Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2025 6:00 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, Geoff Wood, Karen Cavotta, Jeff Gritsavage, Chris Bennett. ABSENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Leslie DiCarlo STAFF: Susan Barden, City Planner, Tony Izzo, City Attorney A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the minutes from June 25 and July 16, 2025. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, G. Wood-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, C. Bennett-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. C. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: 1. #20250531 172 Caroline St., Lot 2 Demolition and Construction. Determination of Significance and discussion of demolition of an existing structure; Historic review of construction of a single-family home and detached two-car garage within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes represented the applicant and explained why they feel the building is not historically or architecturally significant. He showed photos of the garage and said there have been a number of additions (an apartment, a shed roof) put on this structure. The entire lot has been subdivided from the property to the east. The garage door faces Talford Pl. Bob met with Samantha from Historic Preservation, and they have determined that the garage was not a “kit” house and was stick built around 1932, a few years after the house, and there was no significance as part of the original house. It doesn’t appear to be contributing to the neighborhood or have any architectural significance. Charles Pritchard, owner noted that the garage was built with an apartment above. The approval of the subdivision is subject to the removal of the apartment above the existing garage. The ZBA said that once the garage is demolished the permitted zero- foot setback is no longer applicable. Facing the garage, the left side of the building (addition) is over the property line next door. The property contains asbestos, and the interior is in disrepair. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said most of the corner where the house and garage are located is part of the Edward Kierney estate. It was subdivided around 1900, and a few homes were built (172 Caroline-sometime in the 20’s). The national register nomination form says 1925 and the garage was built sometime later on. The garage was originally 215 ½ Nelson because it was part of the property that faces on Nelson not on Caroline. Rob said 172 Caroline is a contributing building to the National Register for the East Side Historic District, but the garage is not specifically mentioned as being a contributing structure or non-contributing structure. If a structure is non-contributing it’s usually itemized, and the garage was not, which likely means it was meant to be included. Rob noted that “kit” house plans could be purchased, given to your builder and be modified to your taste. He said the architecture of the garage meets the Hallmark style of the two companies (Sears & Aladin) that produced those plans which were only sold for 40 to 50 years. Rob said for those reasons he feels the structure has historical significance and possibly architectural significance. Chris said because it’s separated from the house it may not have historic significance. The garage itself may have some significance; if the additions and shed roof were removed you would have the initial structure. Karen agreed with Chris and said that if there was more adjacency with the property that it identifies with architecturally she would lean more in favor of significance. In and of itself the garage has defining features of a very specific architectural style, but that doesn’t make it historically significant. Jeff said the structure will be knocked down and a new 2-car garage will be built in the required setback, away from the alley, they’ll gain two new parking spaces, and the alley loses its charm. It’s still a useable structure that can be rehabbed. The garage is a rare “Cape Ann” style, and it needs to be preserved; there are very few left in the city. He considers this structure as part of Saratoga’s history and charm and will be voting against its demolition. Geoff doesn’t think the applicant’s discussion about the setback; the presence of asbestos or structural issues is relevant to the significance of the building. He was initially undecided, but after hearing the board, he needs more information before deciding. After discussing the matter, the board decided to table their significance determination until they can visit the site and have more board members present. Rob said regarding the subdivision and the installation of Sternberg lights at the corner of Caroline St.; that would be completely inappropriate for that corner. Susan said it would require a subdivision modification to make that change. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said they could move forward with a discussion regarding the proposed construction of a single-family home. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 6, 2025 - Page 2 of 6 Bob Flansberg presented the renderings for the proposed single-family home. The roof on the porch will be standing seam and transition to shingles on the bay on the front. They added an apron above the second story windows and lengthened the window in the gable and now have 10 ft. ceilings on the first floor. The east elevation shows a detached garage with a covered walkway (about 15 feet between the two structures). The rear view shows the apron above the second story windows. Proposing Andersen E series aluminum clad windows, divided light. Bob presented updated drawings: • Lattice and brick piers below the columns on the front porch. • The window in the gable is taller and a bit wider. • Added sidelights to the front door. • Eliminated a double window in the family room front on the porch. Two windows now centered in the family room and in between the columns. • LP Smartside siding and trim – smooth side out. (need to see samples) • 10’ 1st floor, 9’ 2nd floor. • House will be setback 15 ft. from the sidewalk to line up with 172 Caroline. • Showed the site plan with the garage as proposed angled toward Talford and preserved the yard on the west side. • Showed floor plans. Board Comments: Rob – introducing more verticality and raising up the first floor makes it more in line with the other front porches on Caroline St. and more stylistically compatible with the neighborhood. There was a discussion about the LP siding; the board wants to see samples. Rob noted that it is a treated wood product that will need to be painted and maintained. All of the other materials are compatible with the Historic district. Rob asked for a height comparison to 172 Caroline. Jeff – asked that the fireplace bump-out sit on a foundation and not float. Because the porch roof has a shallow pitch, the standing seam shouldn’t be more than an inch. He suggested shingles instead of clapboard in the gables. Geoff noted that the Preservation Foundation’s concerns have been addressed, including horizontal emphasis and increased house height. Karen noted the bay on the left elevation has small windows that are high up and perhaps they could do something similar to the bay window at 173 Caroline St. which would let in more light or break up the space under the windows to make it look more purposeful. Consider the brackets on the back porch, they look fine under the bay window but too heavy on the back porch. She likes the new drawings. Chris agreed with Karen and liked the idea of the shingle in the gable as Jeff suggested. He liked the double door on the front porch versus the single door. The sidelights on the single door look more suburban. There’s an issue with the full porch column against the building; it won’t work to wrap crown molding against the building. Bob agreed and said he’ll consider something different. Chris has concerns with the fenestrations on the west side, especially because it’s highly visible; it looks confusing. He recommended strengthening the windowsills. Bob noted that the sills are actually larger than depicted in the details. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 6, 2025 - Page 3 of 6 Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any questions from the audience. Nancy Minty, Talford Pl. wanted to know the square footage and height of the house. She said Talford Pl. is turning into a parking lot and she appreciates the board’s concern about the additional parking with the proposed garage. Bob F. said the square footage of the house is about 3,300 sq. ft. and the height is 36 ft. +/-. Chris Yuknek, Talford Pl. said the applicant has made parking where it’s not legal and put up signs that it’s only for his house. He suggested making no parking on the north side of the street and it would open up a lot more parking. It’s obvious that the garage was built with the house on the corner because it matches that house. Erica Chambers, 215 Nelson Ave. moved in when 172 was being subdivided. Overall, the plan is very thoughtful with the design but she’s sad about the subdivision and the loss of the green space and change to the neighborhood. Ron Dunsky, Talford Pl. congratulated and welcomed Mr. Pritchard (applicant) to the neighborhood. The house looks great. The garage seems run down but he agrees with the board about maintaining the “lane” culture with regard to parking. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair said that the board will postpone the vote regarding the significance of the garage until their September 10th meeting. At that time, an additional voting member will be present, and the board will have had the opportunity to conduct an on-site visit collectively. Bob F. homework – will look at the fenestration on the structure and the bay on the west side and bring samples of the LP trim and clapboard. Karen said the front door should be consistent with the details of the house whether it’s single or double. Bob said his applicant prefers a double door (8ft.) so they will consider that. 2. #20250520198 S. Broadway HVAC splits (majority have been installed issued stop work order within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Susan stated that the four new units are situated on a neighboring property, and the applicant has provided an unsigned draft license agreement with the owner of that property regarding the maintenance of existing improvements in that area. It does not include what’s currently being proposed. Tony Izzo has read the proposed license agreement and said it appears to be in line with others that he has drawn up for the city as the attorney for the real estate committee. It gives the applicant the right to have equipment and improvements on the adjacent property and the usual language is in place. The hotel owner doesn’t get any property rights and there are provisions for termination in case the hotel doesn’t perform any of the requirements under the license agreement. This document authorizes hotel equipment on the adjacent property owner's land. Steven Chindamo, owner said the property is unusable for the adjacent property owner so he's happy to agree to have the license agreement for maintenance. Rob asked what the position of the city is on the license agreement. Steven said it’s been City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 6, 2025 - Page 4 of 6 used as a courtyard for years. Tony said the agreement between the two parties basically says to allow it to continue the way it has for many years. Susan said a concern of the building department is that this draft agreement is to maintain, repair and replace equipment and improvements that have been previously placed within that area. The improvements being presented today are not contemplated within the agreement from July. The city will need written authorization from the neighbor stating that this new equipment will be allowed within that area. Rob said there should be an addendum/schedule indicating exactly what the equipment is and its location. Susan said the current agreement includes the previously installed hot tub, bench and paving. Steven said the wording of the agreement will change allowing him full use of that part of the property where the easement will be. It was decided that the board would make a motion to approve the mini splits on the Victorian House that were discussed at the last meeting and one to conditionally approve the current design being presented for additional condenser units. Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair asked if there were any questions from the audience and there were none. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve HVAC mini-splits at the “Victorian House” at the at the front and Motel in the back at 198 S. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: pending approval from the building department on the appropriate easement or license on the installation of the units on the Victorian Building. The mini- splits previously installed on the motel unit are approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Discussion: Jeff noted that there are to be no vertical elements going on the outside of the Victorian building. Rob added a condition to the motion that all conduit is to be run on the inside of the building. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 3. #20250585 233 Ballston Ave. Espey Manufacturing Demolition. Determination of significance, consideration of SEQRA and discussion of demolition of an existing structure within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T5) District. James Davis represented the application. They are seeking to demolish a degraded building they have been using for cold storage for several years and convert it into green space. Rob asked Susan why the board is considering SEQRA. Susan said the board should determine significance first. If the structure is determined insignificant, then SEQRA analysis is performed before considering demolition. Rob said it appears that the building dates back to about the 1880’s or 90’s and is one of the few mill buildings that still exist in town that dates back that far. Machinery was milled there and Espey manufactured radios there back in the 1930’s. James said the inside of the building has changed significantly from its original purpose. They currently manufacture transformers. There was a shed taken down a few years ago and a new City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 6, 2025 - Page 5 of 6 building was constructed for transformer manufacturing. Rob said the building they are proposing to demolish is called out as pattern storage on the Sanborn map. Geoff said considering the description of the original purpose of the property as a Foundry, it gives it historical significance in his opinion. Jeff said the building has some architecturally significant features, such as fink trusses on the inside for structural support and interesting brick work on the outside. Karen said the building has history on the Sanborn map and some interesting architectural features that define it as a manufacturing building. She noted that there are other buildings on the site with similar details from the same time period so they wouldn’t be losing the entire site. The building does not appear to be beyond repair. Chris said there’s precedent for saving this style of architecture; 2 buildings on Excelsior Ave. The building is spectacular and worth saving. It should be reused and recycled. James said the other building they demolished that came before the board was not part of the historical district and asked if that had changed. Rob said it’s in the architectural district, but the board still reviews historic buildings. The other building was much newer and did not have the architectural merit that this building has. Rob noted that much of the damage to the building is from water. There’s runoff from a roof that runs right onto this building. It can be repaired. Rob advised the applicant that the board could vote on significance, which they seem to be leaning toward, at this meeting or wait until the September 10th meeting when there will be additional board members voting. If the board votes that it is significant, there’s a five-step process; paperwork that would need to be submitted to the board detailing the reasons why the building can’t be saved: 1. Must submit evidence that the property is not capable of earning a reasonable return regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible. 2. It can’t be relocated. 3. Submit a good faith alternative that would result in the preservation of the structure. 4. Need to document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. 5. The applicant must include acceptable post demolition plans for the site. Rob DuBoff made a motion determining that 233 Ballston Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY does have architectural and/or historical significance. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-N, J. Gritsavage-Y, C. Bennett- Y. 4-1, motion carried. Susan will discuss the next steps with the applicant. Chris Bennett made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. All in favor. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 6, 2025 - Page 6 of 6 MINUTES APPROVED ON 9/10/2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – August 6, 2025 - Page 7 of 6