Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2025 6:02 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tamie 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, Geoff Wood, Karen Cavotta, Jeff Gritsavage & Leslie DiCarlo. ABSENT: Chris Bennett 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 June 11, 2025. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage- Y. 6-0, 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. #20250538 68 Ballston Ave. Boxley’s Services Signage. Architectural review of wall mounted signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the Board or audience and there were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve signage at 68 Ballston Ave, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Regular Meeting Agenda 2. #20210781 Trimarchi Driveway Modifications 115 Circular St. Historic Review of driveway replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said there would not be any public comment or presentation on this application tonight. All documentation has been reviewed, public comments have been provided, and the application has been discussed in an Executive Session. Tamie Ehinger read the decision into the record: In the matter of the application for the Trimarchi driveway modifications located at 115 Circular St. This is involving historic review of a driveway replacement within the Urban Residential – 3 District, specifically tax parcel # 165.60-2-43.1 within the city of Saratoga Springs and in accordance with 6NYCRR part 617, the Design Review Board has classified this request as a SEQRA Type 2 action, meaning it is exempt from further SEQRA review. And, in accordance with the objectives, standards and guidelines contained in the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) specifically Article 240-13.9 “Architectural Review Applicability and Approval Standards”, the Design Review Board issues the following decision today, July 16, 2025. This letter decision of the Board follows the April 3, 2024 decision and order of the Hon. James E. Walsh, Justice of the Supreme Court, Saratoga County in a proceeding brought under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and titled David W. Appel, Jr. versus City of Saratoga Springs, Dominick Trimarchi and Amanda Tucker. On September 1, 2021, the Board approved the application of Dominick Trimarchi for a pre-installed paved driveway surface at his property at 115 Circular St. Mr. Trimarchi’s adjacent neighbor David R. Appel challenged the Board’s approval in his Article 78 Petition. The city responded on behalf of the Board and on behalf of City employee Amanda Tucker. After several court conferences which produced no resolution, the Judge remanded the matter back to this Board stating that it did not comply with its own professed requirements which require color photographs showing the entire area in question. The Judge stated that the photographs submitted in support of the application were not in color and that they did not show the shared nature of the driveway. And, also raising concern as to whether the permeability of Mr. Trimarchi’s premises now exceeded limits imposed by the city code. Judge Walsh emphasized that the board indicated no waiver of these criteria and did not articulate any reason for waiving them or deviating from them. Accordingly, the approval was vacated, and the matter was remanded to the Board for further action consistent with the Court’s decision and Order. At its May 14, 2025 Regular Meeting, the Board again discussed the matter and heard comments from both Mr. Trimarchi and Mr. Appel. The Board also reviewed additional information in the form of a letter provided shortly thereafter by Mr. Appel. The Board now finds as follows: 1. With respect to the photographs; the Board reviewed the historic review application submission requirements that existed at the time the application was submitted. The application did in fact include color photographs of the applicant’s driveway. However, it did not include photographs of the adjacent property. However, in the Board’s review of any application and in preparation for board meetings, board members may visit the subject property in person or view images of it on online mapping sites, and an informal poll of past and present board members who participated in the 2021 approval indicates that several board members did one or the other of those actions. The Board therefore concludes that they obtained sufficient knowledge of the site and that the information that might be contained in any additional photographs was not of sufficient significance to be a determining factor in the application. 2. Regarding the criteria of permeability; the board has reviewed Section 7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which stated, “the powers and authority of the board at the time of the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 2 of 9 issuance of the approval” and has found nothing therein that vested the Board to consider as part of its review the permeability of a portion of any parcel or tract of land or its effects of permeability on any adjoining lands. To the contrary, it appears that at the time of approval such authority, which is vested in the Zoning Officer pursuant to Section 9.0 of the Ordinance at the time of approval. The Board therefore finds under the circumstances regarding discussion of the content of the photographs and state of permeability on site, or any specifically stated waiver of either criteria, did not occur since they had otherwise dealt with them by operation of established procedure or by operation of law. After more than three years since the approval, the Board is sympathetic to the still ongoing dispute between the neighboring property owners, but it must refer them to other agencies, departments or courts for assistance in resolving it. The motion was seconded by Karen Cavotta. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Abstain, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 5-1 Abstain, motion carried. 3. #20250387 179 Nelson Ave. Exterior Modifications. Historic review of installation of ductless air conditioning system in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant was provided feedback at a past meeting and has returned with revisions to the application. Leslie DiCarlo disclosed that she is within 500 ft. of the property. Robert Decker represented the application. Robert showed a drawing of the house and placement of the ductless air conditioning units. The house is going to be painted, and the leader pipe will be painted to match. Units #1 and #2 are not on the drawing because they are below the fence line and can’t be seen. #3 is on the back porch (not visible from the front or either side). The Board members appreciated the representative taking the time to meet with his client to discuss their recommendations and the changes that were made so the conduit is now hidden very well, will be painted to match the house, and is minimized as much as possible. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve installation of ductless air conditioning at 179 Nelson Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: The conduit will be painted the color of the house. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 4. #20250407 90 Washington St. Parillo’s Sausage. Historic review of exterior modifications to an existing commercial structure within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T-5) District. TABLED City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 3 of 9 C. DRB Applications Under Historic Review: 5. #20250553 54 Ash St. Exterior Modification – Solar Array. Architectural review of a roof mounted solar array panel in the Arts and Culture (AC) District. Jenny Whiteneck, Owner & Martha Dahl & Bob Vittengl, Plug PV represented the applicant and distributed a packet of information to each board member. The information shows homes with roof top solar panels, 5 Beekman, 185 Elm, 208 Elm, 42 Oak St. and 31 Ash St., in the neighborhood that are all visible from the street or sidewalk. Photos of the owner’s home show what would be seen from the sidewalk and street. The roof is slightly visible from the corner of Ash and Beekman streets. Going down Beekman the roof top is visible as you pass by. The roof is black shingles. The placement of the panels will offset 100 percent of consumption. The large tree in front of the house will remain and provides some coverage of the panels. The installation is black on black and sits 3 inches off of the black asphalt shingle. Tamie said the application was very complete and helpful. She read the city’s guidelines for alternative energy systems within the Historic District: “alternative energy systems should be installed in a manner that limits negative visual impacts to the building from the public right-of-way…should not destroy or remove historic materials or cause irreversible changes to the historic features. Installation of any energy system should not change the historic roof configuration, dormers, chimneys or other features. With roof mounted solar systems, locating panels on the roof of the primary façade may have the greatest adverse effect on the property’s character defining feature. Other installation and location options should be thoroughly explored”. Tamie said a black roof with black solar panels is the way to go. The board and city are in favor of solar panels and alternative energy sources it just needs to fit within and not negatively affect the Historic District. There’s no concern with the upper roof; visibility will be limited. There are some concerns about the visibility on the lower portion in the back. In Tamie’s opinion, the lower panels won’t negatively affect the character of the neighborhood. The conduits need to be minimized as much as possible. Martha said the conduits are run the day of installation and tucked away as much as possible. After inspection they can be painted to match the house. Tamie said the board would need something in advance showing where the conduits will be placed. Rob asked where the inverter and shutoff would be located. Martha said it needs to be three feet above ground level and will likely be by the meter. Rob said they would not want it to be at or toward the front of the house. The board will need a schematic showing exactly where it will be located. Geoff asked if there were any extra panels in the design and if panels could be located anywhere else. Martha said there were no extra panels being installed and no other suitable location. Jeff showed 79 Ballston Ave. and how poorly the conduit was installed on the day of by field electricians. He would not be willing to approve the installation without a diagram that will be adhered to. Jeff asked what the framing of the solar panels would be. Martha said anodized black. Jeff said some panels are horizontal and some are vertical. They would lose three panels if they were all vertical, but it would be more aesthetically pleasing. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 4 of 9 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve installation of a roof mounted solar array panel at 54 Ash St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. Administrative approval of conduit layout and materials. 2. The conduit will be painted the color of the house. Discussion: Bob Vittengl said the inverter will be in a combination box in the disconnect that will be mounted near the meter. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 6. #20250520198 S. Broadway HVAC splits (majority have been installed issued stop work order within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the majority of these HVAC splits have been installed and there are 4 more left to go. The applicant was given a stop work order and is coming before the board for approval on the installation Steven Chindamo, owner said he put in mini splits 4 years ago and never got his “Green New Deal” rebate. The splits face the alley in the back of the building and are elevated for easier servicing. Tamie said she understands the need for the splits, but they are installed poorly. There are ways to mitigate it, and he should have come before the DRB for approval because they could have helped him to mitigate it at that time. Steven said the 4 new splits would be installed in the courtyard at the back of the Victorian house on a platform. Tamie said in order for the application to move forward, the board will need to see the stands/platform. The applicant needs to provide accurate information. The photo provided doesn’t show where they’re going to be installed or what they’ll be on. Steven said the units will be the same units that are already installed. Jeff said the applicant is proposing to mount the ac splits on a brick Victorian which is different than the other mid-century structure facing the alley where the other splits have been mounted. Tamie said they need to see the specific product, conduit location, and the scope of where they’ll be located. Julia will provide a list for the applicant in the morning. 7. #20250525 202 Lake Ave. Exterior Modification. Architectural review of exterior modifications to an existing front porch within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Rob DuBoff disclosed that he lives within 500 ft. of the subject property. Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering & Engineering America represented the applicants John and Christina Mandara. They are proposing modifications to upgrade the existing front façade. • Re-roof the porch with a standing seam roof. Faces north and difficult to keep clean. Currently shingles on the porch roof. • Add a new wood column on the pilaster boxed out to match the other columns. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 5 of 9  • Re-face pilasters with stone that were parged with concrete. A letter from the Preservation Foundation shows 172 Lake Ave., a similar house down the street that was built 4 years after 202 Lake in 1928. They had pilasters that were parged and were given approval within the past 11 years to remove the cement and face them with brick. Stone would be this applicant’s first preference. • They propose to remove the cheek wall and replace the handrail, which is currently plastic, and replace the blue stone treads. • Replace the lattice with wood and trim board with wood or Boral. Tamie said the stone is probably not historically accurate. Chipping away some of the cement to see what’s underneath would be helpful; the material is likely what it’s supposed to be. The cheek walls should not be removed, and existing materials should be maintained. Removal and replacement of the handrail is appropriate. The Foundation provided an image that appeared to have a metal rail and that would be most appropriate, but Tamie is not opposed to something else. The addition of the column would be okay, and wood would be the appropriate material to use. Square wood lattice is recommended, and the roof should be replaced with the same material. The roof should be repaired if it can be and replaced with the same material if needed. Rob recommended shingle or lock and solder metal for the roof. A lot of the suggested materials will permanently change the look of the porch. Rob said he can’t support the addition of the column and removing the cheek walls. A page from the Sears catalog from the 1920’s shows you could purchase the columns as either block, concrete, brick or stone, so the material would be appropriate. His concern is that once cladding is added it will ruin the proportions of the columns, and they won’t be compatible with the house. He would not support the use of synthetic materials. Rob asked the reasoning behind wanting to add the column. Tonya said her clients feel it looks “off” and just kind of hangs out there. Rob said it is a character defining feature for a four-square home. He said sometimes the beams fail and an owner will add the fourth column for support. Karen said she would support the column and adding stone to the piers would be okay if it’s done right. It appears there’s enough of a cap on the concrete area of the pier, and as long as they keep a significant overhang it would be okay. It is important to know what stone is being used. The cheek wall should remain; it’s a unique feature. Leslie said asphalt or lock and solder roof would be appropriate. She likes that there’s no column but is not opposed to one being added. The cement pillars and cheek walls are defining features of the house and should remain. She suggested replacing the lattice with a simpler pattern that would make the rest of the porch pop. A simple wrought iron or pipe handrail would be appropriate. Jeff said the ghost pedestal is a cool feature and he would be against putting a column in. If the piers were to be replaced he suggested using split-face CMU. A steep seam on the roof would not be appropriate. Geoff agreed with the majority that a flat seam roof or asphalt would be appropriate, no new columns should be added, the pilaster should not be resurfaced, and the cheek wall should remain. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 6 of 9 Tamie Ehinger, Chair summed up the board’s comments: The majority agreed that modification of the existing pillars is not appropriate. The cheek wall should remain. Standing seam is not appropriate for the roof. A new hand railing is encouraged. There is no concern with the lattice proposed in the packet that was submitted. The majority of the board does not want the ghost column replaced. Karen said the pilaster being done is okay with her considering the proportion of the column to the base of the cement pier. Other materials such as stone or brick have been used and seem appropriate to her. Tamie encouraged the applicant to chip away some of the cement to reveal what’s underneath. Tonya said her clients dislike the concrete piers’ worn and dirty appearance and asked if they could be re-parged using the same material. Tamie said the aging of the concrete is part of the charm. Rob suggested that they consider painting the background black instead of white to tone down the look of the cement. 8. #20250341 3/26 Finley St. Demolition and construction. Consideration of SEQRA review, discussion of demolition of an existing structure, architectural review of new construction of a three-story residential building and one-story commercial structure in the Urban Neighborhood (UN) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant has been before the board before and there was a lot of public comment. The applicant has incorporated some feedback from the board and public and revised their proposal. Tamie noted that the applicant had two meetings with the public prior to tonight’s meeting. JT Pollard, & Luigi Stocchetti, Perform Architecture, Sybil Newell & Lindsey Connors, Rise Apartments and Jason Dell, Lansing Engineering were present for the applicant. JT said they wanted to address the comments from the public regarding mass and scale for the building, so they met three weeks ago with a few of the neighbors in Sonny Bonacio’s office and before tonight’s meeting with 10 to 12 of the neighbors. One of the main concerns was the existing tree buffer, so the applicant reoriented the road by pulling it to the east toward the building. All of the parking around the perimeter will be banked because they don’t need all of the spaces required by a typical project of this nature because most of the residents don’t have cars. They are proposing 35 spaces, with remaining spaces banked along the drive lane perimeter. There’s enough room for fire apparatus to turn around within the paved area. JT said they told the residents that if they had to use any of the banked parking they would stay away from the area of the buffer that is thin and only build parking that’s needed. They propose to build an 8 ft. tall fence that wraps around the perimeter of the property along with a line of trees (Jason Dell said every 15 to 20 ft.) behind it to further enhance the buffer. They switched the vinyl shakes to Nichiha, a fiber cement product. Geoff said there was a 2 ft. high retaining wall shown in the grading plan against the pavement. JT said there is a retaining wall for a portion of the buffer. He said as they build the project they will infill the buffer as much as possible. He showed the view from Spa Drive back to the facility. The residents also inquired about the location of the mechanical equipment. JT said City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 7 of 9 they have created a flat area on the roof to place the mechanicals, and it also has a natural noise buffer by the shed roof. Tamie agreed that the board approved of the mass and scale and felt the visibility of the building was a concern. The changes are successful and replacing the vinyl with Nichiha is very appropriate. Tamie explained to the board that the code only calls for a 10 ft. buffer/separation between residential and commercial. This applicant has provided 30 ft. on Spa Dr. and 90 ft. off of Livingston. Tamie noted that the residential area is also very wooded with tall, old-growth trees. She said she is ready to move forward with approval tonight if the board agrees. Tamie reminded the board that they discussed demolition at the last meeting. When they went to perform SEQRA there was a question regarding #2 on the SEQRA, Part 2 as to whether there would be a change of use or intensity of use of the land. Demolition and SEQRA approval will be required prior to approval of the proposed project. Tamie said she talked with Susan regarding a moderate to large determination on the SEQRA, Part 2, and was told that would require the board to move on to Part 3 which would delay the project to another meeting. Board Comments: Geoff asked the applicant to explain how the parking gets banked. JT said this is their third project of this type with Rise and they just don’t see the need for all of these parking spaces since most of the residents don’t have vehicles. The parking spaces are there to satisfy the planning board’s requirements, not for Rise. If they need more parking they would use the area with the thickest buffer. Susan said the need for additional parking could be triggered during planning board review if they require site plan modification to build the additional parking spaces. That change would come back before the DRB as well. Susan said it can be relayed to the planning board that the DRB was satisfied with this mass and scale based on the proposed buffer. Geoff said he’s in favor. Jeff asked about the two fences that are shown. JT said one is the white border fence, and the other is a retaining wall. Jeff said the fencing does provide a reasonable transition from neighborhood residential into a commercial district via institutional residential. He said he would not want to see a vinyl fence for at least the first 100 ft; it should be wood or another natural material. Karen said she appreciates the time spent with the neighbors. The program between the entire set of buildings is a nice transition between the two districts. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said demolition was previously discussed and there were no concerns by the board. SEQRA Part 2 needs to be completed before moving forward with a motion on demolition. Susan reminded the board that this is an uncoordinated City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 8 of 9 review and the planning board will also go through this analysis with the materials they will have under site plan review. SEQRA, Part 2: 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. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve a Negative SEQRA Declaration for 3/26 Finley St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition at 3/26 Finley St. as submitted. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the construction project at 3/26 Finley St. as submitted this evening with the following condition: the fence be made of a natural material. The motion was second by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Geoff Wood made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. All in favor. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON AUGUST 6, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – July 16, 2025 - Page 9 of 9