Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025 6:02 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, City Planner. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: 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. #2050391 268 Broadway CB20 Signage. Historic Review of an unlit wall mounted sign in the Urban Core (UC) District. 2. #20250408 63 Spring St. Minerva Coin and Jewelry signage. Historic review of an unlit wall mounted sign within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T-5) District. 3. #20250441 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modification – Stained Glass Window. Historic review of a previously approved application for window and door modifications within the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. 4. #20250448 276 Washington St. Exterior Modification-Roof mounted PV Array. Architectural review of rooftop solar array within the Urban Residential – (UR-1) District. 5. #20250447 59 Lake Ave. One Dream Signage. Architectural review of wall mounted signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 6. #20250117 125 S. Broadway Signage. Architectural review of wall mounted signage in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) 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 applications for 268 Broadway CB20 Signage, 63 Spring St. Minerva Coin and Jewelry signage, 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modification, 276 Washington St. Exterior Modification, 59 Lake Ave. One Dream Signage, and 125 S. Broadway Signage, 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 Historic Review: 7. #20250342 19 George St. Demolition & Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing structure; Historic review of construction of a one-story, two-car garage within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Y-Engineering reviewed the shed/garage in the back of the structure to determine significance. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining the shed at 19 George St. insignificant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. 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. The board began a discussion about demolition, but Rob said he did not want to vote on it because he didn’t approve of the post demolition plan. It was determined that the Board does not have to approve of the post-demo plan if the structure is not deemed significant. If it were deemed significant, an approvable post-demo plan is required for demolition. No structure will be built without approval from the board. The Board continued discussion regarding the construction of the two-car garage. Tamie said initially she was opposed to the driveway being moved and abutting the neighbor, but it is zoning compliant. The asphalt being proposed for the driveway is compatible with other structures in the neighborhood and not inappropriate. The natural materials being used for the new construction are appropriate. The Foundation has submitted a letter with concerns about the location of the garage because it’s not consistent with what you would find for a garage or carriage house on a property like that. Chris clarified that the walls of the house and the garage would be 8 ft. apart. He asked what would happen to the existing driveway to the west and Tonya said it would be returned to grass. He reminded the board that they approved a very similar garage on Phila St. He has no issue with the project. Rob feels there’s room to move the garage to the back of the property, where garages are historically located, and still maintain the root system of the trees. He’s concerned about the huge driveway but would be more supportive if the structure were to be pushed toward the rear of the property and read like a detached, former carriage house structure. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 2 of 10 A tree expert spoke about the location of the trees; the sugar maple is on the property line in the middle of the property line. The canopy extends beyond the limits of the property and the roots extend to the limits of the canopy. Tom Denny said he was involved in the community urban forest master plan for the city which called for mature tree preservation and the natural resources inventory that the city adopted in 2020. He said there are many examples throughout the city where trees are dying as a result of construction near them. It’s in the planning documents for the city that tree preservation is an important consideration in their value to the community. No amount of replanting small trees ever replaces them. Leslie asked why the driveway on the west side couldn’t remain and the garage be placed toward the rear of the property where it is now. She said once the shed is removed it seems there would be room for a single-car garage. Tony said it would cut into the tree canopy. (Tonya is referring to the projected drawings and photos which are not displayed on the video). Tamie noted that if there was alley access it would be the way to enter this property but in this case that type of access is not possible. Karen said she would like to see a clearer site plan showing the delineation between the subject driveway and the next-door driveway. She asked why they can’t turn the garage so they can drive directly into it and diminish the amount of paved driveway that would be visible. They lose the green space in their backyard. Tonya said it’s all relative to the tree canopy. Jeff said the site plan makes very little sense. It’s the wrong location for the garage, the wrong orientation – should be turned 90 degrees and not jammed up against the house. He suggested positioning the garage at the rear of the property and incorporating wheel paths with grass in between to reduce impervious surfaces and preserve the tree, if feasible. Geoff agreed with Karen regarding the orientation of the garage. He’s in favor of saving the trees but the current proposed location of the garage isn’t fitting. It would be better if you could see it from the street. Having the driveway abut the neighbor is not a good idea aesthetically speaking. He would be in favor of a structure similar to what’s proposed or turned 90 degrees and moved over in line with the driveway, which could mean having a one car garage. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Linda Little, owner of 19 George St. said they really love their home but have to downsize. They have carefully considered the construction of the garage and the surrounding trees. Three houses close to hers in the neighborhood have two-car garages that people turn into. Most homes in her neighborhood have garages. She added that even though her home has great walkability scores, she can personally attest to the fact that not everyone can walk 5 blocks to downtown. She said they love the city and neighborhood enough that they will be building a tasteful building that will be compatible with the neighborhood. Russ Pittinger, owner 19 George St. addressed the lack of site plan details and the ability to pull in and out of the garage. He said there would be a space between the house and the driveway if they’re allowed to abut the existing driveway. The drainage from both driveways would have to be accommodated on his property as it is now. He City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 3 of 10 said they’re asking for a two-car garage. The question is whether you’ll see the garage or not. By tucking in the garage, the trees have the best chance of survival. Tonya said the neighbors from 15 George St., Mark Bettinger & Julie Rodgers submitted a letter to the city stating that they support the residential plans as submitted to the Design Review Board by Linda Whittle & Russ Pittinger. Rob said he respects the discussion about trees but there’s no protection or guarantee that the trees won’t be removed by the new owners. The board is tasked with determining what’s appropriate and in his opinion that should not be based on the trees, albeit beautiful, that could be quickly taken down on a whim. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized by saying the Board is struggling with the location of the garage; a site plan delineating the driveway would be helpful to determine if it’s historically appropriate; suggestions have been made to change the garage orientation by switching it 90 degrees to face the street and shift it over. Tamie suggested that the applicant consider the board’s suggestions and the historic guidelines for the neighborhood. She also asked that the applicant provide photos of the other homes in the neighborhood that have garages oriented the way they are proposing. Tamie said the board can still make a motion regarding the demolition of the non- significant structure as a separate action from the construction project. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition of the garage structure at 19 George St., Saratoga Springs, NY. 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. The applicant will return to further discuss the construction of the garage. D. DRB Applications Under Architectural Review: 8. #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. At the last meeting the board asked if the applicant could provide a height study, a north elevation, and different window configurations for the third floor. Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects represented the application and responded to the board’s request from the last meeting with the following: NO MONITOR DISPLAYED ON THE VIDEO • Additional staircases on the front porches – there are now 4 staircases. • Along the Park Place elevation – eliminated 4 dormers (now 1, 2, 2, 1) City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 4 of 10  • Showed building from the northeast. Tamie said the new staircases help to break up the mass of what is a very long structure. It gives the look and feel of small homes next to one another and replicates what’s seen throughout the city. Reducing the windows on the third floor makes it less busy and helps to mitigate the sense of height. She feels the structure is compatible with the neighborhood. Geoff said the comparisons that were shown for structures of this size adjacent to small buildings in the same zone throughout the city were important to him. This proposed structure is much larger than the house next to it, but in the overall context of the city in that zone it’s appropriate. He appreciates the minor adjustments to the windows on the 3rd floor and the additional porch access. Jeff (mic not on) said the staircases and window changes in the Mansard help it to communicate better in the neighborhood. Mass and scale are appropriate. Karen agreed with Jeff and said the small changes made a big difference. She appreciated seeing the building in context with the house next door. In response to some of the concerns of the neighbors, she walked all the way down to the end of the street and said there’s a very large old building with a Mansard roof and dormers similar to this proposed structure. She noted that other similar buildings have porches where the stairs project off the porch and are not carved into the porch and suggested that could be done with some of these porch stairs. The building is appropriate. Leslie said she thinks the building is appropriate and the quality of the materials being used will be important. Rob chose to hold off on commenting until after the public comments are heard. Chris said the improvements are lovely and he finds the mass to be appropriate. He agreed with Leslie that the materials will be important. It will be a nice in-fill building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Rich Frank, 18 Cottage St. said the owner of the subject property took down many trees over the past two years – they’re gone. The view from his home will be the north side of the building which is a 50 ft. wall with no windows. It doesn’t seem particularly historic. He questioned if parking down the ramp would be useful with 3 cars stacked inside. In his opinion the other similar structures throughout the city seem to have been built a hundred or so years ago with a certain density in mind that didn’t happen. Now they look anomalous. The Gentleman did not state his name but lives next door to Rich Frank. The neighborhood is about 4 blocks. The Sanborn maps only give a footprint but it’s to scale. That’s what he would like to see compared. Ms. Wood distributed photos to the board showing her home compared to the location of the new proposed structure. She’s asking if there could be a larger side yard setback. Not speaking into mic. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 5 of 10 Bert Porter, 14.5 Cottage St. said he will also be looking at the 50 ft. brick wall. He said he’s stunned that no one is bothered by the mass of this huge building. It will bring a major infusion of people into a very small street. He said it’s unrealistic to think that people will park in the parking garage and the small street is not equipped to handle additional parking. Katie Cappelli, 18 Cottage St. said the brick building that’s being referenced at the corner of White St. and Cottage St. is maybe half the width of the proposed structure. There’s nothing to compare to in their neighborhood. She looked at the hotel from the Bolster collection and there’s a large amount of green space and trees in addition to the building. If that’s what was being proposed the neighbors would likely be in favor of the proposal. The building is huge and makes no sense in the neighborhood. Dave Guarino, 21 Park Place lives on the backside of the proposed building. He will have a similar view as the residents on Cottage St. He said his house is the largest in the neighborhood and he could fit four of them in the footprint of what’s being proposed. It’s right on top of the neighbor and it’s too big. This building belongs in a downtown neighborhood. The developer should scale down the project with smaller units. It would be more acceptable to the neighborhood. Allie Dockum, 48 White St. said there’s no way that this mass and scale matches the neighborhood. She asked if this was the only building in zone 4. She reminded the board that the lot is being split so this building will be on half of a lot. The neighborhood is not against anything being built just that it should fit in. Jane Why, has lived at 44 White St. since 1978 and asked if any other board members besides Karen had walked the neighborhood. Tamie said all board members have taken a look at the location. Jane said there’s more than one house abutting the property. The rendering is disproportionate. Katie Hooper, 14 ½ Cottage St. said she will also have a view of the wall. She agrees with everyone else’s concerns. She has traffic and parking concerns. Jason Thorud, 22 Park Pl. distributed a letter he submitted to the city and asked the board to read it. He lives directly across the street. He disagrees with allowing such a large multi-family structure with 6 units to be built when a 4-unit structure on the same block was turned down. The letter is on file with the city. Lars Anderson, 20 Park Pl. lives across the street from the project. The building is huge and looks very industrial. It does not look like typical brownstones where the stairs are wider and open to the street. There’s no green space. Steve O’Shea, 10 Cottage St. and 31 Park Place has concerns with parking, snow removal and traffic. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 6 of 10 Tamie said it’s wonderful to see the community come together and show their passion and concern for their neighborhood. She reiterated that the DRB has been asked by the planning board for an advisory opinion in terms of mass, scale, height, proportion and how the structure fits within the context of the neighborhood. The DRB does not have purview over traffic, parking, garbage collection, snow removal, street noise, etc. She said these are important concerns and urged the public to attend the planning board meeting where these things will be discussed and evaluated. Tamie noted that the historic photos of the hotel are interesting but the decisions the board is making, mass, scale and historic standards are not related to those original drawings. Rob said the board is tasked with protecting and preserving historic buildings in the city. While this building may be compatible with some neighborhoods in the city, he doesn’t feel it is compatible in this neighborhood. He said he’s basing his decision on the 100% negative feedback that’s been received from the people who live in the neighborhood. The proposed structure reads more like an apartment building than the townhomes represented in the applicant’s presentation. He would not support the project and gave it an unfavorable advisory opinion. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said after reviewing the materials presented, the majority of the DRB members find that the proposed structure is appropriate for the neighborhood. Leslie said after listening to the comments from the public she has changed her opinion to unfavorable. The streetscape on Park is attractive and compatible but the section of building on Cottage St. is not compatible with the smaller houses on the street. Something like the “Holly House” on Ludlow St., a large brick condo building in the neighborhood with small houses would be more appropriate. There’s a lot of green spaces and there are several garages behind it to accommodate the residents. She noted that the pictures of the house next door to the applicant’s property show that the new structure will be extremely close. Matt clarified that the neighbor is very close to their own property line. The applicant is 12’ from the property line plus a 2’ overhang on the roof. There’s a 17’ to 18’ difference between the two buildings. Tamie Ehinger made a motion that the Design Review Board issue a positive advisory opinion to the Planning Board for a proposed multi-family dwelling including 6 residential units at Park Place and Cottage St., Saratoga Springs, NY. with the following feedback: The mass, scale, height and proportion of the proposed new construction is not incompatible with the neighborhood. The additional staircases and porches break up the mass allowing the new structure to better fit in with the context of the neighborhood. The new window configuration helps mitigate the appearance of height, and the applicant has provided many examples of 3-story Mansard dormer structures throughout the city adjacent to 2-story structures. The Design Review Board suggests that the applicant examine the north elevation and consider adding window or trim details to break up the mass. They also reiterate the importance of using high-quality materials. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-N, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, L. DiCarlo-N, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-2 in favor, Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 9. #20250409 68 Beekman St. Exterior Modifications. Architectural review of exterior modifications to an existing mixed-use structure within the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Kelly Mallette, Caveman Construction and Zachary Datrie, owner 68 Beekman. The owner is looking to remove the door on the left side of the lower floor front of the building. There are three separate entrances at the front of the building. The left side goes to what was the bar and they have plans to make the whole left side a private social club and the right side an art gallery. With the door removed it will give more privacy to their members and make it less confusing as to what door goes where. The center door goes to a staircase up the middle and there’s a rear entrance on Oak St. The doors don’t fit their frames and don’t lock securely so they would like to replace them with steel doors. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it was nice to see some work being done on this building. There’s an 8’ by 8’ shed that the applicant is intending to demolish which does not need a demo permit because it’s small and within the square footage by code. Some of the old rails and floors on the rear and front porch will be removed. They are currently plywood and will be replaced with Douglas Fir and Cedar Railings. These meet historical standards. Tamie read the guidelines regarding replacement doors. “Windows and doors are among the most significant character defining features of a building. They help to identify the style and period of the building. Every effort should be made to preserve and maintain these important features. Replacement should only be considered when the windows and doors are beyond reasonable repair. Entrance doors and frames are critically important decorative elements of a historic house. Every effort should be made to preserve original or historic doors as well as associated functional and decorative features including frames, sills, heads, jams and moldings.” Tamie said she couldn’t support what is being proposed for the doors, especially the bricking in and removing the door to the left. This is a beautiful historic building and it’s important that the façade is maintained. The doors look like they can be restored to the original. Discussion about the railings on the porch between Chris and applicant and neither talking into the mic. Rob said it is a fabulous building and agreed with Chris but there are details that were missing in the application. He said he would agree with refinishing the doors and leaving them in place. With signage and interior treatment people will figure out where to go to get to the private club. He said the treatment of the upstairs balcony should be replicated or the applicant should provide additional details. Zachary said they’re keeping the posts; it’s the plywood that’s rotten. Everything on the front façade will be cedar. Geoff brought up a discussion about the hardware on the front doors. The applicant said the hardware is too low and they would like to bring it up higher. The board agreed they can do that but not add a brass plate. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. There were none. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 Karen Cavotta made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 68 Beekman St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: All existing front doors should remain in place and be restored, the door on the left side of the porch should remain and in place and the suggestion was made to use interior treatment to infill the opening from the interior only. The beadboard cedar railing should be replicated to match the existing front porch. The rear porch will be renovated to replicate the front rail. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. 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. 10. #20250449 9 Spa Circle Construction. Architectural review of exterior modifications to an existing structure in the Urban Neighborhood (UN/T-4) District. Melissa King, Owner represented the application. Not speaking into mic, hard to hear and there’s no display on the video. The applicant’s goal is to bring more natural light into the home. The Ballston Ave. elevation was originally the front of the house and is now the back. The only change to the façade will be to raise the windows on the 2nd floor higher to increase light and solar gain into the house. The proposal by façade: • South – this is where they have the most opportunity to harness light. They will be adding windows and a sliding door on the porch. The first floor of the house is brick and the rest isn’t. • Spa Circle side – this is now the front and main entrance to the house. Connecting the two buildings with an entryway/foyer. East? • North – the only façade change is adding a 2nd egress window to the first-floor bedroom. • West – no change? Tamie said there are two sets of original windows left in the house; the rest are vinyl. One set is fine and will remain and the stained-glass window is being removed. There will be removing and moving of windows and new construction being built. Window changes – Tamie read the historic standards for windows. The DRB uses these standards when reviewing applications that are in the historic and architectural review districts. There’s more flexibility in the architectural review district in terms of materials used. This project is in an architectural review district and not a historic district. The reason the applicant is before the board is the back of the property backs up to Ballston Ave. The structure itself is historic and sits in the middle of a 1970’s neighborhood. Tamie said the changes the applicant is making are positive and make the home more cohesive. Geoff Wood agreed with Tamie. Jeff had questions about drawings details and differences. He said in order for him to approve the application it needs to be more accurately represented. He said the applicant has effectively communicated their intent. Tamie said before the project can move forward; the drawings need to match exactly. Karen said she would reconsider the small windows on the front façade; they should be the same size as the other windows on the house and the proportions should look the same. Leslie asked why they’re proposing casement windows and not double hung. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 9 of 10 Melissa said they haven’t fully decided if they’ll be using all casement windows. Leslie said they don’t normally approve casement windows for an older home. She asked if they could use a French door instead of a sliding glass door. Melissa said they don’t have the room to swing the door open. Jeff said they do offer sliding French doors that are much classier looking. Leslie agreed with Karen about the windows in the front of the house. Rob agreed that accurate drawings are necessary and suggested they consider an architect with experience working with historical buildings. The changes on Spa Circle read better with the neighborhood but he wouldn’t support the other changes as proposed. He noted that the historic windows on the front will be removed and not maintained as previously indicated. Rob said he still doesn’t fully understand the scope of the project at this time. Chris said all of the window replacements should be double hung and the trim should be replicated appropriate to the history of the home. The applicant needs to be sensitive to the changes to the historic structure. Discussion about the proposed new construction: Several board members said that the shift and the new entrance way is appealing, and the materials are appropriate. The transom windows above the new arch look great. The new garage will be clad in fiber cement board and that is an appropriate material. Tamie summarized the board’s thoughts on the proposal: Everyone is comfortable with the big changes being made. The sensitivity is with the changes to the historic structure: the first floor (small) windows on the front façade are not appropriate for that façade. Double hung windows would be more historically appropriate. A sliding French door was suggested instead of a sliding glass door. The removal of the two historic windows at the back of the house (formerly the front) would be inappropriate. The applicant spoke but inaudible, not speaking into mic or mic not on. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. All in favor, Motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON JULY 16, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 11, 2025 - Page 10 of 10