DRB (no historic or architectural significance) and demolition was approved for two small porches/entranceways. The board offered feedback at the last meeting and the applicant has returned with their full proposal. Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck Architecture & Art Dabrowski, Project Architect with Balzer Tuck represented the applicant. Also Present Executive Director Jessica Tuttenhagen and Beagle School board members Matt Nueringer & Garrett Gray. Brett recapped from March 5th discussion condensed: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 3 of 10  • Existing wood siding will remain on Regent St. and be repaired as required. They will be using wood siding for the remainder of the building. • Wood windows & doors – the existing wood windows and doors will be restored as indicated on the exterior elevation drawings. Existing wood entry door, transom, and carriage doors to be restored. All other wood windows are to be replaced with new aluminum-clad wood windows as indicated on exterior elevation drawings. Existing vinyl windows to be replaced with new aluminum- clad wood windows. • Roofing – existing metal and asphalt shingle roofing to be replaced with new asphalt shingle roofing. Existing membrane roofing at low slope roofs to be replaced in-kind. Brett presented a diagram of the windows and doors that will be restored (green) and a new elevation rendering of the school. He showed the existing north elevation and the windows on the upper level in green. The windows on the new addition conflict with the windows to the right. They are proposing to swap the historic casement windows on the upper level and bring them to the front of the building and take the hopper window and move it to the back. On the west/rear elevation they are proposing to remove one window (red) that’s in conflict with the new addition (they were unable to use the window elsewhere because it’s not the appropriate size). On the south elevation the windows at the top (green) will be restored. The lower-level windows on the right (red) would be replaced, because they’re not well crafted. Brett said after additional discussions with the board of directors and the onboarding of a general contractor, there are a number of issues they’re running into proposing to restore certain windows. The NYS Department of Education has guidelines that the Beagle School follows, whereas the architect only considers the building code in NYS for the life, safety and welfare of the occupants. In the NYS Building Regulations for VRNS (Voluntary Registered Nursery Schools and Kindergartens) several sections talk about safeguards to be in place when windows are restored versus new. “Safeguards shall be provided to protect children against injury on account of low windows”. “Glass to be tempered for safety”. “Windows and doors shall be openable and equipped with safety devices”. Brett said there’s complications with historic wood windows being restored because he doesn’t know of safety devices (sash limiter and window opening control devices, emergency release mechanisms) that will work on historic wood windows. The general contractor is working with Bob West who restores historic windows. Bob questioned whether historic wood restoration is the safest way to go for a pre-k nursery school, particularly on the second floor. Matt Nueringer said there was a discussion at a recent meeting of the board of directors saying if there’s any doubt about a newer window being safer than an older window then why is this even a conversation. He asked if the city would choose historic over safety. Tamie said in terms of the DRB’s purview, it is their job to ensure that historic windows remain historic. She said the DRB doesn’t decide what takes precedence – historic or safety. She would like to hear about what can be done to keep historic windows and accommodate the bulk of the safety devices. Tamie said she’s not necessarily opposed to replacing the glass with tempered glass and adding sash limiting devices, especially City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 4 of 10 on the second floor. Chris said he understands that they will be required to remove the old glass and replace it with tempered glass which will take out a large portion of the historic quality of the window. He asked if the safety devices would even work on the windows. Brett said there are in-swing French casement windows for the side units. He said he has not used an aftermarket sash limiter on double hung windows which would be needed for the front windows. The front has double-hung windows. Chris said once a different weight of glass (tempered glass) is introduced they’ll have to change the weights on the double hung windows. A barrier can’t be placed in front of the windows; each window must be operable so that children can get out safely in an emergency. Rob said he was initially curious as to why this wasn’t an issue before now since the school has been in operation for decades but understands that they will now have classrooms on the second level. He’s aware of a similar project in the city where they were unable to use the proposed tempered glass and went ahead and changed the windows out without permission. He said with regard to Mr. West’s comment in his letter about the glass being brittle; all glass is brittle. Matt said they have a timeline to meet for next Spring to get the school open. Tamie said while she understands, this idea was just introduced to the board at tonight’s meeting and they’re not going to rush through it. Brett said he anticipated that the board would want more information before making a decision regarding the windows and asked if there might be a conditional approval to allow them to further investigate the restoration of the windows. He said the applicant’s goal is to get in the building permit pile because there’s a four month wait. Rob asked Brett if he could provide a specimen of what they’re proposing. Pull out the glass and replace it with one piece of tempered glass. Geoff said his biggest concern would be replacing the front windows. Otherwise, he’s happy with the rest of the project. Karen agreed that these windows are a challenge. She asked how the storm windows impact the safety issue. Brett said that is another concern they have with respect to egress that they don’t have a solution for. He said they would not be able to use the storms once all of the safety devices are dealt with, which will sacrifice the U-value of the window. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience and there were none. Tamie said there are three options: 1. restore windows as originally planned. 2. restore the windows with new tempered glass and safety features. 3. replace the historical windows with new windows. She suggested that the board could give conditional approval tonight excluding the second story windows. Garrett Gray suggested that the side windows be replaced with a focus on the front windows being restored. He thinks it would give the board of directors confidence that the majority of the windows are safe, and they’ll add mechanisms to the front to make them safe. Tamie said that she has seen a gate that goes across the window and latches and can be unlatched in an emergency. She asked the applicant to consider that and other safety features that would allow the windows on the front to remain as is. Rob asked if because the sill height is higher, would it make a difference (too high for a child to reach the window). Brett said it wouldn’t matter because children climb. The requirements have to be met regardless of the size or height of the window. Rob asked if the casements could be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 5 of 10 changed to open out. Brett said he doesn’t know if you can retrofit an existing casement window with a sash arm that opens the required 4”. Rob said he has done that before and there are companies out there that have them for historic casement windows. It was decided by the board that they would make a motion for a conditional approval that will exclude all second-floor windows. Geoff Wood made a motion to approve the application for 115 Regent St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the exception of the second-floor windows. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. The applicant will return with ideas for restoring the second-floor windows with the proper safety features. 5. #20210781 Trimarchi driveway Modifications. 115 Circular St. Historic Review of driveway replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked counsel to clarify the project. Tony Izzo said this is an unusual application. Four years ago, Mr. Trimarchi came before the DRB with an application for the pavement of a driveway on his property on Circular St. and the board approved the application. Shortley thereafter, Mr. Appel, a neighbor of Mr. Trimarchi began an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the board’s decision. In the intervening four years the matter has been the subject of numerous conferences in the Supreme Court before Judge Walsh, who made very concentrated efforts to resolve the matter, but it remains unresolved. Approximately a year ago, Judge Walsh issued a decision on the Article 78 proceedings. The last paragraph of the decision reads as follows: “Reviewing the return as submitted by respondents, it is clear that the application as submitted to the Design Review Commission did not comply with the body’s own professed requirements, with required color photographs showing the entire area in question. The photographs submitted in support of the application were not in color and did not show the shared nature of the driveway. A later question concerned whether the permeability of Trimarchi’s premises now exceeded limits imposed by the city code. The return indicates that no waiver of these issues was considered by the DRC, nor was an express waiver ever granted. Accordingly, it is evident that the DRC did not follow its own regulations for/nor fully articulate any reasons for waiving or deviating from such. The decision to approve based on this application was arbitrary and capricious. The petition for order to compel respondent to vacate a Design Review Commission approval is granted and the matter is remitted to the Design Review Commission for further action consistent with this decision and order”. Tony said Judge Walsh is not asking the DRB to reconstruct the entire application or go back to square one. He’s not asking the board to consider any new information. He’s asking two questions: 1. Why did the board not insist on color photographs before rendering its approval. 2. Why did the board not consider issues of permeability before issuing its approval. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 6 of 10 Tony considered the questions separately as follows: 1. He’s aware that the board does site visits on properties that are applications before it. The board could refresh its memory (most of the current board members were serving in 2021) about visiting the site and at the next meeting make a motion that color photographs are not required (see note) to review this application because they personally viewed the property and saw whatever they needed to see while looking at the property in person. The board members should think about what they recall between now and the next meeting. Note: Tony likely mis-spoke and meant that the applicant did supply color photos of his property, but the Judge is asking why there were no color photos of the neighboring property. 2. With regard to permeability, the board could review the ordinance in effect at the time and what it said about permeability, and specifically what it said about the DRC’s ability to consider permeability. The board members could then form an opinion as to whether or not permeability was within the authority of the board at that time. They could then make a motion at the upcoming meeting to declare that permeability is outside of the board’s authority in this situation. Judge Walsh wants the board to consider facts and decide if they want to waive anything based upon those facts. The Judge is saying he can’t tell by the record if those things were considered. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said normally an applicant would come before the board to discuss the application, but this application was already reviewed and approved, so what’s the next step. Tony said every application has a Public Comment period and anyone has a right to comment during the public comment period. Tamie said the applicant had an opportunity to provide any new information regarding the application. Dominick Trimarchi, owner 115 Circular St. said he didn’t have any new information to provide but he does have color photos subsequent to the court proceedings. He said there’s a survey on file by a licensed surveyor that shows he is far within the limits of permeability on the property. He said the limits have been changed to be more restrictive since he did his driveway. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to comment on the application. David Appel, the adjacent property owner disagreed with Tony’s assessment of what was said, went through the courts, and what was presented to the board. He said his position had nothing to do with the board’s decision, it had to do with the city employees who processed the application and placed it on the consent agenda without notification. He said the application in and of itself was incomplete. It was missing the neighboring photographs; there were no photographs, black and white or colored. He said the original application was intentionally misleading and was taken by the city employee at its word, and submitted to the DRC who didn’t have all the information they needed to make a decision. David said the survey that was submitted to the city has mathematical City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 errors that were brought to the attention of the city for which there’s a subsequent filing in Supreme Court after the Article 78. David said there are right-of-way in the deeds of each property to use the other half of the driveway. He said there was a carriage house behind 115 Circular and it’s his belief that the right-of-way was originally formed to access that house. David said the yellow house wanted to do away with the driveway back in the 1970’s and plant grass. There was a lawsuit, and the Judge determined that it couldn’t be paved because they would be denying the right-of-way of the other property. David said he and the other prior neighbor-maintained commonality and installed a common curb cut, brick pavers and cement sidewalk beginning at the right- hand portion of Mr. Appel’s driveway. David said every time it rains his driveway gets flooded because 115’s driveway is intentionally pitched 2” to drain the water from the neighbor’s house to his house. He said he discussed installing permeable pavers with the neighbor so it would all be the same, but Mr. Trimarchi didn’t want that. David said in the winter there’s ice and it freezes and thaws. He said the board can’t approve this water draining onto his driveway and causing damage. David said Mr. Trimarchi has so much permeable coverage in his yard he can’t even backwash his pool on his own property. Tamie explained that when an applicant comes before the DRB to have them consider a driveway they look at the material that the applicant is proposing and determine whether that material is appropriate for the context of the neighborhood. That’s were the DRB’s driveway purview starts and stops. Permeability and drainage are not within their wheelhouse. Tamie displayed the original application and noted that the driveway had already been paved and was flagged by the city because it hadn’t been approved. The application came before the DRC for material approval and there were photos submitted with the original application. Tamie said the board looked at the asphalt the applicant used and noted that there were similar asphalt driveways in the neighborhood. Asphalt was not an inappropriate material for the neighborhood. Tamie said the decision made by the board was fair and unbiased. She noted that there are color photos that were submitted with the original application, contrary to the statement by Judge Walsh. Tamie said Mr. Appel’s situation is very unfortunate and she hopes it can be resolved, but unfortunately using the DRB as a path to resolve it won’t have the result he’s seeking. The DRB did their job by approving a material that was appropriate. Tony asked how many board members were serving in 2021. Tamie said everyone was serving except for Mr. Wood (4). Chris said the photographs submitted with the original application don’t put the situation in context and that’s the issue. Rob said he clearly remembers the application and it being on the consent agenda. He remembers being told that there “was nothing else to see here”. He said he did not visit the subject property and assumed it was a paved driveway that was simply repaved. He said he’s not sure whether the photos were intentional, but the end result was that he was misled. He said it’s on him not to have researched further. He learned a lot as a board member from this application. He said the applicant should have submitted photos of the driveway before it was paved; that would have made the application complete. He agreed with Tamie that it’s not the DRB(C)’s purview to deal with permeability. Karen recalled walking over to the site and looking at the driveway. She remembers thinking that the only goal as a DRB member is to determine if the material is appropriate. She City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 did think it was unusual that half the shared driveway was paved, and the other half wasn’t. Karen noted that the permeability issue should have been brought up by the zoning department when the applicant was issued a building permit to install the driveway. The DRB would not have dealt with that issue. Geoff agreed with everything Karen said. He asked if the driveway is a shared driveway or two separate abutting driveways. Tamie said it is not a shared driveway and the easement on each deed allows cars to drive around on each other’s driveway but not park. Geoff concluded that the applicant paved their own driveway. Tamie said when the photos originally came before the board they only showed the paved driveway and not the one adjacent. Tony said the board needed to think back about what they knew about the property at that time. The Judge has asked two things; why didn’t the board insist on color photographs and why didn’t the board address issues of permeability, and that’s what the board should be focused on. Tamie said the board is a good group of people trying to do the right thing. The board has answered question 1. There were color photographs of the driveway, but either way they’re not required. 2. Permeability – the DRB does not have purview. She said the intent of the board when considering a driveway is to determine whether or not the material is appropriate in the context of the neighborhood, which was done. Rob reiterated that there should have been color photographs of what the driveway looked like before it was paved, something the DRB often requires when work has been performed illegally, and staff should have required them as well. Those photos would have potentially influenced some decision making. Tamie asked Rob if he would have disapproved of the driveway being paved had he seen the before photos. He said potentially because he would have seen the context of the driveway, and he may have decided it was not compatible with what it was butting up against. Rob couldn’t say for sure if he would have been influenced one way or the other, but they weren’t given the opportunity because it was an incomplete application to begin with. Tony proposed that, since it has been four years, the board should take a few days to gather their thoughts and communicate this to the staff. He said the board’s obligation ends after answering those two questions. Geoff noted that the application is no longer approved (Tony said the Judge remanded it) and asked how it will move forward. Tony said the board’s decision would have to indicate in language that the board has gone back and considered (by reviewing the record or refreshing their memory) the things that Judge Walsh asked them to consider. They would state that they worked with the ordinance at that time regarding permeability and concluded that it was not within the DRB(C)’s purview. Tony said it would be more than a motion; it would be a detailed decision based on facts. Tamie said the board needs to talk about a plan/idea for how they’re moving forward. Tony said he can give legal advice to the board because it operates entirely outside of the Open Meetings Law, it can happen any time under any circumstances. Susan asked if there was any additional information to be provided by the applicant or staff such as prior photos of the gravel driveway and where the property line is. Tony said new information is really not what this exercise is about. Rob asked Mr. Trimarchi if he could place a drain on the length of the driveway to solve the problem. Mr. Trimarchi said he doesn’t have a drainage issue. He had a licensed surveyor on file with the city documenting the permeability issue. Mr. Appel speaking without a mic and inaudible. He asked if he could write a brief to the board. The Chair said yes, that would be fine. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 9 of 10 The application was tabled for the next meeting. Chris Bennett made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON MAY 28, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2025 - Page 10 of 10