Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 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, Jeff Gritsavage & Leslie DiCarlo. ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, City Planner, Julia Destino, Planner, Anthony (Tony) Izzo, City Counsel. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from May 14, 2025. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. 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. #2050365 30 Lake Ave. Omakase Sushi and Grill Sidewalk Café. Architectural review of a sidewalk café in the Urban Core (UC) District. Geoff said the chairs are not 100% metal and have Teslin fabric on them. Julia said the applicant was notified and they have uploaded pictures of the new furniture, tables and chairs, which are completely cast aluminum. 2. #20250345 551 Lake Ave. Exterior Modification-Solar Array Panels. Architectural review of rooftop solar array in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 3. #20250402 4 Oakland Drive Generator. Architectural Review of installation of a residential standby generator in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) 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 a sidewalk café at 30 Lake Ave., exterior modification-solar array panels at 551 Lake Ave., and installation of a residential standby generator at 4 Oakland Dr., Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 7-0 in favor, Motion carried. C. DRB Applications Under Architectural Review: 4. #20250125 19 Washington St., Apartment 361exterior modifications. Architectural review of exterior modifications to third floor condominium balcony in the Urban Core (UC) District. Kathleen & Robert Bush returned to discuss a solution for solar shades for their residence. Robert said architect Steve Einhorn, Einhorn, Yaffee & Prescott, who worked on historical projects such as the Harvard Library, took a tour of the Adelphi and residences and was amazed at how well the architecture flowed from the hotel and renovations to the residences. Robert addressed the board’s concerns from the last meeting: • An interior mount that does not obstruct the pillars. The applicant showed a rendering of that solution saying the white casing is the only thing that will show when the shades are up. • HOA Approval – The builder for the project sent a letter to the applicants saying that the HOA would approve this design. • How the shades interact with the concrete base of the pillars – will be mounted behind the pillars and won’t obstruct it in any way. • Staff require a letter from the HOA stating that this design will set a precedent. Kathy said she put in a request a week ago but has not heard back. The applicants are asking the board to rule on their request since they are the first to apply. Robert said they have spoken with other residents who like the solar shades, and they would like it to be a template for other residents to use. Tamie said that while this process can be frustrating, she’s pleased that this proposal has evolved into a much better product based on this process. This option allows the columns to stand proud, and she has no concerns. There should be consistency in the screening installed and future residents would have to come before the DRB for approval. Providing there’s an approval of the application; the applicant will need to provide the HOA letter stating the design precedent administratively. Chris agreed with Tamie that a letter stating that the mechanism is placed behind everything and the façade will not be changed. Karen asked if the screening would be in front of the planters. Kathy said It will be because it has to go all the way to the floor. She said the HOA will require other restrictions as well such as the shades cannot be pulled down all the time. Karen asked that it be documented for future reference. Jeff said the presentation was very good, but he has serious concerns about the proposal. Between bays two and three there’s going to be a gap because bay 3 is proud of bay 2. Traveling east on Washington Ave. you will notice a staggered gap. If the HOA decides to set this precedent then bays 5 and 6 need to be the same color and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 2 of 17 have the same manufacturer. On the levels where there are stone piers (level 2 and 4) the screens will need to be set back about 18”, which in Jeff’s opinion won’t look good. Level 5 has valuable ironwork that was discussed exhaustively between the architect and the DRB. The application may be approvable but at this time it’s incomplete. He noted that currently there’s a parking lot across from their building that will eventually be built on with a building similar in height to the applicants that will mitigate the shade. Jeff said he would like the HOA to provide the manufacturer; complete specifications and what units will be allowed to have screening. Geoff appreciated the presentation and agreed with the positive remarks from other board members. He likes the way it looks but agreed with Jeff that he would like to know how that’s going to work with the pillars. Tamie said she doesn’t think it’s necessary at this time to detail out how the screening will work all over the building but agrees that the HOA should specify what screening will be allowed and where. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience, there were none. Jeff went on record to say he will be voting against the application because it’s incomplete. It is approvable but there are other units there and the application needs to be presented collectively through the HOA. It exposes the board to a visual disaster. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve exterior modifications to the third-floor condominium, apartment 361 at 19 Washington St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: The HOA to submit a letter administratively to the DRB acknowledging that this shade system will become the standard make, model, color and installation for all future balcony shade systems. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-1 in favor, Motion carried. Susan said the applicants can apply but a permit won’t be issued until the conditions are met. 5. #20240720 30-30 ½ Caroline St. building expansion. Architectural review of construction of a mixed-use building within the Urban Core (T-6) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the mass and scale (footprint and height of the building) was approved at the last meeting. The applicant has returned with the remaining items for discussion. George Olsen & Brandi Hall, Olsen Architects represented the applicant. Owner, Louis Lazzinnaro was also present. George said they took into consideration all the comments from the various meetings and presented the result: darker brick, more glass, setting the building back, and presented two different options; A. The first setback is 12 ft., the next step back is 6 ft. on the third floor, 6 ft. on the 4th floor, and 6 ft. on the 5th floor. In this option the building is darker brick. The applicant likes that the fiber cement board breaks up the mass somewhat. Option B. step back to the 4th floor. They have City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 3 of 17 returned with the finish details and renderings for both options and the mechanical units on the 5th floor. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has been before the board several times and the city has received an overwhelming amount of comments on this proposal. This is an unusual project in that the applicant is proposing to wrap around an historic building. Tamie asked George how they would accomplish constructing their building around Sperry’s without attaching to the structure. George said the roof would be removed and the steel would go from 30 Caroline and span over the old structure of Sperry’s and the columns would be on the side; no columns on top of Sperry’s. There would be a two- hour fire separation between Sperry’s and the new structure that will not be attached to Sperry’s; it would float above and to the side. They will be removing the back wall where the addition is being removed from Sperry’s. Tamie asked if the brick being used would be full brick or brick veneer. George said it would be full brick. Tamie asked the board members for their comments on the proposal and whether they prefer design option A or B. Her preference is option A because it allows Sperry’s to stand out. Chris agreed with Tamie on option A; it makes Sperry’s look more substantial. Rob said he hasn’t been and still isn’t supportive of this project but understands the challenges the applicant is facing. He is not supportive of the use of fiber cement for the siding, cornice and trim; it’s not shown to be a very durable building material. Leslie said she’s not against putting a building there, in her opinion it’s just not the right building. If Sperry’s were not there at all, this building would not be approved as designed. She agreed with Rob about the fiber cement product and added that the cantilevered section will give an odd look to the streetscape. Leslie asked if the applicant had met with the Preservation Foundation to talk about building a structure incorporating a small historic building. George said they did not and wasn’t aware that that was a requirement since the Foundation is not a city agency. Leslie said they’re not, but they have good ideas. George said they do that work in house; his wife has a master’s degree from Columbia in preservation, and they don’t take it lightly. He said the changes were made over a long period of time in response to comments from the DRB. Leslie said she won’t be in favor of the project. Karen said the building is missing some of the character; hierarchy and changes in fenestration and detail that the building on the right has. She suggested they try to ignore Sperry’s for a moment and treat the building like its own building to help to develop the character and detail that 30 Caroline has. She likes the massing and step backs, but the fenestration and materials need more detail. Jeff said what makes a building more interesting are the constraints, in this case the sewer easement that forces a certain angle and the required setbacks. He said the UDO, which was agreed on by the community, set these dimensional constraints. He noted that the building is a modern building and the DRB wanted it to look distinctly different than 30 Caroline; “It’s the second quarter of the 21st century; architecture needs to evolve”. This building is the result of a very public process. Geoff said he appreciates the changes that have been made and the detailed renderings with options A and B. He could vote for option A or B but prefers B and agreed with what Jeff said about the public process to this end. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 4 of 17 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the Foundation was unable to address a comment made at the last meeting and she would like to comment on that tonight. She said “the 60 public comments that were received were a result of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation as an effective preservation advocacy organization with a paid professional staff with expertise in education and historic preservation” that informs its members of projects coming before the DRB. She said all of the Foundation’s emails, social media, etc. inform citizens of upcoming projects and if they have a concern, instructions are provided on how to submit comments as well as letters of support. Samantha said she did not make a single phone call, write an email or make a personal request to have people submit comments. She said her primary focus for the past two months has been relocating her mother to Saratoga, not to make personal phone calls on behalf of this project. She said citizens who choose to comment or come to meetings are making those decisions on their own and it’s disrespectful to insinuate otherwise. Samantha said the DRB should appreciate that so many people take the time to communicate and engage in the design review process and should encourage them to continue to do so. She added that George is a well-respected architect within the community who knows the proper way to submit letters of support to the city. The State Historic Preservation Office has stated that the proposed massing would substantially alter the appearance of the historic building and would only preserve the front façade, which is not a recommended preservation approach. This is a compelling argument against this proposed project. With the approval of mass and scale, this building as is currently being proposed is considered a non-contributing building and the Foundation deems this historic resource lost. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized the concerns expressed by the board: • Fenestration – façade makes it appear that indoor spaces are all the same. Need to represent with the fenestration what’s happening behind the windows. George said the floor plans that were submitted have been taken out and will be redesigned. Karen said there’s rhythm to the windows, but she’d like to see differentiation in the fenestration. She’d also like to see something wrapped around Sperry’s that defines it as its own separate element and a fenestration pattern around that. Currently the pattern is the same all the way up the building. • Fiber cement – George said they are willing to change that to another material – brick, etc. The reasoning for the fiber cement is to help break up the mass with a different material. Jeff said the pier that supports the brick would need to be made of heavier material- steel, concrete. • The majority of the board agreed with option A. Tamie said she would like the applicant to present other options for fenestration and other materials. George asked that the board approve option A and that the applicant be able to keep the bays the same changing the fenestration within each bay (mullion pattern, etc.) and come back for further approval. Tamie said the board doesn’t approve in bits and pieces. There was discussion among the board members about approving City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 5 of 17 option A and having the applicant return with material and fenestration changes within each individual bay. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve Option A for the building at 30 ½ Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: The applicant is to return for full discussion regarding window configuration, materials and any other additional details. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-N, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-N, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-2 in favor, Motion carried. 6. #20250341 3/26 Finley St. Demolition and Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing structure, discussion of materials, mass and scale for new construction of a three-story residential building and one-story commercial structure in the Urban Neighborhood (UN) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair explained the procedure: 1. Look at the building proposed to be demolished to determine if it has any historical or architectural significance. 2. If yes, then further good faith documentation would be required. If not, then go through approval and discuss demolition. 3. Talk about what’s being proposed. Tamie spoke to the public who may be commenting on this project and explained that there are 3 land use boards, Design Review, Planning Board & Zoning Board of Appeals who will be considering this application. The Design Review Board’s job is to look at the design elements of a building to determine if they are appropriate for the context of the neighborhood, design, step backs, fenestration & materials. The DRB does not discuss whether a structure should be in a particular location only whether the design is appropriate for the location. JD Pollard & Laura Koss from Re4orm Architecture represented the application. Sybil Newell with Rise was also present. JD said the building is on Finley near the intersection of Union Ave. and said he doesn’t think the building has any significance; it’s an old masonry auto garage that’s in disrepair. Tamie didn’t find the building to have any significance and the other board members agreed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Lance Walley, 14 Pleasant Dr. said the garage was an auto detail shop and asked if there would be soil reclamation as part of the demolition because chemicals were used at that location. JD said there will be a full environmental study done on the property. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the building at 3/26 Finley St., Saratoga Springs, NY does not have historical or architectural significance. The motion City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 6 of 17 was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 7-0 in favor, Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said since the building has been deemed insignificant she doesn’t have any problem with the building being demolished. The board members agreed, and the board moved on to the SEQRA process. Part 2 Short Environmental Assessment form for 3/26 Finley St.: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. Susan said the board’s action is demolition and new construction. She said their first action is demolition, but the SEQRA is for the whole project. Jeff asked Tony if this would be considered segmentation. Tony said to the extent that the board knows about what is being proposed in the future it should be considered. Tamie said that maybe SEQRA shouldn’t be discussed at this time because the proposal hasn’t been discussed. Susan said the board can wait and have the applicant proceed with the presentation for new construction. She noted that this is an uncoordinated review so the planning board will be required to perform their own SEQRA analysis based on the information that they have under the site plan review. It was decided by the board that the SEQRA review will continue after the presentation. JD talked about the proposed construction: 3-story building at 3/26 Finley St.: • 71 units, approximately 69,000 sq. ft. • Limited parking: the parking required is 107 spaces and they have 32. The use of this building does not require one parking space per unit because it’s a lesser use; many of the tenants use public transportation. • The frame of the building is Nichiha (gray), vinyl shakes (tan). • Picture framed the gable and gable end walls with a break metal so that it wraps down. • Decorative wood elements at the corner facing the entry street. • Cultured stone elements on the front of the building. • Interior portion – picture framed with Nichiha and vinyl shakes. • The floor plan is a mixture of 1 and 2 bedrooms. • Retain buffer on the west side. • Created flat area on the roof for mechanical equipment. 1 story community building located on Finley St.: • Office space, accessory space, and a small weight room in the back. • The proposed building height is 24 ft. 7”. • The building materials include: Nichiha – higher end fiber cement board, vinyl shake siding (32% on the overall project). JD said these projects are heavily regulated by the state and the budget is very defined, so they don’t have much leeway on the products they use on the building. • Have done two projects with Rise; one in Ballston Spa and one in Corinth with Bonacio Construction who will be the contractor on this building as well. Both of those projects have vinyl siding and vinyl windows. For this project they will be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 7 of 17  using reinforced fiberglass windows and architectural shingles with decorative metal at the dormers. Sybil Newell, Executive Director of Rise said Rise has been operating in the community since 1978 and providing housing and support services to approximately 1,000 people a year in the community. These buildings provide safe and beautiful affordable housing for people with disabilities. Board’s comments: Tamie listed the materials prohibited in this district on a non-residential façade facing a public right-of-way or any façade that abuts the lot line of a residential district. • CMU – plain concrete masonry unit. • Corrugated metal • Exposed aggregate concrete wall panels • T111 – composite plywood siding • Plastic, asphalt or vinyl siding, exterior insulation & finish EIFS • Cedar shakes as roofing material • Architectural foam “However, these materials may be used as decorative or detail elements for up to 25% of the façade or as part of the exterior construction that is not used as a surface finish material unless review by the design review board prior to site plan review approves a greater percentage of use of these materials”. Tamie said the applicant can use any of the above products as decorative or detail, but not for the façade. JD said all of the tan areas on the façade are vinyl shakes. Their intention was to break up the Nichiha; they don’t have the budget to use higher end materials. Tamie said the board has never allowed a vinyl product in the architectural district on a non-residential building; it’s not appropriate. The board cannot consider financial challenges when reviewing a project. There’s nothing inappropriate with the remaining materials. With regard to mass and scale and how the building relates to the neighborhood; the applicant has done a good job breaking it up with the change in materials. Geoff mentioned that the project is in his neighborhood. He has no concerns about the mass and scale and the appearance of the building. Jeff said the office and amenity space should be held to standards because it’s within the architectural corridor. The 3-story building is set way back and there’s a vegetative buffer between the building and the residential properties it abuts. He spoke to the audience because there were several residents likely present to comment on the project and reiterated that the DRB is to make sure they build the best-looking building possible: not to deal with traffic, etc. Karen agreed with Tamie on breaking up the mass and scale and said the building seems appropriate moving forward. Leslie agreed with Jeff that the focus should be on the community building for presenting to Finley. The 3-story building is very large but is set way back. She agreed with other board members that the mass and scale is not inappropriate. JD said that because the community building is so small they will be able to commit to making it more architecturally pleasing. Leslie said she likes the simplicity of the community City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 8 of 17 building and would like to see some of that carried onto the larger building as well. JD said if the board has suggestions on how to do that better, they’re happy to listen. Rob said the mass and scale is compatible with the neighborhood. The larger building has an Adirondack style and the community building a cape feel with a modern take. His concerns are similar to other board members – materials and the durability of certain products. He said he would be supportive of the Nichiha product in this context but not the vinyl. Chris said it’s difficult for him to see the building in context. JD said they have a model showing the neighborhood that they’ll bring to the next meeting. Chris agreed with other board members regarding the cement board shakes. They’re headed in the right direction. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Vicki Feldman, 10 Livingston St. said she lives directly behind the project. Why does the building need to be 3 stories instead of 2. She believes the building will “obliterate” the residential nature on the Livingston Ave. and Spa Dr. sides of the building. The woods are valuable in the residential area. She’s concerned a lot of trees will be cut down and they will see the building and hear condensers. The building doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. Don Hughes, 8 Livingston St. agreed with Vicki’s concerns. The houses are all single-family ranch style homes, and a 3-story building will overwhelm the community. He said there are elevation issues to be addressed on the property, including a huge sinkhole that runs down to Winn Supply. Fran White said the DRB keeps saying the building is compatible with the neighborhood but there are two sides to the neighborhood – residential (Spa & Livingston) and the commercial side where Winn Supply is located. All the trees along Spa Dr. will be gone and the residents will be looking at a gigantic structure. Doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. Sarah Brockway, Prospect Dr. said it would be nice to see the plans from Spa and Livingston, not just the commercial side. She asked the board to consider the impact on the neighborhood during demolition and construction as well as the trees that will be removed. Alex White, 14 Livingston St. said on Spa Dr. and Livingston St. there won’t be much of a buffer. Alex is a general real estate appraiser and does valuations on residential and commercial properties. He said when you have an externality like this that abuts residential properties without a buffer, it impacts the marketability of the property by 10% to 20% and it should be considered by the board. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 9 of 17 Mike Gennarelli, Spa Dr. said his concern is that the trees are old and established and once they start cutting into them it could cause safety hazards because they tend to support each other. The building is not appealing in his opinion. Meg Gilmartin, 29 Spa Dr. encouraged the board to take a ride through the neighborhood. It’s a small, quiet residential neighborhood and this massive building will destroy it. Lance Wallie, 14 Pleasant Dr. said there’s another 125-bed facility proposed kitty corner to this facility. He asked how many beds are needed for special people in this little neighborhood. He said there’s an elevated railroad in back of Spa Dr. that acts like a natural berm and asked if it will be removed. Where will the rainwater go because there are no low spots. Tamie, speaking as a resident said she recognizes everyone’s concerns and asked that residents attend the planning board meeting to express them further. It’s relevant information the board members will need to know in making their decisions concerning this project. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked the applicant to provide a neighborhood perspective encompassing all sides of the project. She said the board definitely considers how the building will abut neighborhoods and there are creative ways for architects to mitigate the massing of the building. Jeff asked the applicant if any consideration was given to an area variance to move the building more toward the commercial buildings and retain the vegetative buffer. JD said that would be something they can discuss with the ZBA. The applicant will return with a model of the area around the building. 7. #20250203 Park Place and Cottage St. Site Plan Review. Advisory opinion to the Planning Board for a proposed multi-family dwelling including 6 residential units and associated site work in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the planning board is asking the DRB’s opinion on mass, scale, height and compatibility with the neighborhood. Vincent Latarro represented the application and gave a history of the property (27 Park Place) including historical maps while owned by Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. Horn. Mr. Horn passed away in 1900 and was a well-known figure. In 1934 Joe Welner purchased the property and operated the building as a lodging business called the “Park View House” which is shown in a photo in the George S. Bolster Collection. The business name was later changed to the “Park View Hotel” and the business ran until 1962. In 1963 the building is no longer there, and new property boundaries were established creating the “9 Cottage St.” address and eliminating the 27 Park Place address. The property went from hotel to a business and single family, back to a single family. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 10 of 17 Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects also represented the application. Matt showed an aerial photo of the lot within the neighborhood. The lots indicated in yellow are listed on the tax rolls as multi-family. He said the applicant’s building as proposed would be one of the largest buildings in the neighborhood. Not the longest or tallest building but in terms of mass and height it will be substantial. The building proposed is 125’ by 78’ along its street frontage. The 78’ is identical in length to a residence on the opposite corner only it will be 3 stories instead of 2. The block with multi-unit families is zoned UR-4 and the intended development for this area. Matt showed the floor plan and said he felt it was important to develop street walls and to contain and conceal parking. He noted on the plan that the porches bump out and relate to the rhythm of the street. The porches on Park Place are one-story structures and the bump outs in between are 2- story structures. The third story sets back about 30 ft. off the curb. He said they are effectively putting the footprint of three houses on the property. Matt showed photos of several examples of three-story buildings near single-family residential housing throughout the city and displayed 3-d renderings of the proposal. Tamie said the presentation was great and she appreciated the comparison of seven other multi-family locations within the block and 3-story structures relating to 2-story structures throughout the city. She said the underground parking area is essential and she’s glad they considered it. The balconies and porches do a great job at breaking up the massing. While the mansard roof is appropriate, the roof line is top heavy with so many windows and adds to the massing. She suggested centering the windows on the third floor between 2 windows on the second floor. Chris said it was a nice presentation, and the proposed structure is very appropriate for Saratoga. He’d be very happy to see a building like this as he’s walking down the street. It’s not uncommon for neighborhoods throughout the city. Rob asked about the setbacks from neighbors. Matt said it’s a corner lot and they have a 12 ft. setback on one side and 8 ft. on the other. Tamie reiterated that the board is giving an advisory opinion on mass, scale, height and compatibility with the neighborhood (neighboring properties and character of the neighborhood). Rob said in terms of compatibility it is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood – it’s what’s seen in row houses across the country. Having two entrances from the primary façade is not compatible from an architectural standpoint. In his opinion there should be entrance to every porch. Matt said the two porches in the center are common porches and the ones on the corners are private. There are two units per floor stacked. Rob said the height is not incompatible with neighboring buildings and it appears the massing will impact the one house next door. It will positively affect the neighborhood property value wise. Susan said it would be appropriate for the DRB to ask for additional information if they need it in order to provide an opinion to the planning board. Rob said he would like to see a height study and how this building relates to the historic house to the west. Leslie agreed with Rob about the height study. She said the building is beautiful and appropriate and asked what was going to happen with the other building on the property that the owner is living in on Cottage St. Matt said it will be subdivided as a separate parcel. Karen said it’s an interesting project and it fits in with the city’s diversity of architectural styles and locations. She agreed with Rob that additional entrances would City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 11 of 17 help to define the separate residences, and agreed with Tamie that the Mansard could be toned down to make it look less tall. The mass and scale are appropriate, but she would like to see how close it is to the house next door. Jeff said there are two other houses on the street that aren’t yet built that have been approved by the DRB and emphasize the public/private spaces. He said from an urban planning perspective he understands where this design is going and thinks it will help to reintroduce discipline to the streetscape. He said he would give a positive advisory opinion to this project. Geoff said he’s very familiar with the parcel, it’s not far from his home. He agreed with others that more points of entry to the porches would create a better flow for the street. Matt said two entrances are what works for the units with the way the building is laid out and the rhythm of the porches. He asked the board to consider the significance of the stairs in terms of mass and scale and impact on the neighborhood. Geoff agreed that the height is compatible but noted that the third floor's number of windows impacts the building's perceived mass. He appreciated the presentation and explanation of existing transitions in other parts of the city. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Barbara Lombardo, lives at 35 Park Place, 3 doors down from the proposed project for 40 years and has a house that was built in 1868. She said the proposed building is “handsome” but doesn’t fit in the middle of a street that’s three blocks long. She said driving around the city (Circular St., Clinton St., Division St., Grand Ave., Nelson Ave., Regent St., Thomas St. & Woodlawn Ave.) she found 9 examples of row houses, some of which Matt showed in his presentation, and explained the differences between them and the proposal: None are in the middle of a 3-block street. None of them are as wide, tall and deep. Some are opposite parking lots and commercial buildings or on a block that has nothing next to it. Some are on their own small street with nothing next to it or next to a building that’s the same height as the multi-family building. The historic map displayed by the applicant showed that the Parkview Hotel was much smaller in mass than what’s being proposed. She would love to see a single-family house with a yard similar to other homes on the street. A scaled down design of what’s being proposed should be considered. The trees shown in the rendering are not realistic because they would be constricted by utilities. The porches seem higher than the neighboring houses. Ms. Wood, 23 Park Place, directly next door to the proposed building. She said her house takes up 95% of their 50’ by 100’ lot. From the side of their house to the fence is 4 ft. and the proposed building will be 12 ft. from there. She said her living space is on that side of the house and this large building will really impact on the way they live in their house. She said the planning board has asked the applicant to provide a 3d rendering showing her house next to the proposed building. Derek Olsen, 8 Southeast St. said the history that was shown in the presentation did not show a building that was 18,500 sq. ft. The proposed building is beautiful, but it doesn’t fit on the street. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 12 of 17 Dan Maney said he lives adjacent to this parcel. In 1978 the block was divided into 7 parcels with 6 structures only one of which was occupied. Today there’s 10 parcels with 12 structures and this parcel will make 11 with 13. In 1978 there was one residential unit with one person living on the entire block. Today there’s more than 62 people living on the block and this proposal will make over 76. Dan said his point is that he’s been fighting density and he’s concerned this is adding more. Mickey Mahoney has lived at 55 White St. for 32 years and knows the property well. He observed the Borders building being built and noted that no one will complain about it because it’s a large building that belongs within the downtown section of the city. This proposed structure on Park Place is out of character with the quiet, quaint neighborhood. Allie Dockum, 48 White St. said she has seen many changes and progress throughout the neighborhood over the 45 years since her parents bought the house. Preservation and history matter to her. The proposed building two doors down was denied, albeit in a different zone, doesn’t mean it’s the right project for the space. The building is too large and too close to the neighbor’s house. She encouraged the architect to do the right thing, be a good neighbor and care about how everyone’s being impacted. Sue Rodems, 84 White St. agreed with others who spoke; the building is too big and looks like a hotel that will sit in the quiet little neighborhood. Dave Guarino, 21 Park Place said the three-building condo project he proposed for his lot which would have been located two lots down was rejected by the board because it was too dense. The footprint of this proposal is too big. Deb Thomas, 12 Cottage St. owns a multi-family dwelling – 2-unit, 1800 sq. ft. duplex on the street that in no way relates to the project being proposed. This building does not fit on this street. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation noted that Vince Latarro is a member of the Foundation’s Board of Directors, but he has recused himself from any conversation, discussions or decisions regarding this project. The Foundation has taken the same position as what was presented; that row houses are scattered throughout the city and they are consistently located next to two story buildings (across the street from, next to, directly next door). Some of the row houses are similar height or just as wide. The Foundation does not find the proposed project to be incompatible with height, scale, mass and compatibility. The Foundation looked at it as a historical development of how the city has grown over time. Tamie Ehinger, Chair thanked everyone for their comments and said it’s always wonderful to see how the community cares so much about what’s happening in the various neighborhoods. Based on the DRB’s discussion the following items would be needed from the applicant for the board to form an advisory opinion to the planning board: A height study, renderings from different pedestrian perspectives including City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 13 of 17 neighboring properties, and a massing study. Rob noted some items the DRB would want to look at such as dumpster location/enclosures; will there be an HOA, restrictions on Airbnb being permitted, etc. Matt said there’s a garbage enclosure at the bottom of the ramp. He noted that some public comments were inaccurate; the building has three stories, not four. There are two to three bedrooms in each unit, not six. Each unit has three parking spaces, which accommodates guest parking. Vincent said they intend to have an HOA but not Airbnb. D. DRB Applications Under Historic Review: 8. #20250332 154 Regent St. Demolition and Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing structure in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Chris Bennett recused himself from the application because he will be doing some work on the project. Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture represented the applicant’s Mary Grey and Jesse Roth. The applicant is proposing to demolish the back shed addition/porch to the house because it’s in disrepair. They are also proposing to demolish an existing garage which has structural damage, sagging and deterioration. The structure is located very close to the property line and does not comply with any current zoning. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the board is to determine whether the two structures are historically or architecturally significant. She has no concerns about the rear addition because it’s not original to the home. The Preservation Foundation has dated the garage to 1932. She reminded the board that they should only consider whether the garage has historical or architectural significance; not if it is structurally sound or meets zoning requirements. Tamie said she feels the structure does maintain some architectural integrity, such as the doors. Rob said the garage does show on the 1900 Sanborn map. The garage does have historical significance but not architectural. Regarding the rear addition, Rob said it likely dates from the 1880’s but it’s difficult to determine the significance and integrity of the structure without going inside. He said he would lean toward the addition not being significant. Leslie agreed with Rob about the shed addition. Regarding the garage, Leslie asked if it could be fixed up and moved to another location on the property. Sue said there’s major structural damage to the building; there’s no foundation or slab. Karen agreed with others regarding the porch addition. She said the doors and windows on the garage are quite interesting and could be considered significant, but the structure itself, in her opinion, would have to be rebuilt to be of any value and bring it back to where it was. Jesse Roth said he spoke with some preservation experts who said over 90% of the structure is not repairable. He said gravel was added to the floor of the garage because animals were burrowing in along the cinder blocks on the sides. Jeff agreed that the rear addition is not significant but he’s not sure about the garage. Geoff said he doesn’t find the garage or the addition to be significant. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 14 of 17 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Sydney Hedge, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she researched the history of the garage and found the following: • 1900 & 1926 there was a 2-story stable directly behind the house. • 1932 shows a one-story garage for an automobile. She suggested trying to preserve windows and doors from the garage. The Foundation believes that the structure has significance due to its age. Jesse Roth said the Foundation’s letter concluded that the Foundation is conscious of preserving the “original, sound & repairable historic materials”. He said it’s not original, it’s not sound and would be very difficult to repair. Following a discussion among the board members, 3 said the garage had significance, 2 said it did not, and one was undecided. Tamie (undecided) said the building has architectural features that are worth saving (doors & windows) so if that were to happen she would be okay with deeming the structure insignificant. Jeff agreed with the conditions Tamie stated. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the rear addition at 154 Regent St. is not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta- Y. 6-0 in favor, Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the garage at 154 Regent St. is not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-N, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-N, K. Cavotta- Y. 4-2 in favor, Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to allow demolition of the garage at 154 Regent St. with the following conditions: The garage doors, windows and siding be incorporated in the project where practical. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-0 in favor, Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to allow demolition of the rear addition at 154 Regent St. The motion was seconded by Karen Cavotta. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-0 in favor, Motion carried. Sue Davis was not speaking in the mic so I will record the details that I heard. Drawings of the various existing and proposed elevations were displayed. There was an indication that there was a porch on the Sanborn map. The windows are vinyl and not original to the house. They would like to replace them with wood and have the grill pattern 2 over 2. They will keep the north elevation windows in the same location. Sue displayed the garage elevations and said it won’t be much larger than the current structure. Proposed City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 15 of 17 exterior materials: ? & windows – wood (Marvin), standing seam metal roof for the lower porch roof. They propose two new bump-outs on the lower south elevation and a standing seam porch roof. The windows will be replaced in slightly different locations than where they are currently. The front porch columns will be wood. Tamie said she has no problem with what’s being proposed, and the materials are appropriate. Geoff & Jeff had no questions or concerns. Karen asked why the porch has steps going off in two directions. Sue said it would be easier to access the rear yard and driveway. Karen said she appreciates the new window patterning; it brings back a lot of character to the house. Leslie said it was completely appropriate. Rob asked what the material would be for the steps and decking. Sue said they’re looking at wood but there is another product called Aeratis that’s being used around the country and approved by historians that they’re considering. Rob asked what material they would use to extend the driveway to the new garage. Jesse said currently there’s a concrete slab where 2 cars can park but they are proposing to tear that out and put in one uniform material. Tamie said if the board moves forward with the project the applicant can return to talk about the material for the driveway. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition and construction at 154 Regent St. with the following conditions: 1. The existing windows, doors and siding on the garage be used wherever possible in the construction of the new garage. 2. The columns, steps and decking on the house are to be made of wood. 3. The applicant will return to the Design Review Board for driveway review when the timing is appropriate. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 6-0 in favor, Motion carried. 9. #20250387 179 Nelson Ave. Exterior Modification. Historic review of installation of ductless air conditioning system in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Robert Decker, American Heating & Cooling represented the applicant. They are proposing 3 ductless air conditioning units (one for each of the 3 floors) on the ground on the side of the house behind the fence. The first floor will have two indoor units that will be connected through the refrigeration lines. A “slim duct” (the size of a gutter) is what will be visible from the outside coming down the side of the house. Two slim ducts would come down to the back of the chimney and the two lines would be in one chase. The two lines in the back from the second floor would come down on either side of the rear window (for two separate rooms). The two lines would meet under the window and come down to the ground unit in one pipe. The pipe comes in white or brown and may be able to be painted but likely wouldn’t match the house color exactly. Tamie said when the board considers this type of HVAC their primary concern is visibility as well as the number of penetrations going into a historic façade. She’s not concerned with the visibility of the condenser units on the ground because they’ll be hidden behind the fencing. The conduits running up the side of the house are a City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 16 of 17 concern. The one that could be tucked in behind the chimney would be okay and would have to be painted to match the house as closely as possible. She said they need a better solution than the two conduits on either side of the second story window. Chris suggested that they mount the units with brackets on the west side (back) of the house where they wouldn’t be seen. Both Chris and Leslie disclosed that they are within 500 feet of this property. Rob, Leslie agreed with Chris that something needs to be done to minimize the visibility of the conduit. Jeff said it’s visually disruptive on a prominent façade. He would not approve of it. Geoff agreed it’s too busy as proposed. Chris suggested they consider high velocity air conditioning. Robert said he would speak with his client about another solution. 10. #20210781 Trimarchi driveway Modifications. 115 Circular St. Executive Session to discuss present or pending litigation regarding the Historic Review of driveway replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. David Appel was present in the audience and asked to make a public comment. Tony Izzo said there would be no further comment and that the board would be going into an executive session to deliberate. Mr. Appel disagreed with counsel and asked the board’s permission to address them. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said that Mr. Appel should have been told in advance that there wouldn’t be any public comment so he wouldn’t have had to sit through a four-hour meeting. Tony suggested that the board not decide anything tonight and that Mr. Appel could provide his comments in writing before the board makes its final decision. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to move into an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation regarding David Appel versus the City of Saratoga Springs, Dominick Trimarchi & Amanda Tucker. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON JUNE 25, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – May 28, 2025 - Page 17 of 17