Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2025 6:02 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, Chris Bennett, Geoff Wood, Karen Cavotta, Jeff Gritsavage. ABSENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Leslie DiCarlo STAFF: Susan Barden, City Planner, Julia Destino, City Planner. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from May 28, 2025. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 5-0, 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. #20250514 48 Wright St. Verizon utility pole #NG 5/VZ9. Architectural review of the addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to a replacement utility pole in the public right-of-way within the Urban Resident-2 (UR-2) District. 2. #20250513 20 Vanderbilt Ave. Utility Pole #NG 9-1B adj. to 20 Vanderbilt Ave. Architectural review of the addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to a replacement utility pole in the public right-of-way within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 3. #20250512 110 Lincoln Ave. Verizon utility pole #NM 28/NYT. Architectural review of the addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to a replacement utility pole in the public right-of-way within the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. 4. #20250194 110 Excelsior Ave. Signage. Architectural review of wall mounted signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. . Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience, there were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the applications for 48 Wright St. Verizon utility pole #NG 5/VZ9, 20 Vanderbilt Ave. Utility Pole #NG 9-1B, 110 Lincoln Ave. Verizon utility pole #NM 28/NYT, 110 Excelsior Ave. wall mounted signage, Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-0 in favor, Motion carried. C. DRB Applications Under Historic Review: 5. #20250385 624 N Broadway Unitarian Universalist Congregation Demolition. Determination of significance of an existing one-story structure within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said the DRB will only be determining significance of the structure at tonight’s meeting. George Olsen, Olsen Associates Architects. The one-story structure was built around 1970 and is not in great shape. The applicant would like to make sure the building is not significant and eventually build a 3-story, 4-unit condo building with parking below. The applicant received a letter from SHPO stating that the building is not eligible for the national or state register and is not a contributing resource to the Broadway Historic District. All of the board members agreed with SHPO’s assessment of the building. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the Foundation agrees that it is a non-contributing building. She noted however that this particular building doesn’t have any architectural merit as a mid-century building, however, there are other buildings that the Foundation would feel differently about on No. Broadway. Chris Bennett asked how long there would be a vacant lot once the building is removed. Rob said the board is only determining significance tonight and the demolition discussion will be at a later meeting. Rob DuBoff made a motion determining that the structure at 624 No. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY does not have architectural or historical significance. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-0 in favor, Motion carried. 6. #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. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 2 of 10 Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said there was a discussion about the placement of the garage and location of historic trees at the rear property line at a previous meeting and the applicant has returned to present a new plan. Tonya Yasenchak, Y-Engineering & Engineering America said they had moved the 2-car garage closer to the main house with the intention of saving an old sugar maple tree that the owners sugar every year. They reconfigured their plan to include a 1.5 car, 1.5-story garage which will give them the ability to park one car, have room for storage, and move the building all the way to the east, leaving some room in hopes of saving the tree. The footprint is slightly smaller, and the door faces the front. The driveway will be located along the east side because that’s the widest part of the lot and will allow them to get into the backyard. The garage will be further back than the house directly to the west by about 5 or 6 ft. There was a discussion at the last meeting questioning why the applicants would want the garage in the backyard because it would hinder the view from the back of the house. Tonya noted that the main floor sits up at least 4.5 ft. from grade, so the building is 4.5 ft. lower than the first floor and they will be able to look over the shed area. The back of the house will not take up the full view. They are proposing to put the storage side of the garage on an Alaskan slab so they can avoid digging into the tree’s roots. The materials will stay the same as were originally proposed. They will include a barn door on the western side of the building for access in and out of the storage area. Rob said it’s a workable solution and he’s supportive and happy with the compromise. The size of the structure is compatible with neighboring structures in the historic district. Karen, Chris, Jeff and Geoff agreed that it was a really nice solution and addressed the concerns that the board had. Geoff noted that he read the letter from the Preservation Foundation stating they were pleased with the changes except for the location of the building. Geoff said ideally it would be in the back corner, but he understands the value of the sugar maple tree. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. There were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion approving construction of a 1.5 car garage at 19 George St., Saratoga Springs, NY, plans as submitted. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-0 in favor, Motion carried. 7. #20250456 65 Phila St. Area Variance. Advisory opinion to the ZBA for a proposed area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence and a detached garage in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said the ZBA is seeking an advisory opinion from the DRB on the mass and scale of the garage and proposed addition. They noted that they’re looking for alternative ideas for the addition. Susan said one of the criteria in evaluating City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 3 of 10 an area variance is feasible alternatives, so they would like the DRB’s input on feasible alternatives for the location of the addition. Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects. Matt said the context of the conversation with the ZBA about feasible alternatives for the proposed addition is because they want to add a third bedroom on the second floor. The only feasible alternative he could come up with from a zoning perspective was to put the bedroom over the existing east wing addition on the main building, but that solution was architecturally inappropriate. The zoning board is asking if the DRB agrees with that assessment or has a different opinion. Matt gave a brief history of the building and noted that it was condemned and slated to be demolished along with the building next door to build multi-family housing on the 65 Phila parcel. The city and the DRB would not allow demolition by neglect, and it never went forward. The property was then acquired by the Preservation Foundation who stabilized the building and restored the exterior materials getting it ready to sell to someone to develop into a home. It was agreed that the back wall would be left unfinished with the intent that the rear of the property would be further developed. Matt displayed the 1889 Sanborn Map of the neighborhood showing that the subject building used to have several additions on the back and the entire block had outbuildings: 2- story carriage houses, barns, etc. There’s a historical pattern of urban density in the neighborhood. A current aerial map shows several two-car garages and through development on lots throughout the neighborhood. Matt showed images of adjacent structures and their relationship to the subject property one of which is a new two-car garage at 69 Phila St. The yard is at a downslope from the north and east. Because of the existing conditions of the main building, the plan is to level the grade out in the back to get the back side of the house out of the dirt. The finished grade will be slightly lower than currently shown. The site plan for the proposed garage shows it will be right up to the property line with the roof overhang into the setback as allowed in the UDO without needing a variance. The floor plan for the garage shows space for two cars and a half bath on the first floor, and a winding staircase to the second floor to compact the footprint of the staircase. Matt displayed elevations of the main structure with the addition. Board members’ comments on the proposed addition: Rob said in his opinion the addition should not be built over the eastern part of the existing structure. The 15’ by 13.5’ addition that’s being proposed at the rear of the building is completely compatible and won’t detract from the character of the existing structure. Jeff, Geoff, Chris and Karen agreed that it’s not inappropriate and appreciated that the addition is offset and not in line with the original house. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience regarding the addition. Leslie LeBon, 14 Lafayette St. (directly behind 19 George) said she commented at the ZBA meeting regarding lot coverage and how the variance could be avoided. She is an architect and was on a design review board in Laguna Beach, CA for 7 years. She said the addition will contribute to the excessive lot coverage. The two-story addition City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 4 of 10 can be modified and scaled back with a third bedroom and large mudroom underneath. The third bedroom is calling for a bathroom and there are already bathrooms for the other two bedrooms. Two of the bedrooms can share one bathroom. Rob said the bathroom looks like it’s in the existing structure. (Susan will clarify). Jeff asked how it would adversely affect her property. Leslie said the excessive lot coverage will adversely affect all of the neighbors and set a precedence. Current zoning allows for 41% and this coverage exceeds this. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the reason they are seeking an addition, and one that is smaller than what was historically there, is because the previous owners intentionally neglected the building for decades and the court required them to remove their two-story addition which had a much larger footprint. Pam Funiciello said her husband’s family purchased 61 Phila St. (neighbor to subject property) in 1982. At that time, it was a 32-bedroom uninhabitable rooming house. They worked with the Preservation Foundation and National Historic Places to restore the building and renovate it to a multi-family apartment building, where they lived from 1985 to 1997. They now live around the corner at 116 Circular St. Pam said prior to the neglectful owners owning the property, it was a synagogue that maintained a tax- exempt status. At that time there were two additions on the back of the subject property; one similar to the addition proposed today and a smaller enclosure that covered a ceremonial Jewish bath with another tacked on building to the side. The addition was condemned by the city because the smaller structure had collapsed during a storm exposing the addition. Pam said she supports the proposed addition to the building. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said there appears to be a consensus that the addition is compatible with the neighboring buildings and neighborhood and will likely be replicating something that collapsed in a storm. Discussion about the garage: Rob said he appreciated the photos of garages that Matt shared and said because it’s in the downtown core area a certain density is appropriate. However, he asked why the garage had to be so large. Some of the photos shown were of single-story garages (69 Phila and Lafayette St.). Why is a mechanical room and storage necessary, and why not build a one-story garage? Matt said the applicant wants to put an office upstairs. He said the structure is difficult to work with because there’s an Italianate roof that was built on top of a gable Federal roof leaving no useable attic space for storage. The crawl space is 3.5’ to 4’. Rob said he doesn’t find the garage to be incompatible with the neighborhood in size or location. It’s pushed to the rear of the property and there are no windows on the north side that would interfere with neighbor privacy. It does appear that there are trees that will have to be removed. Matt said they’re proposing to do a slab foundation, and the trees are not on his client’s property. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 5 of 10 Geoff said the size and height of the building fits based on the explanation of the grade change in the rear. It will be leveled and flattened about one foot. He noted that anything that is being excavated within the canopy of the tree will impact on the root system. Overall, he is in favor of the proposal. Jeff asked if the rear building will be the same color as the front building, although not in DRB’s purview. Matt said that would be their intent. Jeff suggested mixing up the colors, giving it a layered look so the buildings look separate but still in the same scheme. Chris said he has no concerns. It will be a lovely project and a great asset to the street once built. Karen said the design and details are beautiful, but she feels the garage could be reduced in scale. It could be a 1 ½ car garage with storage and become a secondary structure. The lot coverage is an issue, greenspace in the city is dwindling and it’s important. Filling it with paving and a garage isn’t appropriate. Rob said he doesn’t disagree but is looking at it as getting two cars off of Phila St. because parking is an issue. Also, the Sanborn maps show that historically there were two-story structures there that housed animals. Chris added that there are other garages in the neighborhood that are the same size. Jeff said this is a dense urban area and he doesn’t find it inappropriate. Matt addressed Karen to let her know that they will be using permeable pavers for the driveway. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience regarding the garage. Andy Williams, 14 Lafayette St. bought his house the first time in 1986 and eventually sold and moved away. He came back to town in 2023 and saw that the house was back on the market and purchased it again. He applauded what the Foundation and community have done to restore 65 Phila. The garage is too big in size, mass, and scale. The trees that might be lost by the construction of the garage are on his property. The aerial map shows his trees are the only trees around. He suggested a 20’ by 20’, single-story garage like 69 Phila St. and noted that neighborhood collaboration and notification prior to a proposal being presented would be very helpful. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she received copies of letters from several neighbors in support of the project that weren’t uploaded to the website. Carol Wells has lived across the street for 35 years and said “The street has gone through quite a change, and when I moved in we were considered ‘the gut’ where there was a garbage company where the library now stands. Slowly individuals purchased the buildings and rehabilitated them, including myself. Sixty-five Phila St. stood empty for 30 years and it was a danger and an eyesore to the street and the neighborhood. The Preservation Foundation has done an excellent job preserving the structure. I am in support of both the addition and the garage; it’s one more step to preserve our neighborhood.” Robert Rogano submitted the following comment: “I’m writing a quick note to share my opinion on the addition and garage project planned for 65 Phila St. Our house, 64, is directly across the street from 65 and I see no negative impact to allowing this project to go forward as planned. As you know, the renovation of City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 6 of 10 65 Phila St. has been a long time coming and has done nothing but significantly improve the neighborhood. I’d like to suggest that at this time it be approved so that improvements can move forward with little delay. Joe Deleva at 69 Phila St. said “as the owner that completed the project at 69 Phila St., I’d like to share my perspective on the proposal for 65 Phila St. Our restoration project was a difficult one that required significant investment and time to complete properly. I understand what the new owners of 65 Phila St. are taking on and they still have a long way to go to bring their current building up to modern standards. The proposed addition and garage are necessary and practical additions, especially on Phila St. where street parking is a constant challenge. Please consider the following: similar buildings exist in the neighborhood and many neighbors have garages at the rear of their lots. Stormwater concerns will be addressed as the applicant appears committed to complying with applicable mitigation and drainage standards. The proposed height, scale and mass are appropriate given the historically dense development pattern of the area. I support the project and appreciate the continued investment of preserving and thoughtfully improving our neighborhood”. Samantha noted that Joe is a member of the board of directors for the Foundation and was recused from all conversations related to the proposed project. Samantha added for the record that this is a small lot and this and the neighboring lots were developed rather strangely. Sixty-nine Phila St. has a small jut out to allow for a garage and 65 does not. She said the proposed garage is not one she would have generally supported but because it has a suburban appearance, it works. She said parking is a tremendous problem. Despite signs stating no parking in front of the curb cut at 65 Phila during construction, cars where always parked there. She presented photos of other similar garages that were approved by the DRB. Leslie LaBon, 14 Lafayette St. the garage is not appropriate to the mass and scale of the property. The garage could easily be reduced to 20’ by 20’ and a one-story, two-car garage like all the others in the neighborhood. Those that were pointed out on Lafayette Street have only attic space above and have less square footage for the footprint. If they put the garage 5 ft. from the property line as proposed and against the bark of the trees it will kill them. Pam Funicello said she appreciates the work of the ZBA and DRB and how they help property owners find the balance between the historic significance and the aesthetics that are quintessential to Saratoga Springs and balancing that against the pragmatics of wanting to live in a modern, energy efficient, comfortable space. Pam said she doesn’t have a problem with mass or scale, and she understands the nature of variances being given relative to what is needed when there’s growth. She acknowledged that the work of the Foundation has added to the value and beauty of the neighborhood. She noted that the paved areas in the neighborhood do add to the runoff and drainage problems. Geoff asked where the property line is in relation to the change in slope in the backyard. Matt said it’s very close to the base of the hill. Geoff said whether the garage is 20’ by 20’ or 24’ by 24’ it’s likely to impact the trees. He said as a good neighbor it would be considerate to look at the neighbor’s concerns about the trees. The height and scale of the garage impacting the trees is irrelevant; it’s the size of the footprint and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 location. Anything that could be done to pull the garage away from the toe of slope should be considered. Making the garage smaller would also be beneficial to the trees. Matt said once they get their variance and return before the DRB they will have the option to negotiate where the building will be located. There was a discussion about the property line location which was clarified by Matt, Samantha and the owner of 14 Lafayette behind the subject property. Chris said the city doesn’t have any control over trees on private property but everything that can be done should be done to preserve the trees. Karen reiterated that she’s in favor of the addition to the building, but she is not in favor of the applicant being given a zoning variance for an unnecessarily large garage. Rob DuBoff made a motion to give a favorable advisory opinion to the ZBA for a proposed area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence and a detached garage at 65 Phila St., Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-N. 4-1 in favor, Motion carried. D. DRB Applications Under Architectural Review: 8. #20250340 151 Van Dam St. Demolition and Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing structure, discussion of new construction of a two-story, two-car garage within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said the board will be discussing the historical and/or architectural significance of the garage structure and the demolition, but the applicant needs to go before the ZBA for variances prior to discussion about the new construction. Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented the application. He showed an aerial view of the property, context photos of the subject house and site plan, neighboring properties at 153, 149 and 127 Van Dam St., office buildings across the street, and the garage, wooden fence and wooden trellis they are proposing to remove. There’s a down slope in grade from the office buildings across Pine Alley and the parking lot onto the subject property causing stormwater to puddle in front of the garage door. The homeowner has invested in a drainage system and drywell/French drain to reduce some of the moisture. Shawn showed two 2-car detached garages on the opposite side of Wells St., the closest comps to their property. Several photos of the shed and garage show water damage, heaving and general disrepair. The garage door is broken and the wall between the two garage doors is warped, not allowing the doors to close. Discussion on significance: All board members agreed that the structures are not historically or architecturally significant. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. There were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion determining that the garage and shed structures at 151 Van Dam St., Saratoga Springs, NY are not historically or architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-0 in favor, Motion carried Demolition discussion: Shawn said they are proposing a 2-car garage with a home gym on the second story with a Juliet balcony. They will require zoning variances for maximum lot coverage (40% allowed, they are at 42%) and a powder room on the second floor (zoning only allows plumbing fixtures on the ground floor of a secondary structure). The first floor is a 2-car garage about 20’ by 20’. There’s a small, covered porch that faces the house with a stair that comes up to the second-floor home gym. There’s a storage area at one end of the garage and under the staircase that makes up for the lost storage from the shed that will be removed. The south elevation will have a faux barn door on the exterior where there’s storage on the interior. A height comparison between the house and the garage shows the overall ridge height of the garage is lower than that of the house. There are no windows on the east elevation that face the brick building next door. Rob said the material choices, fiber cement, are good. The location of the building is fairly far back from the street, is compatible with the neighborhood and won’t be highly visible. The alleyway approach is compatible, and the height study is appreciated by the board. Rob said he supports demolition and what has been proposed for new construction so far. Geoff said he’s supportive of the demolition. He’s considering the Preservation Foundation’s comments about the north elevation being a craftsman style versus the Queen Anne style of the existing home and wanted to hear the other board member’s comments. Rob said from his perspective a new structure should be different and not try to match 100% what’s there. The guidelines say it should be a product of its own time. Jeff agreed that it’s craftsman but not overdone. He noted that there have been modifications to the Queen Anne style on the house over time. Jeff said the garage is appropriate on the Alley (18’ back) rather than being set back. He is supportive of the demolition of the garage and shed. Chris is supportive of the demolition. Regarding the new construction, the neighborhoods throughout the city were formed organically with lots of different architecture so he’s fine with the craftsman style. “It will be wonderful; great project”. Karen agreed and responded to a comment about the shed dormer saying it’s appropriate to others in the neighborhood with similar treatments. She said she would be okay without the faux barn door. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the south elevation takes ques from a “stick style Queen Anne” with exposed rafters, and gabled City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 9 of 10 roof. They like the modern interpretation with a classical column that’s in keeping with the stick style on the front of the house. The backside, however, has a very craftsman bracket with a shed roof dormer that doesn’t really fit. A gabled dormer would be a better fit without the heavy craftsman bracket. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve demolition of a garage and shed at 151 Van Dam St., Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted on the attached plans. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y. 5-0 in favor, Motion carried. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. All in favor, Motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON AUGUST 6, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – June 25, 2025 - Page 10 of 10